Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Gospel of St. Mark
GA 139

15 September 1912, Basel

Lecture I

It is well known that the Gospel of St. Mark begins with the words: “This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

A man of today who seeks to comprehend this Gospel of St. Mark is at once, in the very first words, faced with three riddles. The first is to be found in the words: “This is the beginning.” The beginning of what? How can this beginning be understood? The second is: “the beginning of the Gospel ...” In an anthroposophical sense, what does the word “Gospel” mean? The third riddle we have often spoken of: the figure of Christ Jesus Himself.

Whoever is seriously seeking for knowledge and a deepening of himself must recognize that mankind is evolving and progressing. For this reason what we may call the understanding of any revelation is not fixed once and for all, or confined to any particular epoch. It progresses, so that anyone who attaches a serious meaning to the terms “evolution” and “progress” must necessarily believe that as time goes on, mankind's deepest problems will be ever better, and more thoroughly and profoundly, understood. For something like the Gospel of St. Mark, as we shall demonstrate by means of these three riddles, a certain turning point in our comprehension has been reached only at the present time. Slowly and gradually, but distinctly, there has been prepared what can now lead us to a real understanding of the Gospel and enable us to understand that “the Gospel begins.” Why is this the case?

We need only glance back a little to what filled human minds a comparatively short time ago and we shall see how the very nature of comprehension may, indeed must, have altered in relation to a subject like this. If we go back further than the nineteenth century, we shall find that in the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries we approach ever closer to a time when those persons whose spiritual life was at all concerned with the Gospels had to start from a very different basis of comprehension than that of the man of today. What could an ordinary man of the eighteenth century say to himself if he wished to place himself in the general line of the evolution of humanity, and was not one of the few who were connected in some way with an initiation or some occult revelation—assuming that he had assimilated within himself everything offered by external exoteric life? Even the most cultivated man, one who stood on the highest pinnacle of the culture of his age, could not look back on more than three thousand years of the life of mankind; and one thousand of those years was before the Christian era and nearly lost in misty dimness. The other two thousand years since the founding of Christianity were not yet quite completed. He might look back three thousand years, shall we say? When one looked back at the earliest of these millennia one was confronted with a completely mythical, dim, prehistoric epoch of humanity, the age of old Persia. This, and what still remained of the knowledge of the ancient Egyptian epoch, preceded what “actual history” related, which began only with Hellenism. This Hellenism, to a certain extent, formed the foundation of the culture of this age. All those who wished to look more deeply into human life started with Hellenism; and within Hellenism appeared all that Homer, the Greek tragedians, and all the Greek writers have written concerning the primeval history of this people and their work for mankind.

Then one sees how Greece began to decline, how it was stifled by Rome, though only externally. Generally speaking, Rome overcame Greece only politically, while in reality it adopted Greek culture, Greek education and Greek life. It might be said that politically the Romans conquered the Greeks, but spiritually the Greeks conquered the Romans. During this latter process, while Hellenism was conquering Rome spiritually, it poured into Rome through hundreds and hundreds of channels what it had itself acquired. From Rome this streamed forth into all the other civilizations of the world, while during this time Christianity streamed more and more into the Greco-Roman civilization and was to a large extent transformed when the northern Germanic peoples took part in the spreading of the Greco-Roman Christian culture. With this intermingling of Greece, Rome, and Christianity, the second millennium of the world's history passed away, which to the men of the eighteenth century was the first Christian one. Then we see the beginning of the second Christian millennium, the third historical civilization of man. We see how everything goes on apparently in the same way, although, if we have deeper insight, we shall see that in this third millennium everything is really different. Two figures only need be cited, a painter and a poet, who, although they appear some two centuries after the end of the millennium, nevertheless show how something essentially new began for Western civilization with the second Christian millennium, something which these two men carried further. These two figures are Giotto and Dante.1Giotto di Bondone (c. 1266–1337), Florentine painter and architect, noted especially for his frescoes on the life of St. Francis.

Dante Alighieri, 1265–1321, Italian poet, author of the Divine Comedy.
Giotto as painter and Dante as poet represent the beginning of all that followed, and what they gave was embodied in later Western cultures. Those were the three thousand years that could at that time be surveyed.

Then came the nineteenth century. Only someone who can look more deeply into the whole formation of the culture of the age is able now to perceive all that took place in the nineteenth century, and how for that reason everything had to become different. It is all contained in the minds and souls of men, but only a very few can as yet understand it.

The perspective of the man of the eighteenth century went back only to Hellenism; the age before that was somewhat nebulous. What happened in the nineteenth century—and this is little appreciated or understood today—is that the East played its part in the culture of the West, indeed very intensely so. This intervention of the Oriental influence in its own peculiar way is what we must bear in mind when considering the transformation that took place in the civilization of the nineteenth century. This penetration by the Orient threw light and shade upon everything that poured into the culture and will increasingly do so. For this reason a new understanding was required concerning things that up to that time humanity had regarded in a different light.

If we wish to choose single figures and individuals who have influenced the culture of the West, in whom we could find nearly everything that a man felt in his soul at the beginning of the nineteenth century if he concerned himself with spiritual life, we may mention David, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe,2David, second king of Israel, ruled about the beginning of the first millennium B.C. Many of the most beautiful Psalms were attributed to him, and it was their influence of which Rudolf Steiner was evidently thinking in this passage.

Homer, Greek poet who lived probably in the 8th century B.C., author of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 1749–1832. German poet, author of Faust.
who was just beginning to penetrate into life. Future historians writing of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries will be very clear about one thing, that the intellectual and spiritual life of that era was determined by these five figures. There lived then, more than anyone can imagine now, even in the most delicate stirrings of the soul, what we may call the feelings and truths of the Psalms. There lived also fundamentally what is to be found in Homer as well as what took such magnificent form in Dante; then, even if it did not live in Shakespeare himself, there was what is nevertheless so beautifully expressed by him in the form in which it now lives in men of modern times. Added to this is the striving of the human soul after truth which Goethe expressed in Faust, something that in reality lived in every human soul in such a way that it was often said, “Every man who seeks the truth has something of the Faust nature in him.”

To all this there was added a quite new perspective, which extended beyond the three thousand years covered by these five persons. It came in ways that are at first quite unfathomable by external history. This was the first entry of an inner Orient into the mental and spiritual life of Europe. It was not only that to the poems of those writers mentioned earlier was added what was given in the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita, nor the fact that by learning to know these Eastern poems a different emotional nuance about the world was aroused, differing fundamentally from that of the Psalms or from what is to be found in the poetry of Dante or Homer, but something appeared in a mysterious manner which became ever more visible during the nineteenth century. One name alone will suffice, a name which made a great stir in the middle of the nineteenth century, and this will convince us that something came from the East to Europe along mysterious paths. We need but mention the name of Schopenhauer. In Schopenhauer what is it that strikes you most of all, if you leave aside the theoretical elements of his system? Isn't it the content of feeling and sentiment that pervades his whole thought? In the profound relationship between this nineteenth century man and the Oriental-Aryan mode of thought and feeling, in every sentence we might say, in the emphasis of feeling in Schopenhauer, lives that which we might call the Eastern element in the West; and this passed on to Eduard von Hartmann3Schopenhauer, Artur, 1788–1860. German philosopher, author of The World as Will and Idea.

Hartmann, Eduard von, 1842–1906 German philosopher, author of The Philosophy of the Unconscious.
in the second half of the nineteenth century.

This penetrated along mysterious paths, as we have just said. We gradually come to better understand these mysterious paths when we see that in the course of the developments of the nineteenth century a complete transformation, a metamorphosis of all human thinking and feeling took place—not however in only one part of the earth but in the intellectual and spiritual life of the whole earth. As to what took place in the West, if anyone would take the trouble, it would be enough to compare anything written about religion, philosophy, or any aspect of spiritual life with something that belongs to the eighteenth century. He will then see that a complete transformation took place, that all the questions regarding the highest riddles asked by mankind had become more vague, that men were striving to formulate new questions, to look for new sentiments and modes of perception, that nothing belonging to religion and what it formerly gave to man could still be given through it to the human soul in the same way. Everywhere there was a longing for something deeper and more profoundly hidden in the depths of religion.

This was not true of Europe alone. It is characteristic of the beginning of the nineteenth century that all over the civilized world men, through an inner urge, were compelled to think differently. If we wish to form a more exact conception of what we are discussing, we must see that there was a general convergence of the peoples and their folk cultures and folk beliefs, with the result that people belonging to entirely different creeds began in the nineteenth century to understand each other in a quite remarkable way. We shall quote a characteristic example which lies at the heart of what we are trying to indicate. In the thirtieth year of the nineteenth century, a man appeared in England who was a Brahmin, an adherent of what he considered to be true Brahminism, that is, the Vedanta teaching. Ram Mohun Roy, who died in London in 1836, exercised a great influence on those of his contemporaries who were interested in such things, and made a great impression. The remarkable thing about him was that on the one hand he stood there as a reformer of Hinduism, though a misunderstood one, while on the other hand everything he said could be understood by all Europeans who were familiar with the advanced thought of their age. He did not put forth ideas that could be understood only through orientalism, but ideas that could be understood by ordinary human reason.

What was Ram Mohun Roy's attitude? He said something along these lines, “I live in the midst of Hinduism, where a number of different gods are worshipped. If the people of my country are asked why they worship these gods, they say, ‘it is our custom, we know nothing else. It was done by our fathers and their fathers before them.’ And because the people were influenced in this way,” Ram Mohun Roy continued, “the crassest idolatry became the rule, an appalling idolatry which disgraces the original greatness of the religion of my fatherland. There once was a belief that, although partly contradictory, is to be found in the Vedas. It is the purest form of human thought, and it was brought into the Vedanta system by Viasa.”

This was the belief professed by Ram Mohun Roy. For this reason he had not only made translations from various incomprehensible idioms into the languages that are understandable in India, but he also made extracts of what he considered the correct teaching and spread them among the people. What was his intention when he did this? He thought he recognized behind all that comes to expression in the various gods and all that is worshipped in the different idols a pure teaching of a primal divine unity, the spiritual God who lives in all things but can no longer be recognized in the idols. This God must once more penetrate into the minds of men. When this Indian Brahmin spoke in detail about what he believed to be the correct Vedanta teaching, the true Indian creed, it did not sound strange. To those who understood him rightly, it was as though he preached a kind of rational belief that can be attained by everyone who by using his rational mind turns to the universal unitary God. And Ram Mohun Roy had followers: Rabindranath Tagore and others.4Ram Mohan Roy, 1772–1836, founder of the Brahmo Samaj.

Tagore, Rabindranath, 1861–1941. Indian poet and philosopher, winner of Nobel Prize for Literature, 1913.

One of these followers—reference is to Keshab Chandra Sen, 1834–1884.
One of these followers, and this is especially interesting, gave a lecture in 1870 about Christ and Christianity. It was indeed extraordinarily interesting to hear an Indian speak about Christ and Christianity. The actual mystery of Christianity was quite remote from the Indian speaker—he did not touch upon that at all. From the whole course of the lecture we can see that he is quite unable to grasp the fundamental fact that Christianity does not proceed from a personal teacher but is founded on the Mystery of Golgotha, a world historical fact, on death and resurrection. But that which he can grasp and is so clear to him is that in Christ Jesus we have a figure of tremendous significance, one that is of importance to every human heart, a figure that must stand there as the ideal figure for the whole history of the world. It is remarkable to hear this Indian speaking about Christ and to hear him say, “If a man goes deeply into Christianity, he will see that Christianity must, even in the West, go through a further evolution, for what the European brings to my fatherland as Christianity does not appear to me to be the true Christianity.”

We see from the examples quoted that it was not only in Europe that people's minds began to look behind the religious creeds, but also in distant India. It is true also of many parts of the earth where minds began to awake, and men approached in a new way and from an entirely new point of view something they had possessed for thousands of years. This metamorphosis of souls in the nineteenth century will be fully perceptible only in the course of time. Only in later times will history recognize that impulses of this kind, although apparently affecting only a few people, streamed through thousands of channels into our hearts and souls, so that today all those who participate in any way in spiritual life have them within their souls. This had to result in a total renewal. All older questions were transformed, and a new kind of understanding came into being in relation to all views that had hitherto been held. So it is that in the world, even today such questions are already taking on a greater profundity. What our spiritual movement desires today is the answering of these questions.

This spiritual movement is convinced that these questions cannot in their present form be answered by the old traditions, by modern natural science, or by that conception of the world which reckons only with the factors of modern natural science. Spiritual science, research into the spiritual worlds, is necessary. In other words, mankind today, in accordance with the whole trend of his evolution, must ask questions that can be answered only through super-sensible investigation. Quite slowly and gradually there have emerged from the spiritual life of the West things that are once more in harmony with the most beautiful traditions that have come over from the East. You know that we have always stressed the fact that the law of reincarnation comes out of Western spiritual life itself, and that it need no more be taken as something historical coming from Buddhism than for example Pythagorean doctrine needs to be taken over from historical traditions. This has always been emphasized, but the fact that the idea of reincarnation arose in modern souls formed a bridge which extended across the three thousand years of which we have been speaking (during which the doctrine of reincarnation was not the center of thinking) to the figure of Buddha. The horizon, the perspective of the evolution of mankind, was extended beyond the three thousand years. This gave rise to new questions, which can be answered only through spiritual science.

Let us begin with the question to which the beginning of this Gospel of Saint Mark gives rise, this Gospel which begins with the words, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Let us remember that these introductory words are immediately followed not only by a characterization of a passage of the old prophets but by the announcement of Christ by John the Baptist. This proclamation was stated by him in such a way that it may be comprised in these words: “The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of the divine is extending over the whole earth-existence.” What does all this mean?

Let us endeavor with the light that modern spiritual science can give us to view retrospectively those past ages in the center of which is contained “the fulfillment.” Let us try to understand what it means that “an old era is completed and a new one is beginning.” We shall best be able to understand this if we first turn our attention to something belonging to more remote times and then consider something belonging to the modern era; between the two lies the Mystery of Golgotha. Let us take something before the Mystery of Golgotha and then something later, and then endeavor to enter deeply into the difference between the two epochs, so that we may recognize how far the old epoch had been completed and a new one begun. In this way we shall not enter into abstractions or definitions, but consider the concrete.

I should like you to turn your attention to the first millennium of human evolution, as it was thought to be in earlier times. There in the remotest period of this first millennium stands the towering figure of Homer, the Greek poet and singer. Hardly more than the name remains to mankind of him to whom are ascribed those two great poems which are among the greatest accomplishment of mankind: the Iliad and the Odyssey. Scarcely more than his name is known, and in the nineteenth century doubts were cast even on that—but we need not dwell any further on that now. The more we know of the figure of Homer, the more we admire him. For a person who studies such things, the characters created by Homer whom we meet in the Iliad and the Odyssey seem more alive than all the purely political figures of Greece. Many different people who have studied Homer over and over again have said that because of the precision of his descriptions and his manner of presentation he must have been a doctor. Others say he must have been an artist, a sculptor, or a craftsman. Napoleon admired the way Homer described tactics and strategy; still others think he must have been a beggar wandering through the land.

However all this may be, it certainly does demonstrate the unique individuality of Homer. Consider one of his characters, Hector. If you have any time available, you ought to study the figure of Hector in the Iliad—how plastically he is described so that he stands as a complete personality before us; how we see his affection for his paternal city, Troy, his wife Andromache, his relationship to Achilles, and to his armies; and how he commanded them. Try to call up this man before your minds, this man who possessed all the tenderness of a husband, and who clung in the ancient way to his home city of Troy, and who suffered such disillusions as only really great men can. Remember his relation with Achilles. Hector, as presented by Homer, is a towering figure from very ancient times, a man of great all-embracing humanity, for of course what Homer is describing belongs to a period well before his own, in the darkness of the past. Hector stands out above all the others, all those figures who seem mythical enough in the eyes of modern men.

Now take this one figure. Skeptics and all kinds of philologists may indeed doubt that there ever was a Hector at all, in the same way as they doubt the existence of Homer. But anyone who takes into consideration what may be understood from a purely human viewpoint will be convinced that Homer describes only facts that actually occurred. Hector was a living person who strode through Troy, and Achilles and the other figures were equally real. They still stand before us as personages of real earthly life. We look back to them as people of a different kind from ourselves, who are difficult to understand but whom the poet is able to bring before our souls in every detail. Now let us place before our souls a figure such as Hector, one of the chief Trojan commanders, who is defeated by Achilles. In such a personage we have something that belongs to the old pre-Christian age, something by which we can measure what men were before the time when Christ lived on earth.

I will now draw your attention to another figure, a remarkable figure of the fifth century B.C.: the great philosopher Empedocles,5Empedocles of Agragas, c. 495–435 B.C., Greek philosopher. who spent a large part of his life in Sicily. It was he who was the first to speak of the four elements, fire, water, air, and earth, and who said that everything that happens in the material realm caused by the mingling and disintegration of these four elements results from the principles of love and hate ruling in them. It was he also who by his activity influenced Sicily by calling into being important political institutions, and he went about trying to lead the people into a life of spirituality. When we look back to Empedocles we find that he lived an adventurous as well as a deeply spiritual life. Perhaps the truth of what I am about to say will be doubted by some, but spiritual science knows that Empedocles went about in Sicily not only as a statesman, but as a magician and initiate, just as Hector, as depicted by Homer, walked in Troy. In order to characterize the remarkable attitude of Empedocles toward the world the fact confronts us—and it is true and no invention—that in order, as it were, to unite himself with all existence around him, he ended by throwing himself into Mount Etna and was consumed by its fire. In this way a second figure of the pre-Christian age is presented to our souls.

Now let us consider such figures as these in accordance with the methods of spiritual science. First of all we know that these individualities will appear again; we know that such souls will return to life. We shall not pay any attention to their intermediate incarnations but look for them in the post-Christian era. We then see something of the change brought about by time, something that can help us to understand how the Mystery of Golgotha intervened in human evolution. If we say that such figures as Hector and Empedocles appeared again, we must ask how they walked among men in the post-Christian era. For we shall then see how the intervention of the Mystery of Golgotha, the fulfillment and beginning of a new age, worked on their souls. As serious anthroposophists assembled here together we need not shrink from the communications of true spiritual science, which can be confirmed by external facts.

I should now like to turn your attention to something that took place in the post-Christian era, and perhaps again it may be said that the person concerned was a poetical personage. But this poetical personage can be traced back to a real individuality who was once alive. I direct your attention to the character created by Shakespeare in his Hamlet. Anyone who knows the development of Shakespeare, insofar as it can be known externally, and especially someone who is acquainted with it through spiritual science, will know that Shakespeare's Hamlet is none other than the transformed real prince of Denmark, who also lived at one time. I cannot go into everything underlying the historical prototype of the poetical figure of Hamlet, but through the research of spiritual science, I can offer you a striking example of how a man, a spirit of ancient times, reappears in the post-Christian era. The real figure underlying Hamlet, as presented by Shakespeare, is Hector. The same soul that lived in Hamlet lived in Hector. It is just by such a characteristic example as this, and the striking way the two different souls manifest themselves, that we can interpret what happened in the intervening time. A personality such as that of Hector stands before us in the pre-Christian age. Then comes the intervention of the Mystery of Golgotha in human evolution, and the spark it kindled in Hector's soul causes a figure, a prototype of Hamlet, to arise, of whom Goethe said, “This is a soul that is unable to deal with any situation and is not equal to its position, who is assigned tasks but is unable to fulfill them.” We may ask why Shakespeare expressed it in this way. He did not know. But anyone who can investigate the connections through spiritual science knows that behind these things forces were at work. The poet creates in the unconscious; before him stands, so to speak, first the figure which he creates, and then, as in a tableau of which he himself knows nothing, the whole individuality with which the figure is connected. Why does Shakespeare choose particular qualities in Hamlet and sharply emphasize them, qualities that perhaps Hamlet's own contemporaries would not have noticed? Because he observes them against the background of the era. He feels how different a soul has become in its transition from the old life to the new. Hamlet, the doubter, the skeptic, who has lost the ability to cope with the situations with which he meets in life, the procrastinator and waverer, this is what Hector, once so sure of himself, has become.

Let me direct your attention to another figure of modern times, who was also first presented to mankind in a poetic picture, in a poem whose protagonist will certainly live on in humanity for a long time to come when for posterity the poet, like Homer or Shakespeare, no longer is in existence. About Homer we know nothing at all, and about Shakespeare we know very little indeed. What the various compilers of notes and biographers of Goethe have written will long since have been forgotten. In spite of the printing press and other modern inventions, what interests people in Goethe at the present time will likewise have been long forgotten. But large as life, and modelled from life, there will stand the figure of Faust which Goethe has created. Just as men today know nothing of Homer, so will they some day know but little of Goethe (which will be a good thing); but they will know much about Faust. Faust again is a figure who, as he is presented to us in a literary form by Goethe, can be recognized as one brought to a certain conclusion by Goethe. The poetical picture refers back to a real sixteenth century figure who lived then as a real person, though he was not as Goethe described him in his Faust. Why then did Goethe describe him in this way? Goethe himself did not know. But when he directed his attention to the traditional Faust that had been handed down to him, a Faust with whom he was already acquainted through the marionettes of his boyhood, then the forces that stood behind Faust, the forces of his previous incarnation, the forces of Empedocles, the old Greek philosopher, worked within him! All these radiated into the figure of Faust. So we might say, since Empedocles threw himself into Etna and united himself with the fire-element of the earth, what a wonderful spiritualization of pre-Christian nature mysticism was accomplished in fact in the final tableau of Goethe's Faust, when Faust ascends into the fire- element of heaven through Pater Seraphicus and the rest. Slowly and gradually a totally new spiritual tendency entered into the deeper strivings of men. Already some time ago it began to become evident to the more profound spirits of mankind that, without their knowing anything about reincarnation or karma, when they were considering a great comprehensive soul whom they wished to describe from the depths of their inner life, they found themselves describing what radiated over from earlier incarnations. Although Shakespeare did not know that Hamlet was Hector, he nevertheless described him as such, without being aware that the same soul had lived in both of them. So too Goethe portrays his Faust as though Empedocles with all his peculiarities were standing behind him, because in his Faust there lived the soul of Empedocles. It is characteristic that the progress of the human soul should proceed in this way.

I have mentioned two characteristic figures, in both of whom we can perceive that when great men of earlier times reappear in a modern post-Christian age, they are shaken to the very depths of their souls and can only with difficulty adjust themselves to life. Everything that was within them in the past is still within them. For example, when we allow Hamlet to work upon us, we feel that the whole force of Hector is in him. But we feel that this force cannot come forth in the post-Christian era, that it then meets with obstacles, that something now works upon the soul that is the beginning of something new, whereas in the figures of antiquity something was coming to an end. So do these figures stand plastically delineated before us; both Hector and Empedocles represent a conclusion. But what is working on further in mankind must find new paths into new incarnations. This is revealed with Hector in Hamlet and also with Empedocles in Faust, who had within him all the abysmal urges toward the depths of nature. Because he had within him the whole nature of Empedocles, he could say, “I will lay aside the Bible for a time and study nature and medicine. I will no longer be a theologian.” He felt the need to have dealings with demonic beings who made him roam through the world leaving him marveling but uncomprehending. Here the Empedocles element had an after-effect but was not able to adjust itself to what a man must be after the new age had begun.

I wanted to show you through these explanations how in well-known souls, about whom anyone can find information, a powerful transformation shows itself, and how the more deeply we study them the more perceptible this becomes. If we inquire what happened between the two incarnations of such individualities, the answer always is the Mystery of Golgotha, which was announced by the Baptist when he said, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdoms of the spirit, or the kingdoms of heaven, are passing over into the kingdom of man.” Yes, the kingdoms of heaven did indeed powerfully seize the human kingdom, but those who take this in an external sense are unable to understand it. They seized it so powerfully that the great men of antiquity, who had been in themselves so solid and compact, had to make a new beginning in human evolution on earth. This new beginning showed itself precisely with them, and lasted until the end of the old epoch, with the Mystery of Golgotha. At that time something that had been fulfilled ebbed away, something which had presented men in such a way that they appeared as rounded personalities in themselves. Then came something that made it necessary for these souls to make a new beginning. Everything had to be transformed and altered so that great souls appeared small. They had to be transformed into the stage of childhood, for something quite new was beginning. We must inscribe this in our souls if we wish to understand what is meant at the beginning of the Gospel of St. Mark by the words “a beginning.” Yes, truly a beginning, a beginning that shakes the inmost soul to its foundations and brings a totally new impulse into human evolution, a “beginning of the Gospel.”

What then is the Gospel? It is something that comes down to us from the kingdoms we have often described, where dwell the higher hierarchical beings, among whom are the angels and archangels. It descends through the world that rises above the human world. So do we gain an inkling of the deeper meaning of the word Gospel. It is an impulse that descends through the realms of the archangels and angels; it comes down from these kingdoms and enters into mankind. None of the abstract translations really covers the matter adequately. In reality the word Gospel should indicate that at a certain time something begins to flow in upon the earth which formerly flowed only where there dwell the angels and archangels. Something descended to earth that shook the souls of men and shook the strongest souls most. It is here noted that this was the beginning, and the beginning has a continuation. The beginning was made at that time, and we shall see that fundamentally the whole development of humanity since then is a continuation of that beginning when the impulse began to flow down from the kingdom of the angeloi, or what we call the “ev-angel” or Gospel.

We cannot seek or investigate deeply enough if we wish to characterize the different Gospels. We shall see that especially the Gospel of St. Mark can be understood only if we understand in the right way the evolution of humanity with all its impulses and all that has happened in the course of it. I do not wish to describe this externally, but to characterize actual souls, showing how it is only the recognition of the fact of reincarnation, when it becomes a matter of real research, that can bear witness to the progress of such souls as those of Hector and Empedocles. Only in this way can the deeper significance of the Christ Impulse be brought before our souls. Otherwise we may discover beautiful things, but they will all be superficial. What lies behind all the outer events in the history of the Christ Impulse is discovered only when we can throw light upon life through spiritual research, so that we can recognize how a single life passes not only in its separate phases but also in the sequence of incarnations. We must look upon reincarnation as a serious matter and apply it to history in such a way that it becomes an element that gives life to it. We shall then perceive the working of the Event of Golgotha, the greatest of all impulses. It is especially in souls that this impulse, which we have described often enough, will become visible.

Erster Vortrag

Bekannt ist, daß das Markus-Evangelium mit den Worten beginnt: «Dies ist der Anfang des Evangeliums von Jesu Christo.»

Für denjenigen, der in unserer Gegenwart nach einem Verständnis dieses Markus-Evangeliums sucht, müssen schon diese allerersten Worte eigentlich drei Rätsel enthalten. Das erste Rätsel ist dasjenige, das in den Worten liegt: «Dies ist der Anfang ...» Wovon der Anfang? Wie kann dieser Anfang verstanden werden? Das zweite Rätsel ist: «... der Anfang des Evangeliums ...» Was ist im anthroposophischen Sinne das Wort Evangelium? Das dritte Rätsel ist nun dasjenige, wovon wir oftmals gesprochen haben: die Gestalt des Christus Jesus selber.

Demjenigen, der ernsthaft nach Erkenntnis und nach Vertiefung seines eigenen Selbstes sucht, muß schon einmal klar sein, daß die Menschheit in einer Entwickelung, in einem Fortschritt begriffen ist, und daß daher das Verständnis dieser oder jener Sache, dieser oder jener Offenbarung ebenfalls nichts Ständiges, nichts in irgendeinem Zeitraume Abgeschlossenes ist, sondern daß dieses Verständnis fortschreitet; so daß im Grunde genommen die tiefsten Dinge der Menschheit für den, der es mit den Worten Entwickelung und Fortschritt ernst nimmt, notwendigerweise erfordern, daß sie mit fortschreitender Zeit auch immer besser, gründlicher, tiefer verstanden werden können. Für so etwas wie das Markus-Evangelium ist eigentlich - und wir werden das an den drei ersten eben genannten Rätseln erhärten - ein gewisser Wendepunkt des Verständnisses erst in unserer Zeit gekommen, und langsam und allmählich, aber deutlich hat sich vorbereitet, was jetzt zum wahrhaften Verständnis dieses MarkusEvangeliums führen kann, führen kann schon dazu, zu verstehen, was es heißt: das Evangelium beginnt. Warum ist dies der Fall?

Wir brauchen nur ein wenig auf das zurückzublicken, was die Gemüter vor verhältnismäßig noch kurzer Zeit erfüllen konnte, und man wird schon sehen, wie sich die Art des Verständnisses geändert haben kann, ja, wie sie sich geändert haben muß in bezug auf eine solche Sache. Wir können zurückgehen hinter das 19. Jahrhundert und werden finden, daß wir, ins 18., 17. Jahrhundert zurückgehend, uns immer mehr einer Zeit nähern, in welcher diejenigen Menschen, welche es überhaupt in ihrem Geistesleben mit den Evangelien zu tun hatten, von ganz anderen Grundlagen des Verständnisses ausgehen konnten als die heutige Menschheit. Was konnte sich ein Mensch des 18. Jahrhunderts sagen, wenn er sich hineinstellen wollte in den Gesamtentwickelungsprozeß der Menschheit, wenn er nicht zu denjenigen gehörte - und das waren ja in den verflossenen Jahrhunderten sehr wenige -, die auf irgendwelchem Wege zusammenhingen mit der oder jener Einweihung, mit der oder jener okkulten Offenbarung, wenn er also im Leben stand und in sich aufgenommen hatte, was das äußere exoterische Leben bietet? Selbst die Allergebildetsten, die auf dem Höhepunkt der Zeitbildung standen, übersahen ja nicht mehr als, man könnte sagen, das Leben der Menschheit durch drei Jahrtausende, davon ein Jahrtausend - aber so, daß sich dieses schon in einem gewissen Nebeldunkel verlor — vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung und zwei nicht ganz, aber ungefähr erfüllte Jahrtausende seit der Begründung des Christentums. Drei Jahrtausende übersah er. Wenn man in dieses erste Jahrtausend zurückblickte, traten einem entgegen wie eine ganz mythisch dunkle Vorgeschichte der Menschheit die Zeiten des alten Persien. Dies und was sonst noch an einigen, man möchte sagen, Kenntnissen des alten ägyptischen Wesens da war, das galt als vorangegangen dem, was die eigentliche Geschichte ausmachte, die da begann mit dem Griechentum.

Dieses Griechentum bildete gewissermaßen die Grundlage der eigentlichen Zeitbildung, und alle, die tiefer hineinsehen wollten in das Menschenleben, gingen von dem Griechentum aus. Und innerhalb des Griechentums erschien alles, was über die urälteste Zeit dieses Volkes und seiner Menschheitsarbeit von Homer, von den griechischen Tragikern, von den griechischen Schriftstellern überhaupt stammt. Dann sah man, wie allmählich das Griechentum sich sozusagen zur Neige begab, wie es äußerlich von dem Römertum überwuchert wurde. Aber nur äußerlich, denn im Grunde genommen überwand das Römertum nur politisch das Griechentum, in Wirklichkeit aber nahm es griechische Bildung, griechische Kultur, griechisches Wesen an. So daß man auch sagen könnte: Politisch haben die Römer gesiegt über die Griechen, geistig haben die Griechen gesiegt über die Römer. Und während dieses Prozesses, wo das Griechentum geistig besiegte das Römertum, wo es durch Hunderte und aber Hunderte von Kanälen das, was es geleistet hatte, ins Römertum ergoß, von dem aus es wieder in alle übrige Kultur, in die Welt strömte, während dieses Prozesses strömte das Christentum in diese griechisch-römische Kultur hinein, ergoß sich immer mehr und mehr in sie und erfuhr eine wesentliche Umgestaltung, als die nordisch-germanischen Völker sich an dem Fortschritt dieser griechisch-römischen Kultur beteiligten. Mit diesem Ineinanderfließen von Griechentum, Römertum und Christentum verging das zweite Jahrtausend der Menschheitsgeschichte für den Menschen des 18. Jahrhunderts, das erste christliche Jahrtausend.

Dann sehen wir, wie das zweite christliche Jahrtausend — das dritte der Menschheitskultur für den Menschen des 18. Jahrhunderts — beginnt. Wir sehen, wie, trotzdem scheinbar alles in gleicher Art fortgeht, doch in diesem dritten Jahrtausend alles anders geht, wenn wir die Dinge tiefer erfassen. Man braucht nur zwei Gestalten heranzuziehen, einen Maler und einen Dichter, die, wenn sie auch erst ein paar Jahrhunderte nach der Jahrtausendwende auftreten, dennoch im wesentlichen zeigen, wie mit dem zweiten christlichen Jahrtausend wesentlich Neues begann für die abendländische Kultur, was dann wieder weiterwirkte. Diese zwei Gestalten sind Giotto und Dante, Giotto als Maler, Dante als Dichter. Für alles, was dann folgte, bilden diese zwei Gestalten den Anfang. Und was sie gaben, das wurde zur weiteren Bildung der abendländischen Kultur. - Das waren die drei Jahrtausende, die man übersah.

Aber nun kam das 19. Jahrhundert. Heute ist es nur dem, der tiefer hineinblicken will in die ganze Bildung der Zeitkultur, möglich, zu überschauen, was im 19. Jahrhundert alles geschah, was alles anders werden mußte. In den Gemütern, in den Seelen ist das alles darinnen; zum Verständnis bringen es sich heute erst ganz wenige. Die Perspektive der Menschen des 18. Jahrhunderts ging also nur zurück bis ins Griechentum; die vorgriechische Zeit war etwas Unbestimmtes. Was während des 19. Jahrhunderts geschah, was wenige verstanden, was heute noch wenig gewürdigt wird, das ist, daß der Orient, und zwar in einer ganz intensiven Weise, sich in die abendländische Kultur hereinstellte. Dieses Hereinstellen des Orients in einer ganz eigenartigen Weise ist es, was wir ins Auge fassen müssen für die Umwandlung, die mit der Bildung des 19. Jahrhunderts geschah. Im Grunde genommen warf dieses Eindringen des Orients Schatten und Lichter auf alles, was in die Bildung allmählich einfloß und immer mehr und mehr einfließen wird, was ein neues Verständnis erfordern wird der Dinge, welche die Menschheit bis dahin in ganz anderer Weise verstanden hat.

Wenn man einzelne Gestalten und Individualitäten betrachtet, welche auf die Bildung des Abendlandes gewirkt haben, und in denen man so ziemlich alles finden kann, was ein Mensch des beginnenden 19. Jahrhunderts in seiner Seele trug, wenn er sich um das Geistesleben kümmerte, so kann man anführen David, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare und den eben in das Leben eindringenden Goethe. Die künftige Geschichtsschreibung wird sich für die Wende des 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert ganz klar darüber sein, daß der Geistesgehalt der Menschen dieser Zeit durch diese fünf Gestalten bestimmt ist. Mehr als man nur irgendwie annehmen kann, lebte bis in die feinsten Regungen der Seelen das, was man nennen kann die Empfindungen, die Wahrheiten der Psalmen, lebte das, was im Grunde genommen schon bei Homer zu finden ist, das, was in Dante so grandiose Gestaltung angenommen hat, lebte dann, was, wenn es auch nicht in Shakespeare selbst so vorhanden war, bei Shakespeare schon so zum Ausdruck gekommen ist, wie es in dem Menschen der neueren Zeit lebt. Dazu kommt das Ringen der menschlichen Seele nach Wahrheit, das dann in der Schilderung des «Faust» zum Ausdruck gekommen ist und das ja in jeder Seele so lebt, daß man oft gesagt hat: Jeder nach Wahrheit ringende Mensch hat so etwas wie eine Faustnatur in sich.

Zu dem allem trat hinzu eine ganz neue Perspektive, die über diese drei Jahrtausende, welche die genannten fünf Gestalten umfassen, hinausging. Auf Wegen, die zunächst für die äußere Geschichte ganz unergründlich sind, trat hinzu ein innerer Orient in das Geistesleben Europas. Nicht etwa nur, daß sich zu den genannten Dichtungen hinzugesellte, was die Veden, die Bhagavad Gita gaben, nicht nur, daß man diese orientalischen Dichtungen kennenlernte und dadurch eine Gefühlsnuance gegenüber der Welt auftrat, die sich gründlich unterscheidet von der Gefühlsnuance der Psalmen oder dessen, was man bei Homer oder Dante findet, sondern es trat etwas auf, was auf geheimen Wegen eindrang und was im 19. Jahrhundert immer mehr und mehr sichtbar wurde. Man braucht nur an einen einzigen Namen zu erinnern, der ja um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts großes Aufsehen gemacht hat, und man wird sich sogleich klar sein, wie da etwas vom Orient auf geheimnisvollen Wegen in Europa eindrang: man braucht nur hinzuweisen auf den Namen Schopenhauer. Was fällt einem bei Schopenhauer vor allem auf, wenn man nicht auf das Theoretische seines Systems sieht, sondern auf das, was als Gefühls- und Empfindungsgehalt sein ganzes Denken durchzieht? Die tiefe Verwandtschaft dieses Menschen des 19. Jahrhunderts mit orientalisch-arischer Denk- und Gesinnungsweise. Überall lebt in den Sätzen, man könnte sagen, in den Betonungen der Gefühle bei Schopenhauer das, was man nennen möchte das orientalische Element im Okzident. Und das ist übergegangen auf Eduard von Hartmann in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.

Auf geheimnisvollen Wegen drang das ein, wurde eben gesagt. Diese geheimnisvollen Wege begreift man immer besser, wenn man sieht, daß sich in der Tat im Laufe der Entwickelung des 19. Jahrhunderts eine vollständige Umwandlung, eine Art Metamorphose alles menschlichen Denkens und Fühlens ergab, aber nicht nur an einem Orte der Erde, sondern im Geistesleben über die ganze Erde hin. Um das, was im Abendlande geschah, zu begreifen, genügt es, wenn man sich die Mühe nimmt, irgend etwas über die Religion, über die Philosophie, über irgendeinen Punkt des Geisteslebens Geschriebenes im 19. Jahrhundert zu vergleichen mit dem, was dem frühen 18. Jahrhundert angehört. Da wird man schon sehen, wie eine grundsätzliche Umwandlung und Metamorphose vor sich gegangen ist, wie alle Fragen nach den höchsten Weltenrätseln in der Menschheit locker geworden sind und wie die Menschheit hinstrebte nach ganz neuen Fragestellungen, nach ganz neuen Empfindungsweisen, wie das, was die Religion mit alledem, was zu ihr gehört, früher den Menschen gegeben hatte, nicht mehr in derselben Weise durch sie den Menschenseelen gegeben werden konnte. Überall verlangte man etwas, was noch tiefer, noch verborgener in den Untergründen der Religion sein sollte. Aber nicht nur in Europa. Und das ist eben das Charakteristische, daß um die Wende des i8. zum 19. Jahrhundert überall auf der gebildeten Erde die Menschen durch einen inneren Drang beginnen, anders zu denken, als sie vorher gedacht haben. Wenn man sich eine genauere Vorstellung verschaffen will von dem, was da eigentlich vorliegt, so muß man sehen, wie eine, man möchte sagen, allgemeine Annäherung der Völker und Völkerbildungen und Völkerbekenntnisse stattfindet, so stattfindet, daß Angehörige der verschiedensten Glaubensbekenntnisse im 19. Jahrhundert sich in einer ganz merkwürdigen Weise zu verständigen beginnen. Ein charakteristisches Beispiel sei angeführt, das uns mitten hineinstellen kann in das, was wir hier andeuten wollen.

In den dreißiger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts erschien in England ein Mann, der ein Brahmine war, und zwar innerhalb des Brahminentums sich bekannte zu der von ihm für wahr gehaltenen, rechtmäßigen Vedantalehre, Ram Mohan Roy, der im Jahre 1833 in London gestorben ist, der auf einen großen Teil der Zeitgenossen, die sich für solche Fragen interessiert haben, einen starken Einfluß gewonnen und auch einen großen Eindruck gemacht hat. Bei ihm ist das Merkwürdige, daß er auf der einen Seite dastand als ein allerdings unverstandener Reformator des Hinduismus und auf der anderen Seite in bezug auf das, was er als solcher damals sagte, von allen Europäern, die in Europa gewissermaßen auf der Höhe der Zeit waren, verstanden werden konnte; daß er ihnen nicht Ideen sagte, die man etwa nur aus dem Orientalismus heraus hätte verstehen können, sondern von denen man sich sagen konnte, man versteht sie aus der allgemeinen Menschenvernunft heraus.

Wie trat Ram Mohan Roy auf? So etwa sagte er: Ich lebe mitten im Hinduismus; da werden eine Anzahl von Göttern angebetet, die verschiedensten Göttergestalten. Wenn man die Leute fragt, warum sie diese oder jene Götter anbeten, dann sagen die Leute meines Vaterlandes: Das ist so alter Brauch, wir wissen es nicht anders, so ist es gewesen bei unseren Vätern, so war es bei deren Vätern und so weiter. Und weil die Leute, so meinte Ram Mohan Roy, nur unter diesem Eindruck standen, so ist es in meinem Vaterlande zu dem krassesten Götzendienst gekommen, zu einem ganz verwerflichen Götzendienst, zu einem Götzendienst, der nur Schande macht demjenigen, was die ursprüngliche Größe des religiösen Bekenntnisses meines Vaterlandes ausmacht. Da war einmal ein Bekenntnis, meinte er, das ja, zum Teil widerspruchsvoll, in den Veden erhalten ist, das aber für das menschliche Denken in der reinsten Gestalt in das Vedantasystem durch Vyasa gebracht worden ist. Zu dem, sagte er, wolle er sich bekennen. Und er hatte zu diesem Zweck nicht nur aus den verschiedenen unverständlichen Idiomen Übersetzungen gemacht in die Sprache, die man in Indien verstehen konnte, sondern er hatte aus dem, was er für die richtige Lehre hielt, auch Auszüge gemacht und sie unter den Menschen verbreitet. Denn was wollte Ram Mohan Roy damit? Er glaubte erkannt zu haben, daß in dem, was unter den vielen Göttern zum Ausdruck kommt, was in dem Götzendienst verehrt wurde, eine reine Lehre von einem ureinheitlichen Gotte stecke, von einem geistigen Gotte, der in allen Dingen lebt, der nicht mehr erkannt wird durch den Götzendienst hindurch, der aber wieder eindringen müsse in die Gemüter der Menschen. Und wenn er dann im einzelnen sprach, dieser indische Brahmine, über das, was er als die richtige Vedantalehre ansah, was er als das richtige indische Bekenntnis ansah, dann war es nicht so, als ob man irgend etwas Fremdes hörte, sondern es war den Leuten, die ihn richtig verstanden, so, als ob er eine Art von Vernunftglauben predigte, zu dem im Grunde genommen jeder gelangen könnte, wenn er sich aus seiner Vernunft heraus zu dem alleinheitlichen Gotte hinwenden würde.

Und Ram Mohan Roy hatte Nachfolger: Debendranath Tagore und andere. Einer der Nachfolger, das ist besonders interessant, hat im Jahre 1870 als Inder einen Vortrag gehalten über «Christus und das Christentum». Außerordentlich interessant, einen Inder sprechen zu hören über Christus und das Christentum. Was das eigentliche Mysterium des Christentums ist, das steht dem indischen Redner ganz fern, das berührt er gar nicht. Man sieht aus dem ganzen Verlaufe des Vortrages, daß er die Grundtatsache nicht erfassen kann: daß das Christentum nicht von einem persönlichen Lehrer ausgeht, sondern eben von dem Mysterium von Golgatha, von einer weltgeschichtlichen Tatsache, von dem Tode und der Auferstehung. Was er aber erfassen kann und was ihm einleuchtet, das ist, daß man in dem Christus Jesus eine ungeheuer bedeutungsvolle, für jedes Menschenherz wichtige Gestalt vor sich hat, eine Gestalt, die als eine Idealgestalt für die ganze Welt dastehen muß. Merkwürdig ist es, den Inder über den Christus reden zu hören, ihn sagen zu hören, wenn man sich in das Christentum vertiefe, dann müsse man sagen, daß dieses Christentum im Abendlande selbst noch eine Fortentwickelung erleben muß. Denn das, so meinte er, was in mein Vaterland die Europäer als Christentum bringen, das scheint mir nicht das wahre Christentum zu sein.

Aus diesen Beispielen sehen wir, daß nicht etwa nur in Europa die Geister begannen, sozusagen hinter die religiösen Bekenntnisse sehen zu wollen, sondern daß auch im fernen Indien - und man könnte das für viele Orte der Erde anführen - die Geister sich zu regen begannen und von einem ganz neuen Gesichtspunkte aus an das, was sie durch Jahrhunderte und Jahrtausende hindurch gehabt hatten, neuerdings herantraten. Diese Metamorphose der Seelen im 19. Jahrhundert wird ja erst im Laufe der Zeit ganz durchschaut werden. Und erst eine spätere Geschichtsschreibung wird erkennen, daß durch solche Vorgänge, die scheinbar nur wenige berührten, die aber durch tausend und aber tausend Kanäle bis in unsere Herzen und Seelen hereinströmten und die heute alle Menschen, die sich nur irgendwie am Geistesleben beteiligen, in ihren Seelen darinnen haben, eine völlige Erneuerung, eine Umwandlung aller Fragen und jeglicher Art des Verständnisses gegenüber den alten Anschauungen eintreten mußte. So ist überall draußen in der Welt wirklich heute schon eine gewissermaßen großartige Vertiefung der Fragen vorhanden.

Was unsere Geistesbewegung will, ist die Beantwortung dieser Fragen. Diese Geistesbewegung ist davon überzeugt, daß diese Fragen, so wie sie gestellt sind, nicht durch die alten Traditionen, nicht durch die moderne Naturwissenschaft, nicht durch eine Weltanschauung, die nur mit den Faktoren der modernen Naturwissenschaft arbeitet, beantwortet werden können, sondern daß dazu Geisteswissenschaft, Forschung in den geistigen Welten, notwendig ist; mit anderen Worten, daß die Menschheit heute nach dem ganzen Hergang ihrer Entwickelung Fragen stellen muß, die nur durch die Forschung aus den übersinnlichen Welten heraus beantwortet werden können. Ganz langsam und allmählich traten auch aus dem abendländischen Geistesleben heraus diejenigen Dinge auf, welche wieder an die schönsten Überlieferungen des Orients anklangen. Sie wissen, daß immer dargelegt worden ist, wie aus dem abendländischen Geistesleben selbst heraus das Gesetz der Reinkarnation folgt und wie es ebensowenig als etwas Historisches aus dem Buddhismus übernommen zu werden braucht, wie etwa heute der pythagoreische Lehrsatz aus den geschichtlichen Überlieferungen übernommen zu werden braucht. Das ist immer betont worden. Aber dadurch, daß die Idee von der Reinkarnation in der modernen Seele auftauchte, war die Brücke gebaut zu dem, was über die charakterisierten drei Jahrtausende hinüberreicht; denn diese hatten die Lehre von der Reinkarnation eben nicht in den MittelPunkt ihres Denkens gestellt - bis auf die Gestalt des Buddha. Erweitert wurde eben der Horizont, erweitert wurde die Perspektive nach der Entwickelung der Menschheit hin über die drei Jahrtausende hinaus, und das zeitigte überall neue Fragen, Fragen, die nur aus der Geisteswissenschaft heraus beantwortet werden können.

Stellen wir gleich im Anfang die Frage, die sich ergibt aus dem Beginne dieses Evangeliums: daß gegeben werden soll in diesem Markus-Evangelium der «Beginn des Evangeliums von Jesu Christo». Und erinnern wir uns, daß gleich auf diese Eingangsworte folgt nicht nur die Charakteristik der alten Prophetenstelle, sondern die Ankündigung des Christus durch den Täufer Johannes, und daß diese Ankündigung durch den Täufer so charakterisiert wird, daß sie in die Worte gefaßt werden kann: Die Zeit ist erfüllt; das Reich des Göttlichen breitet sich herunter über das Erdendasein. Was heißt das alles?

Versuchen wir einmal, in dem Lichte, wie es uns die moderne geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung geben kann, die Zeiten ein wenig an uns vorüberziehen zu lassen, welche die «Erfüllung» wie in ihrer Mitte enthalten. Versuchen wir zu verstehen, was es heißt: eine alte Zeit ist erfüllt, eine neue Zeit beginnt. Wir werden am leichtesten dafür Verständnis gewinnen, wenn wir den Blick hinlenken auf etwas, was in älteren Zeiten liegt, und dann auf etwas, was in den neueren Zeiten liegt, so daß zwischen den beiden Orten, auf die wir den Blick richten, gleichsam in der Mitte, das Mysterium von Golgatha liegt. Nehmen wir also etwas, was vor dem Mysterium von Golgatha liegt, und dann etwas, was nach demselben liegt, und versuchen wir, uns zu vertiefen in den Unterschied der Zeit, damit wir erkennen können, inwiefern eine alte Zeit sich erfüllt hat, inwiefern eine neue Zeit begonnen hat; und versuchen wir, uns dabei nicht in Abstraktionen zu ergehen, sondern das Konkrete ins Auge zu fassen.

Da möchte ich Ihren Blick hinlenken auf etwas, was sozusagen dem ersten Jahrtausend der früheren Betrachtung der Menschheitsentwickelung angehört. Da ragt aus den ältesten Zeiten dieses ersten Jahrtausends zu uns herüber die Gestalt des Homer, des griechischen Dichters und Sängers. Kaum mehr als der Name ist sozusagen der Menschheit erhalten von demjenigen, dem diese beiden zu den größten Leistungen der Menschheit gehörigen Dichtungen zugeschrieben werden: Ilias und Odyssee; kaum mehr als der Name. Und sogar an diesen Namen sind arge Zweifel im 19. Jahrhundert angeknüpft worden. Darauf braucht hier nicht eingegangen zu werden. Wie eine Erscheinung, die man um so mehr bewundert, je mehr man sie kennenlernt, steht Homer vor uns. Und man darf sagen: Für den, der sich überhaupt mit solchen Dingen befaßt, stehen lebendiger als alle rein politischen Gestalten des Griechentums jene Gestalten vor unserer Scelc, die Homer geschaffen hat, die uns in der Ilias und Odyssee vorliegen. Es haben die verschiedensten Leute, wenn sie sich immer wieder auf Homer eingelassen haben, gesagt, daß aus der Präzision der Schilderung, aus der Art, wie er darstellt, man eigentlich bei ihm annehmen könne, daß er Arzt gewesen sein müsse. Andere meinen, cr müsse Künstler gewesen sein, Plastiker; ja, andere meinen, er müsse irgendwie Handwerker gewesen sein. Napoleon hat die Taktik, die Strategie in seiner Darstellung bewundert. Andere wiederum halten ihn für einen Bettler, der im Land herumzog. Wenn nichts anderes, so kommt doch durch diese verschiedenen Auffassungen die ganz eigenartige Individualität Homers heraus.

Nur eine seiner Gestalten sei jetzt herausgegriffen, die des Hektor. Ich bitte Sie, wenn Sie einmal Zeit haben, sehen Sie sich in der Iliade die Gestalt des Hektor an, wie er plastisch geschildert ist, wie er zugleich so geschildert ist, daß er abgerundet und abgeschlossen vor uns steht. Sehen Sie sich sein Verhältnis zu seiner Vaterstadt Troja an, wie er zu seiner Gattin Andromache steht, sein Verhältnis zu Achill, sein Verhältnis zum Heere und zur Heeresführung. Versuchen Sie, sich diesen Mann vor die Seele zu rufen, diesen Mann mit allen Weichheiten des Gatten, diesen Mann, der ganz im antiken Sinne an seiner Vaterstadt Troja hing, diesen Mann, der Täuschungen unterworfen sein konnte - ich bitte Sie, an das Verhältnis zu Achill zu denken -, wie es nur bei einem großen Menschen der Fall sein kann. Ein Mensch mit großer, mit umfassender Menschlichkeit steht in Hektor vor uns, wie ihn Homer schildert. So ragt er herüber aus uralten Zeiten - denn selbstverständlich ist das, was Homer schildert, seiner eigenen Zeit vorangegangen und steht dadurch noch mehr in dem Dunkel der Vergangenheit — und ragt so herüber als Gestalt, die, wie alle Gestalten des Homer, schon mythisch genug ist für den modernen Menschen. Auf diese eine Gestalt weise ich Sie hin. Es mögen Skeptiker und alle möglichen Philologen daran zweifeln, daß es einen Hektor gegeben hat, wie sie auch daran zweifeln, daß es einen Homer gegeben hat. Wer aber alles in Erwägung zieht, was aus rein Menschlichem heraus in Erwägung gezogen werden kann, der wird daraus die Überzeugung gewinnen, daß Homer nur Tatsachen schildert, die als solche bestanden haben, und daß auch Hektor eine Gestalt ist, die in Troja gewandelt ist, ebenso wie Achill und die anderen Gestalten. Wie wirkliche Gestalten des Erdendaseins stehen sie noch vor uns, und wir blicken zu ihnen hinüber wie zu Menschen ganz anderer Art, die heute nur noch schwer verständlich sind, die uns aber durch den Dichter in allen Einzelheiten vor die Seele treten können. Wir wollen eine solche Gestalt wie Hektor, der besiegt wird von Achill, einmal als wirkliche Gestalt eines der hauptsächlichen trojanischen Heerführer uns vor die Seele stellen. Wir haben in einer solchen Gestalt so recht etwas, was der vorchristlichen Zeit der Menschheit angehört, woran man ermessen kann, wie die Menschen dieser Zeit waren, als der Christus noch nicht gelebt hatte.

Ich lenke Ihren Blick weiter hin zu einer anderen Gestalt, zu einer Gestalt des fünften vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts, zu einem großen Philosophen, der einen großen Teil seines Lebens auf Sizilien verbracht hat, zu einer merkwürdigen Gestalt, zu Empedokles. Nicht nur ist er derjenige, der zuerst gesprochen hat von den vier Elementen Feuer, Wasser, Luft, Erde, davon, daß alles, was im Stofflichen geschieht, durch Vermischung und Entmischung dieser vier Elemente vor sich geht nach den Prinzipien von Haß und Liebe, die in diesen Elementen walten, sondern der vor allem in der Weise auf Sizilien gewirkt hat, daß er bedeutsame staatliche Einrichtungen ins Leben gerufen hat, der herumgezogen ist und die Leute zum geistigen Leben hingeführt hat. in abenteuerliches ebensosehr wie ein tief geistiges Leben ist es, auf das wir zurückblicken, wenn wir auf Empedokles hinschauen. Mögen es andere bezweifeln, die Geisteswissenschaft weiß es, daß Empedokles ebenso auf Sizilien gewandelt ist als Staatsmann, als Eingeweihter, als Magier, wie Hektor in Troja gewandelt ist, so wie ihn Homer uns schildert. Und um die merkwürdige Stellung des Empedokles zur Welt zu charakterisieren, tritt uns die Tatsache entgegen, die nicht erfunden ist, die wahr ist, daß er dadurch endete - um sich zu vereinigen mit allem Dasein, das ihn umgab -, daß er sich in den Ätna stürzte und im Feuer des Ätna verbrannte. So steht eine zweite Gestalt der vorchristlichen Zeit vor uns.

Betrachten wir nun mit den Mitteln der modernen Geisteswissenschaft solche Gestalten. Da wissen wir zunächst, daß solche Gestalten wieder auftreten werden, daß die Seelen wiederkommen. Wir wollen von Zwischeninkarnationen absehen und wollen sie irgendwie suchen in der nachchtristlichen Zeit; dann haben wir etwas von der Veränderung der Zeit, etwas von dem, was uns verständlich machen kann, wie das Mysterium von Golgatha in die Menschheitsentwickelung eingeschlagen hat. Wenn man sagen kann: Solche Gestalten wie Hektor, wie Empedokles sind wiedererschienen; wie wandeln sie in der nachchristlichen Zeit unter den Menschen? - dann hat man sich den Einschlag des Mysteriums von Golgatha, die Erfüllung und den Neubeginn der Zeit eben an den Seelen einmal veranschaulicht. Wir brauchen, da wir als ernste Anthroposophen hier zusammenkommen, nicht mehr zurückzuschrecken vor den Mitteilungen der wirklichen geistigen Wissenschaft, die eben geprüft werden kann an dem, was äußerlich vorliegt.

Ich möchte auf etwas anderes noch Ihren Blick lenken, auf etwas, was sich in der nachchristlichen Zeit vollzogen hat. Man kann ja wieder sagen, man hätte es mit einer dichterischen Gestalt zu tun. Aber diese «dichterische Gestalt» geht eben auf eine wirkliche Persönlichkeit zurück, die im Leben gestanden hat. Ich lenke Ihren Blick auf die Gestalt, die Shakespeare geschaffen hat in seinem Hamlet. Wer die Grundgestalt Shakespeares kennt, soweit man sie äußerlich kennenlernen kann, insbesondere aber, wer sie aus der Geisteswissenschaft kennt, der weiß, daß der Hamlet Shakespeares nur der umgestaltete wirkliche Dänenprinz war, der auch einmal gelebt hat. Die Gestalt Hamlet, die Shakespeare geschaffen hat, hat wirklich gelebt. Ich kann mich jetzt nicht darauf einlassen, zu zeigen, wie die historische Gestalt der dichterischen Figur des Shakespeare zugrunde liegt. Aber auf das geisteswissenschaftliche Resultat möchte ich mich einlassen, möchte Ihnen hier an einem eklatanten Fall zeigen, wie ein Geist des Altertums im nachchristlichen Zeitalter wieder auftaucht. Die wirkliche Gestalt, die dem zugrunde liegt, was Shakespeare als Hamlet gestaltet hat, ist Hektor. Dieselbe Seele lebte in Hamlet, die in Hektor lebte. Gerade an einem solchen charakteristischen Beispiele, wo die Verschiedenheit des Sichdarlebens der Seele eklatant hervortritt, kann man sich klarmachen, was eigentlich in der Zwischenzeit geschehen ist. Eine Persönlichkeit wie die des Hektor steht vor uns auf der einen Seite in der vorchristlichen Zeit. Hinein schlägt in die Menschheitsentwickelung das Mysterium von Golgatha, und der Funke, der in die Seele des Hektor hineinschlägt, läßt in ihr erstehen das Urbild des Hamlet, von dem Goethe gesagt hat: eine Seele, die keiner Lage gewachsen ist, und der auch keine genügt, der eine Aufgabe zugewiesen ist, die sie aber nicht erfüllen kann. Man kann fragen: Warum drückte es Shakespeare so aus? Er wußte es nicht. Wer aber durch die Geisteswissenschaft in diese Zusammenhänge hineinblickt, der weiß, welche Kräfte dahinterstanden. Der Dichter schafft im Unbewußten, weil gleichsam zuerst vor ihm steht die Gestalt, die er schafft, und dann wie ein Tableau - wovon er aber nichts weiß - die ganze Individualität, die damit verknüpft ist. Warum hebt Shakespeare gerade besondere Charaktereigenschaften des Hamlet hervor und betont sie ganz scharf, die vielleicht kein zeitgenössischer Beobachter an der Gestalt des Hamlet bemerkt haben würde? Weil er sie auf dem Hintergrunde der Zeit beobachtet: Er fühlt, wie anders eine Seele geworden ist beim Übergang vom alten Leben in das neue. Der Zweifler, der Skeptiker Hamlet, der sich in den Lagen des Lebens nicht auskennt, der Zauderer, der ist zunächst geworden aus dem treffsicheren Hektor.

Ich lenke Ihren Blick auf eine andere Gestalt der neueren Zeit, die wieder zunächst durch das dichterische Bild an die Menschen herangetreten ist, durch eine Dichtung, deren Hauptgestalt in der Menschheit gewiß noch lange leben wird, wenn der Dichter selbst für die Nachwelt nur noch ebenso dastehen wird wie heute Homer und Shakespeare, in der Weise, daß man von dem einen gar nichts, von dem anderen furchtbar wenig weiß. Man wird längst vergessen haben, was die Notizensammler und Biographen von Goethe mitteilen, man wird längst vergessen haben, wofür sich heute die Menschen so sehr bei Goethe interessieren, trotz Buchdruckerkunst und der anderen modernen Mittel, wenn noch dastehen wird in lebendiger Größe und lebendiger Plastik die Faustgestalt, die Goethe geschaffen hat. Wie die Menschen von Homer nichts wissen, von Hektor und Achill aber sehr viel, so werden sie einstmals nicht viel wissen von der Persönlichkeit Goethes - und das wird gut sein -, aber sie werden immer wissen von dem Faust.

Faust ist nun wieder eine solche Gestalt, die, so wie sie uns in der Literatur und dann bei Goethe wie in einer Art von Abschluß entgegenttritt, zurückführt auf eine reale Gestalt. Er hat als eine Gestalt des 16. Jahrhunderts gelebt, er war da; war nicht so da, wie ihn Goethe in seiner Faustfigur schildert. Aber warum schildert ihn Goethe so? Goethe wußte es selber nicht. Aber wenn er den Blick hinlenkte auf den Faust, wie er überliefert war, den er schon vom Puppenspiel aus seiner Kanabenzeit her kannte, so wirkten in ihm Kräfte von dem, was hinter dem Faust stand, was eine vorhergehende Inkarnation des Faust war: Empedokles, der alte griechische Philosoph. Das alles strahlte herein in die Gestalt des Faust. Und man möchte sagen: Wenn Empedokles sich in den Ätna stürzt, sich mit dem Feuerelement der Erde verbindet, welch wunderbare Vergeistigung, welch wunderbare Spiritualisierung dieser, man möchte sagen, vorchristlichen Naturmystik, die so zur Tatsache wird, ist das Schlußtableau des Goetheschen «Faust», das Aufsteigen des Faust in das Feuerelement des Himmels durch den Pater Seraphicus und so weiter! Langsam und allmählich lebt sich eine ganz neue Geistestichtung herein in dem, was die Menschen tiefer erstreben. Lange Zeit schon begann die Tatsache sich geltend zu machen für die tieferen Geister der Menschheit, ohne daß sie von Reinkarnation und Karma etwas wußten, daß, wenn sie eine Seele betrachteten, die umfassend war, die sie schildern wollten aus den Grundfesten ihres inneren Lebens heraus, sie das schilderten, was aus den früheren Inkarnationen herüberleuchtet. Wie Shakespeare Hamlet so schilderte, wie wir ihn kennen, obwohl er nichts davon wußte, daß in Hektor und Hamlet dieselbe Seele lebte, so schilderte Goethe den Faust, wie wenn dahinter die Seele des Empedokles mit allen ihren Sonderbarkeiten stände, weil eben in Faust die Seele des Empedokles war. Aber charakteristisch ist es, daß so der Fortgang und der Fortschritt des Menschengeschlechtes ist.

Zwei charakteristische Gestalten habe ich herausgehoben, an denen beiden wir sehen können, wie die antiken Größen in der modernen nachchristlichen Zeit in ihrer tiefsten Seele so erschüttert dastehen, daß sie sich nur schwer im Leben zurechtfinden können. Alles ist in ihnen, was früher in ihnen war. Man fühlt, wenn man zum Beispiel Hamlet auf sich wirken läßt, wie die ganze Kraft des Hektor in ihm ist. Aber man fühlt, daß diese Kraft in der nachchristlichen Zeit nicht herauskommen kann, daß sie zunächst Widerstände findet in der nachchristlichen Zeit, daß da etwas auf die Seele gewirkt hat, was ein Anfang ist, während man es früher bei den Gestalten, die einem im Altertum entgegentreten, mit einem Ende zu tun hat. Sowohl Hektor wie Empedokles sind ein Abschluß. Plastisch abgeschlossen stehen sie vor uns. Was aber in der Menschheit weiterwirkt, das muß neue Wege finden in die neuen Inkarnationen hinein. So bei Hektor in Hamlet, so bei Empedokles in Faust, der alles, was abgründiges Streben nach den Naturtiefen ist, der das ganze empedokleische Element in sich hat, der allein durch dieses tiefgründige Wesen sagen kann: Ich will die Bibel eine Weile unter die Bank legen, will sein ein Naturforscher und Mediziner und will kein Theologe mehr sein; der ein Bedürfnis hatte, mit dämonenartigen Wesenheiten umzugehen, was ihn herumschweifen läßt durch die Welt, was ihn bestaunen, aber unverstanden sein läßt. Da wirkt das empedokleische Element nach, aber es findet sich nicht zurecht mit dem, was der Mensch sein muß, nachdem eine neue Zeit hereingebrochen ist.

Ich wollte durch diese Auseinandersetzung zeigen, wie an bedeutenden Seelen, an Seelen, über die sich jeder informieren kann, ein gewaltiger Umschwung sich zeigt, daß gerade dann, wenn man in die Tiefen hineingeht, dieser gewaltige Umschwung sich zeigt. Und wenn man fragt: Was ist geschehen zwischen den alten Inkarnationen und den neuen Inkarnationen einer solchen Individualität? - so bekommt man immer zur Antwort: Das Mysterium von Golgatha, dasjenige, was der Täufer ankündigte, indem er sagte: Die Zeit ist erfüllt, die Reiche des Geistes - oder die Reiche der Himmel - gehen in das Menschenteich über. Ja, sie ergriffen gewaltig dieses Menschenreich, die Reiche der Himmel! Und diejenigen, welche dieses Ergreifen äußerlich nehmen, können es eben nicht verstehen. Sie ergriffen es so gewaltig, daß in sich gediegene, kompakte antike Größen neu beginnen mußten mit der Evolution auf der Erde, daß sich gerade an ihnen zeigt bis zum Abschluß der alten Zeit, bis zum Mysterium von Golgatha hin: da ist etwas abgelaufen, was seine Erfüllung gefunden hat, was die Menschen so hinstellt, daß sie vor uns stehen als in sich gerundete Persönlichkeiten. Dann aber trat etwas ein, was notwendig machte in den Seelen, daß sie einen neuen Anfang mit sich selber machten, daß alles neugestaltet, umgegossen werden mußte und daß uns Seelen, die groß waren, wie Seelen erscheinen, die klein sind, weil sie umwandeln müssen die Seele zur Kindheit, weil etwas ganz Neues beginnt. Das ist es, was wir uns in die Seele schreiben müssen, wenn wir verstehen wollen, was gleich im Beginne des Markus-Evangeliums gemeint ist: ein «Anfang». Ja, ein Anfang, der die Seelen in ihrem tiefsten Wesen erschüttert, der einen ganz neuen Impuls hereinbringt in die Menschheitsentwickelung, ein «Anfang des Evangeliums».

Was ist das «Evangelium »? Es ist das, was herunterkommt aus den Reichen, die wir öfter in den Hierarchien der höheren Wesenheiten beschrieben haben, wo die Angeloi, die Archangeloi sind, was heruntersteigt durch die Welt, die sich erhebt über der Menschenwelt. Da gewinnt man die Perspektive auf einen tieferen Sinn des Wortes Evangelium. Ein Impuls, der heruntersteigt durch das Reich der Archangeloi, der Angeloi, ist das Evangelium; es ist das diesen Reichen Entsteigende, das in die Menschheit eintritt. Alle abstrakten Übersetzungen treffen im Grunde genommen nur wenig die Sache. In Wahrheit soll schon in dem Worte Evangelium angedeutet werden, daß in einem Zeitpunkt etwas beginnt auf die Erde niederzufließen, was früher nur dort geströmt hat, wo die Angeloi und die Archangeloi sind, was heruntergekommen ist auf die Erde, was hier die Seelen durchrüttelt, und die stärksten Seelen gerade am meisten. Und der Beginn, der also eine Fortsetzung hat, der wird verzeichnet. Das heißt, das Evangelium dauert fort. Es ist der Anfang gemacht in der damaligen Zeit, und im Grunde genommen werden wir sehen, daß die ganze Menschheitsentwickelung seit jener Zeit eine Fortsetzung des Beginns ist des Herunterfließens des Impulses aus dem Reiche der Angeloi, den man Evangelium nennen kann.

Man kann nicht tief genug suchen und forschen, wenn man die einzelnen Evangelien charakterisieren will, und gerade am MarkusEvangelium wird sich uns zeigen, wie es nur verstanden werden kann, wenn man im rechten Sinne die Menschheitsentwickelung begreift mit allen ihren Impulsen, mit alledem, was in ihrem Verlaufe geschehen ist. Nicht äußerlich wollte ich Ihnen das charakterisieren, sondern ich wollte es Ihnen an den Seelen charakterisieren und zeigen, wie eigentlich erst die Anerkennung der Tatsache der Reinkarnation, die, wenn sie zur wirklichen Forschung wird, uns den Werdegang einer Seele wie der des Hektor oder des Empedokles zeigt, uns die ganze Bedeutung des Impulses, der durch das Christus-Ereignis kam, vor die Seele führen kann. Sonst kann man sehr schöne Dinge vorbringen, bleibt aber doch nur an der Oberfläche haften. Was aber hinter allem äußeren Geschehen der Christus-Impuls war, das zeigt sich eigentlich nur dadurch, daß man mit der Geistesforschung in das Tiefere der Menschenseele hineinleuchtet, daß man nicht nur erkennt, wie das Leben als einzelnes sich vollzieht, sondern in der Aufeinanderfolge der Inkarnationen. Man muß mit der Idee der Reinkarnation Ernst machen, muß sie wirklich so in die Geschichte einführen, daß sie zum belebenden Element der Geschichte wird, dann wird sich schon zeigen die Wirkung des größten Impulses, des Ereignisses von Golgatha. Und besonders in den Seelen wird sich der Impuls zeigen, den wir schon öfter beschrieben haben.

First Lecture

It is well known that the Gospel of Mark begins with the words: “This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

For those of us today who are seeking an understanding of the Gospel of Mark, these very first words actually contain three riddles. The first riddle lies in the words: “This is the beginning...” The beginning of what? How can this beginning be understood? The second riddle is: “...the beginning of the Gospel...” What is the word “gospel” in the anthroposophical sense? The third mystery is the one we have often spoken about: the form of Christ Jesus himself.

Those who are seriously seeking knowledge and a deeper understanding of their own selves must already realize that humanity is in a state of development, of progress, and that therefore the understanding of this or that thing, this or that revelation is likewise not something permanent, not something completed in any period of time, but that this understanding progresses; so that, fundamentally, the deepest things of humanity necessarily require, for those who take the words “development” and “progress” seriously, that they can be understood better, more thoroughly, and more deeply as time progresses. For something like the Gospel of Mark, a certain turning point in understanding has actually come only in our time, as we will confirm with the three riddles just mentioned, and slowly and gradually, but clearly, what can now lead to a true understanding of this Gospel of Mark has been prepared, can already lead to an understanding of what it means: the Gospel begins. Why is this the case?

We need only look back a little at what filled people's minds a relatively short time ago, and we will see how the nature of understanding has changed, indeed, how it had to change in relation to such a thing. We can go back beyond the 19th century and find that, going back to the 18th and 17th centuries, we come closer and closer to a time when people who had anything to do with the Gospels in their spiritual life could start from completely different foundations of understanding than people today. What could a person of the 18th century say to himself if he wanted to place himself within the overall process of human development, if he did not belong to those — and in past centuries they were very few — who were connected in some way with this or that initiation, with this or that occult revelation, if he stood in life and had taken in what external, exoteric life had to offer? Even the most highly educated, who stood at the height of the age, overlooked nothing more than, one might say, the life of humanity through three millennia, one of which – but in such a way that it was already lost in a certain foggy darkness – preceded the Christian era, and two millennia since the founding of Christianity, which were not quite, but approximately fulfilled. Three millennia were overlooked. Looking back on this first millennium, the times of ancient Persia appeared like a completely mythical and dark prehistory of humanity. This, and whatever else there was of knowledge about ancient Egyptian life, was considered to have preceded what constituted actual history, which began with Greek civilization.

This Greek civilization formed, in a sense, the basis of the actual formation of time, and all those who wanted to look more deeply into human life started from Greek civilization. And within Greek civilization appeared everything that originated from the most ancient times of this people and their work for humanity, from Homer, from the Greek tragedians, from the Greek writers in general. Then one saw how Greek culture gradually came to an end, so to speak, how it was outwardly overgrown by Roman culture. But only outwardly, because basically Roman culture only overcame Greek culture politically; in reality, it adopted Greek education, Greek culture, and the Greek essence. So one could also say: Politically, the Romans triumphed over the Greeks, but spiritually, the Greeks triumphed over the Romans. And during this process, in which Greek culture spiritually defeated Roman culture, in which it poured what it had achieved into Roman culture through hundreds and hundreds of channels, from which it flowed back into all other cultures, into the world, during this process, Christianity flowed into this Greek-Roman culture, poured more and more into it and underwent a fundamental transformation as the Nordic-Germanic peoples participated in the progress of this Greco-Roman culture. With this intermingling of Greek, Roman, and Christian elements, the second millennium of human history passed for the people of the 18th century, the first Christian millennium.

Then we see how the second Christian millennium — the third in human culture for the people of the 18th century — begins. We see how, even though everything seems to be continuing in the same way, everything is different in this third millennium when we look at things more deeply. One need only consider two figures, a painter and a poet, who, although they appeared only a few centuries after the turn of the millennium, nevertheless show in essence how something fundamentally new began for Western culture in the second Christian millennium, something that then continued to have an effect. These two figures are Giotto and Dante, Giotto as a painter, Dante as a poet. These two figures mark the beginning of everything that followed. And what they gave became the basis for the further development of Western culture. These were the three millennia that were overlooked.

But then came the 19th century. Today, only those who want to look more deeply into the entire formation of the culture of that time can see everything that happened in the 19th century, everything that had to change. All of this is contained in the minds and souls of people, but very few today are able to understand it. The perspective of people in the 18th century only went back to Greek times; the pre-Greek period was something vague. What happened during the 19th century, what few understood, what is still little appreciated today, is that the Orient entered Western culture in a very intense way. It is this entry of the Orient in a very peculiar way that we must consider for the transformation that took place with the education of the 19th century. Basically, this intrusion of the Orient cast shadows and light on everything that gradually flowed into education and will continue to flow in more and more, requiring a new understanding of things that humanity had previously understood in a completely different way.

If we consider individual figures and personalities who influenced Western education and in whom we can find pretty much everything that a person at the beginning of the 19th century carried in his soul when he was concerned with intellectual life, we can mention David, Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe, who was just entering life. Future historians will be quite clear about the turn of the 18th to the 19th century that the spiritual content of the people of that time was determined by these five figures. More than one can possibly imagine, what can be called the feelings, the truths of the Psalms, lived in the finest stirrings of the soul; what can basically already be found in Homer lived on, what took on such grandiose form in Dante lived on, and what, even if it was not present in Shakespeare himself, was already expressed in Shakespeare as it lives in the people of modern times. Added to this is the struggle of the human soul for truth, which then found expression in the portrayal of Faust and which lives in every soul in such a way that it has often been said: every person who struggles for truth has something like Faust's nature within them.

Added to all this was a completely new perspective that went beyond the three millennia covered by the five figures mentioned above. In ways that are initially completely unfathomable to external history, an inner orientation entered the spiritual life of Europe. It was not just that the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita joined the aforementioned poems, not only that people became acquainted with these Oriental poems and thereby developed a feeling toward the world that was fundamentally different from the feeling found in the Psalms or in Homer or Dante, but something else emerged that penetrated through secret channels and became increasingly visible in the 19th century. One need only recall a single name that caused a great stir in the middle of the 19th century, and one will immediately realize how something from the Orient penetrated Europe through mysterious channels: one need only mention the name Schopenhauer. What strikes one most about Schopenhauer, if one looks not at the theory of his system but at what pervades his entire thinking as emotion and feeling? The deep affinity of this 19th-century man with the Oriental-Aryan way of thinking and feeling. Everywhere in Schopenhauer's sentences, one might say in the emphasis of his feelings, there lives what one might call the Oriental element in the Occident. And this passed on to Eduard von Hartmann in the second half of the 19th century.

It has just been said that this penetrated in mysterious ways. These mysterious ways become clearer when we see that, in the course of the 19th century, a complete transformation, a kind of metamorphosis, took place in all human thinking and feeling, not only in one place on earth, but in the spiritual life of the entire world. To understand what happened in the West, it is enough to take the trouble to compare anything written in the 19th century about religion, philosophy, or any aspect of spiritual life with what belonged to the early 18th century. Then one will see how a fundamental transformation and metamorphosis took place, how all questions about the highest mysteries of the world had become loose in humanity, and how humanity was striving for completely new questions, for completely new ways of feeling, how what religion with all that belonged to it had previously given to people could no longer be given to human souls in the same way. Everywhere people demanded something that was to be even deeper, even more hidden in the foundations of religion. But not only in Europe. And that is precisely what is characteristic of the turn of the 18th to the 19th century: everywhere in the educated world, people began, through an inner urge, to think differently than they had thought before. If one wants to gain a more precise idea of what is actually happening, one must see how a, one might say, general rapprochement of peoples and ethnic groups and ethnic identities is taking place, in such a way that members of the most diverse faiths in the 19th century are beginning to understand each other in a very remarkable way. Let us cite a characteristic example that can place us right in the middle of what we are trying to suggest here.

In the 1830s, a man appeared in England who was a Brahmin and, within Brahminism, professed the Vedanta doctrine, which he believed to be true and legitimate. His name was Ram Mohan Roy, who died in London in 1833. He gained a strong influence over a large number of his contemporaries who were interested in such questions and also made a great impression on them. What is remarkable about him is that, on the one hand, he stood there as a reformer of Hinduism who was certainly misunderstood, and on the other hand, in relation to what he said as such at that time, could be understood by all Europeans who were, so to speak, at the height of their time; that he did not present them with ideas that could only be understood from Orientalism, but rather ideas that could be understood from general human reason.

How did Ram Mohan Roy present himself? He said something like this: I live in the midst of Hinduism, where a number of gods are worshipped, gods of the most diverse forms. When you ask people why they worship this or that god, the people of my country say: It is an ancient custom, we know no other way, it was so with our fathers, it was so with their fathers, and so on. And because people were under this impression, Ram Mohan Roy believed, the most blatant idolatry had arisen in my country, a completely reprehensible idolatry, an idolatry that only brings shame to the original greatness of my country's religious profession. There was once a creed, he said, which, although partly contradictory, is preserved in the Vedas, but which has been brought into the Vedanta system by Vyasa in its purest form for human thinking. To this, he said, he wanted to profess his faith. And to this end, he had not only translated the various incomprehensible idioms into a language that could be understood in India, but he had also made excerpts from what he considered to be the correct teachings and distributed them among the people. For what did Ram Mohan Roy want to achieve with this? He believed he had recognized that in what was expressed in the many gods, what was worshipped in idolatry, there was a pure teaching of a single God, of a spiritual God who lives in all things, who is no longer recognized through idolatry, but who must penetrate the minds of men again. And when this Indian Brahmin spoke in detail about what he considered to be the correct Vedanta teaching, what he considered to be the correct Indian creed, it was not as if one heard anything strange, but to those who understood him correctly, it was as if he were preaching a kind of rational faith that, in essence, anyone could attain if they turned to the one God out of their own reason.

And Ram Mohan Roy had followers: Debendranath Tagore and others. One of his followers, which is particularly interesting, gave a lecture in 1870 as an Indian on “Christ and Christianity.” It was extremely interesting to hear an Indian speak about Christ and Christianity. The actual mystery of Christianity is completely foreign to the Indian speaker; he does not touch upon it at all. It is clear from the entire course of the lecture that he cannot grasp the fundamental fact: that Christianity does not originate from a personal teacher, but rather from the mystery of Golgotha, from a world-historical fact, from the death and resurrection. What he can grasp, however, and what is clear to him, is that in Christ Jesus we have before us a figure of immense significance, important for every human heart, a figure who must stand as an ideal for the whole world. It is remarkable to hear the Indian speak about Christ, to hear him say that if one delves deeply into Christianity, one must conclude that Christianity in the West itself must undergo further development. For what the Europeans bring to my homeland as Christianity does not seem to me to be true Christianity.

From these examples we see that it was not only in Europe that people began to look behind religious confessions, so to speak, but that even in distant India – and one could cite many places on earth – people began to stir and approach what they had had for centuries and millennia from a completely new perspective. This metamorphosis of souls in the 19th century will only be fully understood in the course of time. And only later historiography will recognize that through such processes, which apparently affected only a few, but which flowed through thousands and thousands of channels into our hearts and souls, and which today affect all people who are in any way involved in intellectual life, a complete renewal, a transformation of all questions and every kind of understanding of the old views. Thus, everywhere in the world today, there is already a kind of magnificent deepening of questions.

What our spiritual movement wants is an answer to these questions. This spiritual movement is convinced that these questions, as they are posed, cannot be answered by the old traditions, by modern natural science, or by a worldview that works only with the factors of modern natural science, but that spiritual science, research in the spiritual worlds, is necessary for this; in other words, that humanity today, after the entire course of its development, must ask questions that can only be answered through research in the supersensible worlds. Very slowly and gradually, things began to emerge from Western intellectual life that echoed the most beautiful traditions of the East. You know that it has always been explained how the law of reincarnation follows from Western spiritual life itself and how it need not be adopted from Buddhism as something historical, any more than the Pythagorean theorem needs to be adopted from historical tradition today. This has always been emphasized. But the fact that the idea of reincarnation appeared in the modern soul built a bridge to what extends beyond the three millennia I have described, for these did not place the teaching of reincarnation at the center of their thinking—except in the figure of the Buddha. The horizon was broadened, the perspective was expanded beyond the three millennia of human development, and this gave rise to new questions everywhere, questions that can only be answered by spiritual science.

Let us begin right at the start with the question that arises from the beginning of this Gospel: that the Gospel of Mark is to give us the “beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” And let us remember that these opening words are immediately followed not only by the characteristic passage from the old prophets, but also by the announcement of Christ by John the Baptist, and that this announcement is characterized by the Baptist in such a way that it can be summed up in the words: The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of God is spreading over the earthly existence. What does all this mean?

Let us try, in the light that modern spiritual scientific research can give us, to let the times pass before us a little, which contain the “fulfillment” as if in their midst. Let us try to understand what it means: an old time is fulfilled, a new time begins. We will find it easiest to understand if we turn our gaze to something that lies in older times and then to something that lies in newer times, so that between the two places we are looking at, as it were in the middle, lies the mystery of Golgotha. So let us take something that lies before the mystery of Golgotha, and then something that lies after it, and try to delve deeper into the difference between the two times, so that we can recognize in what sense an old time has been fulfilled and in what sense a new time has begun; and let us try not to indulge in abstractions, but to grasp the concrete.

I would like to draw your attention to something that belongs, so to speak, to the first millennium of the earlier view of human development. From the earliest times of this first millennium, the figure of Homer, the Greek poet and singer, stands out. Hardly more than the name has been preserved for mankind, so to speak, of the man to whom these two works of poetry, which are among the greatest achievements of mankind, are attributed: the Iliad and the Odyssey; hardly more than the name. And even this name was the subject of serious doubt in the 19th century. There is no need to go into that here. Homer stands before us like a phenomenon that is admired all the more the better one gets to know it. And one may say that for those who are concerned with such things, the figures created by Homer, which we find in the Iliad and the Odyssey, are more alive than any purely political figures of Greek culture. A wide variety of people, when they have repeatedly engaged with Homer, have said that the precision of his descriptions and the way he portrays things lead one to assume that he must have been a doctor. Others believe that he must have been an artist, a sculptor; indeed, others believe that he must have been a craftsman of some kind. Napoleon admired the tactics and strategy in his portrayal. Others, again, consider him a beggar who wandered around the country. If nothing else, these different views reveal Homer's very unique individuality.

Let us now single out just one of his characters, that of Hector. I ask you, when you have time, to look at the character of Hector in the Iliad, how vividly he is portrayed, how he is portrayed in such a way that he stands before us as a well-rounded and complete character. Look at his relationship to his native city of Troy, how he stands by his wife Andromache, his relationship to Achilles, his relationship to the army and to the army leadership. Try to conjure up this man in your mind, this man with all the tenderness of a husband, this man who was completely devoted to his native city of Troy in the ancient sense, this man who was capable of deception—I beg you to think of his relationship with Achilles—as can only be the case with a great man. Hector, as Homer describes him, is a man of great and comprehensive humanity. He stands out from ancient times—for what Homer describes naturally preceded his own time and is therefore even more shrouded in the darkness of the past—and stands out as a figure who, like all of Homer's figures, is already mythical enough for modern man. It is to this one figure that I draw your attention. Skeptics and all kinds of philologists may doubt that there ever was a Hector, just as they doubt that there ever was a Homer. But anyone who considers everything that can be considered from a purely human point of view will come to the conclusion that Homer only describes facts that existed as such, and that Hector is also a figure who walked in Troy, just like Achilles and the other figures. They stand before us as real figures of earthly existence, and we look at them as people of a completely different kind, who are difficult to understand today, but who, through the poet, can appear before our minds in every detail. Let us imagine a figure such as Hector, who is defeated by Achilles, as the real figure of one of the principal Trojan commanders. In such a figure we have something that truly belongs to the pre-Christian era of humanity, something by which we can judge what people were like in that time, when Christ had not yet lived.

I would like to draw your attention to another figure, a figure from the fifth century BC, a great philosopher who spent a large part of his life in Sicily, a remarkable figure, Empedocles. Not only was he the first to speak of the four elements, fire, water, air, earth, and that everything that happens in the material world is the result of the mixing and separation of these four elements according to the principles of hatred and love that prevail in these elements, but he also had a significant impact on Sicily, where he established important state institutions, traveled around, and led people to a spiritual life. When we look back at Empedocles, we see a life that was as adventurous as it was deeply spiritual. Others may doubt it, but spiritual science knows that Empedocles walked in Sicily as a statesman, an initiate, and a magician, just as Hector walked in Troy, as Homer describes him. And to characterize Empedocles' remarkable position in the world, we are confronted with the fact, which is not invented but true, that he ended his life—in order to unite with all existence surrounding him—by throwing himself into Mount Etna and burning in its fire. Thus, a second figure from pre-Christian times stands before us.

Let us now consider such figures with the means of modern spiritual science. We know first of all that such figures will reappear, that souls return. Let us disregard intermediate incarnations and seek them somehow in the post-Christian era; then we will have something of the change in time, something that can help us understand how the mystery of Golgotha has impacted human evolution. If one can say that figures such as Hector and Empedocles have reappeared, how do they walk among people in the post-Christian era? Then one has illustrated for oneself the impact of the mystery of Golgotha, the fulfillment and the new beginning of time, precisely in the souls. Since we are gathered here as serious anthroposophists, we need no longer shy away from the statements of real spiritual science, which can be tested precisely by what is outwardly present.

I would like to draw your attention to something else, something that took place in the post-Christian era. One could say that this is a poetic figure. But this “poetic figure” is based on a real personality who lived in the world. I would like to draw your attention to the figure that Shakespeare created in his Hamlet. Anyone who is familiar with Shakespeare's basic character, as far as it can be known from external sources, but especially anyone who knows him from spiritual science, knows that Shakespeare's Hamlet was only a transformed version of the real Danish prince who once lived. The character Hamlet that Shakespeare created really lived. I cannot go into detail here about how the historical figure forms the basis for Shakespeare's poetic character. But I would like to discuss the result of spiritual science and show you here, using a striking example, how a spirit of antiquity reappears in the post-Christian era. The real figure underlying what Shakespeare created as Hamlet is Hector. The same soul that lived in Hector lived in Hamlet. It is precisely in such characteristic examples, where the diversity of the soul's self-expression is strikingly apparent, that we can understand what has actually happened in the meantime. On the one hand, we have a personality like Hector's in pre-Christian times. The mystery of Golgotha strikes into human development, and the spark that strikes into Hector's soul gives rise to the archetype of Hamlet, of whom Goethe said: a soul that is not equal to any situation and is not satisfied with any, a soul that has been assigned a task but cannot fulfill it. One may ask: Why did Shakespeare express it this way? He did not know. But anyone who looks into these connections through spiritual science knows what forces were behind them. The poet creates in the unconscious because, as it were, the figure he creates stands before him first, and then, like a tableau—of which he knows nothing—the whole individuality associated with it. Why does Shakespeare emphasize particular character traits of Hamlet and emphasize them so sharply, traits that perhaps no contemporary observer would have noticed in Hamlet's character? Because he observes them against the backdrop of the times: he feels how different a soul has become in the transition from the old life to the new. The doubter, the skeptic Hamlet, who is unfamiliar with the situations of life, the procrastinator, has initially emerged from the unerring Hector.

I would like to draw your attention to another figure of modern times who first appeared to people through poetic imagery, through a work of poetry whose main character will certainly live on in humanity for a long time to come, even when the poet himself is only as known to posterity as Homer and Shakespeare are today, in the sense that we know nothing about one and very little about the other. People will have long forgotten what Goethe's note collectors and biographers have to say, they will have long forgotten why people today are so interested in Goethe, despite the art of printing and other modern means, when the figure of Faust, created by Goethe, still stands there in living size and living plasticity. Just as people know nothing about Homer, but a great deal about Hector and Achilles, so they will one day know little about Goethe's personality – and that will be a good thing – but they will always know about Faust.

Faust is now once again such a figure who, as he appears to us in literature and then in Goethe as a kind of conclusion, leads us back to a real figure. He lived as a figure of the 16th century, he was there; he was not there as Goethe describes him in his Faust figure. But why does Goethe describe him that way? Goethe himself did not know. But when he turned his gaze to Faust as he had been handed down, whom he already knew from the puppet shows of his student days, forces from what stood behind Faust, what was a previous incarnation of Faust, came to work in him: Empedocles, the ancient Greek philosopher. All this radiated into the figure of Faust. And one is tempted to say: When Empedocles throws himself into Mount Etna, uniting himself with the fire element of the earth, what a wonderful spiritualization, what a wonderful spiritualization of this, one might say, pre-Christian mysticism of nature, which thus becomes a fact, is the final tableau of Goethe's “Faust,” the ascent of Faust into the fire element of heaven through Pater Seraphicus, and so on! Slowly and gradually, a whole new spiritual creation is coming to life in what people aspire to at a deeper level. For a long time now, the fact has been making itself felt among the deeper spirits of humanity, without their knowing anything about reincarnation and karma, that when they considered a soul that was comprehensive, that they wanted to describe from the foundations of their inner life, they described what shone through from earlier incarnations. Just as Shakespeare portrayed Hamlet as we know him, even though he knew nothing of the fact that the same soul lived in Hector and Hamlet, so Goethe portrayed Faust as if the soul of Empedocles with all its peculiarities stood behind him, because the soul of Empedocles was in Faust. But it is characteristic that this is how the progress and advancement of the human race is.

I have singled out two characteristic figures in whom we can see how the great figures of antiquity stand so shaken in their deepest souls in the modern post-Christian era that they find it difficult to find their way in life. Everything that was in them before is still in them. When one lets Hamlet sink in, for example, one feels how all the power of Hector is in him. But one senses that this power cannot emerge in the post-Christian era, that it initially encounters resistance in the post-Christian era, that something has had an effect on the soul that is a beginning, whereas in the figures we encounter in antiquity, we are dealing with an end. Both Hector and Empedocles are a conclusion. They stand before us, plastically complete. But what continues to work in humanity must find new paths into new incarnations. Thus Hector in Hamlet, Empedocles in Faust, who has everything that is an abysmal striving toward the depths of nature, who has the whole Empedoclean element in himself, who alone, through this profound nature, can say: I want to put the Bible under the bench for a while, want to be a natural scientist and physician and no longer a theologian; who had a need to deal with demonic beings, which causes him to wander through the world, which causes him to marvel but remain uncomprehended. The Empedoclean element continues to have an effect, but it cannot come to terms with what man must be after a new era has dawned.

Through this discussion, I wanted to show how a tremendous change is evident in significant souls, souls about whom everyone can obtain information, and that this tremendous change becomes apparent precisely when one delves into the depths. And when one asks: What happened between the old incarnations and the new incarnations of such an individuality? — one always receives the answer: The mystery of Golgotha, that which the Baptist announced when he said: The time is fulfilled, the kingdoms of the spirit — or the kingdoms of heaven — are passing into the human kingdom. Yes, they seized this human kingdom powerfully, the kingdoms of heaven! And those who take this seizure outwardly cannot understand it. They seized it so powerfully that solid, compact ancient entities had to begin anew with the evolution on earth, so that it is precisely in them that it becomes apparent until the end of the old era, until the mystery of Golgotha: something has come to an end that has found its fulfillment, that has placed human beings before us as well-rounded personalities. But then something happened that made it necessary for souls to make a new beginning with themselves, that everything had to be reshaped, recast, and that souls that were great appear to us as souls that are small, because they have to transform the soul into childhood, because something completely new is beginning. This is what we must write in our souls if we want to understand what is meant at the very beginning of the Gospel of Mark: a “beginning.” Yes, a beginning that shakes souls in their deepest being, that brings a completely new impulse into human evolution, a “beginning of the Gospel.”

What is the “Gospel”? It is that which descends from the realms we have often described in the hierarchies of higher beings, where the Angeloi and Archangeloi are, which descends through the world that rises above the human world. This gives us a deeper understanding of the word Gospel. An impulse that descends through the realm of the Archangeloi, the Angeloi, is the Gospel; it is that which ascends from these realms and enters into humanity. All abstract translations are, in essence, only a poor approximation of the truth. In truth, the word Gospel already implies that at a certain point in time something begins to flow down to earth that previously only flowed where the Angeloi and Archangeloi are, something that has come down to earth, something that shakes the souls here, and the strongest souls most of all. And the beginning, which thus has a continuation, is recorded. This means that the Gospel continues. The beginning was made at that time, and basically we will see that the entire development of humanity since that time is a continuation of the beginning of the flow of the impulse from the realm of the angeloi, which can be called the Gospel.

One cannot search and investigate deeply enough if one wants to characterize the individual Gospels, and the Gospel of Mark in particular will show us how it can only be understood if one comprehends the development of humanity in the right sense, with all its impulses and everything that has happened in the course of its history. I did not want to characterize this for you externally, but rather I wanted to characterize it for you in terms of the soul and show you how only the recognition of the fact of reincarnation, which, when it becomes real research, shows us the development of a soul such as that of Hector or Empedocles, can bring before our soul the whole meaning of the impulse that came through the Christ event. Otherwise, one can put forward very beautiful things, but one remains stuck on the surface. But what was behind all the external events of the Christ impulse can only be revealed by shining the light of spiritual research into the depths of the human soul, by recognizing not only how life unfolds as an individual, but also in the succession of incarnations. We must take the idea of reincarnation seriously, we must really introduce it into history in such a way that it becomes a life-giving element of history, then the effect of the greatest impulse, the event of Golgotha, will become apparent. And especially in the souls will the impulse become apparent that we have already described many times.