Thoughts During the Time of War
GA 19
Thoughts During the Time of War
For Germans and Those Who don't Believe They Must Hate Them
[ 1 ] Unspeakable suffering, deep sorrow live in the souls of men of the present, side by side with the will to offer to this moment, incomparable in world history, the sacrifices of courage, of valor, of love, which it requires. The warrior is steeled by the awareness that he is fighting for a most precious good that the earth has to give to mankind. He faces death with the feeling that his dying is demanded by that Life which, as something higher than the single man, may lay claim even to his death. Fathers, mothers, and sons, wives, sisters, and daughters must, out of personal suffering, find themselves in the Idea that out of blood and death, the development of mankind will rise to aims for which the sacrifices were necessary, and which will justify them. The upward glance from individual experience to the life of mankind, from the transitory to that which lives in this transitory as the imperishable: this is demanded by the experiences of this time. The confidence rises up, from the sensation of what is happening, that what is experienced will be lifted up by the dawn of a new age of mankind, whose powers are to be ripened by this experience.
[ 2 ] One would like to look with the understanding that seeks also to under stand men's aberrations, upon the flames of hatred that are kindling. Too strong, for many a one, is the impression he receives when he compares what is currently being experienced with what seemed to him already achieved for the present by the development of mankind. Men who understood how to speak out about these achievements of mankind from a full inner participation, have found words to do so like those spoken by the fine German contemplator of art Herman Grimm, who died in the year 1901. He compares man's experience in earlier time with what the present brings to this experience. He says: “Sometimes it feels to me as if one were transposed into a new existence, and had taken along only the most needful spiritual hand-baggage. As if fully altered conditions of life were compelling one to fully new thought-work. For distances are no longer something that separates people. With the ease of child's play our thoughts circle the compass of the earth's surface, and fly from every single person to every other person, wherever he be. The discovery and exploitation of new forces of nature unites all peoples to incessant shared work. New experiences, under whose pressure our view of all things visible and invisible alters in uninterrupted change, force upon us new ways of observing, also for the history of the evolution of mankind.” Before the outbreak of this war, every European person had, in his individual way, such sensations in his soul. And now: what has been made, for the time of this war, of what stirred people to these sensations. Is it not as if mankind were to be shown how the world looks when much that is fruit of development ceases to take effect? And yet also: does the war by its horrors not show what the conflicts of peoples, fought out with the means brought by the newest developments, must lead to?
[ 3 ] Confusing can be the sensations that arise out of the experiences. One would like to understand out of the presence of this confusion why it is that many people cannot comprehend that war itself brings war's horrors and suffering, and why they decry the opponent as a “barbarian” when a bitter necessity forces upon him the use of the means of battle created by the modern age.
[ 4 ] Words of hate-filled condemnation of German essential being, now spoken by leading personalities among the peoples with which Germany currently lives at war: how do they sound to a soul that senses as true expression of German feeling what the already mentioned Herman Grimm, shortly before the entry of this century, characterized as a fundamental trait in the understanding of the life will of modern humanity. He wrote: “The solidarity of moral convictions of all men is today the church that connects us all. We seek more passionately than ever for a visible expression of this community. All really earnest strivings of the masses know only this one goal. Here the separation of nations already exists no longer. We feel that over against the ethical world view, no national difference prevails. We would all sacrifice ourselves for our Fatherland; but we are far from longing for, or bringing about, the moment when this could happen by war. The assurance that keeping peace is the most sacred wish of all of us is no lie. `Peace on earth and good will to men' permeates us. The inhabitants of our planet, taken all together as a unity, are filled with a delicate sensibility understandable to all ... people as a totality acknowledge themselves as subject to an invisible court of judgment, throning as if in the clouds, before which they regard not being allowed to stand vindicated as a calamity, and to whose judicial procedure they seek to adapt their internal disputes. With anxious striving they here seek their right. How are the French of today at pains to make out their intended war against Germany to be a moral requirement, whose acknowledgement they demand from the other peoples, indeed from the Germans them selves.” Herman Grimm's life work is grounded in such a way with all its roots in the German life of the spirit, that one can say: when he utters such a thought, it is as if he were permeated by the consciousness that he is speaking on the spiritual charge of his people. That he is using words with which he would be al lowed to have the certainty: if the German people as a whole could express it self, it would use such words to express its attitude as to how it conceives of its own willing within the entirety of mankind. Herman Grimm does not want to say that what is present of such an attitude in the present life of mankind could prevent wars. He does speak of having to have the thought that the French want a war against Germany. However, that this attitude will prove its power, even right through wars, that had to be Herman Grimm's conviction, when he brought to expression thoughts like those quoted. Opponents of the German people currently speak as if they held it to be proven that the only cause of this war lay merely in this: that the Germans lack the understanding for such an attitude. As if the result of this war would have to be that the Germans are forced to an understanding of such an attitude. As if among the Germans, authoritative minds had set themselves the task of obliterating this attitude in their people.
[ 5 ] One now hears some names of German personalities spoken in a hate-filled manner. Not only by journalists, also by spiritual leaders of the peoples living at war with Germany. Indeed, such voices also come from countries with which Germany has no war. Among these German personalities is for example the historian of the German people, Heinrich von Treitschke. The Germans who form thoughts about the scientific significance and the essence of the personality of Treitschke pronounce the most divergent value judgments concerning him. From what points of view these judgments are passed, whether they are justified or unjustified, does not matter at this moment; concerning the voices of the opponents of the German essential being, quite another point of view is defining. These opponents want to see in Treitschke a personality who has affected the present German generation in such a way that the German people currently holds itself to be in all directions the most gifted of peoples, which therefore wants to force the others to subordinate themselves to its leadership, and sets the attainment of power above all justice. Were Treitschke still alive, and heard the judgments of the opponents of the German essential being concerning his person, he could remember words he wrote down in 1861, as the expression of his deepest sensibility, in the treatise on Freeness. He there spoke his mind about such people as set a limit right away to their respect and tolerance for alien opinions, when in such opinions something confronts them that does not please them. In such people—Treitschke opines—the thought conceals itself in a veil of passion, and he says: as long as such a manner of replacing judgment with the cliché born of passion is still alive, “there is yet alive in us, even if in a milder form, the fanatical spirit of those zealots of old who used to mention alien opinions only in order to prove that their authors had earned themselves rightful claims to the Lake of Hell.” A man who as Frenchman among Frenchmen, as Italian among Italians, had worked the way Treitschke did as German among Germans: he would not appear to the Germans as a seducer of the French or Italians. Treitschke was an historian and politician, who out of a strong, decided feeling sense, gave all his judgments an imprint that had the effect of sharpness. Those judgments too had such an imprint which he pronounced, out of love for his people, about the Germans. But all these judgments were carried by the feeling: not only his soul was speaking thus, but the course of German history. At the close of the Foreword of Part Five of his German History in the Nineteenth Century stand the words: “as surely as man only understands what he loves, just as surely can only a strong heart that senses the fortunes of the Father land like suffering and happiness of its own experience, give inner truth to the historical narrative. In this might of heart and mind, and not merely in the perfected form, lies the greatness of the historians of antiquity.” Some judgments that Treitschke uttered about what the German people has experienced at the hands of other peoples sound like harsh condemnation of these other peoples. How statements of Treitschke's that go in this direction are to be understood, only he recognizes who also looks at the harshness of the judgments with which Treitschke often passes verdict upon what he finds reprehensible within his own people. Treitschke had the deepest love for his people, which was noble fire in his heart; but he believed it does no harm when one passes verdict most brusquely where one most loves. It would be thinkable that enemies of the German people could turn up who assembled from Treitschke's works a collection of pronouncements, then took away from these pronouncements the color of love they have with Treitschke, and daubed them with their color of hatred: they could thereby prepare word weapons against the German people. These word weapons would not be worse, either, than those with which they shoot at a distorted image of Treitschke in order to wound the German people. Herman Grimm, who knew how to appreciate Treitschke, and was well acquainted with him and his personal manner, spoke some time after his death the words: “Few have been so loved, but also so hated, as he.” Treitschke was grouped by Grimm with the German historians Curtius and Ranke to a trinity of German teachers, about which he expressed himself thus: “They were friendly and confiding in their intercourse. They sought to further their listeners. They acknowledged merit where they met it. They did not seek to suppress their opponents. They had no party and no fellow partisans. They spoke their minds. In their bearing lay something exemplary. They saw in science the highest flowering of the German spirit. They stood up for its dignity.” There is a thorough discussion of Treitschke's German History by Herman Grimm. Whoever reads it must come to the recognition that Herman Grimm counted Treitschke among those who, regarding the relation the German people wants to have to other peoples, thought no differently from himself.
[ 6 ] Whoever from an enemy country reviles a German personality such as lived in Treitschke, and brands him a seducer of the younger generation, lacks a judgment about how a German who sensed “the fortunes of the Fatherland like suffering and happiness of his own experience” had to speak to Germans who, for an understanding of their own history, have to look at experiences in the past that Herman Grimm (in his book on Michelangelo, 16th printing) characterizes with the words: “For thirty years Germany, which was unable to tip the scales as a nation of its own, was the battlefield for the peoples bordering around us, and after the foreigners who had thus waged war upon each other on our ground had finally made peace, the old indefinite situation returned.” In Herman Grimm's Goethe book, there is about these experiences, with the same reference: “the Thirty Years' War, this terrible disease brought in to us from without and nourished artificially,” made “all the young shoots of our forward development wilt and die off.” What a short time had just elapsed since the German people had freed itself from the effect of the suffering that Europe had brought it through the Thirty Years' War, when in the beginning of the Nineteenth Century the other destiny experience came to pass, which coincided with a flourishing of German spiritual life. Were they the words of a man in whose heart the sufferings of his people resonated “like suffering of his own experience,” or were they words of a seducer of the people, with which Treitschke spoke of the spirits whose working coincided with Germany's destiny experience of the beginning of the Nineteenth Century? He speaks about these spirits thus: “They guarded our people's very Own, the sacred fire of Idealism, and we have them pre-eminently to thank that there was still a Germany even when the German Empire had vanished, that in the midst of affliction and bondage the Germans were still permitted to believe in themselves, in the imperishability of German essential being. From the educational molding through and through of the free personality is sued our political freedom, issued the independence of the German state.” Do the opponents of German essential being demand that Treitschke should have said: history teaches that the Germans “are permitted to believe in the imperishability of German essential being” because for all the past and the future they can keep themselves convinced that French, English, Italians, Russians have never fought and will never fight for anything else than for “right and freedom” of peoples? Should the other Germans who are presently called Germany's seducers give the Germans the advice: build not on what in hard wars has gotten you “right and freedom;” you will have “right and freedom” because with those who surround you, the sense for “right and freedom of peoples” shines resplendent in bright light? Only, you must not believe that you are allowed to think of your “right as a people” other than in the sense of what you are deemed entitled to by the peoples who encircle you. You must only never call anything else your “freedom as a people” but what these peoples will show you by their behavior that you “as a people are free to do?”
[ 7 ] Where the sensations are rooted which those who belong to “Europe's Middle” have in the present war, the author of this brief writing would like to state. The facts he wants to discuss are, in their general basic features, certainly known to every reader. It does not lie in the author's intention to speak in this direction about what is not yet known. He would only like to point toward certain connections in which what has long been known stands.
[ 8 ] If opponents of the German people should perhaps read this brief writing, they will quite comprehensibly say: so speaks a German, who can naturally bring no understanding toward the opinion of other peoples. Whoever judges in this way does not comprehend that the paths the author of this contemplation seeks in order to discuss the coming about of this war are quite independent of how much of the essential being of a non-German people he understands or does not understand. He wants to speak in such a way that if the reasons he puts forward for what is claimed are any good, his thoughts can be right, even if he, with respect to an understanding of the special quality and the value of non German peoples, as far as they may be closed to a German, were the pure fool. When, for example, he refers to what a Frenchman says about the intentions of the French for war, and on that basis forms a judgment about the coming about of the war, then this judgment could be right, even if a Frenchman were to believe he had to deny in him any understanding of French special quality. When he forms judgments about the English political ideal, it does not come into question how the Englishman for himself thinks or senses, but what the actions are like in which this political ideal lives itself out, and what the German in particular experiences through these actions. For himself, to be sure, the author is convinced that in this brief writing there will lie no occasion to judge what understanding he brings toward this or that non-German folk quality.
[ 9 ] The author of the brief writing believes that what he allows himself to pronounce as a German about the feeling of “Middle Europe,” he may say, for he spent the first three decades of his life in Austria, where he lived as an Austrian German by descent, nationality, and upbringing; and for the other—almost just as long—time of this life, he has been permitted to be active in Germany.
[ 10 ] Perhaps someone who knows the one or the other of the author's writings will seek of one who stands at the vantage point of the science of the spirit, as it is meant in these writings, “higher points of view” in the following discussions than he finds. Especially those will be unsatisfied who expect to find here some thing about how the present war events can be judged “on the basis of the eternal, highest truths of all being and life.” To such “disappointed ones,” who will perhaps turn up precisely among the friends of the author, he would like to say that the “highest eternal truths” are of course valid everywhere, thus also for the present events, but that this contemplation was not undertaken in the intention of showing how one can bear witness to these “higher truths” with respect to these events as well, but in another intention, the intention of speaking of these events themselves. [The author hopes to be able to give other things about the present time and the peoples of Europe soon in a second brief writing. The thoughts written down here are concentrated from lectures the author held in several places in recent months.]
[ 11 ] Whoever has allowed Fichte's manner of spirit to work upon him, senses in all following time that he has taken something into his soul that has still an other effect entirely than the ideas and words of this thinker. These ideas and words transform themselves in the soul. They become a power that is essentially more than the remembrance of what was received directly from Fichte. A power that has something of the quality of living beings. It grows in the soul. And in it, the soul feels a never dwindling means of strength. If one senses the special quality of Fichte this way, one can never separate from this sensation the mental representation of the inner essential being-ness with which the German soul spoke through Fichte. How one stands toward Fichte's world view does not matter here. It is not the content, it is the power by which this world view is created. That power is what one feels. Whoever wants to follow Fichte as a thinker must enter into seemingly cold regions of ideas. Into regions in which the power of thinking must cast aside much that is otherwise dear to it, in order merely to find it possible that a man can put himself into such a relationship toward the world as Fichte had. But if one has followed Fichte thus, then one feels how the power that held sway in his thinking streamed into the life-giving words with which, in a destiny-bearing time, he sought to enflame his people to world-effective deed. The warmth in Fichte's Speeches to the German Nation is one with the light that shone for him in his energetic thought work. And the connection of this light with this warmth appears in Fichte's personality as that by which he is one of the most authentic embodiments of German essential being. This German essential Being had first to make Fichte into the thinker he was, before it could speak through him the penetrating Speeches to the German Nation. But after it had created such a thinker as Fichte, this German essential Being could not speak otherwise to the nation than happened in these speeches. Again it matters less what Fichte said in these speeches than, rather, how German-ness, through them, placed itself before the consciousness of the people. A thinker who in his world view is far removed from Fichte's trains of thought, Robert Zimmermann, must speak the words: “As long as in Germany a heart beats that is able to feel the shame of foreign tyranny, the memory of the courageous one will live on, who at the moment of deepest humiliation, in the midst of French-occupied Berlin, before the eyes and ears of the enemies, among spies and informers, under took to raise the power of the German people, broken from without by the sword, upright again from within by the spirit, and at the same instant when the political existence of this people seemed to be annihilated forever, to create it anew, by the enthusiastic thought of universal education, in future generations.”
[ 12 ] One need not have the aim of awakening sentimental feelings if, to characterize the special quality of how Fichte is connected with the deepest essential being of being German, one portrays the last hours in the life of the thinker.—Fichte's wife, the life companion who truly was not only worthy of him, who fully measured up to his greatness, had done hospital service for five months under the most difficult conditions, and had thereby contracted lazaret fever. The wife recovered. Fichte himself fell prey to the disease and succumbed to it. His son described the manner of Fichte's dying. The last report that the dying one received was that delivered by the son, of Blucher's crossing of the Rhine, of the advance of the allies against the French enemy. The soul wresting itself from the thinker's body lived entirely in the profound joy over these events; and as the formerly icy-sharp thinking passed over in the dying one into fever fantasies, he felt himself among the midst of the fighters. How the image of the philosopher stands before the soul, who—right over into the fever fantasies clouding the consciousness—is like the Entity, revealing itself, of the will and working of his people! And how in Fichte the German philosopher is one with every stirring of life of the whole man. The son hands the dying one a medicine. The dying one gently pushes back what is proffered; he feels himself entirely one with the world-historical working of his people. In such feeling he concludes his life with the words: I need no medicine; I feel that I have recovered. He had “recovered” in the feeling of participating in his soul in the experience of the elevation of the German essential Being.
[ 13 ] From the upward glance to Fichte's personality, one is allowed to draw the power to speak about German essential being. For his striving was to make this essential being astir, as an actively working power, right into the sources of his special nature. And in the contemplation of his personality it comes clearly to light that he felt his own work of spirit connected with the deepest roots of the German essential being. These roots themselves, though, he sought in the foundations of the working of spirit which he beheld behind all of the world's outer, sense-accessible functionings. He could not conceive of German working with out a connection of this working with the spirituality illuminating the world through and through and warming it through and through. He saw the essential being of German-ness in the welling forth of the life expressions of the people from the primal source of the originally spiritually alive. And what he himself understood as world view that issues from this primal source in the sense of the German quality, he spoke out about it thus: “It—this world view—glimpses time and eternity and infinity, as they come into being out of the appearing and becoming visible of that One that is in itself simply invisible, and only in this its invisibility is grasped, rightly grasped.”—“All persistent existence appearing as not spiritual life is but an empty shadow cast from seeing, transmitted in multiple ways by nothingness, as opposed to which, and by whose recognition as nothingness transmitted in multiple ways, seeing itself is to rise to the recognizing of its own nothingness, and to the acknowledgment of the invisible as the only true being.”
[ 14 ] In his Speeches to the German Nation, Fichte seeks to grasp all truly German life expressions this way, out the source of spiritual life, and to receive out of this source the words themselves with which he speaks of these life expressions.—One will perhaps pause with special feelings at one passage in these Speeches, if from their tone and bosom depth, one has imbued oneself with the feeling perception: how this man stands with his whole soul within the viewing of the spiritual essential being of the world! How this standing with his soul within the spiritual world is for him such an immediate reality as for the outer man the standing within the material world by means of the senses! One may think how ever one does about the characterization of his time as developed by Fichte in the Speeches; if one hears of this characterization through his words, it cannot matter whether one agrees with what is said or not, but what a magical breath of human ethos one feels.—Fichte talks of the age he would like to help to bring about. He uses a simile. And this simile is where one is held fast with one's feelings in the sense hinted at. He says: “The age appears to me like an empty shade, who is standing above its corpse, which a host of diseases has just driven it out of, and lamenting, and is unable to tear its gaze from the once so beloved sheath, and despairingly tries all means of re-entering that housing-place of plagues. Though the enlivening airs of the other world, into which the departed has entered, have already received her, and surround her with warm breath of love, though secret voices of her sisters are already greeting her joyfully and welcoming her, though there is already a stirring and an expanding in her inner being in all directions, to develop the glorious shape to which she is to grow: yet she has no feeling for these airs as yet, or hearing for these voices, or if she had, she is consumed in pain at her loss, with which she believes she has at the same time lost herself.”
[ 15 ] The question is natural: how is the mood of a soul who, in a contemplation of the age and the changing of the ages, is driven to such a comparison? Fichte is talking here about the existence of the human soul after its separation from the body by death, the way a person otherwise talks about a material process that plays itself out before his senses. To be sure, Fichte is using a simile. And a simile must not be exploited in such a way that one would like to prove something by it about a significant view of the person who utters the simile. But the simile points to a mental representation that lives in the soul of the simile-maker with regard to an object or process. Here, with regard to the experiences of the human soul after death. Without wanting to claim anything about how Fichte would have made a pronouncement about the validity of such a mental representation if he had done so in the context of his world view, one can never-the-less lead this mental representation before one's soul. Fichte speaks of the human soul as of a being so independent of the body that this being separates from the bodily nature in death, and is able to look consciously at the separated body the way the man in the sense world looks at an object or process with his eyes. Apart from this looking at the body which one has left, the new environment which the soul enters when it has separated from the body is hinted at too. That modern form of the science of the spirit which talks about these things on the basis of certain soul experiences is allowed to find something significant in this Fichtean simile. What this science of the spirit strives for is a recognition concerning the spiritual worlds entirely in the sense of the type of recognition that is acknowledged by modern natural science as justified concerning the natural world. Though this form of spirit science is presently still seen by many as a dreaming, as a wild flight of fancy; yet so it also went for many people for a long time with the view, contradicting the senses, of the orbit of the earth around the sun. It is essential that this science of the spirit has as its basis a real recognizability of the spiritual world. A recognizability that rests not on concepts thought out, but on experiences of the soul of man that are really to be achieved. As he can know nothing of the properties of hydrogen who knows only water, which has hydrogen in it, so he can know nothing of the true being of the human soul who experiences the soul only the way it is when it is in connection with the body. Yet the science of the spirit leads to this: that the spiritual-and-soul re leases itself for its own perception from the physical-and-bodily, as by the methods of the chemist hydrogen can be released from water. Such a release of the soul happens not by false mystical flights of fancy, but by rigorously healthy intensified inner experiencing of certain soul faculties, which, though always pre sent in every soul, remain unnoticed and unconsidered in normal life and in nor mal science. By such strengthening and enlivening of soul forces, the soul of man can come to an inner experiencing in which it beholds a spiritual world, as it beholds with the senses the material world. It then knows itself to be indeed “outside of the connection with the body” and equipped with what—to use Goethean expressions—one can call “eyes of spirit” and “ears of spirit.” Spirit science talks of these things not at all in a pseudo-mystical sense, but in such a way that for it, the progression from the usual view of the sense world to the viewing of the spiritual world becomes a definite process inherent in the essential being of the nature of man, which to be sure one must call forth by one's own inner experiencing, by a definitely directed self-activation of the soul. But with respect to this too, the science of the spirit is allowed to feel itself in unison with Fichte. When in 1813 in autumn he delivered his Doctrine before listeners as ripe fruit of his spirit striving, he spoke the following as introduction: “This doctrine presupposes a completely new inner sense instrument, by which a new world is given that for the ordinary person does not exist at all.” Fichte does not at all mean by this an “organ” that exists only for “chosen,” not for “ordinary people,” but an “organ” that anyone can acquire, but which for man's ordinary recognizing and perceiving does not come to consciousness. With such an “organ,” man is now really in a spiritual world, and is able to speak about life in this world as by his senses about material processes. For anyone who puts himself into this position, it becomes natural to speak about the life of the soul the way it is done in the Fichtean simile quoted. Fichte makes the comparison not out of a general belief, but by a standing within the spiritual world that has been experienced. One must sense in Fichte a personality that in every stirring of life consciously feels itself one with the holding sway of a spiritual world, and beholds itself standing within this world as the man of the senses does in the material world. Now, that this is the mood of soul that he has the German basic tenor of his world view to thank for, Fichte distinctly states. He says: “ The true philosophy1on p. 11 beginning “The true philosophy” has been corrected in one point. The present essay, as printed in 1915 (3rd printing) misquotes one word, Leben, as Lebens (this is now corrected in the Complete Edition of Rudolf Steiner's works [vol. 24, latest edition only, 1982]). The alteration is presumably unintentional, producing as it does the meaning “... and it sees how merely in the appearance of this life closes and again opens, endlessly on, ...” Therefore I have translated according to the original Fichte. that has come to an end within itself, and has truly penetrated beyond appearance to its core, ... proceeds from the one, pure, divine life—as life outright, which remains that for all eternity, and in eternity always remains one, but not as from this or that life; and it sees how merely in the appearance this life closes and again opens, endlessly on, and only in consequence of this law comes to an existence, and to a Something at all. For it, existence comes about, which the other (here Fichte means un-German philosophy) takes as given in advance. And so this philosophy (Fichte means the one he professes) is in the quite proper sense only German, that is, original; and conversely, were someone but to be come a true German, he would not be able to philosophize otherwise than thus.”
[ 16 ] It would be wrong to quote these words of Fichte's in characterization of his soul mood without at the same time calling to mind the others that he spoke in the same context of the speech: “Anybody who believes in spiritual-intellectual activity, and freeness of this spiritual-intellectual activity, and wants the eternal further education of this spiritual-intellectual activity by freeness, he, wherever he was born, and whatever language he speaks, is of our lineage, he belongs to us, and he will join us.”—In the time when Fichte saw German nationality threatened by western foreign rule, he felt the necessity of declaring that he sensed the essential-being quality of his world view as a gift extended to him as if by the German Folk Spirit. And he unreservedly brought it to expression that this sensation had led him to the recognition of the tasks he was allowed to accord the German Folk within the evolution of humanity, in the sense that from the recognition of these tasks the German may derive his right and his vocation to all that he intends and fulfills in the context of peoples. That he may seek in this recognition the source from which there flows to him the power to get involved in this evolution as a German with all that he has and is.
[ 17 ] Whoever in the present time has taken up Fichte's soul mood into the life of his own soul, will find in the world view of this thinker a power which does not let him remain at this world view. Which leads him, in his striving for spiritual-intellectual activity, to a viewpoint that shows the connections of man with the world differently from how Fichte presented them. He will be able to gain by Fichte the ability to see the world differently from how Fichte saw it. And he will sense just this manner of striving in a Fichtean way as a profound relation ship with this thinker. Such a one will also certainly not reckon among the ideals which he would like to stand up for unconditionally the plan of education that Fichte in his Speeches to the German Nation characterized as the one that appeared salutary to him. And so it is with much that Fichte wanted to advance as content of his views. But the soul mood that from him communicates itself to the soul that can meet with him works like a spring still flowing in the present in full freshness. His world view strives for the strongest exertion of the powers of thought that the soul can find in itself, in order to discover in man what shows man's being as “higher man” in man in connection with the spirit foundation of that world which lies beyond all sense experience. Certainly that is the way of every striving for a world view that does not want to see in the sense world itself the basis of all being. But Fichte's special quality lies in the power he wants to give to thought out of the depths of the essential being of man. So that this thought find by itself the firmness that lends it weight in the spiritual world. A weight that maintains it in the regions of soul life, and in which the soul can feel the eternity of her experiencing, yes, so create this eternity by willing it that this willing is allowed to know itself to be connected with the eternal spirit life.
[ 18 ] Thus does Fichte strive for “pure humanity” in his world view. In this striving he is allowed to know himself to be at one with all that is human, wherever and however it ever makes its appearance on the earth. And in a time heavy with destiny, Fichte uttered the word: “Were someone but to become a true German, he could not philosophize other than thus.” And through all that he says in the Speeches to the German Nation, the extension of this thought sounds through like a foundation tone: If only someone is a true German, he will out of his German-ness find the path upon which an understanding of all human reality can ripen. For it is not that Fichte thinks he is allowed to see only the world view in the light of this thought. Because he is a thinker, he gives as an example what kind of thinker he by his German-ness had to become. But he is of the opinion that this fundamental essential being of German-ness must speak itself out in every German, wherever he has his place in life.
[ 19 ] The passion of the war wants to deny Germans the right to speak about the German element the way Fichte did. From the countries living at war with the Germans, personalities who occupy a high position in the spiritual life of these countries also speak out of this passion. Philosophers use the power of their thinking to corroborate—in unison with the opinion of the day—the judgment that the German ethnic element itself has estranged itself from that willing that lived in personalities of Fichte's quality, and has fallen prey to what is designated with the now popular word “barbarism.” And if the German voices the thought that this ethnic element did after all produce people of that quality, then probably the utterance of such a thought will be designated as most superfluous. For one would probably like to reply that all of that is not what is being talked about. That one knows how to honor it that the Germans have had Goethe, Fichte, Schiller, etc. in their midst; but that their spirit does not speak out of what the Germans are bringing about in the present. And so the passionate critics of the German essential being will probably even manage to find the words: out of the dreamy quality of the Germans—which we have always evaluated correctly—why shouldn't dreamers still turn up today as well who, in response to the words with which we meet what the German weapons do to us, answer with a characterization of the German essential being given them by their Fichte in a past that is lost to them; which characterization he himself would probably change, though, if he saw how the German manner is today.
[ 20 ] There will come times that will acquire a calm judgment about whether the condemnation of German willing spoken out of passion does not correspond to blind inebriation, equivalent in its reality-value with a dream, and whether next to that, the “dreaming” that still speaks about present German willing in Fichte's manner does not perhaps signify that waking state which does not insert between itself and the events the passions, hostile to reality, which lull judgment to sleep.
[ 21 ] Working out of no other spirit than that in whose name Fichte spoke can the willing appear to the German which the German people must develop in the fight forced upon it by the enemies of Germany. As if in a far-spread fortress, the opponents hold the body enclosed which is the expression of what Fichte characterized as the German Spirit. That Spirit which the German warrior feels himself as a fighter for, whether he does this in conscious recognition of this Spirit, or takes his stand in the battle out of the subconscious powers of his soul.
[ 22 ] “Who wanted this war?” so ran a question posed to the Germans by many opponents, which presupposed, as self-evident answer, that the Germans wanted it. Yet to such a question, not passion may reply. Also not the judgment that wants to draw conclusions only from the facts that preceded the war in the very most recent time. What happened in this very most recent time is rooted deeply in the currents of European will impulses. And an answer to the above question can be sought only in the impulses that have long been set against the German element.
[ 23 ] Here only such impulses are to be pointed to as are so well known, in their general essence, that it can seem fully superfluous to speak about them when one wants to say something about the causes of the coming about of the present war. There are, however, two points of view from which the seemingly superfluous can appear desirable after all. The one results when one considers that in the forming of a judgment about important facts, what matters cannot be solely that one knows something, but from what bases one forms one's judgment. One is led to the second point of view when, in the contemplation of im pulses of peoples, one wants to recognize in what manner they are rooted in the life of the peoples. From the insight into this manner, there results a feeling perception about the strength with which these impulses live on in time, and take effect at the moment that is favorable to them.
[ 24 ] Ernest Renan is one of the leading spirits of France in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. This author of a Life of Jesus and of the Apostles wrote in an open letter during the war in the year 1870 to the German author of a Life of Jesus, David Friedrich Strauss: “I was at the Seminaire St. Sulpice, around the year 1843, when I began to get to know Germany through the writings of Goethe and Herder. I believed I was entering a temple, and from that moment on, all that until then I had held to be a splendor worthy of the Godhead only made upon me the impression of wilted and yellowed paper flowers.” Further the French man writes in the same letter: “in Germany” there has “for a century come about one of the most beautiful spiritual developments known to history, a development which, if I may venture the expression, has added a level of depth and ex tension to the human spirit, so that whoever has remained untouched by this new development is to him who has gone through it as one who knows only elementary mathematics is to him who is experienced in differential calculus.” And this leading Frenchman brings clearly to expression in the same letter what this Germany, before whose life of spirit “all that until then” he “had held to be a splendor worthy of the Godhead only made upon” him “the impression of wilted and yellowed paper flowers,” would have to expect from the French if it did not conclude the war of then with a peace agreeable to Renan's fellow countrymen. He writes: “The hour is solemn. There are in France two currents of opinion. The ones judge thus: Let us make an end to this hated business as quickly as possible; let us give away everything, Alsace, Lorraine; let us sign the peace accord; but then, hatred unto death, preparations without rest, alliance with anyone convenient, unlimited permissiveness toward all Russian overreachings; one single goal, one single driving force for life: the struggle of obliteration against the German race. Others say: Let us save France's integrity, let us develop the constitutional institutions, let us make good our mistakes, not by dreaming of revenge for a war in which we were the unjust attackers, but by concluding a treaty with Germany and England whose effect will be to lead the world further on the path of free civilized morality.” Renan himself calls attention to this: that France was the unjust attacker in the war of then. And so it is not necessary to put forward the easily demonstrable historical fact that Germany had to wage that war to put in its bounds the constant disturber of its work. Now, one can disregard to what extent Germany was striving for Alsace-Lorraine as a region of related ethnic stocks; one need only emphasize the necessity which Germany was put into by this: that it could only get itself some calm at the hands of the French if with the Alsace-Lorraine region it took away from its neighbor the possibility of disturbing this calm so easily in the future as had often happened in the past. But thereby a brake was put on the second current in France spoken of by Renan; not this one had prospects for its goal of “leading the world further on the path of free civilized morality,” but the other, whose “single goal, single driving force,” for life was: “the struggle of obliteration against the German race.” There were men who in some of what has happened since the War of 1870 believed they recognized signs that a bridging of the conflicts was possible on a peaceful path. In the course of the last years many voices that sounded in this tone could be heard. Yet the impulse directed against the German people lived on, and there remained alive the driving force: “alliance with anyone convenient, unlimited permissiveness toward all Russian overreachings; ... the struggle of obliteration against the German race.” Out of the same spirit, sounds are issuing again at present through quite a few of the leading minds of France. Renan continues his contemplation about the two previously portrayed currents in the French people with the words: “Germany will decide whether France will choose this political strategy or that one; it will thereby decide at the same time about the future of civilized morality.” One must really first convert this sentence into the German meaning to appraise it rightly. It means: France has proven to be an unjust attacker in the war; in the event that Germany, after a victory over France, does not conclude a peace that leaves France unimpededly in the position to become such an unjust attacker again as soon as it pleases, then Germany is deciding against the civilized morality of the future. What is decided, out of such an understanding, concerning “hatred unto death, preparations without rest, alliance with anyone convenient, unlimited permissiveness toward all Russian overreachings,” what is decided concerning the “single driving force for life: the struggle of obliteration against the German race,” that and nothing else provides the basis for an answer to the question: “Who wanted this war?”
[ 25 ] As to whether the “alliance” will be found, there too, men capable of taking a look at the impulses directed against Germany were already giving an answer back when Renan spoke out in the sense characterized. A man who seeks a look forward from the then present into the future of Europe, Carl Vogt, writes during the War of 1870: “It is possible that even if its territory is left intact, France will take advantage of the opportunity to whet the nicked blade sharp again; it is probable that with no annexation, it will have more than enough to do with its own internal affairs, and will consider a renewed war all the less, since a powerful current of peace must take hold in the hearts and minds; it is certain that it will set aside all scruples should an annexation take place. Which wager then should the statesman choose?”—It is easy to see that the answer to this question depends also upon one's view about the coming European conflicts. By itself, France will not dare, even in the longer term, to brave the fight against Germany anew, the blows have been too heavy and thorough for that,—but as soon as another enemy arises, it will be able to put to itself the question whether it is in a position to join in, and on whose side.—As far as I'm concerned, I am not in doubt for a moment that a conflict between the Germanic and the Slavic world is approaching and that in it, Russia will take over the leadership on the one side. This power is preparing even now for this eventuality; the national Russian press spits fire and flames against Germany. The German press is already letting its calls of warning resound. A long time has passed since Russia collected itself after the Crimean War, and as it seems, it is now found advisable in Petersburg to take up the Oriental question once again ... If the Mediterranean is someday supposed to become, according to the more pompous than true expression, a “French lake,” Russia has the at least much more positive aim of making the Black Sea a Russian lake, and the Sea of Marmara a Russian pond. That Constantinople .... needs to become a Russian city, is an established goal of “the Russian policy,” which finds its “supporting lever” in “Pan-Slavism.” (Carl Vogt's Political Letters, Biel 1870.) To this judgment of Carl Vogt's about what he foresees for Europe, there could be added those of not a few other personalities, gleaned from the contemplation of European directions of willing. They would make what is to be indicated here more vividly insistent, and yet speak of the same fact: that already in 1870 an observer of these directions of willing had to point to the East of Europe if he wanted to answer for himself the question: Who will want to wage a war against Middle Europe sooner or later? And his gaze had to fall upon France when he asked: who will want to wage this war together with Russia against Germany? Vogt's voice comes especially into consideration because in the letter in which he so speaks, he says some unfriendly things to Germany. He can truly not be accused of bias in favor of Germany. But his words are proof that the question: who will want this war? had long been answered by the facts before those causes were at work which Germany's opponents would so like to hear as an answer when they raise the question: Who wanted this war? That it took more than forty years from then to the outbreak of the war, is not thanks to France.
[ 26 ] In the Russian spiritual life of the Nineteenth Century, there come to light directions of thought that bear the same countenance as the will to war that has unloaded at present from the East against Middle Europe. To what extent those persons are right who assert that the reference to this kind of directions of thought is inappropriate, can be known by him too who sees in such a reference the right way to the understanding of the relevant events. What one calls the “causes” of these events in the ordinary sense can quite certainly not be sought in such directions of thought of Particular people—who today aren't even alive anymore. As regards these causes, there will certainly eventually be some agreement for those who will show that these causes lie with a number of per sons, whom they will then point to. Against this way of looking at the issue, no objection shall be made, its full justification shall not be contested. Yet some thing else, something no less justified, is the recognition of the powers and driving forces operative in the historical process. The directions of thought pointed to here are not these driving forces; but these driving forces show themselves upon and in the directions of thought. Whoever recognizes the directions of thought, holds fast in his recognition the beings in the folk forces. It can also not be objected that it is asserted by many with a certain rightness that the directions of thought that come into question are no longer alive at present. What is alive in the East flickered up in souls of thinkers, formed itself back then to thoughts, and lives at present—in another form—in the will to war.
[ 27 ] What flickered up is the idea of the special mission of the Russian people. What comes into consideration is the manner of h o w this idea is brought to bear. In it lives the belief that the Western European life of the spirit has entered the state of wizened old age, of decline, and that the Russian Folk Spirit is called to effect a total renewal, rejuvenation of this life of the spirit. This idea of rejuvenation grows to the opinion that all historical progress of the future coincides with the mission of the Russian People. In the first half of the Nineteenth Century Khomiakov already builds out this idea to a comprehensive edifice of doctrine. This edifice of doctrine is to be found in a work published only after his death. It is carried by the belief that the Western European development of the spirit was basically never set up to find the way to proper humanness. And that the Russian folk element must first find this way. Khomiakov looks in his fashion at this Western European development of the spirit. Into this development has flowed, according to his kind of view, to begin with, the Roman essential being. That this has never been able to manifest inner humanity in the deeds of the world. That on the contrary, it forced upon the human inward being the forms of external laws of men, and thought in a rational, materialistic way of what ought to be taken hold of in the inner weaving of the soul. This external way of grasping life continued, Khomiakov opines, in the Christendom of the Western European peoples. That their Christianity lives in the head, not in the soul's in most. Now according to Khomiakov's belief, what Western Europe has as life of the spirit, has been made by modern “barbarians”—again externalizing after their fashion what ought to live inwardly—out of the Roman element and Christendom. That the turning inward will have to be brought by the Russian people, in keeping with the higher mission embodied in it by the spiritual world.—In such an edifice of doctrine, there rumble sensations whose complete interpretation would necessitate a detailed characterizing of the Russian folk soul. Such a characterization would have to point to forces inherent in this folk soul that will one day occasion it to adapt in a corresponding way for itself, out of its inner power, what holds sway in the Western European life of the spirit and will only then give the Russian people what it can ripen to in the course of history. What of the result of this ripening of the Russian people the other peoples will make fruitful for themselves, the Russian people should leave up to these peoples. Otherwise, it could fall prey to the sad misunderstanding of taking a task it has to fulfill for itself to be a task for the world, and thereby taking away its very most essential point.—Since it is a matter of the rumbling of sensations of such a misunderstood task, the idea in question did connect it self, in the heads it appeared in, only all too frequently with political directions of thought that demonstrate that in these heads this idea is the expression of the same driving powers that from the East laid in other people the germ to the pre sent will to war. Even if on the one hand one will be able to say of the lovable, poetically high-minded Khomiakov that he expected the fulfillment of the Russian mission by a peaceful current of spirit, yet the reminder is also permissible that in his soul this expectation associated with what Russia would like to attain as military opponent of Europe. For one will certainly do him no wrong when one says that in 1829 he took part in the Turkish War as a volunteer hussar be cause he sensed, in what Russia was then doing, a first flashing up of its world-historical mission.—What rumbled in the lovable Khomiakov often in poetic transfiguration; it rumbled on; and in a book by Danilevsky Russia and Europe, which toward the end of the Nineteenth Century was regarded by a number of personalities as a gospel on the task of Russia, the driving powers are brought to expression which thought of the “spiritual task of the Russian people” as fused to complete unity with a far-reaching will to conquest. One need but look at the expression this fusion of spiritual willing with intentions of attack has found be fore all the world, and one will find clear symptoms of what mattered to begin with to many of those, also, who wanted to derive the mission of Russia from the essential being of the spiritual world. This mission is brought together with the conquest of Constantinople, and it is demanded of the will which is thereby assigned its direction that without sensing “love and hate,” it dull itself against all feeling toward “Reds or Whites, toward demagogues or despots, to ward the legitimate or revolutionaries, toward Germans, French, English, or Italians,” that it regard as “true allies” only those who support Russia in its striving. It is said that “in Europe the balance of political driving powers” is especially pernicious to what Russia must will, and that one must further “any violation of this balance,” “whatever side it may come from.” “It is incumbent upon us to reject forever any cooperation with European interests.”
[ 28 ] Especially characteristic is the position the fine-minded Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovieff has taken toward these directions of thought and sensation. Solovieff can be regarded as one of the most significant embodiments of Russian essential being of spirit. In his works there lives beautiful philosophical power, noble upward spiritual vision, mystical depth. Yet he too was long imbued with the idea rumbling in the heads of his fellow countrymen of the lofty mission of the Russian element. With him too this idea associated with the other one about the exhausted-ness of the Western European element. For him, the reason Western Europe was not able to help the world to the revealing of full inmost humanity was that this Western Europe had expected salvation from the development of the individual powers inherent in man. Yet in such striving out of man's own powers, Solovieff could see only an unspiritual false path, from which mankind had to be redeemed by this: that without human doing, by a miracle, spiritual power would pour itself from other worlds onto the earth, and that that folk element which was chosen to receive this power would become the savior of a mankind that had lost its way. In the essential being of the Russian people he saw what was prepared to receive such an extra-human power, and hence to be the savior of true humanity. Solovieff's growing together with the
Russian essential being got to the point where in his soul the rumbling of the Russian ideal was pleased to look benevolently for a time upon others who were likewise possessed by this rumbling. Yet this was only able to be so until his soul, which was filled with genuine idealism, awakened to the feeling sense that this rumbling was based on the misconception of a future ideal for the Russian people's own development. He made the discovery that many others do not speak at all about which ideal the Russian people strives after for its own salvation, but rather that they make the Russian people, as it presently is, itself to an idol. And through this discovery, Solovieff became the harshest critic of those who, under the flag of a mission of the Russian people, were introducing into the will of the nation, as wholesome driving powers of further spirit development, the attacker instincts directed against Western Europe. Out of the doctrine of Danilevsky's book Russia and Europe, the question was staring at Solovieff: why must Europe look with concern at what is coming about within the borders of Russia? And in the soul of the Russian this question takes on the form: “Why does Europe not love us?” And Solovieff, who saw the Russian attacker instincts in the garb of the ideas of the world-historical mission of Russia especially spoken out in Danilevsky's book, found in his way the answer to this question in a critique of this book (1888). Danilevsky had opined, “Europe fears us as the newer and higher cultural Type, called to replace the wizened old age of the Romanic-Germanic civilization.” Solovieff quotes this as Danilevsky's belief. And to it he replies: “Nevertheless, both the content of Danilevsky's book and his later admissions and those of his like-minded friend—meaning Strakhov, who advocated Danilevsky's ideas after his death—lead to a different answer: Europe looks upon us as an opponent and with worry because in the Russian people there live dark and unclear elemental forces, because its spiritual and cultural powers are meager and insufficient, whereas its demands make their appearance blatantly, and sharply defined. Mightily the calls resound out to Europe of what the Russian people wills as a nation, that it wants to annihilate Turkey and Austria, defeat Germany, wants to seize Constantinople, and if possible, India too. And when they ask us, in place of what we seize and destroy, what favors we want to bestow on mankind, what spiritual and cultural rejuvenation we want to bring into world evolution, we must either be silent or babble meaningless clichés. And if Danilevsky's bitter confession that Russia is beginning to fall ill is just, then instead of the question: why does Europe not love us? we would have to occupy ourselves rather with a different one, a question closer to us and more important to us: why and wherefore are we ill? Physically, Russia is still fairly strong, as shown in the latest Russian war; so our malady is a moral one. There weigh upon us, according to the words of an old author, the sins hidden in the folk character and not coming to our awareness—and so it is needful above all to bring these up into the light of bright consciousness. As long as we are spiritually bound and paralyzed, all our elemental instincts must cause us only harm. The essential, indeed the only essential question for true patriot ism is not the question about the power of Russia and about its calling, but about its sins.”
[ 29 ] One will have to point to these directions of will coming to light in the East of Europe if one wants to speak of operative forces in the attacker will of this East; what came to expression through Tolstoy represents inoperative forces.
[ 30 ] This doctrine of the “mission of Russia” can receive an illumination by this: that side by side with it, one contemplates an example of how such a mission of a people is sensed within that life of spirit which the speakers of this mission look down upon as upon a life of spirit condemned to wizened old age. Schiller stood especially close to Fichte in his life of thought when in his Letters Concerning the Aesthetic Education of Man he sought for a prospect that lets man behold in himself the “higher,” the “true man.” If one enters into the soul mood that holds sway in these aesthetic letters of Schiller's, one will be able to find in them a high point of German perceptive feeling. Schiller is of the opinion that man can become unfree toward two sides in his life. He is unfree when he faces the world in such a way that he lets the things affect him only through the necessity of the senses; then the sense world governs him, and his spirituality subordinates itself to it. But also when man obeys only the necessity holding sway in his Reason he is unfree. Reason has its own demands, and if he submits to these demands, man cannot experience the free holding sway of his will in the rigid necessity of reason. Through the reason-necessity, he does live on a spiritual level, but the spirituality subjugates the sense life. Man becomes free when he can experience in such a way what affects the senses that in the sense-perceptible something spiritual manifests, and when he experiences the spiritual itself in such a way that it can be pleasing to him like what affects the senses. That is the case when man stands before the work of art, when the sense impression becomes spiritual pleasure, when what is experienced spiritually, transfiguring the sense impression, is felt. On this path, man becomes “completely man.” Many prospects that result from this way of mind shall be disregarded here. Only one thing that is striven for with this Schiller view shall be pointed out. One of the paths is sought on which man, through his relationship to the world, finds in himself the “higher man.” This path is sought out of the contemplation of the human entity. Just really place beside this way of mind, which wants to speak humanly in man with man himself, the other, which supposes that the Russian folk quality is the one that in contrast to other folk qualities must lead the world to true humanity.
[ 31 ] Fichte seeks to characterize this way of mind inherent in the essential being of the German attitude in his Speeches to the German Nation with the words: “There are peoples who, while themselves retaining their peculiarities and wanting them honored, also let the other peoples have theirs, and do not begrudge them, and grant them; without doubt the Germans belong to these, and this trait is so deeply founded in their entire past and present life in the world that very often, in order to be just both towards the contemporary world abroad and towards antiquity, they are unjust towards themselves. Again there are other peoples whose narrowly ingrown self never allows them the freeness of separating off for a cool and calm contemplation of what is foreign, and who are therefore compelled to believe there is only one way of qualifying as an educated person, and that every time this way is the one that some chance has cast precisely upon them at this point in time; that all other people in the world have no other calling than to become as they are, and that they ought to pay them the greatest thanks if they are willing to take upon themselves the pains of thus forming them. Between peoples of the first kind, an interplay of mutual formation and education most beneficial to the development of man in general takes place, and an interpenetration in which nevertheless each one, with the good will of the other, remains himself. Peoples of the second kind are able to educate nothing, for they are unable to take hold of anything in its existent state; they only want to annihilate everything that stands existent, and outside of them selves everywhere produce an empty place, in which they can only keep repeating their own shape; even their initial apparent entry into foreign customs is only the good-natured condescension of the educator toward the apprentice who is now still feeble but gives good hope; even the figures of the perfection of the ancient world they do not like, until they have wrapped them in their garment, and if they could, they would wake them up from the tombs to educate them after their fashion.” That is how Fichte passes verdict concerning some national peculiarities; only, after this judgment there follows straightway a sentence in tended to take away from this judgment any tinge of a national arrogance of his own: “To be sure, far be the audacity from me to accuse any existent nation as a whole and without exception of that narrow-mindedness. Let us rather assume that here too those who do not express themselves are the better ones.”
[ 32 ] These contemplations would not like to answer the question: who wanted this war? out of such a mood of soul as some personalities of the countries at war with Middle Europe do. They would like to let the conditions influencing the events speak on their own. He who is writing down these contemplations asked among Russians whether they had wanted a war against Middle Europe.—To him, what Renan predicted2on p. 23. The 3rd printing (1915) has a sentence that would mean, uncorrected: “It seems to him that what Renan predicted in the year 1870 to lead onto a surer path than the judgments presently pronounced out of passion.” The present translation is based on the assumption that Ihm scheint, daß, was (1915) should probably read Ihm scheint das, was. in the year 1870 seems to lead onto a surer path than the judgments presently pronounced out of passion. This seems to him to be a path to the only region of judgment which, regarding the war, can and should be entered upon by him too who makes himself mental representations about what judgments of thought are superfluous and inappropriate when the judgments of deed by the weapons have to decide about the destinies of peoples out of blood and death.
[ 33 ] It is certain that driving powers pushing for war can be compelled by other forces into a life of peace long enough until they have weakened in themselves so far that they become ineffective. And whoever has to suffer from this effectiveness will make an effort to create these peacekeeping forces. The course of history shows that for years, Germany has taken upon itself this effort concerning the will forces streaming from West and East. Everything else that one can say regarding the present war in the direction of France's and Russia's driving powers weighs less than the simple, patent fact that these driving powers were sufficiently deeply anchored in the willing of these two countries to defy everything that wanted to hold them down. Whoever states this fact does not necessarily have to be reckoned among those personalities who judge out of inclination or disinclination, predetermined by the events—quite comprehensible in this time, of course—toward this or that people. Disdain, hatred, or the like need have nothing to do with such formation of judgment. How one loves such things, or does not love them, how one assesses them in feelings, is entirely another matter than setting forth the simple fact. It also has nothing to do with how one loves or does not love the French, how one values their Spirit, when one believes one has reasons for the opinion that driving powers to be found in France are entwined in the present war complications. What is said about such driving forces as are present in peoples, can be kept free of what falls within the realm of accusation or blame in the usual sense.
[ 34 ] One will seek in vain among the Germans for such driving forces as had to lead to the present war in a similar way to those characterized by Solovieff among the Russians, proclaimed in advance for the French by Renan. The Germans could foresee that one would wage this war against them some day. It was their obligation to arm for it. What they have done to fulfill this obligation, is called among their opponents the cultivation of their militarism.
[ 35 ] What the Germans have to accomplish, for their own sake, and in order to fulfill the tasks laid upon them by world-historical necessities, would have been possible for them to accomplish without this war, if these accomplishments were just as acceptable to others as they are necessary to them. It did not at all depend on the Germans how the other peoples took the fulfillment of the world-historical tasks that in recent time in the realm of material culture added themselves for the Germans to their tasks existing earlier. In the power that, working only out of itself, establishes the position of their material cultural accomplishments, the Germans were able to place the trust they could gain from the way their work of spirit has been received by the peoples. If one looks at the German manner, one notices that nothing is inherent in it that would have made it necessary for the German to establish in any other way before the world the present work he has to accomplish than has happened with his purely spiritual accomplishments.
[ 36 ] It is not necessary that the German make the attempt himself to characterize the significance for mankind of the German quality of spirit and accomplishment of spirit. If he wants to record verdicts as to what significance this quality and accomplishment have for mankind outside of the German area, he can seek the answers among this mankind outside of the German area. One will be permitted to listen to the words of a personality who belongs to the leading ones in the region of the English language, to the words of the great speaker of America, Ralph Waldo Emerson.3On pp. 24 f. there are quotations from Emerson. Rudolf Steiner uses a free but very true German rendering by Herman Grimm. Here the passages are given in Emerson's original English, but with unmarked omissions and sentence divisions as in the German. Nevertheless I have left Rudolf Steiner's footnote unaltered. In his contemplation on Goethe, he gives a characterization of the German quality of spirit and accomplishment of spirit in their relationship to the world's formative cultural education. [Emerson's sentences are quoted here according to the translation by Herman Grimm. Cf. his book: Fifteen Essays, Third Installment.] He says: “What distinguishes Goethe for French and English readers is a property which he shares with his nation,—a habitual reference to interior truth. In England and in America there is a respect for talent; and, if it is exerted in support of any ascertained or intelligible interest or party, or in regular opposition to any, the public is satisfied. In France there is even a greater delight in intellectual brilliancy for its own sake. And in all these countries, men of talent write from talent. It is enough if the understanding is occupied, the taste propitiated,—so many columns, so many hours, filled in a lively and creditable way. The German intellect wants the French sprightliness, the fine practical understanding of the English, and the American adventure; but it has a certain probity, which never rests in a superficial performance, but asks steadily, To what end? A German public asks for a controlling sincerity. Here is activity of thought; but what is it for? What does the man mean? Whence, whence all these thoughts?” And in another pas sage of this contemplation on Goethe, Emerson molds the words: The “earnest ness enables them—Emerson means men educated in Germany—to out-see men of much more talent. Hence almost all the valuable distinctions which are current in higher conversation have been derived to us from Germany. But whilst men distinguished for wit and learning, in England and France, adopt their study and their side with a certain levity, and are not understood to be very deeply engaged, from grounds of character, to the topic or the part they espouse,—Goethe, the head and body of the German nation, does not speak from talent, but the truth shines through. He is very wise, though his talent often veils his wisdom. However excellent his sentence is, he has somewhat better in view. He has the formidable independence which converse with truth gives. Hear you, or forbear, his fact abides.”
[ 37 ] A few more thoughts of Emerson's shall be added that will quite certainly be allowed to stand here; after all, an English-American spoke them about the Germans. “The Germans think for Europe ... The English want the faculty of grouping men in natural classes by an insight of general laws ... The English cannot interpret the German mind.” Emerson was able to know what infusion German spiritual work is capable of giving to mankind.
[ 38 ] In the sentences quoted, Emerson speaks of the “French sprightliness,” and of the “fine practical understanding of the English.” If one wanted to continue in his sense with regard to the Russians, one could perhaps say: the German lacks the impulse of the Russians to seek a mystical power for all their life expressions, even the practical, by which they are justified.
[ 39 ] And in these relationships of the spirits of these peoples lies something quite similar to the military conflicts presently in effect. In the driving force that from the side of the French led to the war with Germany, their temperament is at work, what Emerson means by their sprightliness is at work. In this temperament lies the mysterious force that so bubbles over when it utters itself in Renan's words: “hatred unto death, preparations without rest, alliance with anyone convenient.” That before the war France stood armed with a military almost equal to Germany's in absolute terms, but in relation to its population even more than one and a half times as large, is a result of this mysterious force, over which result, the cliché about “German militarism” is to be drawn as a concealing veil.—In Russia's will to war, the mystical belief is at work, even where it finds only an instinctive expression. To characterize the conflicts effective to day between French and Russians on the one hand and Germans on the other hand, one will have to observe the moods of the souls.—The military conflict between British and Germans, by contrast, is such that the Germans see themselves facing only “fine practical” driving forces. The ideal of English policy is, in keeping with the essential being of the country, entirely oriented toward practical goals. Be it emphasized: in keeping with the essential being of the country. What its inhabitants reveal of this essential being, say in their behavior, is itself a working of this essential being, but not the basis of the English political ideal. Activity in the sense of this ideal has engendered in the Briton the habit of counting as guideline for this activity what seems to him to correspond to personal interests of life. It does not contradict the presence of such a guideline that it asserts itself in the shared life of society as a definite rule, which one strictly obeys if one wants to have manners. It also does not contradict it that one holds the guideline to be something quite other than it is.4On p. 26 the expression “something quite other than it is” is based on the correction of etwa to etwas. Otherwise it would mean “perhaps quite other than it is.” All of this holds good only for the Briton insofar as he is integrated into the world of his political ideal. And by this, a military conflict is created between England and Germany.
[ 40 ] That one day the time must come when on soul territory, the world view of the German essential being, aiming as it does for the spiritual, will have to achieve its world validity by conquest—obviously, only by a battle of spirits—over against the one that has its representatives out of the English essential being in Mill, Spencer, the pragmatist Schiller, in Locke and Huxley, among others: the fact of the present war can be an admonition for this. But this has nothing directly to do with this war.
[ 41 ] Goethe had in mind the guideline characterized for England's political ideal when he, who counted Shakespeare among the spirits that exerted the greatest influence on him, spoke the words: “But while the Germans torture themselves solving philosophical problems, the English with their great practical mind laugh at us, and win the world. Everyman knows their declamations against the slave trade, and while they would have us believe5On p. 26 the expression “have us believe” is based on the correction of weiß to weis. Otherwise it would mean “make us white.” what humane principles lie at the basis of such a policy, it now comes out that the true motive is a real object, without which the English, as is known, never do so, and which one should have known.”—About Byron, who became his model for Euphorion in the Second Part of Faust, Goethe says: “Byron is to be regarded as man, as Englishman, and as patriot. His good qualities are to be derived primarily from the man; his bad ones, that he was an Englishman. All Englishmen are as such without real reflection; distraction and partisan spirit do not allow them to reach any calm formative training. But they are great as practical men.”
[ 42 ] These Goethean verdicts, too, touch not the Englishman as such, but only what reveals itself as “total essential being England” when this total essential being reveals itself as bearer of its political ideal.
[ 43 ] The political ideal mentioned has developed the habit of establishing as great a space of the earth as possible for England's use, in keeping with the guideline characterized. Regarding this space, England appears like a person establishing his house at his pleasure, and growing accustomed to bar his neighbors as well from doing anything that makes the inhabitability of the house less pleasant than one wishes.
[ 44 ] England believed the habit of being able to live on in this fashion was threatened by the development that Germany unnecessary had to strive for in most recent time. Hence it is understandable that it did not want to allow a military conflict to arise between Russia-France on the one hand and Germany-Austria on the other without doing everything that could contribute to eliminating the nightmare of threat caused to it by Germany's cultural work. That, how ever, was to join Germany's opponents. A purely political “fine practical under standing” calculated what danger could arise for England from a Germany victorious against Russia and France.—This calculating has as little to do with a merely moral indignation over the “violation of Belgian neutrality” as it has much to do with the “fine practical understanding,” which sees the Germans in England's circle of interests when they enter Belgium.
[ 45 ] What this “fine practical” direction of will in connection with other forces directed against Germany has to bring into operation in the course of time, was able to show itself, for a German sensing, when the question was asked: how did England's political ideal always work when a European land power had to find that the world-historical conditions demanded that it expand its activity over the seas? One needed only to look at what this political ideal had done regarding Spain and Portugal, Holland, France, when these unfolded their activity at sea. And one could remember that this political ideal always “had a fine understanding for the practical,” and that it knew how to calculate how the European directions of will that were directed against the countries in which a young maritime activity was unfolding were to be brought into a relationship of forces in such a way that a prospect opened up that England would be freed of its competitor.
[ 46 ] What the People of Germany had to sense regarding the European situation before the war, emerges upon observation of the forces directed upon this people from the periphery. From England, the “fine practical” “ideal” of this country. From Russia, directions of will that opposed the tasks that had emerged for Germany and Austria-Hungary for “Europe's Middle.” From France, folk forces whose being was not to be sensed otherwise for the German than in the manner which Moltke, in reference to France's relationship to Germany, once molded into the words: “Napoleon was a passing phenomenon. France remained. We already had to do with France centuries ago, we shall still have to do with it in centuries. ... the younger generation in France is raised in the belief that it has a sacred right to the Rhine, and that it has the mission of making it the border of France at the first opportunity. The Rhine border must become a truth, that is the theme for the future of France.”
[ 47 ] In the face of these three directions of will, world-historical necessity had forged together Germany and Austria-Hungary into “Europe's Middle.” There have always been people grown together with this European middle who sensed how tasks will grow up for this European middle that will reveal themselves to them as tasks to be solved in common by the peoples of this middle. Like a representative of such people, one long dead shall be remembered here. One who bore the ideals of “Europe's Middle” deep in his soul, in which they were warmed by the power of Goethe, from which he let his whole world conception and the inmost impulses of his life be carried. It is the Austrian researcher of literature and language, Karl Julius Schröer. A man who was all too little known and appreciated by his contemporaries in his being and significance. The writer of these contemplations counts him among those personalities to whom he owes immeasurable thanks in life. Schröer wrote down in his book on German Poetry in the year 1875, as written trace of the sensations that the events of 1870/1871 had stirred for the forming of an ideal of “Europe's Middle,” the words: “We in Austria see ourselves, just at this significant turning point, in a peculiar situation. Though the free movement of our life of state has cleared away the wall of separation that parted us from Germany up to a short time ago, though we are now given the means of working our way upward to a common cultural life with the other Germans, yet just now it has come to pass that we were not to participate in a great act of our people. ... A wall of separation could not arise through this in the German life of the spirit. Its roots are not of a political but of a culture-historical nature. We want to keep our eyes on this untearable unity of the German life of the spirit ... in the German Empire may they appreciate and honor our difficult cultural task, and as for the past, not blame us for what is our fate, not our fault.” Out of what sensations would a soul who so feels speak, if he still dwelt among the living, and beheld how the Austrian in full unity with the German of Germany is fulfilling an “act of his people!”
[ 48 ] “Europe's Middle” is formed by “fate;” the souls that feel themselves as belonging to this middle with an engagement full of understanding place it in the responsibility of the spirit of history to judge what in the past—and what also in the present and future is its “fate, not its fault.”
[ 49 ] And whoever wants to assess the understanding which the ideas of a common direction of will of the “Middle of Europe” have found abroad in Hungary, let him read voices from Hungary such as one is to be found in the article about “The Genesis of the Defensive Alliance,” by Emerich von Halasz, in the March, 1911 issue of Young Hungary. In it are the words: “If we ... consider that Andrassy stepped back from directing affairs more than thirty, and Bismarck more than twenty-one years ago, and this great work of peace stands ever yet in full power, and promises to have still further a long duration: then surely we need not surrender to a gloomy pessimism ... Bismarck and Andrassy with united force found an impressive solution to the middle-European problem, and thereby fulfilled a civilizational work that hopefully will outlast several generations ... In the history of alliances we seek in vain for a formation of such duration and of such mighty conception.”
[ 50 ] When the characterized directions of willing, turned against “Europe's Middle,” had joined for common pressure, it was inevitable that this “pressure” determined the sensations that formed within the middle-European peoples concerning the course that world events were taking. And when the facts of the summer of 1914 came about, they found Europe in a world-historical situation in which the forces operative in the life of peoples enter actively into the course of events in such a way that they remove the decision about what is to happen from the realm of ordinary human assessment, and place it into that of a higher order, an order by which world-historical necessity takes effect within the course of human development. Whoever senses the essential being of such world-moments, also lifts his judgment out of the region in which questions nest of the type, what would have happened if in an hour heavy with destiny this or that proposal of this or that personality had had more effect than was the case? In moments of world-historical turnings, men experience in their decisions forces about which one only judges aright if one endeavors—remember the words of Emerson6On p. 29, Emerson's thoughts are quoted in brief phrases taken from a free rendering in German. I have translated the German into English, rather than replacing it with Emerson's own words.—not only to “see the particular” but to “conceive of” mankind “as a whole by higher laws.” How should it be permissible to judge by the laws of ordinary life the decisions of men that cannot be made out of these laws, because in them the spirit is at work who can be beheld only in the world-historical necessities.—Natural laws belong to the natural order; above them stand the laws that belong to the order of ordinary human living-together; and above them stand the spiritual-operative laws of world-historical becoming, which belong to yet another order, the one through which men and peoples solve tasks and go through developments that lie outside the realm of ordinary human living together.
[ 51 ] The preceding thoughts contain what the author of this brief writing spoke out in lectures held before the military entry of Italy into the present wrestling of peoples. From this fact, one will find it comprehensible that in this writing nothing is included about the driving powers that from this side have become the will to war against “Middle Europe.” A brief writing appearing later will hopefully be able to bring an addition in this regard.
Berlin, 5 July 1915.
Gedanken während der Zeit des Krieges
Für Deutsche und solche, die nicht glauben, sie hassen zu müssen
[ 1 ] Unsägliches Leiden, tiefe Trauer leben in den Seelen der gegenwärtigen Menschen neben dem Willen, dem weltgeschichtlich unvergleichlichen Augenblicke die Opfer des Mutes, der Tapferkeit, der Liebe zu bringen, die er fordert. Den Krieger stählt das Bewußtsein, daß er für ein Teuerstes einsteht, das die Erde der Menschheit zu geben hat. Er sieht dem Tod ins Antlitz mit dem Gefühl, daß sein Sterben von jenem Leben gefordert wird, das als Höheres gegenüber dem einzelnen Menschen auch seinen Tod beanspruchen darf. Väter, Mütter und Söhne, Frauen, Schwestern und Töchter müssen aus dem persönlichen Leide heraus sich finden in der Idee, daß aus Blut und Tod die Entwickelung der Menschheit sich erheben werde zu Zielen, denen die Opfer notwendig waren und die sie rechtfertigen werden. Der Aufblick vom Einzelerlebnis zum Leben der Menschheit, von dem Vergänglichen zu dem, was in diesem Vergänglichen als das Unvergängliche lebt: er wird gefordert von den Erlebnissen dieser Zeit. Die Zuversicht erhebt sich aus der Empfindung dessen, was geschieht, daß, was erlebt wird, die Morgenröte einer neuen Zeit der Menschheit heraufheben werde, deren Kräfte dieses Erlebnis reifen solle.
[ 2 ] Mit dem Verständnis, das auch der Menschen Verirrungen zu begreifen sucht, möchte man auf die Flammen des Hasses blicken, die sich entzünden. Zu stark ist eben für manchen der Eindruck, den er empfängt, wenn er das gegenwärtig Erlebte vergleicht mit dem, was ihm durch die Entwickelung der Menschheit für die Gegenwart bereits errungen schien. Menschen, die verstanden, über dies der Menschheit Errungene aus einer vollen Anteilnahme heraus sich auszusprechen, fanden dafür Worte wie diejenigen sind, die der feine deutsche Kunstbetrachter, der im Jahre 1901 verstorbene Herman Grimm, gesprochen hat. Der vergleicht das Erleben des Menschen in früherer Zeit mit dem, was die Gegenwart diesem Erleben zuführt. Er sagt: «Es ist mir zuweilen, als sei man in ein neues Dasein versetzt und habe nur das nötigste geistige Handgepäck mitgenommen. Als zwängen völlig veränderte Lebensbedingungen zu völlig neuer Gedankenarbeit. Denn Entfernungen sind nichts mehr, was Menschen trennt. In spielender Leichtigkeit umkreisen unsere Gedanken den Umfang der Erdoberfläche und fliegen von jedem Einzelnen zu jedem Anderen, wo er auch sei. Die Entdeckung und Ausnutzung neuer Naturkräfte vereinigt sämtliche Völker zu unablässiger gemeinsamer Arbeit. Neue Erfahrungen, unter deren Drucke unsere Anschauung alles Sichtbaren und Unsichtbaren in ununterbrochenem Wechsel sich ändert, drängen uns a%ch für die Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit neue Beobachtungsweisen auf.» In seiner individuellen Art hane vor dem Ausbruche dieses Krieges jeder europäische Mensch solche Empfindungen in seiner Seele. Und nun: Was ist für die Zeit dieses Krieges aus dem gemacht, was zu diesen Empfindungen anregte. Ist es nicht, als ob der Menschheit gezeigt werden sollte, wie die Welt aussieht, wenn die Wirkungen von vielem aufhören, was Frucht der Entwickelung ist? Und doch auch: Zeigt nicht der Krieg durch seine Schrecken, wozu Völkerkonflikte führen müssen, die mit den Mitteln ausgekämpft werden, welche die neueste Entwickelung gebracht hat?
[ 3 ] Verwirrend können die Empfindungen sein, die aus den Erlebnissen entstehen. Man möchte aus dem Vorhandensein dieser Verwirrung heraus verstehen, warum viele Menschen nicht begreifen können, daß der Krieg selber des Krieges Schrecken und Leiden bringt, und warum sie den Gegner als «Barbaren» verschreien, wenn ihm eine herbe Notwendigkeit den Gebrauch der Kampfesmittel aufzwingt, welche die neuere Zeit geschaffen hat.
[ 4 ] Worte haßerfüllter Verurteilung deutschen Wesens, jetzt ausgesprochen von Persönlichkeiten, die führend sind unter den Völkern, mit denen Deutschland gegenwärtig im Kriege lebt: wie klingen sie einer Seele, die als wahren Ausdruck deutschen Gefühles empfindet, was der schon erwähnte Herman Grimm kurz vor dem Eintritt dieses Jahrhunderts als einen Grundzug in der Auffassung des Lebenswillens der neueren Menschheit gekennzeichnet hat. Er schrieb: «Die Solidarität der sittlichen Überzeugungen aller Menschen ist heute die uns alle verbindende Kirche. Wir suchen leidenschaftlicher als jemals nach einem sichtbaren Ausdrucke dieser Gemeinschaft. Alle wirklich ernsten Bestrebungen der Massen kennen nur dies eine Ziel. Die Trennung der Nationen existiert hier bereits nicht mehr. Wir fühlen, daß der ethischen Weltanschauung gegenüber kein nationaler Unterschied walte. Wir alle würden uns für unser Vaterland opfern; den Augenblick aber herbeizusehnen oder herbeizuführen, wo dies durch Krieg geschehen könne, sind wir weit entfernt. Die Versicherung, daß Friede zu halten unser aller heiligster Wunsch sei, ist keine Lüge. ‹Friede auf Erden und den Menschen ein Wohlgefallen› durchdringt uns. Die Bewohner unseres Planeten, allesamt als Einheit gefaßt, erfüllt ein allverständliches Feingefühl ... Die Menschen als Totalität anerkennen sich als einem wie in den Wolken thronenden unsichtbaren Gerichtshofe unterworfen, vor dem nicht bestehen zu dürfen, sie als ein Unglück erachten, und dessen gerichtlichem Verfahren sie ihre inneren Zwistigkeiten anzupassen suchen. Mit ängstlichem Bestreben suchen sie hier ihr Recht. Wie sind die heutigen Franzosen bemüht, den Krieg gegen Deutschland, den sie vorhaben, als eine sittliche Forderung hinzustellen, deren Anerkennung sie von den anderen Völkern, ja von den Deutschen selber fordern. » Herman Grimms Lebensarbeit ist in solcher Art im deutschen Geistesleben mit all ihren Wurzeln gegründet, daß man sagen kann: Wenn er einen solchen Gedanken ausspricht, so ist es, als ob er von dem Bewußtsein durchdrungen wäre, er spreche im geistigen Auftrage seines Volkes. Er gebrauche Worte, bei denen er die Gewißheit haben durfte: Wenn das deutsche Volk als Ganzes sich äußern könnte, so würde es solche Worte gebrauchen, um seine Gesinnung darüber zu äußern, wie es sein eigenes Wollen innerhalb der Gesamtheit der Menschheit auffaßt. Herman Grimm will nicht sagen: was von solcher Gesinnung im gegenwärtigen Leben der Menschheit vorhanden ist, könne Kriege verhindern. Er spricht ja davon, daß er den Gedanken haben müsse, die Franzosen wollen einen Krieg gegen Deutschland. Daß aber auch durch Kriege hindurch diese Gesinnung ihre Kraft bewähren werde, das mußte Herman Grimms Überzeugung sein, wenn er Gedanken wie die angeführten zum Ausdrucke brachte. Gegner des deutschen Volkes sprechen gegenwärtig so, als ob sie für erwiesen hielten, die einzige Ursache dieses Krieges liege nur darin, daß den Deutschen das Verständnis für eine solche Gesinnung fehle. Als ob das Ergebnis dieses Krieges sein müßte, daß die Deutschen zum Verständnis einer solchen Gesinnung gezwungen werden. Als ob bei den Deutschen maßgebende Geister sich die Aufgabe gesetzt hätten, diese Gesinnung bei ihrem Volke auszutilgen.
[ 5 ] Man hört jetzt manche Namen deutscher Persönlichkeiten in haßerfüllter Art aussprechen. Nicht nur von Tagesschriftstellern, auch von geistigen Führern der mit Deutschland im Kriege lebenden Völker. Ja, auch aus Ländern, mit denen Deutschland keinen Krieg hat, kommen solche Stimmen. Unter diesen deutschen Persönlichkeiten ist zum Beispiel der Geschichtsschreiber des deutschen Volkes, Heinrich von Treitschke. Die Deutschen, die über die wissenschaftliche Bedeutung und das Wesen der Persönlichkeit Treitschkes sich Gedanken bilden, sprechen die verschiedensten Werturteile über ihn aus. Aus welchen Gesichtspunkten diese Urteile gefällt werden, ob sie berechtigt oder unberechtigt sind, darauf kommt es in diesem Augenblicke nicht an; den Stimmen der Gegner des deutschen Wesens gegenüber ist ein ganz anderer Gesichtspunkt maßgebend. Diese Gegner wollen in Treitschke eine Persönlichkeit sehen, die auf das jetzige deutsche Geschlecht so gewirkt habe, daß gegenwärtig das deutsche Volk sich für das nach allen Richtungen begabteste der Völker halte, das die anderen deshalb zwingen wolle, sich seiner Führung unterzuordnen, und das die Erlangung der Macht über alles Recht stelle. Lebte Treitschke noch, und vernähme er die Urteile der Gegner des deutschen Wesens über seine Person, er könnte sich erinnern an Worte, die er 1861 als den Ausdruck seines tiefsten Empfindens in der Abhandlung über «Die Freiheit» niedergeschrieben hat. Er sprach sich da über solche Menschen aus, die ihrer Achtung und Duldung fremder Meinungen sogleich eine Grenze setzen, wenn ihnen in solchen Meinungen etwas entgegentritt, das ihnen nicht gefällt. Solchen Menschen - meint Treitschke - verhüllt sich der Gedanke durch die Leidenschaft, und er sagt: so lange solche Art, die aus der Leidenschaft geborene Phrase an die Stelle des Urteiles zu setzen, noch lebt, «so lange lebt in uns noch, ob auch in milderer Form, der fanatische Geist jener alten Eiferer, welche fremde Meinungen nur deshalb erwähnten, um zu beweisen, daß ihre Urheber sich gerechte Ansprüche auf den Höllenpfuhl erworben hätten». Ein Mann, der als Franzose unter Franzosen, als Italiener unter Italienern so gewirkt hätte wie Treitschke als Deutscher unter Deutschen: er erschiene den Deutschen nicht als Verführer der Franzosen oder Italiener. Treitschke war ein Geschichtsschreiber und Politiker, der aus einem starken, entschiedenen Empfinden heraus allen seinen Urteilen eine scharf wirkende Prägung gab. Eine solche Prägung hatten auch die Urteile, die er aus der Liebe zu seinem Volke über die Deutschen aussprach. Aber alle diese Urteile waren getragen von dem Gefühle: nicht nur seine Seele spreche so, sondern der Verlauf der deutschen Geschichte. Am Schlusse des Vorwortes des fünften Teiles seiner «Deutschen Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert» stehen die Worte: «so gewiß der Mensch nur versteht, was er liebt, ebenso gewiß kann nur ein starkes Herz, das die Geschicke des Vaterlandes wie selbsterlebtes Leid und Glück empfindet, der historischen Erzählung die innere Wahrheit geben. In dieser Macht des Gemüts, und nicht allein in der vollendeten Form, liegt die Größe der Geschichtsschreiber des Altertums». Manches Urteil, das Treitschke über das gesprochen hat, was das deutsche Volk durch andere Völker erlebt hat, klingt wie herbe Verurteilung dieser anderen Völker. Wie in dieser Richtung liegende Äußerungen Treitschkes zu verstehen sind, erkennt nur derjenige, der auf die Herbheit auch der Urteile blickt, mit denen Treitschke oft richtet über das, was er innerhalb seines eigenen Volkes tadelnswert findet. Treitschke hatte die tiefste Liebe zu seinem Volke, die edles Feuer in seiner Seele war; aber er glaubte, daß es nicht schade, wenn man am schroffsten da richtet, wo man am meisten liebt. Es wäre denkbar, daß sich Feinde des deutschen Volkes fänden, die aus Treitschkes Werken eine Sammlung von Aussprüchen sich anlegten, diesen Aussprüchen dann die Farbe der Liebe nähmen, die sie bei Treitschke haben, und sie mit ihrer Farbe des Hasses übertünchten: sie könnten sich dadurch Wortwaffen gegen das deutsche Volk anfertigen. Schlechter wären diese Wortwaffen auch nicht als diejenigen, mit denen sie auf ein Zerrbild Treitschkes schießen, um das deutsche Volk zu verwunden. Herman Grimm, der Treitschke zu schätzen wußte und gut mit ihm und seiner persönlichen Art bekannt war, sprach einige Zeit nach dessen Tode über ihn die Worte: «Wenige sind so geliebt, aber auch so gehaßt worden wie er. » Treitschke wurde von Grimm mit den deutschen Geschichtslehrern Curtius und Ranke zu einer Dreiheit deutscher Lehrer zusammengestellt, über die er sich so äußerte: «Sie waren freundlich und vertraulich im Verkehr. Sie suchten ihre Zuhörer zu fördern. Sie erkannten das Verdienst an, wo sie ihm begegneten. Sie suchten ihre Gegner nicht zu unterdrücken. Sie hatten keine Partei und keine Parteigenossen. Sie sprachen ihre Meinung aus. In ihrem Auftreten lag etwas Vorbildliches. Sie sahen in der Wissenschaft die höchste Blüte des deutschen Geistes. Sie traten ein für ihre Würde.› Es gibt eine ausführliche Besprechung von Treitschkes «Deutscher Geschichte» durch Herman Grimm. Wer sie liest, muß zu der Erkenntnis kommen, Herman Grimm habe Treitschke unter diejenigen gerechnet, welche über die Beziehung, die das deutsche Volk zu anderen Völkern haben wolle, nicht anders dachten als er selbst.
[ 6 ] Wer aus Feindesland eine deutsche Persönlichkeit, wie sie in Treitschke lebte, schmäht und als Verführer des jüngeren Geschlechts brandmarkt, dem fehlt ein Urteil darüber, wie ein Deutscher, der «die Geschicke des Vaterlandes wie selbsterlebtes Leid und Glück» empfand, zu Deutschen sprechen mußte, die, zum Verständnis der eigenen Geschichte, hinblicken müssen auf Erfahrungen in der Vergangenheit, die Herman Grimm (in seinem Buche über Michelangelo, 16. Auflage) mit den Worten kennzeichnet: «Dreißig Jahre lang war Deutschland, das als eigene Nation den Ausschlag nicht zu geben vermochte, das Schlachtfeld für die uns umgrenzenden Völker, und nachdem die Fremden, die so auf unserem Boden sich bekriegt, endlich Frieden geschlossen, kehrte der alte unbestimmte Zustand wieder.» In Herman Grimms Goethebuch steht über diese Erfahrungen mit derselben Beziehung: «der Dreißigjährige Krieg, diese furchtbare, von außen her zu uns hineingetragene und künstlich genährte Krankheit», hat «alle die jungen Triebe unserer Fortentwickelung welk werden und absterben» lassen. Wie kurze Zeit war erst verflossen, seit sich das deutsche Volk von der Wirkung des Leides befreit hatte, das ihm Europa durch den Dreißigjährigen Krieg gebracht hatte, als im Beginne des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts das andere Schicksalserlebnis eintrat, das zusammenfiel mit einer Blüte des deutschen Geisteslebens. Waren es die Worte eines Mannes, in dessen Herzen mitklangen die Leiden seines Volkes «wie selbsterlebtes Leid», oder waren es Worte eines Volksverführers, mit denen Treitschke von den Geistern sprach, deren Wirken mit Deutschlands Schicksalserlebnis vom Beginn des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts zusammenfiel? Er spricht über diese Geister so: «Sie hüteten das Eigenste unseres Volkes, das heilige Feuer des Idealismus, und ihnen vornehmlich danken wir, daß es noch immer ein Deutschland gab, als das Deutsche Reich verschwunden war, daß die Deutschen mitten in Not und Knechtschaft noch an sich selber, an die Unvergänglichkeit deutschen Wesens glauben durften. Aus der Durchbildung der freien Persönlichkeit ging unsere politische Freiheit, ging die Unabhängigkeit des deutschen Staates hervor.» Verlangen die Gegner des deutschen Wesens, daß Treitschke hätte sagen sollen: die Geschichte lehre, daß die Deutschen «an die Unvergänglichkeit deutschen Wesens glauben dürfen», weil sie für alle Vergangenheit und Zukunft sich überzeugt halten können, daß Franzosen, Engländer, Italiener, Russen niemals für etwas anderes gekämpft haben und kämpfen werden, als für «Recht und Freiheit» der Völker? Sollten die anderen Deutschen, die gegenwärtig Deutschlands Verführer genannt werden, den Deutschen den Rat geben: baut nicht auf das, was euch in harten Kriegen «Recht und Freiheit» verschafft hat; ihr werdet «Recht und Freiheit» haben, weil bei denen, die euch umgeben, der Sinn für «Recht und Freiheit der Volker» im hellen Lichte erglänzt? Ihr müßt nur nicht glauben, daß ihr euer «Recht als Volk» anders denken dürft als im Sinne dessen, wozu euch die Völker für berechtigt halten, die euch umkreisen. Ihr müßt nur niemals etwas anderes eure «Freiheit als Volk» nennen, als wovon diese Völker durch ihr Verhalten euch zeigen werden, daß es euch «als Volk freistehe»?
[ 7 ] Wo die Empfindungen wurzeln, welche die Angehörigen von «Europas Mitte» in dem gegenwärtigen Kriege haben, möchte der Verfasser dieses Schriftchens aussprechen. Die Tatsachen, die er besprechen will, sind, ihren allgemeinen Grundzügen nach, gewiß jedem Leser bekannt. Es liegt nicht in des Verfassers Absicht, nach dieser Richtung hin über noch Unbekanntes zu sprechen. Nur auf gewisse Zusammenhänge, in denen das längst Bekannte steht, möchte er hindeuten.
[ 8 ] Wenn Gegner des deutschen Volkes etwa dieses Schriftchen lesen sollten, so werden sie ganz begreiflicherweise sagen: So spricht ein Deutscher, der naturgemäß der Auffassung anderer Völker kein Verständnis entgegenbringen kann. Wer in dieser Art urteilt, begreift nicht, daß die Wege, die der Verfasser dieser Betrachtung sucht, um die Entstehung dieses Krieges zu besprechen, ganz unabhängig davon sind, wie viel er von dem Wesen eines nichtdeutschen Volkes versteht oder nicht versteht. Er will so sprechen, daß, wenn die Gründe, die er für das Behauptete vorbringt, etwas taugen, seine Gedanken auch dann richtig sein könnten, wenn er in bezug auf ein Verständnis der Eigenart und des Wertes nichtdeutscher Völker, sofern sie einem Deutschen verschlossen sein sollen, der reine Tor wäre. Wenn er, zum Beispiele, darauf verweist, was ein Franzose über die Kriegsabsichten der Franzosen sagt, und darauf ein Urteil über die Entstehung des Krieges sich bildet, so könnte dies Urteil richtig sein, wenn ihm auch ein Franzose jedes Verständnis für französische Eigenart glaubte absprechen zu müssen. Wenn er über das englische politische Ideal urteilt, so kommt dabei nicht in Frage, wie der Engländer an sich denkt oder empfindet, sondern wie die Handlungen sind, in denen sich dieses politische Ideal auslebt, und was gerade der Deutsche durch diese Handlungen erlebt. Für sich ist der Verfasser allerdings davon überzeugt, daß in diesem Schriftchen kein Anlaß liegen wird, darüber zu urteilen, welches Verständnis er dieser oder jener nichtdeutschen Volkart entgegenbringt.
[ 9 ] Der Verfasser des Schriftchens glaubt, was er als Deutscher über das Fühlen «Mitteleuropas» auszusprechen sich erlaubt, sagen zu dürfen, denn er hat die ersten drei Jahrzehnte seines Lebens in Österreich verbracht, in dem er durch Abstammung, Volksangehörigkeit und Erziehung als österreichischer Deutscher lebte; und er hat die andere - fast ebenso lange - Zeit dieses Lebens in Deutschland tätig sein dürfen.
[ 10 ] Vielleicht wird mancher, der von des Verfassers Schriften die eine oder die andere kennt, von jemand, der auf dem Gesichtspunkt der Geisteswissenschaft steht, wie sie in diesen Schriften gemeint ist, «höhere Gesichtspunkte» in den folgenden Ausführungen suchen, als er sie findet. Insbesondere werden diejenigen unzufrieden sein, welche erwarten, hier etwas darüber zu finden, wie sich die gegenwärtigen Kriegsereignisse «auf Grundlage der ewigen, höchsten Wahrheiten alles Seins und Lebens» beurteilen lassen. Solchen «Enttäuschten», die sich vielleicht gerade unter den Freunden des Verfassers finden werden, möchte dieser sagen, daß die «höchsten ewigen Wahrheiten» selbstverständlich überall gelten, also auch für die gegenwärtigen Ereignisse, daß aber diese Betrachtung nicht in der Absicht unternommen wurde, um zu zeigen, wie man auch mit Bezug auf diese Ereignisse von diesen «höheren Wahrheiten» zeugen kann, sondern in der andern, von diesen Ereignissen selbst zu sprechen.1Anderes über die gegenwärtige Zeit und Europas Völker hofft der Verfasser bald in einem zweiten Schriftchen geben zu können. Die hier niedergeschriebenen Gedanken sind aus Vorträgen zusammengezogen, welche der Verfasser an mehreren Orten in den letzten Monaten gehalten hat.
[ 11 ] Wer Fichtes Geistesart auf sich hat wirken lassen, der empfindet in aller Folgezeit, daß er in seine Seele etwas aufgenommen hat, das noch ganz anders wirkt, als die Ideen und Worte dieses Denkers. Diese Ideen und Worte verwandeln sich in der Seele. Sie werden eine Kraft, die wesentlich mehr ist als die Erinnerung an das von Fichte unmittelbar Empfangene. Eine Kraft, die etwas von der Art lebendiger Wesen hat. Sie wächst in der Seele. Und diese fühlt in ihr ein sich nie ahnutzendes Stärkungsmittel. Man kann, wenn man die Eigenart Fichtes so empfindet, von dieser Empfindung niemals trennen die Vorstellung der innigen Wesenhaftigkeit, mit welcher die deutsche Seele durch Fichte gesprochen hat. Wie man sich zu Fichtes Weltanschauung stellt, kommt dabei nicht in Betracht. Es ist nicht der Inhalt, es ist die Kraft, durch die diese Weltanschauung geschaffen ist. Die fühlt man. Wer Fichte als Denker folgen will, muß sich in scheinbar kalte Ideengebiete begeben. In Gebiete, in denen die Kraft des Denkens manches von sich stoßen muß, was ihr sonst lieb ist, um nur möglich zu finden, daß ein Mensch sich in ein solches Verhältnis zur Welt setzen kann, wie es Fichte gehabt hat. Ist man aber Fichte so gefolgt, dann fühlt man, wie die Kraft, die in seinem Denken waltete, einströmte in die Leben gebenden Worte, mit denen er in schicksaltragender Zeit sein Volk zu weltwirksamer Tat zu entflammen suchte. Die Wärme in Fichtes «Reden an die deutsche Nation» ist eins mit dein Lichte, das ihm in seiner energischen Gedankenarbeit leuchtete. Und die Verbindung dieses Lichtes mit dieser Wärme erscheint in Fichtes Persönlichkeit als das, wodurch er eine der echtesten Verkörperungen deutschen Wesens ist. Dieses deutsche Wesen mußte Fichte erst zu dem Denker machen, der er war, bevor es durch ihn die eindringlichen «Reden an die Nation» sprechen konnte. Aber es konnte dieses deutsche Wesen, nachdem es sich einen solchen Denker wie Fichte geschaffen hatte, nicht anders zu der Nation sprechen, als es in diesen Reden geschehen ist. Wieder kommt weniger in Betracht, was Fichte in diesen Reden gesagt hat, als vielmehr, wie Deutschheit durch sie vor das Bewußtsein des Volkes sich stellte. Ein Denker, der in seiner Weltanschauung weit entfernt von Fichtes Gedankengängen ist, Robert Zimmermann, muß die Worte sprechen: «So lange in Deutschland ein Herz schlägt, das die Schmach fremder Zwingherrschaft zu fühlen vermag, wird das Andenken des Mutigen fortleben, der im Moment der tiefsten Erniedrigung, ... mitten in dem von Franzosen besetzten Berlin, vor Augen und Ohren der Feinde, unter Spionen und Angebern, die von außen durchs Schwert geknickte Kraft des deutschen Volkes von innen durch den Geist wieder aufzurichten und in demselben Augenblicke, da die politische Existenz desselben für immer vernichtet zu sein schien, durch den begeisterten Gedanken allgemeiner Erziehung ein solches in künftigen Generationen neu zu erschaffen unternahm.»
[ 12 ] Man braucht nicht die Absicht zu haben, sentimentalische Gefühle wachzurufen, wenn man zur Kennzeichnung der Eigenart, wie Fichte mit dem tiefsten Wesen des Deutsch-Seins verbunden ist, die letzten Stunden im Leben des Denkers schildert. - Fichtes Frau, die wahrhaft seiner nicht nur würdige, die seiner Größe voll gewachsene Lebensgefährtin, hatte fünf Monate lang unter den schwierigsten Verhältnissen Lazarettdienste geleistet und sich dabei das Lazarettfieber geholt. Die Gattin genas. Fichte selber verfiel der Krankheit und erlag ihr. Der Sohn hat die Art von Fichtes Sterben geschildert. Die letzte Nachricht, welche der Sterbende empfing, war die durch den Sohn überbrachte von Blüchers Übergang über den Rhein, vom Vordringen der Verbündeten gegen den französischen Feind. Die dem Leibe des Denkers sich entwindende Seele lebte ganz in der innigen Freude über dieseEreignisse; und als das früher eisig-scharfe Denken bei dem Sterbenden in Fieberphantasien überging, da fühlte er sich mitten unter den Kämpfenden. Wie steht das Bild des Philosophen vor der Seele, der - bis in die schon das Bewußtsein trübenden Fieberphantasien hinüber - wie die sich offenbarende Wesenheit des Willens und Wirkens seines Volkes ist! Und wie ist in Fichte der deutsche Philosoph eins mit jeder Lebensregung des ganzen Menschen. Der Sohn reicht dem Sterbenden eine Arznei. Dieser schiebt das Dargereichte sanft zurück; er fühlt sich ganz eins mit der weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit seines Volkes. In solchem Fühlen beschließt er sein Leben mit den Worten: Ich bedarf keiner Arznei; ich fühle, daß ich genesen bin. Er war «genesen» im Gefühle, des deutschen Wesens Erhebung in der Seele mitzuerleben.
[ 13 ] Man darf aus dem Aufblicke zu Fichtes Persönlichkeit die Kraft holen, über deutsches Wesen zu sprechen. Denn sein Streben war, dieses Wesen bis in die Quellen seiner Eigenart als wirksame Kraft regsam zu machen. Und klar tritt bei Betrachtung seiner Persönlichkeit zutage, daß er seine eigene Geistesarbeit mit den tiefsten Wurzeln des deutschen Wesens verbunden fühlte. Diese Wurzeln selbst aber suchte er in den Gründen des Geisteswaltens, das er hinter allem äußeren, den Sinnen zugänglichen Weltgetriebe schaute. Er konnte sich deutsches Wirken nicht denken ohne einen Zusammenhang dieses Wirkens mit der die Welt durchleuchtenden und durchwärmenden Geistigkeit. Er sah das Wesen der Deutschheit in dem Hervorquellen der Lebensäußerungen des Volkes aus dem Urquell des ursprünglich geistig Lebendigen. Und was er selbst als Weltanschauung verstand, die aus diesem Urquell im Sinne der deutschen Art hervorgeht, darüber sprach er sich so aus: «Zeit und Ewigkeit und Unendlichkeit erblickt sie - diese Weltanschauung - in ihrer Entstehung aus dem Erscheinen und Sichtbarwerden jenes Einen, das an sich schlechthin unsichtbar ist, und nur in dieser seiner Unsichtbarkeit erfaßt, richtig erfaßt wird.» - «Alles als nicht geistiges Leben erscheinende beharrliche Dasein ist nur ein aus dem Sehen hingeworfener, vielfach durch das Nichts vermittelter leerer Schatten, im Gegensatz mit welchem und durch dessen Erkenntnis als vielfach vermitteltes Nichts das Sehen selbst sich erheben soll zum Erkennen seines eigenen Nichts und zur Anerkennung des Unsichtbaren als des einzigen Wahren.»
[ 14 ] Alle wahrhaft deutschen Lebensäußerungen so aus dein Quell des geistigen Lebens heraus zu erfassen und die Worte, mit denen er von diesen Lebensäußerungen spricht, selber aus diesem Quell heraus zu empfangen, sucht Fichte in seinen «Reden an die deutsche Nation». - Man wird vielleicht mit besonderen Gefühlen bei einer Stelle dieser «Reden» Halt machen, wenn man sich aus Ton und Innigkeit derselben mit der Empfindung durchdrungen hat: Wie steht doch dieser Mann mit seiner ganzen Seele in dem Anschauen des geistigen Wesens der Welt darinnen! Wie ist für ihn dieses Drinnenstehen in der geistigen Welt mit seiner Seele eine so unmittelbare Wirklichkeit wie für den äußeren Menschen das Drinnenstehen in der stofflichen Welt durch die Sinne! Man mag über die Kennzeichnung seiner Zeit, wie sie Fichte in den «Reden» entwickelt, wie immer denken; wenn man von dieser Kennzeichnung vernimmt durch seine Worte, kann es nicht darauf ankommen, ob man mit dem Gesagten einverstanden ist oder nicht, sondern darauf, welchen Zauberhauch menschlicher Gesinnungsart man verspürt. - Fichte redet von der Zeit, welche er heraufzuführen mithelfen möchte. Er gebraucht einen Vergleich. Und dieser Vergleich ist es, bei dem man in angedeutetem Sinne mit seinen Gefühlen festgehalten wird. Er sagt: «Die Zeit erscheint mir wie ein leerer Schatten, der über seinem Leichname, aus dem soeben ein Heer von Krankheiten ihn herausgetrieben, steht und jammert, und seinen Blick nicht loszureißen vermag von der ehedem so geliebten Hülle, und verzweifelnd alle Mittel versucht, um wieder hineinzukommen in die Behausung der Seuchen. Zwar haben schon die belebenden Lüfte der anderen Welt, in die die abgeschiedene eingetreten, sie aufgenommen in sich, und umgeben sie mit warmem Liebeshauche, zwar begrüßen sie schon freudig heimliche Stimmen der Schwestern und heißen sie willkommen, zwar regt es sich schon und dehnt sich in ihrem Innern nach allen Richtungen hin, um die herrlichere Gestalt, zu der sie erwachsen soll, zu entwickeln: aber noch hat sie kein Gefühl für diese Lüfte, oder Gehör für diese Stimmen, oder wenn sie es hätte, so ist sie aufgegangen in Schmerz über ihren Verlust, mit welchem sie zugleich sich selbst verloren zu haben glaubt.»
[ 15 ] Die Frage liegt doch nahe: wie ist eine Seele gestimmt, die bei einer Betrachtung über die Zeit und den Zeitenwandel zu solch einem Vergleich getrieben wird? Fichte redet da über das Dasein der menschlichen Seele nach ihrer Abtrennung vom Leibe durch den Tod, wie sonst ein Mensch über einen stofflichen Vorgang redet, der sich vor seinen Sinnen abspielt. Gewiß, Fichte gebraucht einen Vergleich. Und ein Vergleich darf nicht so ausgenutzt werden, daß man durch ihn etwas erweisen möchte für eine bedeutungsvolle Ansicht des Menschen, der den Vergleich ausspricht. Aber der Vergleich deutet auf eine Vorstellung, die in der Seele des Vergleichenden lebt im Hinblick auf einen Gegenstand oder Vorgang. Hier im Hinblick auf das Erleben der Menschenseele nach dem Tode. Ohne etwas behaupten zu wollen darüber, wie Fichte über die Geltung einer solchen Vorstellung sich ausgesprochen haben würde, wenn er im Zusammenhange seiner Weltanschauung dies getan hätte, kann man sich doch diese Vorstellung vor die Seele führen. Fichte spricht von der Menschenseele als von einem dem Leibe gegenüber so selbständigen Wesen, daß sich dieses Wesen im Tode von dem Leiblichen lostrennt und bewußt hinzuschauen vermag auf den abgetrennten Leib wie der Mensch in der Sinnenwelt auf einen Gegenstand oder Vorgang mit seinen Augen hinschaut. Es wird außer auf dieses Hinschauen auf den verlassenen Leib auch noch auf die neue Umgebung gedeutet, in welche die Seele eintritt, wenn sie sich vom Leibe getrennt hat. Diejenige neuere Form der Geisteswissenschaft, welche über diese Dinge auf Grund gewisser Seelenerlebnisse redet, darf etwas Bedeutsames in diesem Fichteschen Vergleich finden. Was diese Geisteswissenschaft anstrebt, ist eine Erkenntnis über die geistigen Welten ganz im Sinne der Erkenntnisart, welche durch die neuere Naturwissenschaft über die natürliche Welt als berechtigt anerkannt wird. Zwar wird diese Form von Geisteswissenschaft gegenwärtig von vielen noch als eine Träumerei, als wilde Phantastik angesehen; aber so erging es bei vielen doch auch lange mit der den Sinnen widersprechenden Anschauung von dem Umlauf der Erde um die Sonne. Wesentlich ist, daß diese Geisteswissenschaft eine wirkliche Erkennbarkeit der geistigen Welt zu ihrer Grundlage hat. Eine Erkennbarkeit, welche nicht auf erdachten Begriffen, sondern auf wirklich zu erringenden Erlebnissen der Menschenseele beruht. Wie derjenige nichts von den Eigenschaften des Wasserstoffs wissen kann, der nur Wasser kennt, in dem der Wasserstoff drinnen steckt, so kann derjenige nichts wissen von dem wahren Wesen der Menschenseele, der diese nur so erlebt, wie sie in Verbindung mit dem Leibe ist. Doch führt die Geisteswissenschaft dazu, daß das Geistig-Seelische sich für seine eigene Wahrnehmung von dem Physisch-Leiblichen loslöst, wie durch die Methoden des Chemikers der Wasserstoff sich von dem Wasser loslösen läßt. Es geschieht solche Loslösung der Seele nicht durch falsche mystische Phantastik, sondern durch streng gesundes verstärktes inneres Erleben gewisser Seelenfähigkeiten, die zwar in jeder Seele immer vorhanden sind, die aber im gewöhnlichen Leben und in der gewöhnlichen Wissenschaft unbemerkt und unberücksichtigt bleiben. Durch solches Verstärken und Beleben von Seelenkräften kann die Menschenseele zu einem inneren Erfahren kommen, in dem sie eine geistige Welt schaut, wie sie mit den Sinnen die stoffliche Welt schaut. Sie weiß sich dann in der Tat «außerhalb des Zusammenhanges mit dem Leibe» und ausgerüstet mit dem, was man - um Goethesche Ausdrücke zu gebrauchen - «Geistesaugen» und «Geistesohren» nennen kann. Geisteswissenschaft redet von diesen Dingen durchaus nicht in einem falsch-mystischen Sinne, sondern so, daß ihr das Fortschreiten von der gewöhnlichen Anschauung der Sinnenwelt zu dem Anschauen der geistigen Welt zu einem in dem Wesen der Menschennatur gelegenen bestimmten Vorgang wird, den man allerdings durch eigenes inneres Erleben, durch eine bestimmt gerichtete Selbstbetätigung der Seele hervorrufen muß. Aber auch mit Bezug darauf darf sich Geisteswissenschaft im Einklang mit Fichte fühlen. Als der 1813 im Herbst seine «Lehre» als reife Frucht seines Geistesstrebens vor Zuhörern vortrug, sprach er einleitend das Folgende: «Diese Lehre setzt voraus ein ganz neues inneres Sinneswerkzeug, durch welches eine neue Welt gegeben wird, die für den gewöhnlichen Menschen gar nicht vorhanden ist.» Fichte meint damit durchaus nicht ein «Organ», das nur für «auserlesene», nicht für «gewöhnliche Menschen» vorhanden sei, sondern ein «Organ», das jeder erwerben kann, das aber für das gewöhnliche Erkennen und Wahrnehmen des Menschen nicht zum Bewußtsein kommt. Mit solch einem «Organ» ist der Mensch nun wirklich in einer geistigen Welt und vermag über das Leben in dieser Welt zu sprechen wie durch seine Sinne über stoffliche Vorgänge. Wer in diese Lage sich versetzt, dem wird es naturgemäß, über das Leben der Seele zu sprechen, wie es in dem angeführten Fichteschen Vergleich geschieht. Fichte macht den Vergleich nicht aus einem allgemeinen Glauben heraus, sondern durch ein erlebtes Drinnenstehen in der geistigen Welt. Man muß in Fichte eine Persönlichkeit empfinden, welche in jeder Lebensregung sich bewußt eins fühlt mit dem Walten einer geistigen Welt, und die sich in dieser Welt darinnen stehend erschaut wie der Sinnesmensch in der stofflichen Welt. Daß dies nun die Seelenstimmung ist, die er dem deutschen Grundzug seiner Weltanschauung dankt, spricht Fichte deutlich aus. Er sagt: «Die wahre in sich selbst zu Ende gekommene und über die Erscheinung hinweg wahrhaft zum Kerne derselben durchgedrungene Philosophie ... geht aus von dem einen, reinen, göttlichen Leben - als Leben schlechtweg, welches es auch in alle Ewigkeit, und darin immer eines bleibt, nicht aber als von diesem oder jenem Leben; und sie sieht, wie lediglich in der Erscheinung dieses Lebens unendlich fort sich schließe und wiederum öffne, und erst diesem Gesetze zufolge es zu einem Sein, und zu einem Etwas überhaupt komme. Ihr entsteht das Sein, was jene (Fichte meint hier die undeutsche Philosophie) sich vorausgeben läßt. Und so ist denn diese Philosophie (Fichte meint diejenige, zu der er sich bekennt) recht eigentlich nur deutsch, d. i. ursprünglich; und umgekehrt, so jemand nur ein wahrer Deutscher würde, so würde er nicht anders denn so philosophieren können.»
[ 16 ] Unrecht wäre es, diese Worte Fichtes zur Kennzeichnung seiner Seelenstimmung anzuführen, ohne zugleich an die anderen zu erinnern, die er in demselben Redezusammenhang gesprochen hat: «Was an Geistigkeit und Freiheit dieser Geistigkeit glaubt und die ewige Fortbildung dieser Geistigkeit durch Freiheit will, das, wo es auch geboren ist, und in welcher Sprache es rede, ist unseres Geschlechts, es gehört uns an und es wird sich zu uns tun.» - In der Zeit, als Fichte das deutsche Volkstum bedroht sah von westlicher Fremdherrschaft, fühlte er die Notwendigkeit, zu bekennen, daß er das Wesenhafte seiner Weltanschauung als eine ihm wie vom deutschen Volksgeiste gereichte Gabe empfand. Und er brachte rückhaltlos zum Ausdruck, daß ihn diese Empfindung zur Erkenntnis der Aufgaben geführt habe, die er innerhalb der Menschheitentwickelung dem deutschen Volke in dem Sinne zuerkennen dürfe, daß der Deutsche zu allem, was er im Völkerzusammenhange beabsichtige und vollbringe, sein Recht und seinen Beruf von der Erkenntnis dieser Aufgaben herleiten dürfe. Daß er in dieser Erkenntnis den Quell suchen dürfe, aus dem ihm die Kraft fließt, als Deutscher mit dem Seinigen in diese Entwickelung einzugreifen.
[ 17 ] Wer in der gegenwärtigen Zeit Fichtes Seelenstimmung in das Leben der eigenen Seele aufgenommen hat, der wird in der Weltanschauung dieses Denkers eine Kraft finden, die ihn bei dieser Weltanschauung nicht stehenbleiben läßt. Die ihn in seinem Streben nach Geistigkeit zu einem Gesichtspunkte führt, der die Zusammenhänge des Menschen mit der Welt anders zeigt, als sie Fichte dargestellt hat. Er wird an Fichte die Fähigkeit gewinnen können, die Welt anders zu sehen, als sie Fichte gesehen hat. Und er wird eben diese Art, Fichte'isch zu streben, als innige Verwandtschaft mit diesem Denker empfinden. Ein solcher wird gewiß auch den Erziehungsplan, den Fichte in seinen «Reden an die deutsche Nation» als den ihm heilsam erscheinenden kennzeichnete, . zu den Idealen zahlen, für die er unbedingt eintreten möchte. Und so ist es mit vielem, was Fichte als Inhalt seiner Anschauungen zur Geltung bringen wollte. Wie ein gegenwärtig noch in voller Frische fließender Quell aber wirkt die Seelenstimmung, die sich von ihm aus der Seele mitteilt, die mit ihm sich zusammenfinden kann. Seine Weltanschauung erstrebt die stärkste Anspannung der Gedankenkräfte, welche die Seele in sich finden kann, um in dem Menschen das zu entdecken, was als «höheren Menschen» im Menschen dessen Wesenheit im Zusammenhange zeigt mit der Geistesgrundlage derjenigen Welt, die über alle Sinneserfahrung hinaus liegt. Sicherlich ist dies die Art jedes Weltanschauungsstrebens, das nicht in der Sinneswelt selbst die Grundlage alles Seins erblicken will. Aber Fichtes Eigenart liegt in der Kraft, die er aus den Tiefen des Menschenwesens heraus dem Gedanken geben will. Damit dieser Gedanke durch sich selbst die Festigkeit finde, die ihm in der geistigen Welt Gewicht verleiht. Ein Gewicht, das ihn in den Gebieten des Seelenlebens erhält, in dem die Seele die Ewigkeit ihres Erlebens erfühlen, ja so erwollen kann, daß dieses Wollen sich mit dem ewigen Geistesleben verbunden wissen darf.
[ 18 ] So strebt Fichte nach «reinem Menschentum» in seiner Weltanschauung. Er darf sich eins wissen in diesem Streben mit allem Menschlichen, wo und wie es auch jemals auf der Erde auftritt. Und in schicksalsschwerer Zeit spricht Fichte das Wort aus: «So jemand nur ein wahrer Deutscher würde, so würde er nicht anders denn so philosophieren können.» Und durch alles, was er in den «Reden an die deutsche Nation» sagt, klingt dieses Gedankens Erweiterung wie ein Grundton durch: So jemand nur ein wahrer Deutscher ist, wird er aus seiner Deutschheit heraus den Weg finden, auf dem ein Verständnis aller menschlichen Wirklichkeit reifen kann. Denn nicht etwa denkt Fichte, daß er nur die Weltanschauung im Lichte dieses Gedankens sehen dürfe. Weil er Denker ist, gibt er als Beispiel, was für ein Denker er durch seine Deutschheit werden mußte. Aber er ist der Meinung, daß sich dieses Grundwesen der Deutschheit in jedem Deutschen aussprechen müsse, wo er auch seinen Platz im Leben habe.
[ 19 ] Das Recht, gegenwärtig so über das Deutschtum zu sprechen, wie es Fichte getan hat, will die Leidenschaft des Krieges den Deutschen absprechen. Aus dieser Leidenschaft heraus sprechen auch Persönlichkeiten der mit den Deutschen im Kriege lebenden Länder, die im geistigen Leben dieser Länder eine hohe Stufe einnehmen. Philosophen gebrauchen die Kraft ihres Denkens, um - im Einklang mit der Tagesmeinung - das Urteil zu erhärten, daß das deutsche Volkstum selber jenem Wollen, das in Persönlichkeiten von der Art Fichtes lebte, sich entfremdet habe, und verfallen sei dem, was mit dem beliebt gewordenen Worte «Barbarei» bezeichnet wird. Und wenn der Deutsche den Gedanken äußert, daß dieses Volkstum doch Menschen dieser Art erzeugt habe, dann wird wohl die Äußerung solchen Gedankens als höchst überflüssig bezeichnet. Denn man möchte wohl erwidern, von alle dem sei nicht die Rede. Daß die Deutschen Goethe, Fichte, Schiller und so weiter in ihrer Mitte gehabt haben, wisse man zu würdigen; allein deren Geist spreche nicht aus dem, was die Deutschen in der Gegenwart vollbringen. Und so werden die leidenschaftlichen Kritiker des deutschen Wesens wohl gar die Worte finden können: Warum sollten sich aus der träumerischen Art der Deutschen heraus - die wir ja immer richtig eingeschätzt haben - nicht auch heute noch Träumer finden, welche auf die Worte, mit denen wir dem begegnen, was uns die deutschen Waffen tun, antworten mit einer Kennzeichnung des deutschen Wesens, das ihnen ihr Fichte in einer ihnen verlorenen Vergangenheit gegeben hat; und welche Kennzeichnung er aber wohl selbst ändern würde, sähe er, wie deutsche Art heute ist.
[ 20 ] Es werden Zeiten kommen, die ein ruhiges Urteil darüber gewinnen werden, ob die aus der Leidenschaft gesprochene Verurteilung deutschen Wollens nicht dem blinden Rausche entspricht, der sich in seinem Wirklichkeitswert dem Traume gleichsetzt, und ob nicht etwa daneben die «Träumerei», die über gegenwärtiges deutsches Wollen noch immer in Fichtes Art spricht, jenen Wachzustand bedeute, der zwischen sich und die Ereignisse nicht die wirklichkeitfeindlichen Leidenschaften schiebt, die das Urteil einschläfern.
[ 21] Aus keinem anderen Geiste heraus wirkend als aus dem, in dessen Namen Fichte sprach, kann dem Deutschen das Wollen erscheinen, welches das deutsche Volk entwickeln muß in dem Kampfe, den ihm die Feinde Deutschlands aufgezwungen haben. Wie in einer weit ausgedehnten Festung halten die Gegner den Körper umschlossen, welcher der Ausdruck dessen ist, was Fichte als den deutschen Geist kennzeichnete. Jenen Geist, für den der deutsche Krieger sich als Kämpfer empfindet, ob er es in bewußter Erkenntnis dieses Geistes tut, ob er aus den unterbewußten Kräften seiner Seele heraus sich in den Kampf stellt.
[ 22 ] «Wer hat diesen Krieg gewollt?» so lautete eine dem Deutschen von vielen Gegnern gestellte Frage, die wie als selbstverständliche Antwort voraussetzte, daß die Deutschen ihn gewollt haben. Doch auf solche Frage darf nicht Leidenschaft antworten. Auch nicht das Urteil, das nur aus den Tatsachen schließen will, die in allerletzter Zeit dem Kriege vorangegangen sind. Was in dieser allerletzten Zeit geschehen ist, wurzelt tief in den Strömungen europäischer Willensimpulse. Und Antwort der obigen Frage kann nur gesucht werden in den seit lange gegen das Deutschtum eingestellten Impulsen.
[ 23 ] Auf solche Impulse nur soll hier gedeutet werden, die, ihrem allgemeinen Wesen nach, so bekannt sind, daß es völlig überflüssig scheinen kann, über sie zu sprechen, wenn man über die Entstehungsursachen des gegenwärtigen Krieges etwas sagen will. Es gibt aber zwei Gesichtspunkte, von denen aus das scheinbar Überflüssige doch wünschenswert erscheinen kann. Der eine ergibt sich, wenn man bedenkt, daß es sich bei Bildung eines Urteiles über wichtige Tatsachen nicht allein darum handeln kann, daß man etwas weiß, sondern darum, aus welchen Grundlagen heraus man sich das Urteil bildet. Zum zweiten Gesichtspunkt wird man bei der Betrachtung von Völker-Impulsen geführt, wenn man erkennen will, in welcher Art sie in dem Leben der Völker wurzeln. Aus dem Einblick in diese Art ergibt sich eine Empfindung über die Stärke, mit der diese Impulse in der Zeit fortleben und im ihnen günstigen Augenblicke zur Wirksamkeit kommen.
[ 24 ] Ernest Renan ist einer der führenden Geister Frankreichs in der zweiten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Dieser Verfasser eines «Lebens Jesu» und der «Apostel» schrieb in einem öffentlichen Briefe während des Krieges im Jahre 1870 an den deutschen Verfasser eines «Lebens Jesu», David Friedrich Strauß: «Ich war im Seminar zu St. Sulpice, ums Jahr 1843, als ich anfing, Deutschland kennenzulernen durch die Schriften von Goethe und Herder. Ich glaubte in einen Tempel zu treten, und von dem Augenblick an machte mir alles, was ich bis dahin für eine der Gottheit würdige Pracht gehalten hatte, nur noch den Eindruck welker und vergilbter Papierblumen.» Weiter schreibt der Franzose in demselben Briefe: «in Deutschland» habe sich «seit einem Jahrhundert eine der schönsten geistigen Entwickelungen vollzogen, welche die Geschichte kennt, eine Entwickelung, die, wenn ich den Ausdruck wagen darf, dem menschlichen Geist an Tiefe und Ausdehnung eine Stufe zugesetzt hat, so daß, wer von dieser neuen Entwickelung unberührt geblieben, zu dem, der sie durchgemacht hat, sich verhält, wie einer, der nur die Elementarmathematik kennt, zu dem, der im Differentialcalcül bewandert ist». Und dieser führende Franzose bringt in demselben Briefe klar zum Ausdruck, was dieses Deutschland, dessen Geistesleben gegenüber ihm «alles, was» er «bis dahin für eine der Gottheit würdige Pracht gehalten hatte, nur noch den Eindruck welker und vergilbter Papierblumen» machte, von den Franzosen zu gewärtigen habe, wenn es nicht den damaligen Krieg mit einem Renans Landesgenossen genehmen Frieden abschließe. Er schreibt: «Die Stunde ist feierlich. Es gibt in Frankreich zwei Strömungen der Meinung. Die einen urteilen so: Machen wir diesem verhaßten Handel so rasch wie möglich ein Ende; treten wir alles ab, Elsaß, Lothringen; unterzeichnen wir den Frieden; dann aber Haß auf den Tod, Vorbereitungen ohne Rast, Allianz mit wem es sich trifft, unbegrenzte Nachgiebigkeit gegen alle russischen Anmaßungen; ein einziges Ziel, eine einzige Triebfeder für das Leben: Vertilgungskampf gegen die germanische Rasse. Andere sagen: Retten wir Frankreichs Integrität, entwickeln wir die konstitutionellen Einrichtungen, machen wir unsere Fehler gut, nicht indem wir Rache träumen für einen Krieg, worin wir die ungerechten Angreifer waren, sondern indem wir mit Deutschland und England ein Bündnis schließen, dessen Wirkung sein wird, die Weit auf dem Wege der freien Gesittung weiterzuführen.» Renan macht selbst aufmerksam darauf, daß Frankreich in dem damaligen Kriege der ungerechte Angreifer war. Und so ist es nicht notwendig, die leicht erweisliche geschichtliche Tatsache vorzubringen, daß Deutschland jenen Krieg führen mußte, um den ständigen Ruhestörer seiner Arbeit in seine Grenzen zu weisen. Man kann nun davon absehen, inwiefern Deutschland Elsaß-Lothringen als Gebiet verwandter Stämme anstrebte; man braucht nur die Notwendigkeit zu betonen, in die Deutschland dadurch versetzt war, daß es sich Ruhe vor den Franzosen nur verschaffen konnte, wenn es mit dem elsässisch-lothringischen Gebiet dem Nachbarn die Möglichkeit nahm, diese Ruhe künftig so leicht zu stören, als es vorher oft geschehen war. Damit aber war der zweiten Strömung in Frankreich, von der Renan spricht, ein Hemmschuh angelegt; nicht sie hatte Aussicht für ihr Ziel, «die Welt auf dem Wege freier Gesittung weiterzuführen», sondern die andere, deren «einziges Ziel, einzige Triebfeder» für das Leben war: «Vertilgungskampf gegen die germanische Rasse». Es gab Menschen, welche in manchem, das seit dem Kriege von 1870 geschehen ist, Anzeichen zu erkennen glaubten davon, daß eine Überbrückung der Gegensätze auf friedlichem Wege möglich sei. Stimmen, die in diesem Ton erklangen, konnten im Laufe der letzten Jahre viele gehört werden. Doch der gegen das deutsche Volk gerichtete Impuls lebte fort, und lebendig blieb die Triebfeder: «Allianz mit wem es sich trifft, unbegrenzte Nachgiebigkeit gegen alle russischen Anmaßungen;.. . Vertilgungskampf gegen die germanische Rasse.» Aus demselben Geiste heraus ertönt es gegenwärtig wieder durch so manchen führenden Geist Frankreichs. Renan setzt seine Betrachtung über die geschilderten zwei Strömungen im französischen Volke fort mit den Worten: «Deutschland wird entscheiden, ob Frankreich diese oder jene Politik wählen wird; es wird damit zugleich über die Zukunft der Gesittung entscheiden.» Man muß diesen Satz wirklich erst in den deutschen Sinn umsetzen, um ihn recht zu würdigen. Er besagt: Frankreich hat sich in dem Kriege als ungerechter Angreifer erwiesen; falls Deutschland nach einem Siege über Frankreich nicht einen Frieden schließt, der Frankreich ungehindert in der Lage läßt, ein solcher ungerechter Angreifer wieder zu werden, sobald es ihm gefällt, dann entscheidet Deutschland sich gegen die Gesittung der Zukunft. Was aus solcher Auffassung heraus sich für «Haß auf den Tod, Vorbereitungen ohne Rast, Allianz mit wem es sich trifft, unbegrenzte Nachgiebigkeit gegen alle russischen Anrnaßungen», was sich für die «einzige Triebfeder für das Leben: Vertilgungskampf gegen die germanische Rasse» entscheidet, das und nichts anderes liefert die Grundlage zu einer Antwort auf die Frage: «Wer hat diesen Krieg gewollt?»
[ 25 ] Ob sich die «Allianz» finden werde, auch darauf gaben Menschen, welche die gegen das Deutschtum gerichteten Impulse ins Auge zu fassen vermochten, schon damals Antwort, als Renan in dem gekennzeichneten Sinne sich aussprach. Ein Mann, der aus der damaligen Gegenwart einen Vorblick in die Zukunft Europas sucht, Carl Vogt, schreibt während des Krieges von 1870: «Es ist möglich, daß auch bei einer Schonung des Territoriums Frankreich die gebotene Gelegenheit ergreifen wird, um die Scharte wieder auszuwetzen; es ist wahrscheinlich, daß es bei NichtAnnexion übergenug mit seinen inneren Angelegenheiten zu tun haben und an einen erneuten Krieg um so weniger denken wird, als eine gewaltige Friedensströmung in den Gemütern Platz greifen muß; es ist gewiß, daß es jede Rücksicht beiseite setzen wird, wenn eine Annexion stattfinden sollte. Welche Chance soll nun der Staatsmann wählen? - Es ist leicht ersichtlich, daß die Antwort auf diese Frage auch von der Ansicht abhängt, welche man über die bevorstehenden europäischen Konflikte hat. Für sich allein wird Frankreich auch in längerer Zeitfrist nicht wagen, den Kampf aufs neue gegen Deutschland zu bestehen, dafür sind die Schläge zu vollwichtig und gründlich gewesen, - sobald aber ein anderer Feind ersteht, wird es die Frage sich vorlegen können, ob es imstande ist einzutreten und auf wessen Seite. - Was mich nun betrifft, so bin ich keinen Augenblick im Zweifel, daß ein Konflikt zwischen der germanischen und slawischen Welt bevorsteht ... und daß Rußland in demselben die Führerschaft auf der einen Seite übernehmen wird. Diese Macht bereitet sich schon jetzt auf die Eventualität vor; die national-russische Presse speit Feuer und Flammen gegen Deutschland Die deutsche Presse läßt schon ihre Warnungsrufe erschallen. Seitdem nach dem Krimkriege Rußland sich sammelte, ist eine lange Zeit verflossen, und wie es scheint, wird jetzt in Petersburg zweckmäßig gefunden, die orientalische Frage wieder einmal aufzunehmen Wenn das Mittelmeer einst, nach dem mehr pompösen als wahren Ausdruck, ein ‹französischer See› werden sollte, so hat Rußland die noch viel positivere Absicht, aus dem Schwarzen Meere einen russischen See und aus dem Marmarameere einen russischen Teich zu machen. Daß Konstantinopel eine russische Stadt ... werden musse, ist ein feststehender Zielpunkt ‹der russischen Politik›, die ihren ‹Unterstützungshebel› in dem ‹Pansiavismus› findet.» (Carl Vogts Politische Briefe. Biel, 1870.) Diesem Urteile Carl Vogts über das, was er für Europa voraussieht, könnten die nicht weniger anderer Persönlichkeiten zugefügt werden, die aus der Betrachtung europäischer Wollensrichtungen gewonnen sind. Sie würden, worauf hier gedeutet werden soll, eindringlicher machen und doch von der gleichen Tatsache sprechen: daß ein Beobachter dieser Wollensrichtungen bereits 1870 nach dem Osten Europas weisen mußte, wenn er sich die Frage beantworten wollte: Wer wird über kurz oder lang einen Krieg gegen Mitteleuropa führen wollen? Und auf Frankreich mußte sein Blick fallen, wenn er frug: Wer wird mit Rußland zusammen diesen Krieg gegen Deutschland führen wollen? Vogts Stimme kommt besonders in Betracht, weil er in dem Briefe, in dem er so spricht, Deutschland manche Unfreundlichkeit sagt. Der Voreingenommenheit für Deutschland kann er wahrlich nicht geziehen werden. Aber beweisend sind seine Worte dafür, daß die Frage: Wer wird diesen Krieg wollen? von den Tatsachen längst beantwortet war, bevor diejenigen Ursachen wirkten, die Deutschlands Gegner so gerne als Antwort hören möchten, indem sie die Frage aufwerfen: Wer hat diesen Krieg gewollt? Daß es über vierzig Jahre von damals bis zum Ausbruch des Krieges dauerte, ist nicht Frankreichs Verdienst
[ 26 ] In dem russischen Geistesleben des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts treten Gedankenrichtungen zutage, die das gleiche Antlitz tragen wie der Kriegswille, der sich gegenwärtig von Osten her gegen Mitteleuropa entladen hat. Inwieweit diejenigen Personen im Rechte sind, die behaupten, der Hinweis auf derartige Gedankenrichtungen sei unangebracht, kann auch der wissen, der in solchem Hinweis den rechten Weg zum Verständnisse der in Betracht kommenden Ereignisse sieht. Was man im gewöhnlichen Sinne die «Ursachen» dieser Ereignisse nennt, kann ganz gewiß nicht in solchen Gedankenrichtungen einzelner - sogar heute nicht mehr lebender - Menschen gesucht werden. Mit Bezug auf diese Ursachen werden gewiß diejenigen einmal manche Zustimmung finden, die zeigen werden, daß bei einer Anzahl Personen diese Ursachen liegen, auf die sie dann hinweisen werden. Gegen diese Art, die Sache anzusehen, soll nichts eingewendet, ihr ihre volle Berechtigung nicht bestritten werden. Doch ein anderes, nicht weniger Berechtigtes ist die Erkenntnis der im geschichtlichen Werden wirksamen Kräfte und Triebfedern. Die Gedankenrichtungen, auf die hier gedeutet wird, sind nicht diese Triebfedern; aber diese Triebfedern zeigen sich an und in den Gedankenrichtungen. Wer die Gedankenrichtungen erkennt, hält in seiner Erkenntnis die in den Volkskräften liegenden Wesenheiten fest. Auch daß mit einem gewissen Rechte von vielen behauptet wird, die in Frage kommenden Gedankenrichtungen seien gegenwärtig nicht mehr lebendig, kann nicht eingewendet werden. Was im Osten lebendig ist, flackerte in Denkerseelen auf, formte sich damals zu Gedanken und lebt gegenwärtig - in anderer Form - im Kriegswillen.
[ 27 ] Was da aufflackerte, ist die Idee von der besonderen Mission des russischen Volkes. In Betracht kommt die Art, wie diese Idee zur Geltung gebracht wird. In ihr lebt der Glaube, daß das westeuropäische Geistesleben in den Zustand der Greisenhaftigkeit, des Niederganges eingetreten sei, und daß der russische Volksgeist berufen sei, eine vollständige Erneuerung, Verjüngung dieses Geisteslebens zu bewirken. Diese Verjüngungsidee wächst sich aus zu der Meinung, daß alles geschichtliche Werden der Zukunft zusammenfalle mit der Sendung des russischen Volkes. Chomiakow bildet schon in der ersten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts diese Idee zu einem umfassenden Lehrgebäude aus. In einem Werke, das erst nach seinem Tode herausgekommen ist, findet sich dieses Lehrgebäude. Es ist getragen von dem Glauben, daß die westeuropäische Geistesentwickelung im Grunde nie darauf angelegt war, den Weg zum rechten Menschentum zu finden. Und daß das russische Volkstum erst diesen Weg finden müsse. Chomiakow sieht in seiner Art diese westeuropaische Geistesentwickelung an. In dieselbe ist, nach dieser Anschauungsart, zunächst eingeflossen das römische Wesen. Dies habe niemals inneres Menschentum in den Taten der Welt zu offenbaren vermocht. Es habe, im Gegenteil, dem menschlich Innerlichen die Formen der äußerlichen Menschensatzungen aufgezwängt, und es habe verstandesmäßig-materialistisch gedacht, was im inneren Weben der Seele ergriffen werden sollte. Diese Äußerlichkeit im Erfassen des Lebens setzte sich, meint Chomiakow, im Christentum der westeuropäischen Völker fort. Deren Christentum lebe im Kopfe, nicht im Innersten der Seele. Was nun Westeuropa als Geistesleben hat, das haben, nach dem Glauben Chomiakows, die modernen «Barbaren» - nach ihrer Art wieder veräußerlichend, was innerlich leben sollte - aus Römertum und Christentum gemacht. Die Verinnerlichung werde nach der ihm von der geistigen Welt einverleibten höheren Mission das russische Volk zu bringen haben. - In einem solchen Lehrgebäude rumoren Empfindungen, deren vollständige Aus deutung ein ausführliches Kennzeichnen der russischen Volksseele notwendig machte. Eine solche Kennzeichnung würde auf Kräfte zu deuten haben, die in dieser Volksseele liegen, und die sie einmal veranlassen werden, aus ihrer inneren Kraft für sich selbst das entsprechend sich anzupassen, was im westeuropäischen Geistesleben waltet und was dann erst dem russischen Volke geben wird, wozu es in dem geschichtlichen Verlaufe reifen kann. Was die anderen Völker von dem Ergebnis dieser Reifung des russischen Volkes werden für sich fruchtbar machen, das sollte das russische Volk diesen Völkern überlassen. Es könnte sonst dem traurigen Mißverständnisse verfallen, eine Aufgabe, die es für sich zu erfüllen hat, alsWeltaufgabe aufzufassen, und ihr damit ihr Allerwesentlichstes zu nehmen. - Da es sich um das Rumoren der Empfindungen von einer solchen mißverstandenen Aufgabe handelt, verband sich eben die in Frage kommende Idee in den Köpfen, in denen sie auftrat, nur allzu häufig mit politischen Gedankenrichtungen, die erweisen, daß in diesen Köpfen diese Idee der Ausdruck derselben Triebkräfte ist, die in anderen Menschen von Osten her den Keim zu dem gegenwärtigen Kriegswillen legten. Wird man auch von dem liebenswürdigen, poetisch hochsinnigen Chomiakow einerseits sagen können, daß er die Erfüllung der russischen Sendung von einer friedlichen Geistesströmung erwartete, so darf doch auch daran erinnert werden, daß sich in seiner Seele diese Erwartung mit dem zusammenfand, was Rußland als kriegerischer Gegner Europas erreichen möchte. Denn man wird ihm gewiß nicht Unrecht tun, wenn man sagt, daß er 1829 als freiwilliger Husar amTürkenkriege deshalb teilnahm, weil er in dem, was Rußland damals tat, ein erstes Aufleuchten von dessen weltgeschichtlicher Sendung empfand. - Was in dem liebenswürdigen Chomiakow oft in poetischer Verklärung rumorte; es rumorte weiter; und in einem Buche Danilewskys «Rußland und Europa», das gegen das Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts von einer Anzahl von Persönlichkeiten wie ein Evangelium über die Aufgabe Rußlands betrachtet wurde, sind die Triebkräfte zum Ausdruck gebracht, welche die «Geistesaufgabe des russischen Volkes» zur völligen Einheit verschmolzen dachten mit einem weit ausgreifenden Erobererwillen. Man braucht nur hinzublicken auf den Ausdruck, den diese Verschmelzung geistigen Wollens mit Angriffsabsichten gegenüber aller Welt gefunden hat, und man wird deutliche Symptome dessen finden, auf was es zunächst auch vielen von denjenigen ankam, die Rußlands Sendung aus dem Wesen der geistigen Welt herleiten wollten. Es wird diese Sendung mit der Eroberung Konstantinopeis zusammengebracht, und von dem Willen, dem damit seine Richtung gewiesen wird, gefordert, daß er, ohne «Liebe und Haß» zu empfinden, sich abstumpfe gegen alles Fühlen gegenüber «Roten oder Weißen, gegenüber Demagogen oder Despoten, gegen Legitime oder Revolutionäre, gegenüber Deutschen, Franzosen, Engländern oder Italienern...», daß er als «wahre Bundesgenossen» nur diejenigen ansehe, die Rußland in seinem Streben unterstützen. Es wird gesagt, daß besonders verderblich sei dem, was Rußland wollen müsse, «in Europa das Gleichgewicht der politischen Triebkräfte», und daß man «jede Verletzung dieses Gleichgewichtes» fördern müsse, «von welcher Seite sie auch kommen mag». «Es obliegt uns, für immer jedes Zusammengehen mit europäischen Interessen von uns zu weisen» .
[ 28 ] Besonders kennzeichnend ist die Stellung, welche der feinsinnige russische Philosoph Wladimir Solowieff gegenüber diesen Gedanken- und Empfindungsrichtungen eingenommen hat. Solowieff kann als eine der bedeutendsten Verkörperungen russischen Geisteswesens angesehen werden. In seinen Werken lebt schöne philosophische Kraft, edle geistige Aufschau, mystische Tiefe. Doch von der in den Köpfen seiner Landsgenossen rumorenden Idee der hohen Sendung des Russentums war auch er lange durchdrungen. Auch bei ihm fand sich diese Idee zusammen mit der anderen von der Abgelebtheit des Westeuropäertums. Für ihn war der Grund, warum Westeuropa der Welt nicht zum Offenbaren des vollen innersten Menschentums habe verhelfen können, der, daß dieses Westeuropa das Heil erwartet habe von der Entwickelung der im Menschen liegenden Eigenkräfte. Doch in solchem Streben aus den Eigenkräften des Menschen heraus, konnte Solowieff nur einen ungeistigen Irrweg sehen, von dem die Menschheit erlöst werden müsse dadurch, daß, ohne menschliches Zutun, durch ein Wunder sich aus anderen Welten geistige Kraft auf die Erde ergieße und daß dasjenige Volkstum, welches zum Empfangen dieser Kraft auserwählt sei, der Retter der verirrten Menschheit werde. In dem Wesen des russischen Volkes sah er dasjenige, was vorbereitet sei zum Empfangen solcher außermenschlicher Kraft und daher zum Retter des wahren Menschentums. Solowieffs Verwachsensein mit dem russischen Wesen brachte es dahin, daß in seiner Seele das Rumoren des russischen Ideales eine Zeitlang wohlwollend hinblicken mochte auf andere, die von diesem Rumoren gleichfalls besessen waren. Doch konnte dies nur sein, bis seine von echtem Idealismus erfüllte Seele zu der Empfindung erwachte, daß dieses Rumoren auf der mißverständlichen Auffassung eines Zukunftideales für die eigene Entwickelung des russischen Volkes beruhte. Er machte die Entdeckung, daß viele andere gar nicht davon sprechen, welchem Ideale das russische Volk zu seinem eigenen Heile nachstrebe, sondern daß sie das russische Volk, wie es gegenwärtig ist, selber zum Idole machen. Und durch diese Entdeckung wurde Solowieff zu dem herbsten Kritiker derjenigen, die unter der Flagge einer Sendung des russischen Volkes die gegen Westeuropa gerichteten Angreiferinstinkte wie heilsame Triebkräfte der ferneren Geistesentwickelung in den Willen der Nation einführten. Aus der Lehre des Buches Danilewskys «Rußland und Europa» starrte Solowieff die Frage entgegen: Warum muß Europa mit Besorgnis auf das blicken, was sich innerhalb der Grenzen Rußlands vollzieht? Und in der Seele des Russen nimmt diese Frage die Form an: «Warum liebt uns Europa nicht?» Und Solowieff, der die russischen Angreiferinstinkte im Kleide der Ideen von der weltgeschichtlichen Mission Rußlands besonders in Danilewskys Buch ausgesprochen sah, fand in einer Kritik dieses Buches (1888) in seiner Art die Antwort auf diese Frage. Danilewsky hatte gemeint, «Europa fürchtet uns als den neuen und höheren Kulturtypus, welcher berufen ist, die Greisenhaftigkeit der romanisch-germanischen Zivilisation zu ersetzen». Dies führt Solowieff als den Glauben Danilewskys an. Und darauf erwidert er: «Dennoch führen sowohl der Inhalt des Buches Danilewskys wie auch seine späteren Zugeständnisse und diejenigen seines gleichgesinnten Freundes - gemeint ist Strachow, der für Danilewskys Ideen nach dessen Tode eintrat - auf eine andere Antwort: Europa blickt gegnerisch und mit Befürchtung auf uns, weil im russischen Volke dunkle und unklare elementarische Gewalten leben, weil dessen geistige und Kulturkräfte ärmlich und ungenügend sind, dafür aber seine Ansprüche offenbar und scharf bestimmt zutage treten. Gewaltig tönen nach Europa hinaus die Rufe von dem, was das russische Volk als Nation wolle, daß es die Türkei und Österreich vernichten wolle, Deutschland schlagen, Konstantinopel und, wenn möglich, auch Indien an sich reißen wolle. Und wenn man uns frägt, womit wir an Stelle des an uns Gerissenen und Zerstörten die Menschheit beglücken wollen, welche geistige und Kuiturverjüngung wir in die Weltentwickelung bringen wollen, dann müssen wir entweder schweigen oder sinnlose Phrasen schwätzen. Und wenn das bittere Geständnis Danilewskys gerecht ist, daß Rußland krank zu werden beginnt, dann müßten wir uns, statt mit der Frage: Warum liebt uns Europa nicht? vielmehr mit einer anderen beschäftigen, einer uns näher liegenden und uns wichtigeren Frage: Warum und weshalb sind wir krank? Physisch ist Rußland noch ziemlich stark, wie es sich in dem letzten russischen Kriege gezeigt hat; also ist unser Leiden ein sittliches. Auf uns lasten, dem Worte eines alten Schriftstellers gemäß, die im Volkscharakter verborgenen und uns nicht zum Bewußtsein kommenden Sünden - und so ist es vor allem nötig, diese in das Licht des hellen Bewußtseins heraufzubringen. Solange wir geistig gebunden und paralysiert sind, müssen uns alle unsere elementarischen Instinkte nur zum Schaden gereichen. Die wesentliche, ja die einzig wesentliche Frage für den wahren Patriotismus ist nicht die Frage über die Kraft und über die Berufung, sondern über die Sünden Rußlands.»
[ 29 ] Man wird auf diese im Osten Europas zutage tretenden Willensrichtungen deuten müssen, wenn man von wirksamen Kräften im Angreiferwillen dieses Ostens sprechen will; was durch Tolstoi zum Ausdruck gekommen ist, stellt unwirksame Kräfte dar.
[ 30 ] Eine Beleuchtung kann diese Lehre von der «Sendung Rußlands» erfahren dadurch, daß man neben ihr ein Beispiel betrachtet von der Art, wie innerhalb des Geisteslebens, auf welches die Sprecher von dieser Sendung als auf ein zur Greisenhaftigkeit verurteiltes herabblicken, eine solche Sendung eines Volkes empfunden wird. Schiller stand in seinem Gedankenleben Fichte besonders nahe, als er in seinen «Briefen, die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen betreffend» nach einem Ausblicke suchte, der den Menschen in sich den «höheren», den «wahren Menschen» schauen läßt. Man wird, wenn man sich auf die Seelenstimmung einläßt, die in diesen ästhetischen Briefen Schillers waltet, in ihnen einen Höhepunkt deutschen Empfindens finden können. Schiller ist der Meinung, daß der Mensch in seinem Leben nach zwei Seiten hin unfrei werden könne. Unfrei ist er, wenn er sich der Welt so gegenüberstellt, daß er die Dinge nur durch die Notwendigkeit der Sinne auf sich wirken läßt; da beherrscht ihn die Sinneswelt, und seine Geistigkeit stellt sich unter diese. Aber auch, wenn der Mensch nur der in seiner Vernunft waltenden Notwendigkeit gehorcht, ist er unfrei. Die Vernunft hat ihre eigenen Forderungen, und der Mensch kann, wenn er sich diesen Forderungen unterwirft, nicht das freie Walten seines Willens in der starren Vernunftnotwendigkeit erleben. Durch sie lebt er zwar auf geistige Art, aber die Geistigkeit unterjocht das Sinnesleben. Frei wird der Mensch, wenn er das auf die Sinne Wirkende so erleben kann, daß sich in dem Sinnenfälligen ein Geistiges offenbart, und wenn er das Geistige selbst so erlebt, daß es ihm wohlgefällig sein kann wie das Sinnlich-Wirksame. Das ist der Fall, wenn der Mensch dem Kunstwerk gegenübersteht, wenn der Sinneseindruck geistiger Genuß, wenn das geistig Erlebte, den Sinneseindruck verklärend, erfühlt wird. Auf diesem Wege wird der Mensch «ganz Mensch». Von vielen Ausblicken, die sich aus dieser Vorstellungsart ergeben, sei hier abgesehen. Nur auf eines sei hingewiesen, was mit dieser Schillerschen Anschauung erstrebt wird. Es wird einer der Wege gesucht, auf denen der Mensch durch sein Verhältnis zur Welt den «höheren Menschen» in sich findet. Aus der Betrachtung der menschlichen Wesenheit heraus wird dieser Weg gesucht. Man stelle nur wirklich neben diese Vorstellungsart, die im Menschen menschlich mit dem Menschen selbst sprechen will, die andere, welche meint, die russische Volksart sei diejenige, die im Gegensatz zu anderen Volksarten die Welt zum wahren Menschentum führen müsse.
[ 31 ] Fichte sucht diese im Wesen der deutschen Gesinnung liegende Vorstellungsart in seinen «Reden an die deutsche Nation» mit den Worten zu kennzeichnen: «Es gibt Völker, welche, indem sie selbst ihre Eigentümlichkeit behalten, und dieselbe geehrt wissen wollen, auch den anderen Völkern die ihrigen zugestehen, und sie ihnen gönnen und verstatten; zu diesen gehören ohne Zweifel die Deutschen, und es ist dieser Zug in ihrem ganzen vergangenen und gegenwärtigen Weltleben so tief begründet, daß sie sehr oft, um gerecht zu sein, sowohl gegen das gleichzeitige Ausland als gegen das Altertum, ungerecht sind gegen sich selbst. Wiederum gibt es andere Völker, denen ihr eng in sich selbst verwachsenes Selbst niemals die Freiheit gestattet, sich zu kalter und ruhiger Betrachtung des Fremden abzusondern, und die daher zu glauben genötigt sind, es gebe nur eine einzige mögliche Weise, als gebildeter Mensch zu bestehen, und dies sei jedesmal die, welche in diesem Zeitpunkte gerade ihnen irgendein Zufall angeworfen; alle übrigen Menschen in der Welt hätten keine andere Bestimmung, denn also zu werden, wie sie sind, und sie hätten ihnen den größten Dank abzustatten, wenn sie die Mühe über sich nehmen wollten, sie also zu bilden. Zwischen Völkern der ersten Art findet eine der Ausbildung des Menschen überhaupt höchst wohltätige Wechselwirkung der gegenseitigen Bildung und Erziehung statt, und eine Durchdringung, bei welcher dennoch jeder, mit dem guten Willen des anderen, sich selbst gleich bleibt. Völker von der zweiten Art vermögen nichts zu bilden, denn sie vermögen nichts in seinem vorhandenen Sein anzufassen; sie wollen nur alles Bestehende vernichten und außer sich allenthalben eine leere Stätte hervorbringen, in der sie nur immer die eigene Gestalt wiederholen können; selbst ihr anfängliches scheinbares Hineingehen in fremde Sitte ist nur die gutmütige Herablassung des Erziehers zum jetzt noch schwachen, aber gute Hoffnung gebenden Lehrlinge; selbst die Gestalten der vollendeten Vorwelt gefallen ihnen nicht, bis sie dieselben in ihr Gewand gehüllt haben, und sie würden, wenn sie könnten, dieselben aus den Gräbern aufwecken, um sie nach ihrer Weise zu erziehen.» So urteilt Fichte über manche Nationaleigentümlichkeiten; allein auf dieses Urteil folgt sogleich ein Satz, der diesem Urteil alle Färbung eines eigenen Nationalhochmuts nehmen will: «Ferne zwar bleibe von mir die Vermessenheit, irgendeine vorhandene Nation im ganzen und ohne Ausnahme jener Beschränktheit zu beschuldigen. Lasst uns vielmehr annehmen, daß auch hier diejenigen, welche sich nicht äußern, die bessern sind.»
[ 32 ] Diese Betrachtungen möchten nicht aus solcher Seelenstimmung heraus die Frage beantworten: Wer hat diesen Krieg gewollt?, wie dies manche Persönlichkeiten der mit Mitteleuropa im Kriege befindlichen Länder tun. Sie möchten die Bedingungen der Ereignisse durch sich selbst sprechen lassen. Der diese Betrachtungen niederschreibt, frug bei Russen an, ob sie einen Krieg gegen Mitteleuropa gewollt haben. - Ihm scheint das, was Renan im Jahre 1870 vorausgesagt hat, auf einen sichereren Weg zu führen, als was gegenwärtig aus der Leidenschaft heraus geurteilt wird. Es scheint ihm dies ein Weg zu dem einzigen Urteilsgebiete zu sein, das gegenüber dem Kriege auch von demjenigen betreten werden kann und soll, der sich Vorstellungen darüber macht, welche Gedankenurteile überflüssig und unangebracht sind, wenn die Taturteile der Waffen aus Blut und Tod heraus über Völkerschicksale zu entscheiden haben.
[ 33 ] Gewiß ist, daß Triebkräfte, die zum Kriege drängen, durch andere Kräfte so lange in ein Friedensleben hineingezwungen werden können, bis sie sich so weit in sich selber geschwächt haben, daß sie unwirksam werden. Und wer durch diese Wirksamkeit zu leiden hat, wird sich bemühen, diese den Frieden erhaltenden Kräfte zu schaffen. Der Verlauf der Geschichte zeigt, daß Deutschland seit Jahren sich gegenüber den von Westen und Osten strömenden Willenskräften dieser Bemühung unterzogen hat. Alles andere, was man mit Bezug auf den gegenwärtigen Krieg in der Richtung auf Frankreichs und Russlands Triebkräfte sagen kann, wiegt weniger als die einfache, offen liegende Tatsache, daß diese Triebkräfte in dem Wollen der beiden Länder genügend tief verankert waren, um allem zu trotzen, was sie niederhalten wollte. Wer diese Tatsache ausspricht, muß nicht notwendig zu denjenigen Persönlichkeiten gezählt werden, die aus - selbstverständlich in dieser Zeit ganz begreiflicher - von den Ereignissen vorbestimmter Zu- oder Abneigung zu diesem oder jenem Volke urteilen. Verachtung, Hass oder ähnliches braucht mit solcher Urteilbildung nichts zu tun haben. Wie man solche Dinge liebt oder nicht liebt, wie man sie gefühlsmäßig einschätzt, das ist etwas durchaus anderes als das Hinstellen der einfachen Tatsache. Es hat auch nichts damit zu tun, wie man die Franzosen liebt oder nicht liebt, wie man ihren Geist schätzt, wenn man glaubt, Gründe zu der Meinung zu haben, daß Triebkräfte, die in Frankreich zu finden sind, in die gegenwärtigen Kriegsverwickelungen hineinverschlungen sind. Was über solche Triebfedern, die bei Völkern vorhanden sind, gesagt wird, kann freigehalten werden von dem, was in das Gebiet der Anklage oder Beschuldigung im gewöhnlichen Sinne fällt.
[ 34 ] Man wird bei den Deutschen vergeblich nach solchen Triebfedern suchen, die zu dem gegenwärtigen Kriege in ähnlicher Art führen mußten wie die von Solowieff bei den Russen gekennzeichneten, von Renan für die Franzosen vorausverkündeten. Die Deutschen konnten voraussehen, daß man diesen Krieg einmal gegen sie führen werde. Es war ihre Pflicht, sich für ihn zu rüsten. Was sie zur Erfüllung dieser Pflicht getan haben, nennt man bei ihren Gegnern die Pflege ihres Militarismus.
[ 35 ] Was die Deutschen um ihrer selbst willen und, um die ihnen durch weitgeschichtliche Notwendigkeiten auferlegten Aufgaben zu erfüllen, zu leisten haben, wäre ihnen ohne diesen Krieg zu leisten möglich gewesen, wenn diese Leistungen andern ebenso genehm wie ihnen notwendig wären. Es hing eben durchaus nicht von den Deutschen ab, wie die andern Völker die Erfüllung der weltgeschichtlichen Aufgaben aufnahmen, die den Deutschen auf materiellem Kulturgebiete in der neueren Zeit sich zu ihren früher vorhandenen hinzufügten. Die Deutschen konnten in die nur aus sich heraus wirksame Kraft, die ihren materiellen Kulturleistungen Geltung verschafft, das Vertrauen haben, das sie gewinnen mochten aus der Art, wie ihre Geistesarbeit von den Völkern aufgenommen worden ist. Wenn man nämlich auf deutsche Art blickt, so gewahrt man, daß in derselben nichts liegt, was den Deutschen notwendig gemacht hätte, das von ihm an gegenwärtiger Arbeit zu leistende in anderer Weise zur Geltung in der Welt zu bringen, als es bei seinen rein geistigen Leistungen geschehen ist.
[ 36 ] Es ist nicht notwendig, daß der Deutsche selber den Versuch mache, die Bedeutung der deutschen Geistesart und Geistesleistung für die Menschheit zu kennzeichnen. Er kann, wenn er Urteile verzeichnen will, welche Bedeutung diese Art und Leistung für die außerdeutsche Menschheit haben, die Antworten bei dieser außerdeutschen Menschheit suchen. Man wird auf die Worte einer Persönlichkeit hören dürfen, die zu den führenden im Gebiete der englischen Sprache gehört, auf die des großen Redners Amerikas, Ralph Waldo Emersons. Der gibt in seiner Betrachtung über Goethe eine Kennzeichnung der deutschen Geistesart und Geistesleistung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Weltbildung.2Emersons Sätze sind hier nach der Übersetzung Hermann Grimms. Vgl. dessen Buch: Fünfzehn Essays. Dritte Folge. Er sagt: «Eine Eigenschaft vornehmlich, die Goethe mit seiner ganzen Nation gemein hat, macht ihn in den Augen des französischen und des englischen Publikums zu einer ausgezeichneten Erscheinung: daß sich alles bei ihm nur auf die innere Wahrheit basiert. In England und Amerika respektiert man das Talent, allein man ist zufriedengestellt, wenn es für oder gegen eine Partei seiner Überzeugung nach tätig ist. In Frankreich ist man schon entzückt, wenn man brillante Gedanken sieht, einerlei wohin sie wollen. In all diesen Ländern aber schreiben begabte Männer soweit ihre Gaben reichen. Regt, was sie vorbringen, den verständigen Leser an und enthält es nichts, was gegen den guten Ton anstößt, so wird es für genügend angesehen. So viel Spalten, so viel angenehm und nützlich verbrachte Stunden. Der deutsche Geist besitzt weder die französische Lebhaftigkeit noch das für das Praktische zugespitzte Verständnis der Engländer, noch endlich die amerikanische Art, sich in unbestimmte Lagen zu begeben, allein, was er besitzt, ist eine gewisse Probität, die niemals beim äußerlichen Scheine der Dinge stehen bleibt, sondern immer wieder auf die Hauptfrage zurückkommt: ‹Wo will das hin?› Das deutsche Publikum verlangt von einem Schriftsteller, daß er über den Dingen stehe und sich einfach darüber ausspreche. Geistige Regsamkeit ist vorhanden: wohlan: wofür tritt sie auf? Was ist des Mannes Meinung? Woher? - woher hat er alle diese Gedanken?» Und an einer anderen Stelle dieser Goethebetrachtung prägt Emerson die Worte: Der «tiefe Ernst, mit dem sie - Emerson meint die in Deutschland gebildeten Männer - ihre Studien betreiben, setzt sie in den Stand, Männer zu durchschauen, welche bei weitem begabter als sie selbst sind. Aus diesem Grunde sind die in der höheren Konversation gebräuchlichen Unterscheidungsbegriffe alle deutschen Ursprungs. Während die ihres Scharfsinns und ihrer Gelehrsamkeit willen mit Auszeichnung genannten Engländer und Franzosen ihr Studium und ihren Standpunkt mit einer gewissen Oberflächlichkeit ansehen, Lind ihr persönlicher Charakter mit dem, was sie ergriffen haben, und mit der Art, wie sie sich darüber ausdrücken, in nicht allzu tiefem Zusammenhange steht, spricht Goethe, das Haupt und der Inhalt der deutschen Nation, nicht weil er Talent hat, sondern die Wahrheit konzentriert ihre Strahlen in seiner Seele und leuchtet heraus aus ihr. Er ist weise im höchsten Grade, mag auch seine Weisheit oftmals durch sein Talent verschleiert werden. Wie vortrefflich das ist, was er sagt, er hat etwas im Auge dabei, was noch besser ist. Er hat jene furchterweckende Unabhängigkeit, welche aus dem Verkehr mit der Wahrheit entspringt. Lausche auf seine Worte oder wende dein Ohr ab: die Tatsache bleibt bestehen, wie er sie sagte.»
[ 37 ] Einige Gedanken Emersons seien noch angefügt, die ganz gewiß hier werden stehen dürfen; hat sie doch ein Englisch-Amerikaner über die Deutschen gesprochen. «Die Deutschen denken für Europa ... Die Engländer sehen nur das einzelne und wissen die Menschheit nicht nach höheren Gesetzen als ein Ganzes aufzufassen ... Die Engländer ermessen die Tiefe des deutschen Geistes nicht.» Emerson konnte wissen, welchen Einschlag deutsche Geistesarbeit der Menschheit zu geben vermag.
[ 38 ] Emerson spricht in den angeführten Sätzen von der «Lebhaftigkeit der Franzosen» und von dem «für das Praktische zugespitzten Verständnis der Engländer». Wollte man in seinem Sinne mit Bezug auf die Russen fortfahren, so könnte man vielleicht sagen: der Deutsche besitzt nicht den Trieb der Russen, für alle ihre Lebensäußerungen, selbst für die praktischen, eine mystische Kraft zu suchen, durch die sie sich rechtfertigen.
[ 39 ] Und in diesen Verhältnissen der Geister dieser Völker liegt etwas, das den Kriegsgegensätzen, die gegenwärtig wirksam sind, durchaus ähnlich ist. In der Triebfeder, welche von den Franzosen her zum Kriege mit Deutschland führte, wirkt deren Temperament, wirkt, was Emerson mit ihrer Lebhaftigkeit meint. In diesem Temperament liegt die geheimnisvolle Macht, welche so übersprudelnd sich ausspricht in Renans Worten: «Hass auf den Tod, Vorbereitungen ohne Rast, Allianz mit wem es sich trifft.» Daß Frankreich mit einem absolut fast gleichen, im Verhältnis zu seiner Bevölkerungszahl aber sogar mehr als anderthalbmal so großem Heer wie Deutschland vor dem Kriege gerüstet dastand, ist ein Ergebnis dieser geheimnisvollen Macht, über das die Phrase von dem «deutschen Militarismus» als verbergender Schleier gezogen werden soll. - In Rußlands Kriegswillen wirkt der mystische Glaube selbst noch da, wo er nur einen instinktiven Ausdruck findet. Man wird, um die heute wirksamen Gegensätze zwischen Franzosen und Russen einerseits, Deutschen andererseits zu kennzeichnen, die Stimmungen der Seelen beobachten müssen. - Der Kriegsgegensatz zwischen Briten und Deutschen ist dagegen ein solcher, daß die Deutschen sich nur «für das Praktische zugespitzten» Triebfedern gegenübergestellt sehen. Das Ideal der englischen Politik ist, dem Wesen des Landes entsprechend, ganz auf praktische Ziele hingeordnet. Betont sei: dem Wesen des Landes entsprechend. Was seine Bewohner etwa in ihrem Verhalten von diesem Wesen offenbaren, ist selber eine Wirkung dieses Wesens, nicht aber die Grundlage des englischen politischen Ideals. Die Betätigung im Sinne dieses Ideals hat in dem Briten die Gewohnheit erzeugt, als Richtschnur dieser Betätigung das gelten zu lassen, was ihm den persönlichen Lebensinteressen entsprechend dünkt. Dem Vorhandensein einer solchen Richtschnur widerspricht nicht, daß sie sich im gesellschaftlichen Zusammenleben als bestimmte Regel geltend macht, der man streng gehorcht, wenn man Lebensart haben will. Es widerspricht ihm auch nicht, daß man die Richtschnur für etwas ganz anderes hält, als sie ist. Alles dies gilt nur von dem Briten, insoferne er eingegliedert ist der Welt seines politischen Ideales. Und durch dieses ist ein Kriegsgegensatz zwischen England und Deutschland geschaffen.
[ 40 ] Dafür, daß einmal die Zeit kommen muß, in welcher auf seelischem Gebiete die auf das Geistige gehende Weltanschauung des deutschen Wesens sich ihre Weltgeltung - selbstverständlich nur durch einen Kampf der Geister - gegenüber derjenigen wird erobern müssen, die in Mill, Spencer, dem Pragmatiker Schiller, in Locke und Huxley und anderen ihre Repräsentanten aus dem englischen Wesen heraus hat: dafür kann die Tatsache des gegenwärtigen Krieges eine Mahnung sein. Es hat dies aber mit diesem Kriege unmittelbar nichts zu tun.
[ 41 ] Die gekennzeichnete Richtschnur für das politische Ideal Englands hatte Goethe im Sinne, als er, der Shakespeare zu den Geistern zählte, die auf ihn den größten Einfluß ausgeübt haben, die Worte sprach: «Während aber die Deutschen sich mit Auflösung philosophischer Probleme quälen, lachen uns die Engländer mit ihrem großen praktischen Verstande aus und gewinnen die Welt. Jedermann kennt ihre Deklamationen gegen den Sklavenhandel, und, während sie uns weiß machen wollen, was für humane Maximen solchem Verfahren zugrunde liegen, entdeckt sich jetzt, daß das wahre Motiv ein reales Objekt sei, ohne welches es die Engländer bekanntlich nie tun, und welches man hätte wissen sollen.» - Über Byron, der ihm das Vorbild des Euphorion im zweiten Teil des Faust geworden ist, sagt Goethe: «Byron ist zu betrachten als Mensch, als Engländer und als großes Talent. Seine guten Eigenschaften sind vorzüglich vom Menschen herzuleiten; seine schlimmen, daß er ein Engländer ... war ... Alle Engländer sind als solche ohne eigentliche Reflexion; die Zerstreuung und der Parteigeist lassen sie zu keiner ruhigen Ausbildung kommen. Aber sie sind groß als praktische Menschen.»
[ 42 ] Auch diese Goetheschen Urteile treffen nicht den Engländer als solchen, sondern nur das, was als «Gesamtwesen England» sich offenbart, wenn dieses Gesamtwesen als Träger seines politischen Ideals sich offenbart.
[ 43 ] Das erwähnte politische Ideal hat die Gewohnheit entwickelt, einen möglichst großen Raum der Erde zum Gebrauche für England nach der gekennzeichneten Richtschnur einzurichten. Diesem Raum gegenüber erscheint England wie eine Person, die ihr Haus nach ihrer Annehmlichkeit einrichtet, und die sich daran gewöhnt, auch den Nachbarn zu verwehren, etwas zu tun, was die Bewohnbarkeit des Hauses weniger angenehm macht als man wünscht.
[ 44 ] Die Gewohnheit, in dieser Art weiterleben zu können, glaubte England durch die Entwickelung, die Deutschland in der neuesten Zeit notwendig erstreben mußte, bedroht. Verständlich ist daher, daß es einen kriegerischen Konflikt zwischen Rußland-Frankreich einerseits und DeutschlandÖsterreich andererseits nicht entstehen lassen wollte, ohne alles zu tun, was beitragen konnte, den Alp der Bedrohung, den ihm Deutschlands Kulturarbeit verursachte, wegzuschaffen. Das aber war, sich Deutschlands Gegnern anzuschließen. Ein rein politischer «für das Praktische zugespitzter Verstand» errechnete, welche Gefahr für England aus einem gegen Rußland und Frankreich siegenden Deutschland erstehen könnte. - Mit einer bloß moralischen Entrüstung über die « belgische Neutralitätsverletzung » hat dieses Errechnen so wenig zu tun, wie es mit dem «für das Praktische zugespitzten Verstand», der die Deutschen in Englands Interessenkreise sieht, wenn sie Belgien betreten, viel zu tun hat.
[ 45 ] Was diese «für das Praktische zugespitzte» Willensrichtung in Verbindung mit anderen gegen Deutschland gerichteten Kräften zu Wirksamkeit im Laufe der Zeit bringen müsse, das konnte sich für eine deutsche Empfindung ergeben, wenn gefragt wurde: Wie wirkte das politische Ideal Englands stets dann, wenn eine europäische Landmacht es von den weitgeschichtlichen Verhältnissen gefordert finden mußte, ihre Betätigung über die Meere hin auszudehnen? Man brauchte bloß auf das zu blicken, was dieses politische Ideal Spanien und Portugal, Holland, Frankreich gegenüber getan hatte, als diese ihre Betätigung zur See entfalteten. Und man konnte sich erinnern, daß dieses politische Ideal stets «sich auf das Praktische zuspitzte» und zu errechnen wußte, wie die europäischen Willensrichtungen, die gegen die Länder gerichtet waren, in denen eine junge Seebetätigung sich entfaltete, so in ein Kräfteverhältnis zu bringen waren, daß sich Aussicht eröffnete, England werde von seinem Mitbewerber befreit werden.
[ 46 ] Was das Volk Deutschlands gegenüber der europaischen Lage vor dem Kriege empfinden mußte, ergibt die Beobachtung der auf dieses Volk aus dem Umkreis gerichteten Kräfte. Von England her das «für das Praktische zugespitzte» «Ideal» dieses Landes. Von Rußland her Willensrichtungen, die den Aufgaben, welche sich Deutschland und Österreich-Ungarn für « Europas Mitte » ergeben hatten, widerstrebten. Von Frankreich her Volkskräfte, deren Wesenheit für den Deutschen nicht anders zu empfinden war als in der Art, die Moltke einmal im Hinblick auf Frankreichs Verhältnis zu Deutschland in die Worte geprägt hat: «Napoleon war eine vorübergehende Erscheinung. Frankreich blieb. Mit Frankreich hatten wir es schon vor Jahrhunderten zu tun, mit ihm werden wir es noch in Jahrhunderten zu tun haben ... (es) wird die jüngere Generation in Frankreich in dem Glauben erzogen, sie habe ein heiliges Recht auf den Rhein und die Mission, ihn bei der ersten Gelegenheit zur Grenze Frankreichs zu machen. Die Rheingrenze muß eine Wahrheit werden, das ist das Thema für die Zukunft Frankreichs.»
[ 47 ] Gegenüber diesen drei Willensrichtungen hatte die weltgeschichtliche Notwendigkeit Deutschland und Österreich-Ungarn zu «Europas Mitte» zusammengeschmiedet. Es hat immer mit der Kultur dieser europäischen Mitte verwachsene Menschen gegeben, welche empfanden, wie dieser europäischen Mitte Aufgaben erwachsen werden, die ihnen als von den Völkern dieser Mitte gemeinsam zu lösende sich offenbaren werden.Wie eines Repräsentanten solcher Menschen sei hier eines lang Verstorbenen gedacht. Eines, der die Ideale von «Europas Mitte» tief in seiner Seele trug, in der sie erwärmt wurden von der Kraft Goethes, von der er seine ganze Weltauffassung und die innersten Impulse seines Lebens tragen ließ. Gemeint ist der österreichische Literar- und Sprachforscher Karl Juijus Schröer. Ein Mann, der von seinen Zeitgenossen in seiner Wesenheit und Bedeutung allzuwenig gekannt und gewürdigt worden ist. Der Schreiber dieser Betrachtungen zählt ihn zu denjenigen Persönlichkeiten, denen er im Leben unermeßlichen Dank schuldig ist. Schröer schrieb in seinem Buche über die «Deutsche Dichtung» im Jahre 1875 als Niederschlag der Empfindungen, die die Ereignisse von 1870/1871 für die Formung eines Ideals von «Europas Mitte» erregt hatten, die Worte nieder: «Wir in Österreich sehen uns gerade bei diesem bedeutenden Wendepunkte in einer eigentümlichen Lage. Hat die freie Bewegung unseres staatlichen Lebens die Scheidewand hinweggeräumt, die uns bis vor kurzem von Deutschland trennte, sind uns nun ... die Mittel an die Hand gegeben, uns emporzuarbeiten zu einem gemeinsamen Kulturleben mit den übrigen Deutschen, so ist gerade jetzt der Fall eingetreten, daß wir an einer großen Handlung unseres Volkes uns nicht beteiligen sollten ... Im deutschen Geistesleben konnte dadurch eine Scheidewand nicht entstehen. Die Wurzeln desselben sind nicht politischer, sondern kulturgeschichtlicher Natur. Diese unzerreißbare Einheit deutschen Geisteslebens ... wollen wir im Auge behalten ... im Deutschen Reiche wolle man unsere schwere Kulturaufgabe würdigen und ehren, und übers Vergangene nicht uns anrechnen, was unser Schicksal, nicht unsere Schuld ist.» Aus welchen Empfindungen würde eine so fühlende Seele sprechen, wenn sie noch unter den Lebenden weilte und schaute, wie der Österreicher in voller Einheit mit dem Deutschen Deutschlands eine «Handlung ihres Volkes» vollbringt.
[ 48 ] «Europas Mitte» ist durch das «Schicksal» gebildet; die Seelen, die mit verständnisvollem Anteil sich dieser Mitte zugehörig fühlen, überantworten es dem Geiste der Geschichte, zu beurteilen, was in der Vergangenheit - und was auch in der Gegenwart und Zukunft ihr «Schicksal, nicht ihre Schuld» ist.
[ 49 ] Und wer das Verständnis beurteilen will, das die Ideen einer gemeinsamen Willensrichtung der «Mitte Europas» nach außen hin in Ungarn gefunden haben, der lese Stimmen aus Ungarn, wie sich eine in dem Artikel über «die Genesis des Defensivbündnisses» von Emerich von Halasz in dem Heftevon «Jungungarn»vomMärz 1911 findet. Darin stehen die Worte: «Wenn wir ... bedenken, daß Andrassy schon vor mehr als dreißig und auch Bismarck vor mehr als einundzwanzig Jahren von der Leitung der Geschäfte zurückgetreten ist und dieses große Friedenswerk noch immer in voller Kraft besteht und noch weiter eine lange Dauer zu haben verspricht: so brauchen wir uns wohl nicht einem trübseligen Pessimismus hinzugeben ... Bismarck und Andrassy haben mit vereinter Kraft eine imponierende Lösung des mitteleuropäischen Problems gefunden und hiermit ein zivilisatorisches Werk vollbracht, welches hoffentlich mehrere Generationen überdauern wird ... In der Geschichte der Allianzen suchen wir vergebens nach einem Gebilde von solcher Dauer und von solch gewaltiger Konzeption.»
[ 50 ] Als sich die gekennzeichneten, gegen «Europas Mitte» gekehrten Wollensrichtungen zum gemeinsamen Druck zusammengefunden hatten, war es unvermeidlich, daß dieser «Druck» die Empfindungen bestimmte, die innerhalb der mitteleuropäischen Völker über den Gang der Weltereignisse sich bildeten. Und als die Tatsachen des Sommers 1914 eintraten, trafen sie Europa in einer weltgeschichtlichen Lage, in welcher die im Völkerleben wirksamen Kräfte in den Gang der Ereignisse so eingreifen, daß sie die Entscheidung darüber, was geschehen wird, aus dem Bereiche gewöhnlicher menschlicher Beurteilung hinwegnehmen und in das einer höheren Ordnung stellen, einer Ordnung, durch die die weltgeschichtliche Notwendigkeit innerhalb des Ganges der Menschenentwickelung wirkt. Wer das Wesen solcher Welt-Augenblicke empfindet, der hebt auch sein Urteil aus dem Gebiete heraus, in dem Fragen nisten von der Art, was wäre geschehen, wenn in schicksalsschwerer Stunde dieser oder jener Vorschlag dieser oder jener Persönlichkeit mehr Wirkung gehabt hätte, als es der Fall war? Die Menschen erleben in Augenblicken weltgeschichtlicher Wendungen in ihren Entscheidungen Kräfte, über die man nur richtig urteilt, wenn man bestrebt ist - an Emersons Worte sei erinnert -, nicht nur das «einzelne zu sehen», sondern die Menschheit «nach höheren Gesetzen als ein Ganzes aufzufassen». Wie sollten Entscheidungen der Menschen nach den Gesetzen des gewöhnlichen Lebens beurteilt werden dürfen, die nicht aus diesen Gesetzen heraus gefällt werden können, weil in ihnen der Geist wirkt, der nur in den weltgeschichtlichen Notwendigkeiten erschaut werden kann. - Naturgesetze gehören der Naturordnung an; über ihnen stehen die Gesetze, die der Ordnung des gewöhnlichen menschlichen Zusammenlebens angehören; und über ihnen stehen die geistig-wirksamen Gesetze des weltgeschichtlichen Werdens, die einer noch anderen Ordnung angehören, derjenigen, durch welche Menschen und Völker Aufgaben lösen und Entwickelungen durchmachen, die außerhalb des Gebietes des gewöhnlichen menschlichen Zusammenlebens liegen.
[ 51 ] Nachträgliche Bemerkung: Die vorstehenden Gedanken enthalten, was der Verfasser des Schriftchens in Vorträgen ausgesprochen hat, die vor dem kriegerischen Eintreten Italiens in das gegenwärtige Völkerringen gehalten worden sind. Man wird es aus dieser Tatsache heraus begreiflich finden, daß in der Schrift nichts über die Triebkräfte enthalten ist, die von dieser Seite her gegen «Mitteleuropa» zum Kriegswillen geworden sind. Ein später erscheinendes Schriftchen wird hoffentlich eine darauf bezügliche Ergänzung bringen können.
Berlin, 5, July 1915
Thoughts during the time of the war
For Germans and those who do not believe they should hate them
[ 1 ] Inexpressible suffering and deep sorrow live in the souls of the people of today alongside the will to make the sacrifices of courage, bravery and love that this incomparable moment in world history demands. The warrior is steeled by the awareness that he is standing up for the most precious thing that the earth has to give to mankind. He looks death in the face with the feeling that his death is demanded by that life which, as higher than the individual human being, may also claim his death. Fathers, mothers and sons, wives, sisters and daughters must find themselves out of personal suffering in the idea that out of blood and death the development of humanity will rise to goals for which the sacrifices were necessary and which will justify them. The upward glance from the individual experience to the life of humanity, from the transient to that which lives in this transient as the imperishable: it is demanded by the experiences of this time. Confidence arises from the feeling of what is happening, that what is experienced will raise the dawn of a new age of humanity, whose powers this experience should mature.
[ 2 ] With the understanding that also seeks to comprehend human aberrations, one would like to look at the flames of hatred that are ignited. For some, the impression they receive is too strong when they compare what they are currently experiencing with what seemed to them to have already been achieved for the present through the development of humanity. People who knew how to speak about this achievement of mankind out of full sympathy found words for it, such as those spoken by the fine German art observer, Herman Grimm, who died in 1901. He compares the experience of man in earlier times with what the present brings to this experience. He says: "I sometimes feel as if I have been transported into a new existence and have only taken the most necessary spiritual hand luggage with me. As if completely changed living conditions force you to think in a completely new way. Because distance is no longer something that separates people. Our thoughts circle the circumference of the earth's surface with playful ease and fly from each individual to each other, wherever they may be. The discovery and utilization of new natural forces unites all peoples in unceasing joint work. New experiences, under the pressure of which our view of everything visible and invisible is constantly changing, also impose new ways of observing the history of human development." Before the outbreak of this war, every European man had such feelings in his soul. And now: What has been made of what inspired these feelings at the time of this war? Is it not as if mankind were to be shown what the world looks like when the effects of much that is the fruit of development cease? And yet, does not war show by its horrors what conflicts between nations must lead to when they are fought out with the means that the latest development has brought?
[ 3 ] The feelings that arise from these experiences can be confusing. From the presence of this confusion, one would like to understand why many people cannot understand that war itself brings horror and suffering to war, and why they decry the enemy as "barbarians" when a harsh necessity imposes on him the use of the means of combat that modern times have created.
[ 4 ] Words of hateful condemnation of German nature, now uttered by personalities who are leaders among the peoples with whom Germany is currently at war: how they sound to a soul that perceives as a true expression of German feeling what the aforementioned Herman Grimm characterized shortly before the beginning of this century as a fundamental trait in the conception of the will to live of modern humanity. He wrote: "The solidarity of the moral convictions of all people is today the church that unites us all. We are searching more passionately than ever for a visible expression of this community. All truly serious aspirations of the masses know only this one goal. The separation of nations no longer exists here. We feel that there is no national difference in the ethical view of the world. We would all sacrifice ourselves for our fatherland; but we are far from longing for or bringing about the moment when this could happen through war. The assurance that peace is our most sacred wish is not a lie. 'Peace on earth and good will to men' pervades us. The inhabitants of our planet, all conceived as one, are filled with an all-pervasive sensitivity ... Humans as a totality recognize themselves as subject to an invisible court of justice enthroned as if in the clouds, before which not they consider it a misfortune to be allowed to stand, and to whose judicial process they seek to adapt their inner disputes. With anxious endeavor they seek their rights here. How anxious are the French of today to present the war against Germany, which they intend to wage, as a moral demand, the recognition of which they demand from other peoples, indeed from the Germans themselves. " Herman Grimm's life's work is so deeply rooted in German intellectual life that one can say: When he expresses such a thought, it is as if he is imbued with the awareness that he is speaking on behalf of his people. He uses words with which he can be certain: If the German people as a whole could express itself, it would use such words to express its attitude about how it perceives its own will within the totality of humanity. Herman Grimm does not mean to say that what exists of such an attitude in the present life of mankind can prevent wars. He speaks of the fact that he must have the thought that the French want a war against Germany. But Herman Grimm must have been convinced that this sentiment would prove its strength even through wars when he expressed thoughts such as those mentioned. Opponents of the German people currently speak as if they thought it had been proven that the only cause of this war was that the Germans lacked the understanding for such an attitude. As if the result of this war must be that the Germans are forced to understand such an attitude. As if authoritative minds among the Germans had set themselves the task of eradicating this attitude among their people.
[ 5 ] Some names of German personalities are now being pronounced in a hateful manner. Not only from writers of the day, but also from spiritual leaders of nations at war with Germany. Indeed, such voices are also coming from countries with which Germany is not at war. Among these German personalities, for example, is the historian of the German people, Heinrich von Treitschke. Germans who reflect on the scientific significance and the nature of Treitschke's personality express a wide variety of value judgments about him. From which points of view these judgments are made, whether they are justified or unjustified, is not important at this moment; the voices of the opponents of the German essence are based on a completely different point of view. These opponents want to see in Treitschke a personality who had such an effect on the present German race that at present the German people consider themselves the most gifted of the peoples in all directions, who therefore want to force the others to subordinate themselves to their leadership, and who place the attainment of power above all right. If Treitschke were still alive, and if he heard the judgments of the opponents of the German essence about his person, he could remember words that he wrote down in 1861 as the expression of his deepest feelings in the treatise on "Freedom". There he spoke out about those people who immediately set a limit to their respect and tolerance of other people's opinions when they encounter something in such opinions that they do not like. According to Treitschke, thought is veiled by passion in such people, and he says that as long as such a way of putting the phrase born of passion in the place of judgment still lives, "so long does the fanatical spirit of those old zealots still live in us, even if in a milder form, who mentioned foreign opinions only to prove that their originators had acquired just claims to the pit of hell". A man who, as a Frenchman among Frenchmen, as an Italian among Italians, would have had the same effect as Treitschke as a German among Germans: he would not have appeared to the Germans as a seducer of the French or Italians. Treitschke was a historian and politician who gave all his judgments a sharp, effective character from a strong, decisive feeling. The judgments he made about the Germans out of love for his people also had such an imprint. But all these judgments were borne by the feeling that not only his soul spoke in this way, but also the course of German history. At the end of the preface to the fifth part of his "German History in the Nineteenth Century" are the words: "As surely as man only understands what he loves, just as surely can only a strong heart, which feels the fate of the fatherland as suffering and happiness experienced by itself, give the historical narrative its inner truth. In this power of the heart, and not only in the perfect form, lies the greatness of the historians of antiquity". Some of the judgments that Treitschke made about what the German people experienced at the hands of other peoples sound like harsh condemnations of these other peoples. How Treitschke's statements in this direction are to be understood can only be recognized by those who look at the harshness of the judgments with which Treitschke often judges what he finds reprehensible within his own people. Treitschke had the deepest love for his people, which was a noble fire in his soul; but he believed that there was no harm in judging most harshly where one loves most. It is conceivable that enemies of the German people could be found who would compile a collection of sayings from Treitschke's works, then take from these sayings the color of love that they have in Treitschke, and whitewash them with their color of hatred: they could thereby make weapons of words against the German people. Nor would these weapons of words be any worse than those with which they shoot at a distorted image of Treitschke in order to wound the German people. Herman Grimm, who appreciated Treitschke and was well acquainted with him and his personal nature, said of him some time after his death: "Few have been so loved, but also so hated as he. "Grimm grouped Treitschke together with the German history teachers Curtius and Ranke to form a trinity of German teachers, about whom he said: "They were friendly and confidential in their dealings. They sought to encourage their listeners. They recognized merit where they encountered it. They did not seek to suppress their opponents. They had no party and no party comrades. They spoke their minds. There was something exemplary in their demeanor. They saw science as the highest flowering of the German spirit. They stood up for its dignity. There is a detailed review of Treitschke's "German History" by Herman Grimm. Anyone who reads it must come to the conclusion that Herman Grimm counted Treitschke among those who thought no differently than he did about the relationship that the German people wanted to have with other peoples.
[ 6 ] Whoever from enemy territory vilifies a German personality such as lived in Treitschke and brands him as a seducer of the younger generation, lacks a judgment of how a German who felt "the fate of the fatherland as suffering and happiness experienced by himself" had to speak to Germans who, in order to understand their own history, must look to experiences in the past, which Herman Grimm (in his book on Michelangelo, 16. For thirty years Germany, which as a nation of its own was unable to make the difference, was the battleground for the peoples surrounding us, and after the foreigners, who thus fought on our soil, finally made peace, the old indeterminate state returned." In Herman Grimm's book on Goethe, the following is written about these experiences in the same context: "the Thirty Years' War, this terrible disease brought to us from outside and artificially nourished", caused "all the young shoots of our further development to wither and die". How little time had passed since the German people had freed themselves from the effects of the suffering that Europe had brought them through the Thirty Years' War when, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the other fateful experience occurred, which coincided with a blossoming of German intellectual life. Were these the words of a man in whose heart the suffering of his people resounded "like suffering he had experienced himself", or were they the words of a popular seducer with which Treitschke spoke of the spirits whose work coincided with Germany's fateful experience at the beginning of the nineteenth century? He spoke of these spirits as follows: "They guarded the very essence of our people, the sacred fire of idealism, and it is primarily thanks to them that there was still a Germany when the German Empire had disappeared, that the Germans were still allowed to believe in themselves, in the immortality of the German essence, in the midst of hardship and servitude. Our political freedom and the independence of the German state emerged from the development of the free personality." Do the opponents of the German essence demand that Treitschke should have said that history teaches that the Germans "may believe in the immortality of the German essence" because they can be convinced for all the past and future that the French, English, Italians and Russians have never fought and will never fight for anything other than the "right and freedom" of the peoples? Should the other Germans, who are currently being called Germany's seducers, give the Germans the following advice: do not rely on what has brought you "justice and freedom" in hard wars; you will have "justice and freedom" because the sense of "justice and freedom of the people" shines brightly among those who surround you? You need not believe that you can think of your "right as a people" in any other way than in terms of what the peoples who surround you consider you entitled to. You must never call your "freedom as a people" anything other than what these peoples will show you by their behavior that you are "free as a people"?
[ 7 ] The author of this pamphlet would like to express the roots of the feelings that the members of "Europe's center" have in the current war. The facts he wishes to discuss are, in their general outline, certainly known to every reader. It is not the author's intention to speak in this direction about what is still unknown. He merely wishes to point out certain connections between what has long been known.
[ 8 ] If opponents of the German people were to read this little pamphlet, they would quite understandably say: "Thus speaks a German who naturally cannot understand the views of other peoples. Those who judge in this way do not realize that the ways in which the author of this reflection seeks to discuss the origins of this war are quite independent of how much he understands or does not understand about the nature of a non-German people. He wants to speak in such a way that, if the reasons he puts forward for his assertion are any good, his thoughts could be correct even if he were the pure fool with regard to an understanding of the nature and value of non-German peoples, insofar as they are supposed to be closed to a German. If, for example, he refers to what a Frenchman says about the war intentions of the French, and forms a judgment on this as to the origin of the war, this judgment could be correct, even if a Frenchman believed he had to deny any understanding of French peculiarity. When he passes judgment on the English political ideal, it is not a question of how the Englishman thinks or feels about himself, but of the actions in which this political ideal is lived out, and what the German in particular experiences through these actions. However, the author is convinced that there is no reason to judge the understanding he has for this or that non-German nationality in this little book.
[ 9 ] The author of this pamphlet believes that he can say what he, as a German, is allowed to say about the feeling of "Central Europe", because he spent the first three decades of his life in Austria, where he lived as an Austrian German by descent, ethnicity and upbringing; and he was allowed to work in Germany for the other - almost as long - period of this life.
[ 10 ] Perhaps some, who know one or the other of the author's writings, will seek "higher points of view" in the following remarks from someone who stands on the standpoint of spiritual science, as it is meant in these writings, than he finds them. In particular, those who expect to find something here about how the current events of war can be judged "on the basis of the eternal, highest truths of all being and life" will be dissatisfied. To such "disappointed ones", who will perhaps be found among the author's friends, he would like to say that the "highest eternal truths" naturally apply everywhere, including to the present events, but that this consideration was not undertaken with the intention of showing how one can bear witness to these "higher truths" with reference to these events, but rather with the intention of speaking of these events themselves. 1The author hopes to be able to provide more information about the present time and the peoples of Europe in a second booklet soon. The thoughts set down here are drawn from lectures which the author has given in several places in recent months.
[ 11 ] Anyone who has allowed Fichte's way of thinking to take effect on him will subsequently feel that he has absorbed something into his soul that has a completely different effect than the ideas and words of this thinker. These ideas and words are transformed in the soul. They become a force that is much more than the memory of what Fichte directly received. A force that has something of the nature of living beings. It grows in the soul. And this feels in it a never-ending tonic. If one feels the peculiarity of Fichte in this way, one can never separate from this feeling the idea of the intimate beingness with which the German soul has spoken through Fichte. What one thinks of Fichte's world view is irrelevant. It is not the content, it is the power by which this world-view is created. You can feel it. Whoever wants to follow Fichte as a thinker must enter seemingly cold realms of ideas. Into areas where the power of thought must reject many things that are otherwise dear to it in order to find it possible for a person to relate to the world in the way that Fichte did. But if one follows Fichte in this way, then one feels how the power that flowed in his thinking flowed into the life-giving words with which he sought to inspire his people to worldly action in fateful times. The warmth in Fichte's "Speeches to the German Nation" is one with the light that shone for him in his energetic work of thought. And the combination of this light with this warmth appears in Fichte's personality as that which makes him one of the most genuine embodiments of the German essence. This German essence first had to make Fichte the thinker he was before it could speak through him in the forceful "Speeches to the Nation". But this German essence, having created such a thinker as Fichte, could not speak to the nation in any other way than it did in these speeches. Again, it is less important what Fichte said in these speeches than how Germanity presented itself to the consciousness of the people through them. A thinker whose world view is far removed from Fichte's train of thought, Robert Zimmermann, must speak the words: "As long as a heart beats in Germany that is capable of feeling the ignominy of foreign domination, the memory of the brave man will live on who, in the moment of deepest humiliation, ... in the midst of French-occupied Berlin, before the eyes and ears of the enemy, among spies and pretenders, to rebuild the strength of the German people, which had been bent from without by the sword, from within by the spirit, and at the very moment when the political existence of the same seemed to have been destroyed forever, undertook to recreate it in future generations through the enthusiastic idea of general education."
[ 12 ] There is no need to evoke sentimental feelings when describing the last hours of the thinker's life in order to characterize the way in which Fichte is connected with the deepest essence of being German. - Fichte's wife, who was not only truly worthy of him, but who was fully equal to his greatness, had spent five months on military hospital duty under the most difficult conditions and caught hospital fever in the process. His wife recovered. Fichte himself succumbed to the disease and died. The son described the manner of Fichte's death. The last news that the dying man received was that brought by his son of Blücher's crossing of the Rhine, of the advance of the allies against the French enemy. The thinker's soul, which had slipped away from his body, lived entirely in the heartfelt joy of these events; and when the dying man's earlier icy, sharp thinking turned into feverish fantasies, he felt himself to be in the midst of the fighting. How the image of the philosopher stands before the soul, who - even into the feverish fantasies that already clouded his consciousness - is like the manifesting essence of the will and activity of his people! And how, in Fichte, the German philosopher is one with every vital impulse of the whole human being. The Son hands the dying man a medicine. The latter gently pushes back what he has been given; he feels completely at one with the world-historical activity of his people. Feeling this way, he concludes his life with the words: I need no medicine; I feel that I am recovered. He was "recovered" in the feeling of experiencing the elevation of the German essence in his soul.
[ 13 ] One may draw the strength to speak about the German essence from looking at Fichte's personality. For his endeavor was to make this essence active as an effective force right down to the sources of its character. And it is clear from an examination of his personality that he felt his own intellectual work to be connected with the deepest roots of the German essence. However, he sought these roots himself in the reasons of the spiritual being, which he saw behind all external world activity accessible to the senses. He could not conceive of German activity without a connection between this activity and the spirituality that illuminates and warms the world. He saw the essence of Germanness in the springing forth of the life expressions of the people from the primordial source of the originally spiritual living. And what he himself understood as a worldview that emerges from this primordial source in the sense of the German way, he expressed himself thus: "It sees time and eternity and infinity - this worldview - in its emergence from the appearance and becoming visible of that One, which is in itself absolutely invisible, and is only grasped, correctly grasped, in this invisibility." - "All persistent existence that appears as non-spiritual life is only an empty shadow cast by vision, often mediated by nothingness, in contrast with which and through the recognition of which, as often mediated nothingness, vision itself should rise to the recognition of its own nothingness and to the recognition of the invisible as the only true one."
[ 14 ] In his "Speeches to the German Nation", Fichte seeks to grasp all truly German expressions of life from the source of spiritual life and to receive the words with which he speaks of these expressions of life from this source himself. - One will perhaps stop with special feelings at a passage of these "speeches" when one has imbued oneself with the feeling from the tone and intimacy of them: How this man stands there with his whole soul in the contemplation of the spiritual essence of the world! How is this being inside the spiritual world with his soul as direct a reality for him as being inside the material world through the senses is for the outer man! One may think whatever one likes about the characterization of his time, as Fichte develops it in the "Speeches"; when one hears of this characterization through his words, it cannot matter whether one agrees or disagrees with what is said, but rather what magic touch of the human way of thinking one feels. - Fichte speaks of the time which he would like to help bring about. He uses a comparison. And it is this comparison in which one's feelings are held in an implied sense. He says: "Time seems to me like an empty shadow, standing and lamenting over its corpse, from which an army of diseases has just driven it out, unable to tear its gaze away from the once so beloved shell, and desperately trying all means to get back into the dwelling of the plagues. It is true that the invigorating airs of the other world, into which the secluded one has entered, have already taken her in, and surround her with warm breaths of love; it is true that the secret voices of the sisters are already greeting her joyfully and welcoming her; it is true that it is already stirring and expanding in all directions within her to develop the more glorious form into which she is to grow: but as yet she has no feeling for these airs, or hearing for these voices, or if she had, she is absorbed in pain over her loss, with which she believes she has lost herself at the same time. "
[ 15 ] The question is obvious: how is a soul in tune that is driven to such a comparison when contemplating time and the change of times? Fichte is talking about the existence of the human soul after its separation from the body through death, just as a person would otherwise talk about a material process that takes place before his senses. Certainly, Fichte uses a comparison. And a comparison must not be exploited in such a way that one wants to prove something through it for a meaningful view of the person who expresses the comparison. But the comparison points to an idea that lives in the soul of the person making the comparison with regard to an object or process. Here with regard to the experience of the human soul after death. Without wishing to claim anything about how Fichte would have expressed himself about the validity of such an idea if he had done so in the context of his worldview, one can nevertheless visualize this idea. Fichte speaks of the human soul as a being so independent of the body that in death this being separates itself from the corporeal and is able to look consciously at the separated body as man in the world of the senses looks at an object or process with his eyes. In addition to this looking at the abandoned body, there is also an indication of the new environment into which the soul enters when it has separated from the body. The newer form of spiritual science, which speaks about these things on the basis of certain experiences of the soul, may find something significant in this Fichtean comparison. What this spiritual science strives for is a knowledge of the spiritual worlds entirely in the sense of the kind of knowledge that is recognized as justified by the newer natural science of the natural world. It is true that this form of spiritual science is currently still regarded by many as a reverie, as wild fantasy; but this was also the case for a long time with the view of the earth's orbit around the sun, which contradicts the senses. It is essential that this spiritual science has a real recognizability of the spiritual world as its basis. A recognizability which is not based on imaginary concepts, but on real experiences of the human soul. Just as he cannot know anything about the properties of hydrogen who only knows water in which hydrogen is contained, so he cannot know anything about the true nature of the human soul who only experiences it as it is in connection with the body. But spiritual science leads to the spiritual-soul detaching itself from the physical-bodily for its own perception, just as hydrogen can be detached from water by the methods of the chemist. Such detachment of the soul does not occur through false mystical fantasy, but through a strictly healthy, intensified inner experience of certain soul faculties which are always present in every soul, but which remain unnoticed and unconsidered in ordinary life and in ordinary science. Through such strengthening and enlivening of soul powers, the human soul can come to an inner experience in which it sees a spiritual world, just as it sees the material world with its senses. It then indeed knows itself to be "outside the connection with the body" and equipped with what one can call - to use Goethean expressions - "spiritual eyes" and "spiritual ears". Spiritual science does not speak of these things in a false mystical sense, but in such a way that the progression from the ordinary contemplation of the sense world to the contemplation of the spiritual world becomes a certain process inherent in the essence of human nature, which one must, however, bring about through one's own inner experience, through a certain directed self-activation of the soul. But even with regard to this, spiritual science can feel in harmony with Fichte. When he presented his "Doctrine" to an audience in the autumn of 1813 as the mature fruit of his spiritual striving, he began by saying the following: "This doctrine presupposes a completely new inner sensory tool, through which a new world is given that does not exist for the ordinary person." By this Fichte does not mean an "organ" that is only available to "exquisite", not "ordinary people", but an "organ" that everyone can acquire, but which does not come to consciousness for the ordinary cognition and perception of man. With such an "organ", man is now really in a spiritual world and is able to speak about life in this world as if through his senses about material processes. Whoever puts himself in this position, it becomes natural for him to speak about the life of the soul, as happens in the Fichtean comparison cited. Fichte does not make the comparison out of a general belief, but through an experienced standing within the spiritual world. One must feel in Fichte a personality which, in every vital impulse, consciously feels itself to be at one with the workings of a spiritual world, and which sees itself standing within this world as the sensory man does in the material world. Fichte clearly states that this is the mood of the soul which he owes to the German fundamental trait of his world view. He says: "The true philosophy that has come to an end in itself and has truly penetrated beyond appearance to its core ... proceeds from the one, pure, divine life - as life itself, which it also remains for all eternity, and therein always one, but not as of this or that life; and it sees how only in the appearance of this life infinitely continues to close and open again, and only according to this law does it come to a being, and to a something at all. It gives rise to being, which that (Fichte here means the un-German philosophy) allows to be predetermined. And so this philosophy (Fichte means the one he professes) is really only German, i.e. original; and conversely, if someone were only a true German, he would not be able to philosophize otherwise than in this way."
[ 16 ] It would be wrong to cite these words of Fichte to characterize the mood of his soul without also recalling the others that he spoke in the same context: "Whatever believes in the spirituality and freedom of this spirituality and wants the eternal development of this spirituality through freedom, wherever it is born and in whatever language it speaks, is of our race, it belongs to us and it will join us." - At the time when Fichte saw the German people threatened by Western foreign domination, he felt the need to confess that he perceived the essential nature of his world view as a gift bestowed on him by the German national spirit. And he expressed unreservedly that this feeling had led him to recognize the tasks that he could assign to the German people within the development of humanity in the sense that the German could derive his right and his calling for everything that he intended and accomplished in the context of the people from the recognition of these tasks. That in this knowledge he may seek the source from which flows the strength to intervene as a German with his own in this development.
[ 17 ] Whoever has absorbed Fichte's mood of soul into the life of his own soul at the present time will find in this thinker's worldview a force that will not allow him to stop at this worldview. It will lead him in his striving for spirituality to a point of view that shows the connections of man with the world in a different way than Fichte presented them. He will be able to gain from Fichte the ability to see the world differently than Fichte saw it. And he will experience this way of striving in a Fichtean way as an intimate kinship with this thinker. Such a person will certainly also count the educational plan that Fichte characterized in his "Speeches to the German Nation" as the one that seemed salutary to him as one of the ideals that he absolutely wants to advocate. And so it is with much of what Fichte wanted to emphasize as the content of his views. Like a spring still flowing in full freshness, however, the mood of the soul works, which communicates itself from him to the soul that can come together with him. His world view strives for the strongest tension of the powers of thought that the soul can find within itself in order to discover in the human being that which, as a "higher human being", shows his essence in connection with the spiritual basis of the world that lies beyond all sensory experience. Certainly, this is the nature of any worldview that does not seek to see the foundation of all being in the sensory world itself. But Fichte's peculiarity lies in the power that he wants to give to thought from the depths of the human being. So that this thought finds through itself the firmness that gives it weight in the spiritual world. A weight that sustains it in the realms of the soul's life, in which the soul can feel the eternity of its experience, indeed can will it in such a way that this willing may know itself to be connected with the eternal spiritual life.
[ 18 ] So Fichte strives for "pure humanity" in his worldview. In this striving, he can know himself to be one with all humanity, wherever and however it appears on earth. And at a fateful time, Fichte uttered the words: "If only someone were a true German, he would not be able to philosophize in any other way than this." And through everything he says in the "Speeches to the German Nation", this expansion of thought resounds like a keynote: If only someone is a true German, he will find the way out of his Germanness on which an understanding of all human reality can mature. For Fichte does not think that he may only see the world view in the light of this thought. Because he is a thinker, he gives as an example what kind of thinker he had to become through his Germanness. But he is of the opinion that this basic essence of Germanness must express itself in every German, wherever he has his place in life.
[ 19 ] The right to speak about Germanness in the way that Fichte did is something that the passion of war wants to deny the Germans. Personalities from countries at war with the Germans, who occupy a high position in the intellectual life of these countries, also speak out of this passion. Philosophers use the power of their thinking to substantiate - in accordance with the opinion of the day - the judgment that the German nation itself has become alienated from the will that lived in personalities of the kind of Fichte, and has fallen into what is described by the popular word "barbarism". And if the German expresses the thought that this nationality has produced people of this kind, then the expression of such a thought is probably described as highly superfluous. For one might well reply that there is no question of all this. That the Germans have had Goethe, Fichte, Schiller and so on in their midst is to be appreciated; but their spirit does not speak from what the Germans accomplish in the present. And so the passionate critics of the German essence will probably even be able to find the words: Why should not dreamers still be found today out of the dreamy nature of the Germans - which we have always correctly assessed - who respond to the words with which we confront what the German weapons do to us with a characterization of the German nature that their Fichte gave them in a past lost to them; and which characterization, however, he himself would probably change if he saw what the German nature is like today.
[ 20 ] Times will come that will gain a calm judgment as to whether the condemnation of German will spoken out of passion does not correspond to blind intoxication, which in its reality value equates itself to dream, and whether the "reverie" that still speaks in Fichte's manner about contemporary German will does not mean that waking state that does not interpose between itself and events the passions hostile to reality that put judgment to sleep.
[ 21] From no other spirit than that in whose name Fichte spoke can the will appear to the German which the German people must develop in the struggle which the enemies of Germany have forced upon them. As in a vast fortress, the enemies hold the body enclosed, which is the expression of what Fichte characterized as the German spirit. That spirit for which the German warrior feels himself to be a fighter, whether he does so in conscious realization of this spirit or whether he engages in battle out of the subconscious forces of his soul.
[ 22 ] "Who wanted this war?" was a question put to the Germans by many of their opponents, who assumed as a matter of course that the Germans had wanted it. But such a question cannot be answered with passion. Neither should the judgment that only wants to draw conclusions from the facts that preceded the war in the very last days. What happened in this very last time is deeply rooted in the currents of European will impulses. And the answer to the above question can only be sought in the impulses that have long been opposed to Germanness.
[ 23 ] Only such impulses shall be pointed out here, which, according to their general nature, are so well known that it may seem completely superfluous to talk about them if one wants to say something about the causes of the present war. There are, however, two points of view from which the seemingly superfluous may appear desirable. The first arises when one considers that forming a judgment about important facts cannot only be a matter of knowing something, but of from what basis one forms the judgment. One is led to the second point of view when considering the impulses of peoples, if one wishes to recognize in what way they are rooted in the life of peoples. Insight into this nature gives rise to a sense of the strength with which these impulses live on in time and come into effect at a favorable moment.
[ 24 ] Ernest Renan is one of the leading minds of France in the second half of the nineteenth century. This author of a "Life of Jesus" and the "Apostles" wrote in a public letter during the war in 1870 to the German author of a "Life of Jesus", David Friedrich Strauss: "I was in the seminary at St. Sulpice, around the year 1843, when I began to get to know Germany through the writings of Goethe and Herder. I thought I was stepping into a temple, and from that moment on, everything that I had hitherto considered to be a splendor worthy of the deity only gave me the impression of withered and yellowed paper flowers." The Frenchman writes further in the same letter: "in Germany" one of the "most beautiful spiritual developments known to history has been taking place for a century, a development which, if I may venture the expression, has added a step to the depth and expansion of the human spirit, so that those who have remained untouched by this new development relate to those who have gone through it as one who knows only elementary mathematics relates to those who are versed in differential calculus". And in the same letter, this leading Frenchman clearly expresses what this Germany, whose intellectual life "everything that" he had "until then considered to be a splendor worthy of the deity, only made the impression of withered and yellowed paper flowers", had to expect from the French if it did not conclude the war at that time with a peace agreeable to Renan's compatriots. He writes: "The hour is solemn. There are two currents of opinion in France. The one judges thus: Let us put an end to this odious bargain as quickly as possible; let us cede everything, Alsace, Lorraine; let us sign the peace; but then hatred of death, preparations without rest, alliance with whom it meets, unlimited yielding to all Russian insolence; a single aim, a single mainspring for life: War of extermination against the Germanic race. Others say: let us save France's integrity, let us develop constitutional institutions, let us make amends for our mistakes, not by dreaming of revenge for a war in which we were the unjust aggressors, but by concluding an alliance with Germany and England, the effect of which will be to carry the farther along the path of free morality." Renan himself points out that France was the unjust aggressor in that war. And so it is not necessary to bring forward the easily provable historical fact that Germany had to wage that war in order to show the constant disturber of the peace of its work its limits. One can now disregard the extent to which Germany aspired to Alsace-Lorraine as a territory of related tribes; one need only emphasize the necessity in which Germany was placed by the fact that it could only obtain peace from the French if, with the Alsace-Lorraine territory, it deprived its neighbor of the possibility of disturbing this peace in the future as easily as it had often done before. This, however, was a stumbling block for the second current in France, of which Renan speaks; it was not this current that had any prospect of achieving its goal of "leading the world forward on the path of free morality", but the other, whose "only goal, only driving force" for life was: "the struggle for extermination against the Germanic race". There were people who thought they recognized signs in many things that had happened since the war of 1870 that it was possible to bridge the differences by peaceful means. Many voices with this tone have been heard in recent years. But the impulse directed against the German people lived on, and the driving force remained alive: "Alliance with whom it meets, unlimited compliance against all Russian insolence;... . The struggle for extermination against the Germanic race." It is from the same spirit that many a leading French mind is currently resounding again. Renan continues his consideration of the two currents in the French people described above with the words: "Germany will decide whether France will choose this or that policy; at the same time, it will decide the future of morality." This sentence really needs to be translated into German to be fully appreciated. It says: France has shown itself to be an unjust aggressor in the war; if Germany, after a victory over France, does not conclude a peace that leaves France unhindered in the position of becoming such an unjust aggressor again as soon as it pleases, then Germany is deciding against the morality of the future. What emerges from such a view for "hatred of death, preparations without rest, alliance with whom it meets, unlimited compliance against all Russian usurpations", what emerges for the "only driving force for life: Extermination struggle against the Germanic race", that and nothing else provides the basis for an answer to the question: "Who wanted this war?"
[ 25 ] Whether the "alliance" would be found was also answered by people who were able to grasp the impulses directed against Germanness even then, when Renan spoke out in the sense indicated. One man, Carl Vogt, who sought a glimpse into the future of Europe from the present, wrote during the war of 1870: "It is possible that even if the territory is spared, France will seize the opportunity offered to wipe the slate clean; it is probable that if it does not annex, it will have enough to do with its internal affairs and will think all the less of another war, as a powerful current of peace must take hold in the minds; it is certain that it will set aside every consideration if annexation should take place. What chance should the statesman now choose? - It is easy to see that the answer to this question also depends on one's view of the impending European conflicts. On its own, France will not dare to fight Germany again for a long time, the blows have been too important and thorough for that - but as soon as another enemy arises, it will be able to ask itself whether it is capable of taking sides and on whose side. - As for me now, I am not for a moment in doubt that a conflict between the Germanic and Slavic worlds is imminent ... and that Russia will take the lead on one side in it. This power is already preparing for the eventuality; the national-Russian press is spitting fire and flames against Germany The German press is already sounding its warning cries. A long time has elapsed since Russia rallied after the Crimean War, and it seems that Petersburg now finds it expedient to take up the Oriental question once more. If the Mediterranean was once to become, according to the more pompous than true expression, a 'French lake', Russia has the even more positive intention of turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake and the Sea of Marmara into a Russian pond. That Constantinople must become a Russian city ... is a fixed goal of 'Russian policy', which finds its 'lever of support' in 'Pansiavism'." (Carl Vogt's Political Letters. Biel, 1870.) To these judgments of Carl Vogt about what he foresees for Europe could be added those of no less a number of other personalities, which are derived from the observation of European volitions. They would make what is to be pointed out here more emphatic and yet speak of the same fact: that an observer of these trends would have to point to Eastern Europe as early as 1870 if he wanted to answer the question: Who, sooner or later, will want to wage war against Central Europe? And his gaze had to fall on France when he asked: Who will want to wage this war against Germany together with Russia? Vogt's voice is particularly relevant because in the letter in which he speaks in this way he says many unfriendly things about Germany. He certainly cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Germany. But his words are proof that the question: Who will want this war? was answered by the facts long before those causes took effect which Germany's opponents would so like to hear as an answer by raising the question: Who wanted this war? The fact that it took over forty years from then until the outbreak of war is not to France's credit
[ 26 ] In the Russian intellectual life of the nineteenth century, schools of thought emerge that bear the same face as the will to war that is currently being unleashed from the East against Central Europe. The extent to which those people are right who claim that the reference to such schools of thought is inappropriate can also be known by those who see such a reference as the right way to understand the events in question. What is usually called the "causes" of these events can certainly not be sought in such schools of thought of individual people - even those who are no longer alive today. With regard to these causes, those who will show that these causes lie with a number of people, to whom they will then point, will certainly meet with some approval. No objection should be made to this way of looking at the matter, nor should its full justification be denied. But another, no less justified, is the recognition of the forces and driving forces at work in historical development. The directions of thought pointed to here are not these driving forces; but these driving forces show themselves in and through the directions of thought. He who recognizes the directions of thought holds in his knowledge the entities lying in the forces of the people. Nor can it be objected that many people rightly claim that the schools of thought in question are no longer alive. What is alive in the East flared up in the souls of thinkers, formed itself then into thoughts and lives today - in a different form - in the will to war.
[ 27 ] What flared up there is the idea of the special mission of the Russian people. What is important is the way in which this idea is brought to bear. In it lives the belief that Western European spiritual life has entered a state of senility, of decline, and that the Russian national spirit is called upon to bring about a complete renewal, a rejuvenation of this spiritual life. This idea of rejuvenation develops into the opinion that all historical development in the future coincides with the mission of the Russian people. As early as the first half of the nineteenth century, Khomiakov developed this idea into a comprehensive body of doctrine. This doctrinal structure can be found in a work that was only published after his death. It is based on the belief that the development of the Western European spirit was never fundamentally designed to find the path to true humanity. And that the Russian people must first find this path. Khomiakov sees this Western European spiritual development in his way. According to this view, the Roman essence first flowed into it. This was never able to reveal inner humanity in the deeds of the world. On the contrary, it imposed the forms of external human statutes on the human inner being, and it thought in an intellectual-materialistic way what should be grasped in the inner weaving of the soul. According to Khomiakov, this outwardness in grasping life continued in the Christianity of the Western European peoples. Their Christianity lived in the head, not in the innermost part of the soul. According to Khomiakov's belief, what Western Europe now has as a spiritual life, the modern "barbarians" have made from Romanism and Christianity - in their own way externalizing again what should live inwardly. Internalization would have to be brought about by the Russian people according to the higher mission incorporated into them by the spiritual world. - In such a doctrinal edifice rumble sentiments whose complete interpretation required a detailed characterization of the Russian national soul. Such a characterization would have to point to forces that lie within this national soul, and which will one day cause it to adapt for itself out of its inner strength that which prevails in Western European spiritual life and which will only then give the Russian people what it can mature into in the course of history. What the other peoples will make fruitful for themselves from the result of this maturing of the Russian people, the Russian people should leave to these peoples. Otherwise it might fall into the sad misunderstanding of regarding a task which it has to fulfill for itself as a world task, and thus deprive it of its most essential aspect. - Since it is a question of the rumbling of feelings about such a misunderstood task, the very idea in question was all too often combined in the minds in which it appeared with political schools of thought which prove that in these minds this idea is the expression of the same driving forces which in other people from the East laid the seed for the present will to war. Even if it can be said of the amiable, poetically high-minded Khomiakov on the one hand that he expected the fulfillment of Russia's mission from a peaceful current of thought, it must also be remembered that in his soul this expectation coincided with what Russia would like to achieve as a belligerent opponent of Europe. For one would certainly not be doing him an injustice if one were to say that he took part in the Turkish War as a volunteer hussar in 1829 because he perceived in what Russia was doing at the time the first glimmerings of its world-historical mission. - What often rumbled in the amiable Khomiakov in poetic transfiguration; it continued to rumble; and in a book Danilevsky's "Russia and Europe", which towards the end of the nineteenth century was regarded by a number of personalities as a gospel about the task of Russia, the driving forces are expressed which thought the "spiritual task of the Russian people" merged into complete unity with a far-reaching will to conquer. One need only look at the expression that this fusion of spiritual will with the intention to attack the whole world has found, and one will find clear symptoms of what initially mattered to many of those who wanted to derive Russia's mission from the nature of the spiritual world. This mission is brought together with the conquest of Constantinople, and it is demanded of the will, which is thus shown its direction, that it should, without feeling "love and hatred", blunt itself against all feeling towards "Reds or Whites, towards demagogues or despots, towards legitimate or revolutionaries, towards Germans, French, English or Italians...", that it should regard as "true allies" only those who support Russia in its endeavors. It is said that what Russia must want is particularly pernicious, "in Europe the balance of political forces", and that "every violation of this balance" must be encouraged, "from whatever side it may come". "It is incumbent on us to reject any alliance with European interests forever".
[ 28 ] The position taken by the subtle Russian philosopher Wladimir Solowieff towards these schools of thought and sentiment is particularly characteristic. Solowieff can be regarded as one of the most important embodiments of Russian intellectuality. Beautiful philosophical power, noble spiritual insight and mystical depth live in his works. However, he too had long been imbued with the idea of the high mission of Russianness that was rumbling in the minds of his compatriots. This idea also found its way into his mind, together with the other idea of the staleness of Western Europe. For him, the reason why Western Europe had not been able to help the world to reveal the fullest inner humanity was that this Western Europe had expected salvation from the development of man's inherent powers. But Solowieff could only see in such striving out of man's own powers an unspiritual aberration, from which mankind must be redeemed by the fact that, without human intervention, spiritual power poured down to earth from other worlds by a miracle and that the people chosen to receive this power would become the savior of erring mankind. In the nature of the Russian people he saw that which was prepared to receive such extra-human power and therefore to be the savior of true humanity. Solowieff's intertwining with the Russian essence meant that the rumbling of the Russian ideal in his soul could for a time look benevolently at others who were likewise possessed by this rumbling. But this could only be until his soul, filled with genuine idealism, awoke to the feeling that this rumbling was based on the misunderstood conception of a future ideal for the Russian people's own development. He made the discovery that many others did not speak of the ideal which the Russian people were striving to attain for their own salvation, but that they themselves made the Russian people, as it is at present, into an idol. And through this discovery Solowieff became the harshest critic of those who, under the banner of a mission of the Russian people, introduced the aggressor instincts directed against Western Europe into the will of the nation as salutary driving forces of distant spiritual development. From the teachings of Danilevsky's book "Russia and Europe", Solowieff stared at the question: Why must Europe look with apprehension at what is taking place within Russia's borders? And in the soul of the Russian, this question takes the form: "Why doesn't Europe love us?" And Solowieff, who saw the Russian aggressor instincts in the guise of the ideas of Russia's world-historical mission particularly expressed in Danilewsky's book, found the answer to this question in his own way in a review of this book (1888). Danilevsky had said that "Europe fears us as the new and higher type of culture, which is called upon to replace the antiquity of the Romano-Germanic civilization". Solowieff cites this as Danilewsky's belief. And to this he replies: "Nevertheless, both the content of Danilevsky's book and his later concessions and those of his like-minded friend - meaning Strakhov, who advocated Danilevsky's ideas after his death - lead to a different answer: Europe looks at us with hostility and fear, because dark and unclear elementary forces live in the Russian people, because its spiritual and cultural powers are poor and insufficient, but its claims are evident and sharply defined. The cries of what the Russian people want as a nation, that they want to destroy Turkey and Austria, to defeat Germany, to seize Constantinople and, if possible, India as well, are ringing out to Europe. And when we are asked what we want to do to make mankind happy in place of what we have torn and destroyed, what spiritual and cultural rejuvenation we want to bring to world development, then we must either remain silent or babble meaningless phrases. And if Danilevsky's bitter confession that Russia is beginning to fall ill is justified, then instead of asking the question: Why doesn't Europe love us? we should rather be concerned with another question, one that is closer and more important to us: Why and why are we ill? Physically, Russia is still quite strong, as was shown in the last Russian war; so our suffering is moral. According to the words of an old writer, we are burdened by the sins hidden in the character of the people and which we are not aware of - and so it is above all necessary to bring these up into the light of bright consciousness. As long as we are spiritually bound and paralyzed, all our elementary instincts must only serve to harm us. The essential, indeed the only essential question for true patriotism is not the question of strength and vocation, but of the sins of Russia."
[ 29 ] If one wants to speak of effective forces in the will of the aggressors of this East, one will have to point to these directions of will emerging in Eastern Europe; what has been expressed by Tolstoy represents ineffective forces.
[ 30 ] This doctrine of the "mission of Russia" can be illuminated by considering alongside it an example of the way in which such a mission of a people is perceived within the intellectual life which the speakers of this mission look down upon as one condemned to senility. Schiller was particularly close to Fichte in his intellectual life when, in his "Letters Concerning the Aesthetic Education of Man", he searched for an outlook that would allow man to see the "higher", the "true man" within himself. If we allow ourselves to enter into the mood of the soul that prevails in Schiller's aesthetic letters, we will find in them a culmination of German feeling. Schiller is of the opinion that man can become unfree on two sides in his life. He is unfree when he confronts the world in such a way that he allows things to affect him only through the necessity of the senses; then the world of the senses dominates him and his spirituality is subordinated to it. But even if man obeys only the necessity that rules his reason, he is unfree. Reason has its own demands, and man cannot experience the free reign of his will in the rigid necessity of reason if he submits to these demands. Through them he lives in a spiritual way, but spirituality subjugates the life of the senses. Man becomes free when he can experience that which affects the senses in such a way that a spiritual is revealed in the sensual, and when he experiences the spiritual itself in such a way that it can be as pleasing to him as the sensually effective. This is the case when man confronts the work of art, when the sensory impression becomes spiritual enjoyment, when the spiritually experienced, transfiguring the sensory impression, is felt. In this way, the human being becomes "fully human". We will not go into the many perspectives that arise from this type of conception here. Only one thing should be pointed out, which is the aim of this Schillerian view. It seeks one of the ways in which man finds the "higher man" within himself through his relationship to the world. This path is sought from the contemplation of the human being. One only really has to place alongside this way of thinking, which wants to speak humanly with man himself in man, the other way, which believes that the Russian national way is the one which, in contrast to other national ways, must lead the world to true humanity.
[ 31 ] Fichte seeks to characterize this way of thinking, which lies in the essence of German sentiment, in his "Speeches to the German Nation" with the words: "There are peoples who, by retaining their own peculiarity and wishing to have it honored, also concede their own to other peoples, and grant and allow them theirs; to these the Germans undoubtedly belong, and this trait is so deeply rooted in their entire past and present world life that they are very often, in order to be just, both against their contemporaneous foreign countries and against antiquity, unjust against themselves. There are other peoples, on the other hand, to whom their self, closely knit into itself, never allows them the freedom to separate themselves from the cold and calm contemplation of the foreign, and who are therefore compelled to believe that there is only one possible way of existing as an educated man, and that this is always the one which some chance has thrown at them at this particular time; all other men in the world have no other destiny than to become as they are, and they would have to render them the greatest thanks if they would take the trouble to educate them thus. Between peoples of the first kind there is an interaction of mutual education and upbringing that is highly beneficial to the education of man in general, and an interpenetration in which each, with the good will of the other, nevertheless remains the same as itself. Peoples of the second kind are not able to form anything, for they are not able to touch anything in its existing being; they only want to destroy everything that exists and produce an empty place outside themselves everywhere, in which they can only ever repeat their own form; even their initial seeming to enter into foreign customs is only the good-natured condescension of the educator to the now still weak but hopeful apprentice; even the forms of the perfected pre-world do not please them until they have clothed them in their robes, and they would, if they could, rouse them from their graves to educate them after their own fashion. " Thus Fichte judges some national characteristics; but this judgment is immediately followed by a sentence that seeks to remove all coloring of national arrogance from this judgment: "Far be it from me to accuse any existing nation as a whole and without exception of such narrow-mindedness. Let us rather assume that even here those who do not express themselves are the better ones."
[ 32 ] These considerations are not intended to answer the question from such a mood of mind: Who wanted this war?", as some personalities of the countries at war with Central Europe do. They want to let the conditions of the events speak for themselves. The author of these observations asked the Russians whether they had wanted a war against Central Europe. - To him, what Renan predicted in 1870 seems to lead to a safer path than what is currently being judged by passion. It seems to him to be a path to the only area of judgment that can and should be entered into in the face of war by those who have ideas about which judgments of thought are superfluous and inappropriate when the weapons have to decide the fate of nations out of blood and death.
[ 33 ] It is certain that driving forces that push towards war can be forced into a life of peace by other forces until they have weakened themselves to such an extent that they become ineffective. And whoever has to suffer as a result of this effectiveness will endeavor to create these forces that maintain peace. The course of history shows that for years Germany has made this effort in the face of the forces of will flowing from the West and the East. Everything else that can be said with regard to the present war in the direction of France's and Russia's driving forces weighs less than the simple, obvious fact that these driving forces were sufficiently deeply rooted in the will of the two countries to defy everything that wanted to hold them down. Whoever states this fact does not necessarily have to be counted among those personalities who judge this or that people on the basis of a predetermined liking or dislike of this or that nation, which was of course quite understandable at the time. Contempt, hatred or the like need have nothing to do with such judgments. How one loves or dislikes such things, how one assesses them emotionally, is something quite different from stating the simple fact. It also has nothing to do with how one loves or does not love the French, how one values their spirit, if one believes to have reasons for the opinion that driving forces to be found in France are intertwined in the present war entanglements. What is said about such impulses existing among nations may be kept free from what falls within the sphere of accusation or recrimination in the ordinary sense.
[ 34 ] One will look in vain among the Germans for such driving forces as were bound to lead to the present war in a similar way to those characterized by Solowieff among the Russians and foretold by Renan for the French. The Germans could foresee that this war would one day be waged against them. It was their duty to prepare for it. What they did to fulfill this duty is called by their opponents the cultivation of their militarism.
[ 35 ] What the Germans have to accomplish for their own sake and in order to fulfill the tasks imposed on them by far-reaching historical necessities would have been possible for them to accomplish without this war, if these accomplishments were as agreeable to others as they were necessary. It did not at all depend on the Germans how the other peoples took up the fulfillment of the world-historical tasks that were added to the German material culture in recent times. The Germans were able to have the confidence that they could gain from the way in which their intellectual work was received by other peoples. For if one looks at the German way, one realizes that there is nothing in it which would have made it necessary for the German to bring to bear on the world what he has to accomplish in his present work in a different way from what has happened in his purely intellectual achievements.
[ 36 ] It is not necessary for the German himself to attempt to characterize the significance of the German way of thinking and intellectual achievement for mankind. He can, if he wishes to make judgments as to the significance of this type and achievement for non-German humanity, seek the answers from this non-German humanity. One may listen to the words of a personality who belongs to the leading figures in the field of the English language, to those of the great American orator, Ralph Waldo Emerson. In his reflection on Goethe, he gives a characterization of the German way of thinking and intellectual achievement in its relation to the formation of the world.2Emerson's sentences are here translated from Hermann Grimm's translation. Cf. his book: Fifteen Essays. He says: "One quality above all, which Goethe has in common with his whole nation, makes him an excellent phenomenon in the eyes of the French and English public: that everything in him is based only on inner truth. In England and America one respects talent, but one is satisfied when it works for or against a party of one's conviction. In France, people are delighted when they see brilliant thoughts, no matter where they go. In all these countries, however, talented men write as far as their gifts reach. If what they put forward stimulates the intelligent reader and contains nothing that offends good taste, it is considered sufficient. So many columns, so many pleasant and useful hours spent. The German mind possesses neither the French vivacity, nor the acute understanding of the English for the practical, nor, finally, the American way of entering into indefinite situations, but what it does possess is a certain probity which never stops at the outward appearance of things, but always comes back to the main question: "Where is it going?" The German public demands of a writer that he should stand above things and simply speak about them. Intellectual activity is present: so what does it stand for? What is the man's opinion? Whence? - whence has he got all these thoughts?" And at another point in this contemplation of Goethe, Emerson coined the words: "The deep seriousness with which they - Emerson means the men educated in Germany - pursue their studies puts them in a position to see through men who are far more gifted than themselves. For this reason, the terms of distinction used in higher conversation are all of German origin. While the English and French, who are distinguished for their acumen and erudition, regard their studies and their point of view with a certain superficiality, because their personal character is not too deeply connected with what they have grasped and with the way in which they express themselves about it, Goethe, the head and substance of the German nation, speaks, not because he has talent, but because the truth concentrates its rays in his soul and shines out of it. He is wise in the highest degree, even if his wisdom is often veiled by his talent. However excellent what he says is, he has something in mind that is even better. He has that fearsome independence which springs from intercourse with the truth. Listen to his words or turn away your ear: the fact remains as he said it."
[ 37 ] A few of Emerson's thoughts should be added, which will certainly be allowed to stand here; after all, an English-American spoke them about the Germans. "The Germans think for Europe ... The English see only the individual and do not know how to conceive of mankind as a whole according to higher laws ... The English do not realize the depth of the German spirit." Emerson knew the impact that German intellectual work could have on humanity.
[ 38 ] In the sentences quoted, Emerson speaks of the "vivacity of the French" and the "keen understanding of the English for the practical". If one wanted to continue in his sense with reference to the Russians, one could perhaps say: the German does not possess the Russian impulse to seek a mystical power for all their expressions of life, even for the practical ones, by which they justify themselves.
[ 39 ] And in these relations of the spirits of these peoples there is something which is quite similar to the antagonisms of war which are at present at work. In the motive power which led from the French to the war with Germany, their temperament is at work, what Emerson means by their vivacity. In this temperament lies the mysterious power which expresses itself so effervescently in Renan's words: "Hatred of death, preparations without rest, alliance with whom it meets." The fact that France was armed before the war with an army almost as large as Germany's, but more than one and a half times as large in relation to its population, is a result of this mysterious power, over which the phrase "German militarism" is intended to be drawn as a concealing veil. - In Russia's will to war, mystical faith is still at work even where it finds only instinctive expression. In order to characterize the contrasts which are at work today between the French and Russians on the one hand, and the Germans on the other, it will be necessary to observe the moods of the souls. - The war antagonism between the British and the Germans, on the other hand, is such that the Germans see themselves confronted only by impulses "sharpened for practical purposes". The ideal of English policy is, in accordance with the nature of the country, entirely geared to practical aims. To emphasize: in accordance with the nature of the country. What its inhabitants reveal of this nature in their behavior is itself an effect of this nature, but not the basis of the English political ideal. The pursuit of this ideal has created in the Briton the habit of accepting as the guiding principle of this pursuit that which he deems to be in accordance with his personal interests in life. The existence of such a guiding principle is not contradicted by the fact that it asserts itself in social life as a definite rule to be strictly obeyed if one wishes to have a way of life. Nor does it contradict the fact that the guiding principle is regarded as something quite different from what it is. All this only applies to the Briton in so far as he is integrated into the world of his political ideal. And it is through this that a war antagonism is created between England and Germany.
[ 40 ] For the time must come when, in the spiritual realm, the world view of the German being, which is based on the spiritual, will have to conquer its world standing - of course only through a battle of wits - against the world view of the German being, which in Mill, Spencer, the pragmatist Schiller, in Locke and Huxley and others has its representatives from the English essence: for this the fact of the present war may be a reminder. But this has nothing directly to do with this war.
[ 41 ] The guiding principle for England's political ideal was in Goethe's mind when he, who counted Shakespeare among the spirits who exerted the greatest influence on him, spoke the words: "But while the Germans torment themselves with the solution of philosophical problems, the English laugh at us with their great practical intellect and win the world. Every one knows their declamations against the slave trade, and, while they would have us know what humane maxims underlie such proceedings, it is now discovered that the true motive is a real object, without which, as is well known, the English never do it, and which ought to have been known." - Goethe says of Byron, who became the model for Euphorion in the second part of Faust: "Byron is to be regarded as a man, as an Englishman and as a great talent. His good qualities are to be derived chiefly from man; his bad ones, that he was an Englishman ... was ... All Englishmen are as such without real reflection; distraction and party spirit do not allow them to attain a calm education. But they are great as practical men."
[ 42 ] These Goethean judgments also do not apply to the Englishman as such, but only to that which reveals itself as the "total being of England" when this total being reveals itself as the bearer of its political ideal.
[ 43 ] The aforementioned political ideal has developed the habit of setting aside as much of the earth as possible for England's use according to the designated guideline. Towards this space England appears like a person who furnishes her house according to her convenience, and who accustoms herself to refuse even her neighbors to do anything that makes the habitability of the house less pleasant than one wishes.
[ 44 ] England believed that the habit of continuing to live in this way was threatened by the development that Germany had to strive for in recent times. It is therefore understandable that it did not want to allow a military conflict to arise between Russia-France on the one hand and Germany-Austria on the other without doing everything it could to remove the alp of threat that Germany's cultural work posed to it. But that was to join Germany's opponents. A purely political "mind sharpened for the practical" calculated what danger could arise for England from a Germany victorious against Russia and France. - This calculation has as little to do with mere moral indignation at the "Belgian violation of neutrality" as it has much to do with the "reason sharpened for practical purposes", which sees the Germans in England's sphere of interests when they enter Belgium.
[ 45 ] What this "for the practical pointed" will, in conjunction with other forces directed against Germany, would have to bring to bear in the course of time, could arise for a German feeling when the question was asked: How did the political ideal of England always work when a European land power had to find it necessary to extend its activities across the seas? One had only to look at what this political ideal had done to Spain and Portugal, Holland, France, when they developed their activities at sea. And one could remember that this political ideal always "focused on the practical" and knew how to calculate how the European wills, which were directed against the countries in which a young naval activity was developing, could be brought into a balance of power in such a way that there was a prospect that England would be freed from its competitor.
[ 46 ] What the people of Germany must have felt about the European situation before the war can be seen by observing the forces directed at them from the surrounding area. From England, the "ideal" of this country "sharpened for the practical". From Russia, the wills that contradicted the tasks that Germany and Austria-Hungary had set themselves for the "center of Europe". From France, national forces whose essence could not be perceived by the Germans in any other way than in the words Moltke once coined with regard to France's relationship with Germany: "Napoleon was a passing phenomenon. France remained. We had to deal with France centuries ago, we will have to deal with it for centuries to come ... (The younger generation in France is being brought up to believe that it has a sacred right to the Rhine and a mission to make it the border of France at the first opportunity. The Rhine border must become a truth, that is the issue for the future of France."
[ 47 ] Against these three wills, world-historical necessity had forged Germany and Austria-Hungary into "Europe's center". There have always been people who have grown up with the culture of this European center, who felt how tasks would arise for this European center, which would reveal themselves to them as tasks to be solved jointly by the peoples of this center. One who carried the ideals of "Europe's center" deep in his soul, in which they were warmed by the power of Goethe, from which he allowed his entire world view and the innermost impulses of his life to be carried. This refers to the Austrian literary and linguistic researcher Karl Juijus Schröer. A man who was all too little known and appreciated by his contemporaries in his essence and significance. The writer of these reflections counts him among those personalities to whom he owes immeasurable gratitude in life. In his book on "German Poetry" in 1875, Schröer wrote the following words as an expression of the feelings that the events of 1870/1871 had aroused for the formation of an ideal of "Europe's center": "We in Austria find ourselves in a peculiar situation at this important turning point. If the free movement of our national life has removed the dividing wall that separated us from Germany until recently, if we have now ... been given the means to work our way up to a common cultural life with the other Germans, then the situation has arisen just now that we should not participate in a great act of our people ... In German intellectual life, this could not create a dividing wall. Its roots are not political, but cultural-historical in nature. This unbreakable unity of German intellectual life ... we want to keep in mind ... In the German Empire, let our heavy cultural task be appreciated and honored, and let the past not be attributed to us, which is our fate, not our fault." From what feelings would such a sentient soul speak if it were still among the living and saw how the Austrian, in full unity with the Germans of Germany, performed an "act of their people"?
[ 48 ] "Europe's center" is formed by "fate"; the souls who feel that they belong to this center with an understanding share leave it to the spirit of history to judge what in the past - and also in the present and future - is their "fate, not their fault".
[ 49 ] And if you want to judge the understanding that the ideas of a common will of the "center of Europe" have found in Hungary, read voices from Hungary, such as one in the article on "the genesis of the defensive alliance" by Emerich von Halasz in the March 1911 issue of "Jungungarn". It contains the words: "If we ... ... that Andrassy resigned from the leadership more than thirty years ago and Bismarck more than twenty-one years ago, and that this great work of peace still exists in full force and promises to continue for a long time to come, we need not indulge in gloomy pessimism ... Bismarck and Andrassy have joined forces to find an impressive solution to the Central European problem and have thus accomplished a work of civilization that will hopefully last for several generations ... In the history of alliances, we search in vain for an entity of such duration and of such powerful conception."
[ 50 ] As soon as the identified tendencies, which were directed towards the "center of Europe", had come together to exert a common pressure, it was inevitable that this "pressure" would determine the feelings that were formed within the Central European peoples about the course of world events. And when the facts of the summer of 1914 occurred, they struck Europe in a world-historical situation in which the forces at work in the life of nations intervene in the course of events in such a way that they remove the decision about what will happen from the realm of ordinary human judgment and place it in that of a higher order, an order through which world-historical necessity acts within the course of human development. He who feels the essence of such worldly moments also lifts his judgment out of the realm in which questions of the kind nest, "What would have happened if, in a fateful hour, this or that suggestion of this or that personality had had more effect than it did? In moments of world-historical change, people experience forces in their decisions that can only be judged correctly if one endeavors - to recall Emerson's words - not only to "see the individual", but to "see humanity as a whole according to higher laws". How should human decisions be judged according to the laws of ordinary life if they cannot be made on the basis of these laws, because the spirit is at work in them, which can only be seen in the world-historical necessities. - Natural laws belong to the natural order; above them are the laws that belong to the order of ordinary human coexistence; and above them are the spiritually effective laws of world-historical becoming, which belong to a still different order, that through which people and nations solve tasks and undergo developments that lie outside the realm of ordinary human coexistence.
[ 51 ] Subsequent remark: The above thoughts contain what the author of the pamphlet expressed in lectures given before Italy's military entry into the present struggle between nations. One will find it understandable from this fact that the pamphlet contains nothing about the driving forces that have become the will to war from this side against "Central Europe". A pamphlet to be published at a later date will hopefully be able to provide an addition in this regard.
Berlin, July 5, 1915