The Mission of English Speech

by Virginia Sease

Lecture given in London, Rudolf Steiner House during the Annual General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain on May 7, 2011

Dear Friends, the motif for this theme evolved from a question which John Pickin had asked when the Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain was meeting with our Executive Council at the Goetheanum: “What is the significance of the English language?” Soon it was decided that this question perhaps would be something appropriate for the Annual General Meeting here in London, so the theme consists of two parts, “The Future Task of the English Language” and “The Mission of the English Speaking Peoples.”

We find that there are two special aspects which Rudolf Steiner mentions specifically regarding the English language and the English-speaking peoples. As a person who speaks English as the “mother tongue” as I do and also many of you do, some aspects that Rudolf Steiner described are challenging and they have occupied my attention for many years. May I invite you to join me on the path of my own considerations?

The first aspect may seem a bit obscure and perhaps it may make us feel uncomfortable because, after all, it is not just a figment of speech when we refer to the mother tongue. We have a deep connection with our mother tongue. Today there are many people who learn English as their first foreign language and in many cases they also develop a very deep connection with this language. However, the mother tongue encompasses something more than we may experience on the surface.

You may know that Rudolf Steiner gave lectures in 1917 called “The Karma of Untruthfulness”. As a citizen of the United States of America I have to admit that in 1917 he especially pinpointed Woodrow Wilson. If you grew up in America, you experienced how Woodrow Wilson is always presented as a hero. “Bring democracy to the world” – and do not worry if places which have the same language are split up in a geometric fashion and then form different nations. This is what partially happened after the First World War. People within the same language group suddenly found themselves in different nations. We especially think about the people who ended up in Austria or in Italy after World War I and they were obliged to speak the other language, German or Italian. This relates to what Rudolf Steiner described as connected with untruthfulness.

One year later he mentions something similar with Anglo-American initiates. At that time Rudolf Steiner was referring to certain initiates of the Anglo-American people who were striving to attain universal earthly world leadership. Rudolf Steiner goes on, to say it in my words, that the English language is the appropriate means to carry out this goal. Why? Because the English language will be less and less adequate to express the truth. Almost a hundred years later I feel we can look at this tendency and ask if there is anything we can do about it, or do we accept it as a totally inevitable fact? This impresses us in quite a difficult way, in an unpleasant manner. What we do not know, specifically, is the basis for this statement by Rudolf Steiner, that the English peoples would be inclined to be working towards a quality of untruthfulness or of compromised truth. What was going on at that time? At that time Rudolf Steiner experienced the beginning of film. None of us experienced as adults, teenagers or children the advent of film. We grew up with film. In my lower and upper school, Saturday afternoon marked the time when everybody went to the so-called movies. The big difference between then and now is that only appropriate movies were shown on Saturday afternoon, and no adult would have risked his life to be in that movie theatre Saturday afternoon, also because all these children and teenagers were not particularly well behaved; today it would be considered nothing, but in those days munching on popcorn and drinking Coca-Cola could have been a little bit disturbing for the adult world! In any case, films appropriate for children were shown, but nevertheless, the film is basically an illusion. The film is—one could say—an untruth. Another example from the past is the joy of presenting travel events in the form of slides. Today we would say slides, dias, are actually quite primitive, however Rudolf Steiner mentions that the viewing of slides damages the etheric body. Besides that, they also excite sensuality, in other words the astral body.(1)

How could slides, which all of us grew up with, especially in the English speaking world, damage the etheric body? Primarily, aside from the fact that it is a picture, therefore an illusion, it is not the real thing, and with slides if there is a rhythm in showing them with modern machinery, it is a mechanized rhythm which will be transferred to the etheric body while viewing. In 1922, 11 years later in a course for teachers, Rudolf Steiner was asked a question about the effect of films. Part of his response was: “…what I have called in these lectures the ether- or life body will be damaged in an extraordinarily strong manner especially for the organization of the senses—through film productions. It is indeed the case that through the film productions the entire soul-spiritual constitution really becomes mechanized; it represents in an external way a means to bring the human being to a materialistic attitude [German: Gesinnung].”(2) Thus untruth through materialism is taken up into the habits of perception and most of us belong to generations in which habits of perception have occurred because we have watched films. We need to be aware and conscious of this fact, however from an esoteric point of view we may perceive a task in which we need to relate to the causes of these effects as to our instruments. They serve us, we do not serve them. Our perceptions may actually be taken up in a habit which is more mechanized, we recognize this and ask: what can we do as a counteraction to this? And we have a whole range of things we can do, for example all of the artistic impulses from Rudolf Steiner work against forming habits of perception, so we are not lacking resources in this regard.

Bearing all of this in mind now I would like to mention what connects with the truth aspect: what is it that we can do to maintain a level of truth in the English language, individually, so that the English language is used as a vehicle of truth. This assumes great importance for our considerations of the English language which today is the world language. I always feel how amazing it is that from the British Isles the English language streamed out into so many corners of the earth. We do not need to think only of the English speaking nations today, but when we realize that English is also the first foreign language of millions of people—we experienced this during the International English Conference in August 2010 at the Goetheanum—when people from many different countries were in attendance from Slavic, Nordic, Asiatic countries. English served as the mutual language. How are we going to make this language a vehicle for truth? We need to be aware continually of how materialisation works on us through the process of mechanization that we find today. And here, first of all, the English speaking world initially provided leadership. Again, the task is to use it as the instrument but to be aware of it. Yesterday I came to London by airplane and if I had been thinking about it, I would have been very happy that somebody was sitting at a computer in the tower guiding the aircraft and making sure that we actually went from Basel to London/Heathrow and not from Basel to Singapore or somewhere else!

Another aspect of English is becoming increasingly obvious today: I would call it a tendency towards word minimalization, a contraction of words: we leave things out, we say don’t instead of do not, couldn’t instead of could not; it is very ingrained in spoken English. This will not change but we could do something about it, in connection with the usage of acronyms, that is when we find that only the first letter of several words is given which stands for something. We actually live today in a world of acronyms, for example we are here at the AGM, meaning the Annual General Meeting. We find that there are other esoteric groups who are working and trying in their own way to deal with human beings and their problems. One of these groups which has a presence in Europe and especially in America is referred to as AMORC, indicating Ancient Mystical Order of the Rose Cross. Then we have the IMF, International Monetary Fund. We live swimming often between acronyms and we are not going to change that, but at least we can develop a curiosity and ask: what does it stand for? What does it really mean? That will already be something of an awareness, a conscious way of working with it.

A third point for our consideration also arises: the English language possesses a very large and wonderful vocabulary. Of course sometimes we notice national differentiations through pronunciation. In America, we call the beautiful spring flowers blooming now péonies, and you call them peónies, and how about controversy, controversy? Also the orthography has differentiations like center or centre, mould or mold. But all of this remains basically insignificant when we think of the wealth of vocabulary and its flexibility. In French, if you wish to speak about singing, you say “je chante”, in German you say “ich singe”. That is it! In English one says I sing, I do sing, I am singing, defining a differentiation in the activity. There is a very interesting book about the English language, Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. It was a bestseller in 1990 and although it is over 20 years old, it has just really reached its peak. The author mentions, among many other things, also this factor of the enormous richness and originality of the English vocabulary. He states, for example, that in the Oxford English Dictionary at the time of his book 650, 000 words were listed, not including technical and scientific terms. If they had been included, it would have been thousands more, millions more. Then he also mentions that 20 years ago, in English there were 200,000 words in common use; in French, 100,000 words, in German it was higher with 184,000 words. So statistics can show anything or nothing but I think what it indicates is at least up to 1990 a large vocabulary was in common usage. If we interpret this it means that English has the innate capacity to provide shades of distinction, shades of a qualification which may also extend to levels of truth. In this regard I feel that we can become more conscious as English speakers, whether as a first or a second language. It provides shades of possibilities, for example English has two words that are absolutely defined. One is conscience, the other is consciousness. In Romance languages one has to use an adjective to show the difference between conscience and consciousness. In the Japanese language “conscience” does not have a specific word, it has to be completely described. Furthermore, there is a possibility in English to have different words meaning approximately the same thing but with varying accents, and according to Bill Bryson, English is the only language owning something known as Roget’s Thesaurus for synonyms. Many of us probably used the Thesaurus in school, and here again we notice an alarming factor: attrition, a reduction of the words. The wealth of the English vocabulary is increasingly dwindling due to e-mails and even more so in writing text messages. This wealth of vocabulary and the sheath-effect which the richness of the English vocabulary offers allows quite a differentiation in soul-spirit expression. This is more precious than we may realize. It may work as a truthful counteraction to the materialisation which also can come through the English language as Rudolf Steiner described.

When we were working with an older, wonderful translation of 'Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. How is it Achieved?' in the Anthroposophical Studies in English course at the Goetheanum, we came across quite a few words that students who had English as their mother tongue did not know. Perhaps they had heard the word but they did not know what it meant. Halfway through the book one of the students who is from Australia said, “Well, maybe I should write these words down, and we could publish a vocabulary list for the use of English speaking students using this book...” That is a little joke, but he did note them. Here are just a few: incipient, idiosyncrasy, detrimental, aberration, vacuity, spectral, vexing, indolence, capricious, timorous, predilection, mendacity.

We are aware of the fact that Rudolf Steiner has informed us from many different aspects concerning the development of the consciousness soul which started in 1413 and will go on for quite a long time. In this connection he mentioned some things specifically for the English language. The consciousness soul will have the opportunity to develop in part through the English language by means of logical scientific thinking and through commercial-industrial thinking. If we think back to the eighteenth century, the major European language for people who were educated was French, but then in the nineteenth century the English influence began to expand. Rudolf Steiner draws this into connection with the time around the year 1814 when what he calls an “Englandization” began. He felt that it was important for people to understand the relationship between the thought and the word which he clarified by describing various languages.(3) With the Romance languages, and he specifically mentions French, he shows how the weaving, the welling, the surging of the word actually calls forth the thoughts. Have you ever seen for example French or Italian people in a conversation? Everybody tends to speak at once, and yet somehow there are thoughts that are emerging from the conversation. So the word provides the basis, as it were, and out of the animated speaking then thoughts arise. So it may seem almost like an intoxication arising through speaking. Here I would like to comment that I feel the situation is different in the French speaking part of Canada perhaps because of their pioneer situation in the beginning era of Canada. Now, with German, that is an entirely different situation. The thought is not directly initially connected with the word. The thought remains in the realm of thought and then a pictorial quality is created, and that brings the thought through the vessel of the pictorial aspect into words. I would like to give an example because this sounds quite abstract. One can observe it with simple words but also with more complex situations. In English we have the word glove. In German, that is called a shoe for the hand, Handschuh. In English we say thimble, in German it is called a hat for the finger, so Fingerhut. So we see there is the thought and it finds its way to a picture and then into the word. This quality may sometimes present a challenge when reading Anthroposophy in German, because all of the words may be familiar and understandable, but until the reader makes the leap from the words to the picture—or I could say to the imagination—it can seem abstract. Also when one comes into a situation where people who have an excellent command of the German language speak with one another, especially about anthroposophical themes, they are speaking with exact words but actually they are conveying thoughts which, as it were, remain above. A little episode may illustrate this: some years ago we had three General Secretaries from the Anthroposophical Society in Germany participating in an international meeting of the General Secretaries at the Goetheanum. The three of them came into a very important conversation with each other about a current theme, and the exchange became quite lengthy, maybe about 15 minutes, and we did not have translations in those days into other languages. The other General Secretaries were sitting there as it became longer and longer until at last they rounded it off. Then there was silence, until a General Secretary from another country said, “Well, now that this deluge is over, what are we going to do next?” He meant this not in a critical way, but because of the complexity of meaningful substance. We may conclude that with the German language there is a good measure of selfconsciousness connected with the thought.

People have asked off and on how it is from a world karma point of view that Rudolf Steiner used the vessel of the German language. Why did that happen? My own evaluation of it centers on the linguistic situation, that there is more possibility for plasticity and mobility in bringing the thoughts into a word picture. He mentions this in the preface to 'Esoteric Science, an Outline', in 1925: he describes how it was a struggle for him to come from the realm of thought into the sphere of words which people could understand. Furthermore, in German with the word pictures it is possible to link word to word, and the final composite word means something in itself. In English we cannot do that, that is called in linguistic terminology a “barbarism.” We cannot do that. One short personal example will suffice. When as a student I arrived in Germany to study I discovered that there were a lot of papers that I had to fill out, which, of course, is the case in every country. I was given one form which had written across the top one word and that was “Aufenthaltserlaubnisschein”, so that meant a document which allowed me to stay in Germany, all one word. In English we have to divide it up. Now with the Slavic languages the situation with the relationship of thought and word is again different. The thought is pushed back to its inner quality and the word is suspended as if separated from the thought. It emerges out of the feeling life of the more Slavic inclined people. They can engage in poetry readings which last for six hours, as was especially the case before 1989, when many other more social activities were forbidden, so they had long poetry readings, in order to meet each other.

Now, to come to English: English basically, as Rudolf Steiner indicates, has a predisposition for spirituality, logical thinking and systematizing, or in other words, often the spiritual becomes materialized. Time does not permit me to develop this any further as to why that is the case, however a clue may suffice. The William Tynedale translation of the New Testament (1526)4 provides an example if we compare it to the later King James Bible. We can see the way that Tynedale took very significant ideas from his sources and was able to mould them into the English language. The King James version in large part relied upon this earlier translation and its predisposition to spirituality, logical thinking and systematizing can be clearly identified. Centuries later these three aspects then joined with the tendency to drop into materialization and we can notice how many people in England and in the United States became occultists. Perhaps England and other English-speaking countries have more occultists right from the emergence of their countries than most other language groups.

Now what happens in English with the relationship of the thought and the word? Rudolf Steiner mentions how with English the thought goes right through the word and seeks reality beyond the word.(5) So the thought goes through the word and comes out the other side. Now what is the other side? The other side is the etheric nature of the human being. Hence we have a situation in English which has a very positive quality but it also has a danger connected with it. The positive quality occurs when the thought permeates through the word and comes out on the other side as it were, for then people who are communicating with each other will understand each other without relying just on the words one after the other, but there will be an etheric understanding, even an understanding from soul to soul beyond language. Rudolf Steiner describes this process as future thought reading. This signifies a next step for us: it means that “the supersensible human being, indeed the first supersensible human being in the historic existence of humanity, must become engaged...”(6) through the English language. This first supersensible human being is the human being in command of his or her etheric nature. Whereas this represents a significant development there is danger connected with it: one will assume one has understood what a person is saying as the thought goes through the word and out the other side before the person has finished speaking and then we say: “Yes, yes” or in American slang, “I’ve got you,” meaning “I have understood.” Maybe they have not understood at all because the person has not finished speaking and we presume that we understand when in actual fact it is all going too fast. What we really need to do is to gradually learn how to read the thoughts of the other human being consciously through etheric awareness. Not until the end of our epoch will human beings master this thought-reading consciously. Gradually language will be only like a clanging sound or an indication that somebody will say something or some occurrence will take place, it will be a signal that this person wishes to communicate something. Now, with this, I would like to mention that I think it is a responsibility for people who are working with Anthroposophy in the English language.

At the moment we have a task and that is first of all to understand that we will not be able to rely only on the words spoken but we will need to proceed to a much deeper soul-spiritual stratum. Then the different languages will no longer be a hindrance to brotherhood. In the past language made the human into a social being. Now an inner spirituality must awaken as language gradually fades away so that human beings will be able to live together. Even to be able to think the thought that the Christ Being can be experienced on the etheric plan through an angel who gives expression to the Christ Spirit already heralds a significant step. If, as Rudolf Steiner describes it, one is able through the English language to permeate through the thought and then to have some realization of the etheric, then this will necessitate an incredible degree of moral integrity which certainly represents a chief task of the Anthroposophical Society. To work in the sphere of this task requires a place where very central questions dealing with Christianity and with the work of the Christ Being today can be addressed. This place is the Anthroposophical Society where those who want to find out about these things will not have to defend themselves or any system that they may have belonged to before, but will find open access. And that leaves people free.

From this point of view, in conclusion, I would like to read a short piece that Marie Steiner wrote for the first publication of the lectures that Rudolf Steiner gave in Penmaenmawr in August 1923 entitled “Initiation Knowledge”. She wrote a foreword for the first edition in 1927, however I could not find it in my present English edition. Two years after Rudolf Steiner’s death Marie Steiner wrote:

"If Rudolf Steiner had been able to work in English speaking countries as he was able to do in Central Europe, his name would now live upon all tongues. He would not have been pushed into silence, nor would he have been branded; one would not have endangered his honour and his life in order to make him undangerous. But however, he had to speak in England in a foreign language for listeners at a time of the strongest hatred against Germany, [this is 1923, when he came to England after the First World War. V.S.] Even the most correct translation could not do justice to the artistic verve of his speech. And nevertheless, his work penetrated through. A faithful circle of pupils came towards him and they also directed the attention of more distant observers to this outstanding spiritual researcher. Then the war was threatening again on the horizon and many of the seeds which already had been awakened at that time were stifled, and yet have slowly come again to new life.”(7)

This is the beginning of a long foreword of this book in which Marie Steiner also asked herself, as she was with him of course, what would have happened if Rudolf Steiner’s message had come into the English speaking countries? She felt there would have been an effect in the English speaking countries that would not have had to go through the trials and tribulations, as she mentions later, of the academic mental stance where he had to prove everything from an academic, scientific standpoint before he felt that he could say anything. He was able to speak directly to the English speaking people in England because he could perceive that through the constitution of their etheric organization, they were able to take up what he was saying. I think it is very important if one can read German because then one can see how Rudolf Steiner brought Anthroposophy into human words out of the world of imagination, inspiration and intuition. It is also significant, I maintain, to become an individual sheath nowadays for Anthroposophy and also equally important through the mutual work in the Society to continue to provide a vessel for Anthroposophy in the English speaking world so that Anthroposophy may enter ever more into the consciousness soul.

Dr. Virginia Sease is a long-time member of the Executive Council of the General Anthroposophical Society, at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland. She was born in Pennsylvania, studied singing while earning her B.A. degree in German literature at Rutgers University, received a Fulbright Scholarship, studied at the University of Tübingen and the Waldorf Teachers Seminar in Stuttgart, Germany, and was a Class Teacher at Highland Hall Waldorf School. She holds a Ph.D. degree in German literature from the University of Southern California.

1 See Rudolf Steiner, notes from a lecture given on January 29, 1911 in Cologne, Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] 130, Dornach 1987.

2 Rudolf Steiner, Answer to a question after a lecture on January 5, 1922 in Dornach, Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] 303, p. 357. (Transl. V.S.) Dornach 1987.

3 See Rudolf Steiner, Lecture from December 18, 1916 in Dornach in the Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] 173, Dornach 1978.

4 See William Tynedale, The New Testament 1526, The British Library, London 2000.

5 See Rudolf Steiner, Lecture of July 18, 1919, in Dornach ,in Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] 173, Dornach 1978.

6 Rudolf Steiner, Lecture of July 13, 1919, Collected Works [Gesamtausgabe] 192, p. 290, Dornach 1964.

7 See Rudolf Steiner, Foreword by Marie Steiner: Rudolf Steiners Lehrtätigkeit in England [Rudolf Steiner’s Teaching Activity in England], Collected Works (Gesamtausgabe) 227, Dornach 2000.