The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Today our guests from further afield who have already arrived make up the majority of those present at this opening performance of eurythmy. There is no need for me to speak particularly about the nature of eurythmy, for our friends know about this from various writings which have appeared in print. But especially since we are gathering once more for an anthroposophical undertaking I should like to introduce this performance with a few words.

In the first instance eurythmy is that art which has originated entirely from the soil of Anthroposophy. Of course it has always been the case that every artistic activity which was to bring something new into civilization originated in super-sensible human endeavour. Whether you look at architecture, sculpture, painting, or the arts of music or poetry, you will always find that the impulses visible in the external course of human evolution are rooted in some way in occult, super-sensible ground, ground we may seek in connection with the Mysteries. Art can only flow into human evolution if it contains within it forces and impulses of a super-sensible kind. But the present-day view of art arises in the main from the entirely materialistic tendency in thinking which has seized hold of Europe and America since the fifteenth century. And though a certain kind of scientific knowledge can flourish in this materialism, anything genuinely artistic cannot. True art can only come forth out of spiritual life.

Therefore it is as a matter of course that a special art has arisen out of the spiritual life of the Anthroposophical Movement. It is necessary to understand that art must be born out of the super-sensible realm through the mediation of the human being. Considering the descending scale stretching from the super-sensible realm down to externally perceptible phenonema, you find the faculty of Intuition at the top, at the point where—if I may put it like this—the human being merges with the spirit. Inspiration has to do with the capacity of the human being to face the super-sensible on his own, hearing it and letting it reveal itself. And when he is able to link what he receives through Inspiration so intensely with his own being that he becomes capable of moulding it, then Imagination comes about.

In speech we have something which makes its appearance in an external picture, though it is an external picture which is extraordinarily similar to Inspiration. We might say that what we bear in our soul when we speak resembles Intuition; and what lies on our tongue, in our palate, comes out between our teeth and settles on our lips when we speak is the sense-perceptible image of Inspiration.

But where is the origin of what we push outwards from our inner soul life in speech? It originates in the mobile shape of our body, or I could say in our bodily structure in movement. Our ability to move our legs as well as our arms and hands and fingers is what gives us as little children our first opportunity to sense our relationship with the outside world. The first experience capable of entering into the consciousness of our soul is what we have in the physical movement of arms, hands and legs. The other movements are more connected with the human being. But the limbs which we stretch out into the space around us are what gives us a sense of the world. And when we stretch out our legs in a stride or a leap, or our arms to grasp something, or our fingers to feel something, then whatever we experience in doing this streams back to us. And as it streams back, it seizes hold of tongue, palate and larynx and becomes speech.

Thus in his organism the human being is through movement an expression of man as a whole. When you begin to understand this you sense that what in speech resembles Inspiration can descend into Imagination. We can call back something that is a gift to our limbs, to our tongue, our larynx and our palate and so on, we can recall it and let it stream back, asking: What kind of feelings, what kind of sensations stream outwards in our organism in order to create the sound Ah? We shall always discover that an Ah arises through something which expresses itself in one way or another in the air, through a particular movement of our organs of speech; or an Eh in optical axes crossing over, and so on. Then we shall be able to take what has streamed out in this way and become a sound or element of speech, and send it back into our whole being, into our human being of limbs, thus receiving in place of what causes speech to resemble Inspiration something else instead, something which can be seen and shaped and which therefore resembles Imagination.

So actually eurythmy came into existence when what works unconsciously in the human being to transform his capacity for movement into speech is subsequently recalled from speech and returned to the capacity for movement. Thus an element which belongs to Inspiration becomes an element belonging to Imagination.

Therefore an understanding of eurythmy is closely linked with discovering through eurythmy how Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination are related. Of course we can only show this in pictures, but the pictures speak clearly.

Consider, dear friends, a poem living in your soul. When you have entirely identified yourself inwardly with this poem and have taken it into yourself to such an extent and so strongly that you no longer need any words but have only feelings and can experience these feelings in your soul, then you are living in Intuition. Then let us assume that you recite or declaim the poem. You endeavour, in the vowel sounds, in the harmonies, in the rhythm, in the movement of the consonants, in tempo, beat and so on, to express in speech through recitation or declamation what lies in those feelings. What you experience when doing this is Inspiration. The element of Inspiration takes what lives purely in the soul, where it is localized in the nervous system, and pushes it down into larynx, palate and so on.

Finally let this sink down into your human limbs, so that in your own creation of form through movement you express what lies in speech; then, in the poem brought into eurythmy, you have the third element, Imagination.

In the picture of the descent of world evolution down to man you have that scale which human beings have to reascend, from Imagination through Inspiration to Intuition. In the poem transformed into eurythmy you have Imagination; in the recitation and declamation you have Inspiration as a picture; and in the entirely inward experience of the poem, in which there is no need to open your mouth because your experience is totally inward and you are utterly identified with it and have become one with it, in this you have Intuition.

In a poem transformed into eurythmy, experienced inwardly and recited, you have before you the three stages, albeit in an external picture. In eurythmy we have to do with an element of art which had from inner necessity to emerge out of the Anthroposophical Movement. What you have to do is bring into consciousness what it means to achieve knowledge of the ascent from Imagination to Inspiration, and to Intuition.

The shorthand report ends here. The eurythmy performance began after a few more words on the actual programme.

The Christmas Foundation Conference was opened on 24 December. It had been preceded during the course of the year by a number of general meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland at which the problems needing an early solution were discussed. The discussions had been particularly lively during the conference of delegates from the Swiss branches of 8 December 1923,²⁰ and preparatory meetings had also taken place on 22 April and 10 June. A good many representatives of non-Swiss groups had been present as early on as the general meeting of the Verein des Goetheanum²¹ on 17 June. These non-Swiss representatives had arrived in large numbers for the international meeting of delegates from 20 to 22 July,²² which had been devoted to the problems of rebuilding the Goetheanum and establishing it on a firm financial footing.

Dr Steiner had agreed to be present at these consultations but was not prepared to take the chair. His opinion had been sought quite a number of times, and he had emphasized above all the need for a moral basis. Rudolf Steiner und die Zivilisations-aufgabe der Anthroposophie contains many of the contributions he gave on that occasion. In the minutes of the meeting of 22 April we find the following:

‘Let me add a few words, not as a statement but simply in the realm of feeling, to what has been said so far today.

‘What we would look forward to in the outcome of the recent meeting in Stuttgart,²³ and also of today's meeting—and I hope similar meetings in other countries will follow—is that they should take a definite positive course, so that something positive can genuinely emerge from the will of the meeting. Mention has been made of the way the Anthroposophical Society is organized. But you see it has to be said that what marks the Anthroposophical Society is the very fact that it is not organized in any way at all. Indeed, for the most part the membership has wanted to have nothing to do with any organizing whatever, even on a purely human level. This was manageable to a certain degree up to a particular moment. But in view of the conditions prevailing now it is impossible to carry on in this way. It is necessary now to bring about a situation in which at least the majority of the membership can represent the affairs of the Society in a positive way, or at least start by following them with interest.

‘The other day I was asked what I myself expect from this meeting. I had to point out that it is now necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to set itself a genuine task, so that it can take its place as something, with its own identity, that exists beside the Anthroposophical Movement; the Society as such must set itself a task. Until this task has emerged, the situation we have been speaking about today will never change. On the contrary, it will grow worse and worse. The organization of the opposition exists and is a reality. But for the majority of members the Anthroposophical Society is not a reality because it lacks a positive task which could arise out of a positive decision in the will. This was the reason for calling the meetings in Stuttgart and here. In Stuttgart the delegates meeting could not decide on a task for the Society. Instead it sought a way out in the suggestion that the membership of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany should be divided into two parts in the hope that out of the mutual relationship between these two Societies something might gradually develop of a kind that was not forthcoming from the delegates meeting. Today's meeting should have the great and beautiful aim of showing how the Anthroposophical Society can be set a positive and effective task which can also win the respect of those on the outside. Something great could come about today if those present would not merely sit back and listen to what individuals are putting forward so very well, as has happened so far, but if indeed out of the Society itself, out of the totality of the Society a common will could arise. If it does not, this meeting, too, will have run its course to no purpose and without result.

‘I beg you, my dear friends, not to break up today without a result. Come to the point of setting a task for the Anthroposophical Society which can win a certain degree of respect from other people.’

The Christmas Foundation Conference for the founding of the General Anthroposophical Society was opened at 10 o'clock on the morning of 24 December. Dr Steiner greeted those present and introduced the lecture by Herr Albert Steffen on the history and destiny of the Goetheanum.

• 20. Reports of these meetings will be included in GA 259. See Note 2.
• 21. See Rudolf Steiner Aufbaugedanken und Gesinnungsbildung, Dornach 1942. To be included in the Complete Works in the series ‘Zur Geschichte der anthroposophischen Bewegung und Gesellschaft’ (The History of the Anthroposophical Movement and Society).
• 22. Report to be included in GA 259. See Note 2.
• 23. See Rudolf Steiner Awakening to Community, op cit.

Regarding the expansion of the Anthroposophical Society

Dr. Steiner: We have now reached the point where at least a draft of a circular letter to the Anthroposophical Society has been made.¹ This has created a kind of basis on which negotiations would be possible. I believe that it would perhaps be good now if you were to negotiate what you yourselves want in joint negotiations with the committee that will be in place until the delegates' assembly. This committee has been put together purely on the basis of merit, so purely that it is not the members of the individual institutes who are on it, as was previously the case in the Thirty Committee that you are familiar with, but rather those who have to represent the existing institutions. This committee is composed in such a way that of the old central committee, Mr. Leinhas for the “Kommende Tag”, Dr. Unger as the rest of the old central committee, Dr. Rittelmeyer as a representative of the movement for religious renewal, Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Mr. von Grone, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko, Miss Mücke for the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press and Mr. Werbeck from Hamburg for the remaining external interests. I have asked the seven Stuttgart members to take the steps you have proposed together with you. I myself will have to leave for Dornach tomorrow morning and will be back on Monday. I regret that I will not be able to attend the next meetings. I now believe that it is best, since there can be no difference between us, that you conduct the negotiations with these personalities on your own initiative. As things stand, these personalities are the ones given, since all shades are represented among them; the youthful ones through the presence of Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth - I leave it to you to decide whether you find these two likeable - who are, after all, completely inexperienced in terms of all board work. Furthermore, Dr. Palmer has stated that he wants to build every possible bridge to young people.

The appeal to the members of the Anthroposophical Society is available in draft. It will essentially contain what the Anthroposophical Society has had to say. It naturally had to come from those who have led the Anthroposophical Society up to now. From February 25 to 28, a meeting of delegates will take place in that the individual branches and groups that consider themselves to belong together will send their delegates here, so that a kind of general assembly will take place. This will provide an opportunity to present all views on the development. Until now, we were faced with the alternative of doing it this way or allowing the Anthroposophical Society, as it was, to come to an end and founding something completely new. In 1918, it would have been easier to found something new; now we are faced with positive institutions with which we are committed to the world and from which we cannot get out, so everything must arise out of the Society. Society itself must be more freely formed within itself, and it must be impossible to feel constrained in it. I think it will work, but I would like to hear something that you have to say on your own initiative. The fact that it took so long to get this far must be put down to the deliberateness of age. We will be happy to hear what you have to say at the present moment.

A representative of the younger generation will speak about the involvement of younger people in society with regard to what Dr. Steiner said in the last Stuttgart branch lecture about the individual phases in the history of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: What you said about the wall that has arisen in connection with the first, second and third phases of the movement, which can be very clearly distinguished from one another, is correct. One must bear in mind that the individual phases lasted for approximately seven years, and that the Society itself is now around the age of twenty-one. What is true is this: the impulses for entering and participating were actually different for the earlier members than they are now for the essentially academic youth circles. They are different in that the people who came during the first phase came with the whole complex, admittedly from today's contemporary conditions, but with completely unconscious longings; they did not know themselves in connection with any contemporary conditions and were at an age at which one does not give a clear account of one's relationship to time. They came with very general human interests related to time, but people did not realize it. It was almost the same in the second phase. Anthroposophy came a lot further, but the Anthroposophists, with exceptions, were less interested in contemporary issues. Those who came to it earlier found the third phase rather creepy. They came together with all those who were dissatisfied – not with the general conditions of our time, but with what these people had experienced in today's educational institutions in a very specific way. They would not have come to anthroposophy if it had not been for the strong contrast between anthroposophy and today's educational institutions that they felt inside. They came with different impulses than those who had actually seen the least of Anthroposophy in relation to time. I myself had to talk about it. What I said about the relationship between Anthroposophy and time has actually been taken up very little. But they came, strangely and yet not strangely, with a longing that actually goes to the heart of Anthroposophy.

Now a strange thing has emerged: namely, the misunderstanding of the School of Spiritual Science courses. I do not want to say anything against their value. But the School of Spiritual Science courses were a misunderstanding. What was expressed there was not at all what you were seeking. You were seeking anthroposophy in itself. This could not be understood by those who had come into the Anthroposophical Society as academics in earlier times. They wanted to weld their academic work together with anthroposophy. They did not accept this. So in time they will not come into conflict with what I have called the bulk of the Anthroposophical Society. The real conflict was only with the academics because they believed they wanted to represent anthroposophy in a biological, chemical-physical, historical way. They do not want that. They want pure anthroposophy. They have the difficulty of getting over this mountain together with the whole society. The academic side that has entered is like a mountain; but it must be crossed over and over. If both sides work with goodwill, it may prove useful. On the other hand, however, if we want to make progress, in the end a little specialization is also needed. If goodwill exists on both sides, it will work.

A participant talks about some of the younger people's wishes regarding the reorganization of the branch work, in particular the lecture and presentation system.

Dr. Steiner (interrupts): This little book by Albert Steffen is justified because it reflects the content of my lectures in a truly artistic way. It is not a journalist's report; it stands on its own. In the past, nothing like this has been done. We will see if it becomes a precedent. It would be a stroke of luck.

Wouldn't it — the appeal will have to include two main points. One: the emphasis on the need for inner work in the anthroposophical movement. Secondly, it is already essential that the Anthroposophical Society is so strong that it can fend off opponents. Not by polemics, but by real, appropriate work in the world. If, in the face of opposition, nothing is done, then anthroposophy will perish. One cannot work in such a way that one person asserts something and the other refutes it. With the most important opponents, one cannot reach the public. When defamations are spread about Anthroposophy today from the circles of the Pan-German and German-Volkish parties, then one has an audience that believes everything under all circumstances. One cannot reach them. One must know the people who are among this audience. There are certain things one cannot say in a Catholic audience. If the refutations are wrong, then they are wrong. But if they are right, they are of no use to us, but — I have to use this word — only harm us, especially among Catholics. They are annoyed when one is able to refute the opponent's assertions. Being right harms us today, being wrong perhaps less so. The only way to refute these things is to do positive work. Make yourself strong, as the others are. Dr. Rittelmeyer was right to use the saying the other day, and I myself have often pointed it out: you can't imagine how everywhere there is something that can be said about: fire is being made everywhere! Our opposition will be expressed in a very terrible way in the near future. It is necessary to form a united body against it. All things that are good endanger society. It is already the case that the movement for religious renewal endangers the Anthroposophical Society. It is the case that no one has imagined that we will achieve something in this area as well. And if we continue to work in the academic field, which is of course very desirable, then the leakages will slip everywhere. It really worries me because the old reactionary forces are growing stronger and stronger. When the School of Spiritual Science was founded, there were many more opportunities to hold back the old powers. Today these opportunities have diminished. They will have to suffer a great deal. But even if anthroposophy were killed, it would rise again, because it must arise, and it is a necessity. Either there is a future for the earth or there is none. The future of the earth is inseparable from anthroposophy. If the latter has no future, then all of humanity has no future. The tendency alone is enough. Anthroposophy may go through various phases in its expansion. I do believe that you will have to come over this mountain, which I mentioned earlier, for the benefit of society in all peace.

A participant talks about a different relationship that young people should have to society.

Dr. Steiner: You just have to bear in mind that in the case of old cultural currents that have already come of age in world history, there were very different attitudes of the soul than in the case of those that are historically very young. Today, people simply no longer have any idea how difficult it was to be a Christian in the first centuries of Christianity. Today it is easy to be a Christian. In the early days it was not the external difficulties of martyrdom, but the internal difficulties of the soul. It was difficult to be a Christian in one's own eyes. Today it is difficult to be a true anthroposophist. It is difficult in a certain sense. Those who have been anthroposophists for a long time, who carry within themselves, in their whole soul attitude, the whole difficulty of being connected with the first appearance of a spiritual movement; in them the understanding for certain phenomena of life is not so strong.

Those who have been anthroposophists for a long time, longer than the younger ones, sometimes talk at cross purposes to each other. Just the other day I came across a very blatant example of this. These friends had a meeting; the mood there was that the belief was that all bridges had been burnt, now they were on the same page. They were quite honest on their side. With you, on the other hand, I was met by the feeling that we had to organize the opposition; we did not find each other at all. This is a perfect reflection of the slight tendency to be under illusions about life's circumstances when one is in a certain attitude towards life, which I have characterized. It is difficult to be an anthroposophist; it is not easy to overcome a certain rigidity. The illusionists are honest. They come with the freshness of soul, and therefore, as one who has not yet grown tired, you are less inclined to have these illusions than a tired person. Many have grown tired and weary through the difficulties we have faced. That is why there has been so much talk these days.

One participant talks about his original plan to redirect the energies of the youth in particular, which have been devoted to the opposition, and to organize them in a fruitful way.

Dr. Steiner: Some things are already so that realistic thinking must also take them into account. Somehow there must also be something in the future that is like your educational institutions. Even if all hopes for the future are in the bud in this respect, it cannot be the case that the university remains a mere sham. It really worries me how far away we still are from that. On the other hand, the higher education system is in a sorry state. A century ago, at least we still had a unified worldview; that is now completely gone, including the sense of human dignity. You see, Leisegang – it's not at all the way he treats me – but Leisegang, who will soon become a professor, since he has all the aspirations for it, has now published a work about Plato, a first volume. He doesn't treat me as badly as he treats Plato, he treats Plato much worse, he caricatures him, only – people don't notice it. You see, and that worries me, really worries me, how far we are from the possibility of creating a university.

A participant points out the way in which a university has been created by the prisoners in the prison camp where he worked, and presents this as an example for the creation of a university for spiritual science.

Dr. Steiner: One cannot bring a university into being today, because the first and most necessary condition for that is the presence of individual scientists. Ideas and approaches are already there. But as long as one can only have the people who are to work within the movement as starving students, it will be difficult. This is becoming more difficult every day because the time is approaching when it is hardly conceivable that the preceding period will provide the subsequent period with scholarships. The possibility of bringing about a completely new education in a different way is becoming more difficult every day. I must emphasize two things at every opportunity for purely spiritual reasons: firstly, to strive with all intensity to become as strong as possible; secondly, to devote all energy to expanding one's circle of friends. It would not be necessary to look at the number from a spiritual point of view, only in view of the time conditions. In the spiritual, the opposite must be true, but in view of time it is so. The widening of the circle need not be at the cost of deepening, but efforts must be made in that direction in order to maintain a large number of friends. Otherwise, the downfall of the individual and of the movement as such is more likely. It is already so. But you must not be afraid to be strong as a youth in order to achieve outward growth.

A participant talks about how difficult it is to communicate with the elderly.

Dr. Steiner: Apart from judgments, it is also the case that the lack of understanding is mutual! The older generation can say: the way it is is not his fault, but his destiny. But the resistance of young people to old age is both a defense mechanism and a weakness!

Become interested, and you will become a genius!

• 1. See page 274 ff.

Mr. Albert Steffen opened the meeting and said that many people were probably rudely awakened by cannon shots this morning. This is because today, down in the village, there is a celebration of the anniversary of the Battle of Dornach, which took place in 1499 on the same hill where we are now gathered. This battle marked the culmination of the wars of independence that had begun when the three founders of the Swiss Confederation met to swear an oath on the Rütli. As can be read in Swiss history books, this confederation was the model for the United States of America, which in turn became the model for the republics and democracies of Europe. The hill of Dornach is therefore a crucially important point for the history of humanity. The anthroposophical movement, which now has its spiritual center here, is neither political nor national. During the last Goetheanum, people of all nationalities worked peacefully side by side on the hill of Dornach, even during the world war. It is of the greatest historical significance, said Mr. Steffen, that he can make the announcement today that the International Anthroposophical Society will be founded here in Dornach at Christmas this year. Mr. Steffen then gave some examples of the spiritually low-level spite and dishonesty with which the opposition to Anthroposophy and the Goetheanum works, so that the unanimous and tireless support of members in all countries is needed to establish and maintain the new Goetheanum.

Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth briefly reported on the results of the special meeting of the country delegates the previous afternoon. A significant step forward had been taken, both practically and morally. It had to be emphasized that it was not enough to indicate approximately how much funding might be collected over the course of a year; rather, Dr.

Steiner could only be asked to take the reconstruction into his own hands if a certain sum were guaranteed now. It was a great moral success that a few delegates had taken such a heavy responsibility upon their own shoulders. The following sums have been guaranteed in writing by individual delegates:

England... ..... 115,000 Swiss francs

Netherlands... 150,000

Switzerland... 200,000

Denmark... 100,000

Honolulu... 200,000

America... 30,000

Czechoslovakia. 30,000 (from German members there)

Italy. 20,000

Austria. 10,000

Sweden. 10,000

865,000 Swiss francs

As was expressly emphasized by all the delegates, this is only a first step, so that construction can begin immediately. It is hoped that in the coming months, through vigorous activity, significantly larger sums can be secured.

A second problem, which must now be discussed here and also after the delegates return to their countries, is the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach at Christmas. In the course of this year, several national societies, e.g. in England, Holland, etc., will be founded on their own initiative, and it is to be hoped that several other countries will follow this example as soon as possible. The rebuilding of the movement in Dornach will result in a great deal of correspondence with all countries and branches, which is why the founding of national societies will greatly facilitate joint work, reporting, etc. Some grotesque examples were given to show why members who do not affiliate with other branches and country groups are unjustifiably dissatisfied when they are not notified of events in good time. It is hoped that this will be much easier and better in the future, thanks to the creation of country groups, which will simplify the exchange of information, and to the creation of a comprehensive address archive. (See below for more details.)

Between now and Christmas, we need two things more than ever: courage, so that we can secure all the physical foundations for the new structure by then; and love, so that the International Anthroposophical Society can be born at Christmas, an act that must mean something for the spiritual aura of the Earth.

Mr. Leinhas explained clearly and unambiguously that according to the existing laws it is absolutely necessary to leave the contributions collected in Germany, which are deposited with the trust company in Stuttgart, in Germany and to use them up there. He suggested, as one of several possibilities, that these funds be used for a study fund to make it easier for students to devote themselves intensively to the study of the various anthroposophical fields of teaching.

Mr. Heywood-Smith pointed out that today, July 22, was an important day in the history of Switzerland's wars of liberation. We are now facing another decisive historical moment, where another deed is to be accomplished that also demands trust in the ideal and the commitment of the whole being. We still need three million Swiss francs to rebuild the Goetheanum. The three confederates at Rütli had risked their lives for the cause of freedom. Are there three people in our Society who would be willing to guarantee the three million from their own means and thereby perform a deed of love for humanity? The members could then, in turn, perform a deed of love by ensuring that the guarantors do not suffer any loss once the contributions flow into the fund at the same rate as they are needed for the reconstruction.

Dr. Büchenbacher described the difficult moral tasks that have to be overcome by the friends in Germany; as Dr. Steiner showed us in his lectures, we have to help the genius of the time to overcome the demon of the time. Germany is a particularly difficult and important battleground for these forces at this time.

Mr. Scott Pyle, America, expressed in a heartfelt way how unfortunate it was that the German contributions could not directly benefit the Goetheanum this time and that it would be a beautiful act of international community spirit if the other countries, going beyond their own foundations, would also distribute the German contribution among themselves. He himself set a good example by donating a large sum.

Miss Woolley, England, added to it by donating jewelry to the German contribution.

Mr. Jan Stuten impressed upon the audience the necessity of the new Goetheanum, especially for a rebirth of artistic life. In the old Goetheanum, all forms were so harmonious and musical that they had a direct inspiring effect on the artist. A new music could have been born from the contemplation of the capitals, architraves and other living organic forms of the Goetheanum. He described the uninspired, uncreative decadence of modern compositions with examples to the contrary. The anthroposophical artists asked the Friends of the Arts to help them with the new Goetheanum, so that a place full of stimulation for the creative powers of artists on earth could be created again. Eurythmy also needs the Goetheanum as a setting of the same spirit. The performance that the delegates saw yesterday, for example of Shakespeare's “Midsummer Night's Dream”, would have been an event, a renaissance of Shakespeare's works in a new spirit. We felt deeply grateful to Dr. Steiner for this event. Mr. Stuten proposed that one or more of Dr. Steiner's mystery plays be performed during a festival week on large stages in Switzerland and abroad in the course of this year.

Ms. Henström, Sweden, reported on anthroposophical work in Sweden and guaranteed, at her own responsibility, a nice contribution from Sweden for the fund.

Miss Lina Schwarz, Italy, spoke about the wishes of her Italian friends and hoped that in the future it might be possible to send a newsletter from Dornach to all countries.

Count Polzer, Austria, said that in a properly conducted budget debate, spiritual human areas of interest should also be addressed; he welcomed the fact that in the last few days the budget negotiations here had been brought to such a level that at the same time, deep spiritual problems such as the consolidation of the Society in its connection with the reconstruction of the Goetheanum could be discussed. A center should be formed here in Dornach, in lively exchange with the life in the branches of all countries. He hoped that despite the growing difficulties, the delegates and members would meet quite often in Dornach and thus get to know each other more and more personally and warmly. Graf Polzer requested that the members of the other countries now also accept the resolution adopted by Switzerland.

Mr. Steffen asked those in favor of the resolution to rise. - (All the delegates remained silent for a few moments.) — The international assembly has thus unanimously endorsed this resolution.

The international assembly of delegates was closed by Dr. Steiner on the evening of July 22, at the end of the third of his lectures on “Three Perspectives of Anthroposophy”, with the following words:

This was an attempt to characterize the three perspectives that anthroposophy can open up: the physical, the soul and the spiritual perspective.

It will undoubtedly be a memorable meeting, my dear friends, if the building of a new Goetheanum can now emerge from it. And it would be wonderful if this new Goetheanum could become such that it could also radiate to us in its forms what is to be said through the word on the basis of anthroposophy to humanity. In this way, my dear friends, you will have done a great deal for anthroposophy.

I may speak impersonally in all these matters at this moment; it really does not depend on me. I also do not want to speak about the decision that has been made, the content of which is that it should be left to me to make the internal arrangements for the construction. For my request that I be allowed to carry out the building work under these conditions was made because I can only take responsibility for the building work under these conditions. And all this remains within the objective.

It is commendable that this request has been sympathetically received. The anthroposophical movement as such will benefit from the outcome. And so, as I bid farewell to our friends who have come here, I would just like to be the interpreter of the anthroposophical understanding, and the repercussions of this anthroposophical understanding will not fail to materialize for those who have this understanding. It can truly be seen from the spiritual realm what a difficult sacrifice our friends are making for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum. But the feeling has now entered our ranks that the will for what stands as an ideal before the soul's eye cannot be realized without such great sacrifices.

The Goetheanum will only be truly blessed if those who make the sacrifices truly want them and if the sacrifices come from a sacred will. But the beauty and beautiful sincerity of this will can already be expressed by the interpreter of anthroposophy as a warm farewell greeting. And I can assure you of this: now that the sacrifices have been made, the Goetheanum will be rebuilt to the best of our ability.

Building this second Goetheanum will require stronger, harder struggles than building the first, and a moral fund to supplement the physical one would be highly necessary. So, in the name of anthroposophy, I am deeply grateful to all those who have rushed here, and if it is the case that the right understanding will increasingly take hold, then in a sense the blessing cannot fail to come, and then one can also look forward calmly to the difficult struggles that this work in particular will entail.

Therefore, today, in a particularly serious and also in a particularly warm way, I would like to say goodbye to the friends.

Some preliminary remarks for the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, Christmas 1923.

A large number of the delegates who had been present at the conference from July 20 to 23 met again after the conference to determine the issues that require preliminary discussion in the various countries and groups during the next few months, so that the delegates can arrive at Christmas well informed about the views of their friends at home and armed with fruitful proposals for the development of the International Anthroposophical Society.

We therefore sincerely request that the following points be thoroughly discussed in the assemblies of the Anthroposophical branches and groups in the time between now and Christmas, so that harmony of opinion can be achieved all the more quickly in Dornach on the basis of the clarified views of friends from all countries:

1. There will be a discussion about the merger of the national societies that have already been founded or will be founded by Christmas to form an International Anthroposophical Society. Reports will be given on the different ways in which the individual national societies are organized.

2. Possible revision of statutes by the national societies, insofar as the current draft ¹ needed to be changed or added.

3. Those countries, such as Belgium, Poland, etc., that have expressed the wish to remain affiliated to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society for the time being, until their membership has grown stronger, are asked to send the Swiss Anthroposophical Society a precise list of the addresses of the members of their group, as well as to indicate which individuals are to be notified of any events, communications, etc. who are then responsible for passing this on to all members belonging to their group.

4. Proposals for the person of a General Secretary of the International Anthroposophical Society. The decision, of course, lies with Dr. Steiner.

5. Some delegates had proposed appointing so-called envoys in Dornach, i.e. prominent individuals from the various countries who already live in Dornach and could be consulted or called upon to assist in dealings with the individual countries. Opinions were divided on the expediency of such an organization. It would, of course, only be useful if it facilitated, rather than complicated, communication between Dornach and the national societies.

6. The amount and due date of the contribution to be paid to Dornach per member (upon admission and annually) to cover the expenses of the General Secretariat. (It should not be forgotten that the sending of such communications, the organization of meetings, the handling of the constantly increasing number of requests in Dornach, etc., which result from the international growth of the Society, require funds that cannot be covered permanently by the Swiss Society or from private funds, but must be borne jointly by all countries).

7. Regular additions to the address archive of members in Dornach (unless otherwise agreed). (It is proposed that contributions and lists of new members, resignations, changes of address, etc. be sent to Dornach on 7 January and 1 July respectively).

8. Determination of the responsibility of the general secretaries, boards of directors, etc. of the national associations and of the International General Secretary with regard to the admission of new members to the Society. — (For example, during discussions with Dutch friends, it was suggested that the admission card of a new member be signed by the general secretary of a country and countersigned by the International General Secretariat). 9. The question of publishing a journal can only be resolved by specific proposals regarding the person and the means.

10. Organization of a dignified and effective defense against opponents in all countries. The International Anthroposophical Society must take on this task to such an extent through increased collaboration across the whole earth that Dr. Steiner is not impeded in important work by the tiresome defense against opponents.

11. Members in all countries to work together to support the initiatives launched by the Anthroposophical Society in the fields of education, therapy (distribution of remedies, support for clinical-therapeutic institutes, etc.), scientific research, art, etc. It would be very nice if, in this respect, the delegates could come to Dornach at Christmas with concrete proposals and reports of their own activities in all countries after intensive discussions.

12. How much have the individual countries and groups been able to contribute to the reconstruction of the Goetheanum? (It would be helpful for the continuity of the work if a preliminary report on this could be given by October 15, 1923).

Please send the names of the delegates who are to represent their countries in Dornach at Christmas to Dornach by December 1, 1923. Similarly, information is needed about accommodation, etc. In addition to the responsible delegates, all members of the Society are of course most warmly and urgently invited to attend. The exact date of the Christmas meeting will be announced.

All correspondence should be addressed to “The Secretariat of the Anthroposophical Society”, Dornach near Basel, Switzerland, Haus Friedwart, 1st floor.

We repeat Dr. Steiner's closing words: “It would be wonderful if this new Goetheanum could become such that it could radiate to us in its forms what is to be said through the word on the basis of anthroposophy for humanity.

The building of the new Goetheanum and the carrying out of anthroposophical truths into the spiritual life of the whole earth will show that the signals of the Anthroposophical Society, which are to be born at Christmas, are a living and active being.

Please come, dear friends, to Dornach at Christmas, equipped for such tasks and with loving intentions.

Albert Steffen Dr.
Guenther Wachsmuth

Chronological overview of the days of the conference with a literal rendering of Rudolf Steiner's words

First day, Friday, July 20, 1923

11:30 a.m., Friedwart House: preliminary discussion of the Swiss delegates (without Rudolf Steiner). The official delegates are elected and the question is discussed of whether Switzerland can raise the planned 400,000 francs for the reconstruction.

4 p.m., Glass House: Preliminary discussion of the German delegates (without Rudolf Steiner). Carl Unger mentions three points for the conference: 1. Rebuilding the Goetheanum, 2. Appeal for donations, 3. Following the “resolution” of the Swiss. The composition of the German delegation is decided: Dr. Unger, Emil Leinhas, Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Hans Büchenbacher, Maria-Röschl, Felix Peipers, Graf Lerchenfeld, Kurt Walther, Frau Goyert, Oberstleutnant Seebohm (Johanna Mücke has resigned).

5 p.m., Glass House: preliminary discussion of all the delegates named by the various countries to determine the conference program and the chairmanship. Albert Steffen is elected chairman, George Kaufmann from London vice-chairman, and Guenther Wachsmuth secretary. The Swiss delegate E. Etienne from Geneva reports the following from this meeting in a private letter dated July 29, 1923:

"This first discussion was actually more of a get-together. The various country delegates had come here more or less informed, some hardly knew the purpose of the meeting; they had therefore not been given any powers of attorney and were more here to find out something that they could then inform their country and their branches about. Of course, this was a hindrance and an obstacle to the smooth running of the purely financial part of the work program.

It was interesting to see how the mentality of their people was reflected in the statements of the various delegates. Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria were the most willing to make sacrifices. The tragedy is that for the last two countries, the exchange rate situation is such that their enormous sacrifices appear so small when converted into francs. The Nordic countries, on the other hand, failed to contribute. Italy and France are willing but have few members and little money. England and America have disappointed... In contrast, the German group has been exemplary for Czechoslovakia. Of the 27 members, 150,000 Czech crowns (about 10,000 francs) have been delivered so far, and their delegate has personally committed to a further 20,000 francs. Will the three Czech groups be as loyal to the cause? They were not represented.

8 p.m., carpentry workshop: Rudolf Steiner's first lecture on “Three Perspectives on Anthroposophy” (in CW 225).

Second day, Saturday, July 21, 1923

10 a.m., carpentry hall: First general assembly of the delegates and members of the Anthroposophical Society. Welcome address by Albert Steffen and report by Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth on yesterday's preliminary negotiations. In the discussion that followed, various suggestions were made as to how the funds for the reconstruction could be raised. Cf. the report by Albert Steffen and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth on page 557. At the end of the morning session, Rudolf Steiner took the floor:

See GA 252

George Kaufmann translates Rudolf Steiner's remarks into English. Then, until 1 p.m., the negotiations continue on the financing of the building and the proposed brochure.

3 p.m., Glass House: Special meeting of all delegates about the sums to be provided by the individual countries. (There are no minutes of this meeting.)

5 p.m., Carpentry: Eurythmy performance with introductory address by Rudolf Steiner (in CW 277).

8 p.m., carpentry workshop: Rudolf Steiner's second lecture on “Three Perspectives on Anthroposophy” (in CW 225).

10:30 p.m., glass house: assembly of delegates after Rudolf Steiner's lecture. There are no minutes available, but the Swiss delegate E. Etienne from Geneva reports in a private letter dated July 29 about this meeting, at which Rudolf Steiner was also present, as follows:

"It was sometimes exhausting to listen to the haggling and haggling. The committee, which was pushing for large sums to achieve something worthwhile, and the delegates, some of whom had no authority to make real commitments. It is therefore to be hoped that they will really do everything they can in their countries to increase the guaranteed minimum amounts, in line with the number of members and their actual financial possibilities.

After the minimum amounts had been agreed (which depended on whether or not the doctor considered the guarantee offered to be sufficient – he wanted to be absolutely sure and only took note of guaranteed amounts), it was concluded that at least 25% of the guaranteed amounts must be paid by 15 October of the following year. The original plan was to reconvene on this date. However, all the delegates were sufficiently empowered and well informed about the final amounts that their country would contribute to the reconstruction and in which installments.

Doctor Itten said that he would now immediately start planning the new Goetheanum for the funds that had now been made available (insurance and minimum amounts). If in October the delegates are able to guarantee larger sums than those currently foreseen, then these funds would be used for the extensions. This met with long faces, and the immediate objection was raised that nothing of this should be mentioned at tomorrow's general assembly (we delegates would keep silent about everything anyway), because everyone wants to give their money for the Goetheanum and not for extensions. The sense of sacrifice could wane if this became known. The doctor replied that if our old Goetheanum had not burnt down, we would have been forced to build extensions anyway, because the work that awaited us could not have been done in the old building; we felt that ourselves at the time. And we should not imagine that greater sacrifices are now being demanded of us than we would have had to make without the fire in the next three years (we would not have had three million to start with!). In short, Dr. Itten was keen to make it clear to us that the extensions were not only not a disaster, but something desirable, and he tried to encourage us. — Later, he came up again and said very kindly: Don't think I'm making a joke: you can very well proceed in such a way that I design a Goetheanum for the available money, right up to the roof, so for the time being without a roof. (Much laughter.) I suppose most anthroposophists would then still want the roof and raise the necessary money for it.

The suggestion was generally liked – but whether Doctor really proceeds in this way will probably depend on the degree of trust in our willingness to make sacrifices. Doctor just said clearly that he did not want to go through the misery of raising money a second time. He would only build with what was actually raised and would not rely on promises.

• 1. Refers to the “Draft Principles of an Anthroposophical Society” from 1912/13. See “Notes” below.

I would have liked to follow my usual procedure in lecturing to the kind members of the Anthroposophical Society and to have addressed this gathering on purely anthroposophical matters. The whole course the meetings have taken, however, and the things that have been happening in the past few days have made me decide to confine my comment to questions of immediate interest to this assemblage. I hope there will be other opportunities to speak on more specifically anthroposophical subjects, if not to all of you at once, then at least on several occasions to smaller groups.

The goal of this pair of lectures is to show how anthroposophy can really become wisdom to live by, how it can influence our day-to-day intentions and attitudes. I shall, therefore, devote myself to laying an anthroposophical foundation on which to approach the problems we shall be dealing with here. Yesterday I spoke from that angle about community building in the Anthroposophical Society; today I want to continue and to add something on the subject of the contribution that an anthroposophical view of the world makes to living life in a more adequate way than one could do without it.

In order to show you the opposite side of the matters discussed yesterday, I am taking as my starting point something well-known to everybody familiar with the history of societies built on foundations similar to those on which our own sciety is based. A little later on I will also characterize some of the differences that distinguish the Anthroposophical Society from every other. But for the moment I want to point out that there have been a great many societies that have based their existence on one or another method of attaining insight into the spiritual world, though the level reached was influenced considerably by various historical settings and the particular characteristics and capacities of the groups of people who participated. One finds every shading and level in the wide variety of societies, which covers the whole range from a really serious and significant level down to that of charlatanism.

But one thing is well-known to anyone acquainted with the history of such socities. That is, that a certain moral atmosphere is always created—and indeed, necessarily so—when certain conditions exist. One could describe this atmosphere as being that of a real, genuine striving for brotherliness among the members of such a society. This goal is usually listed among the precepts or in the statutes of these societies, and—as I said—necessarily so, brotherliness being one goal and insight into the spiritual world the other.

Now the thing that people familiar with the history of such societies know is that these societies built on brotherliness and spiritual insight are the worst beset with conflicts. They present the widest opportunities for fighting, for partings-of-the-way, for splitting up into separate factions within the larger group, for group resignations, for sharp attacks on those who stay and those who leave, and so on. In short, human strife is at its most rampant in groups dedicated to brotherhood.

This is a strange phenomenon. But anthroposophical insight enables us to understand it. What I am presenting in these two lectures is also part of the system of anthroposophy, if you will forgive me the pedantic term. So, though this lecture will not be a general discussion, it will still be an anthroposophical one, shaped with special reference to our meetings.

If we return to the matters brought up yesterday, we find three levels of experience among the phenomena of human consciousness. We find people either asleep or dreaming, who, in a state of lowered consciousness, experience a certain world of pictures that they take to be real while they are sleeping. We know that these people are isolated from others inhabiting the physical world in common with them; they are not sharing common experiences. No means exist of conveying what they are experiencing. We know further that a person can go from this state of consciousness to that of everyday awareness, can be awakened to it by external nature, and this includes the natural exterior of other people, as I described yesterday. A certain degree of community feeling is awakened simply as a result of natural drives and the ordinary needs of life, and languages come into being in response to it.

But now let us see what happens when these two states of consciousness get mixed up together. So long as a person continues in completely normal circumstances and is able, by reason of a normal psychic and bodily condition, to keep his isolated dream experience separated from his shared experience with others, he will be living acceptably in his dream world and in the world of reality. But let us assume that, due to some psychological quirk, and it would have to be considered such, a person finds himself in a situation where, though he is in a day-waking state of consciousness involved in a common life with others, he is not having the same feelings and ideas as his companions. Let us assume that the pathological condition he is in causes him to project into his waking consciousness a world of feelings and ideas similar to those of dream life. Instead of developing logically ordered thoughts, he produces a pictorial world like the picture world of dreams. We call such a person mentally ill. But for the moment the thing of chief interest to us is that this person does not understand the others, and unless they are looking at him from a medical pathological angle they cannot understand him either. At the moment when the state of mind prevailing at this lower level of consciousness is carried over to a higher level, a person becomes a crass egotist in his relations with his fellow men. You need only think this over to see that a person of this kind goes entirely by his imaginings. He comes to blows with the others because they cannot follow his reasoning. He can commit the wildest excesses because he does not share a common soul world with other human beings.

Now let us move on from these two states of consciousness to the two others. Let us contrast the everyday state of consciousness, to which we are guided by the natural course of external events, with that higher one that can, as I showed yesterday, awaken through the fact that a person wakes not just in the encounter with the natural aspect of his surrounding but also in the encounter with the inner being of the other person. Though one may not ordinarily be fully and immediately aware of it, one does waken to such a higher level of consciousness. Of course, there are many other ways of entering the higher worlds, as you know from my book, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. But for the period of time one is privileged to spend with others in that way, one can find oneself in a position to understand and witness things one would otherwise not understand or witness. One is presented with the possibility of living in the element that those who know the spiritual world describe in terms applicable to that world—the possibility of speaking of the physical, etheric and astral bodies and the ego, of repeated earth lives and their karmic aspects.

Now at this point there is a possibility of the whole state of mind of ordinary consciousness being carried over into the spiritual world one thus enters and applied to it. This is the same thing that happens on another level when the state of soul of a person absorbed in dream pictures is projected into ordinary life: one turns into an egotist in the most natural way. This occurs if one fails to realize that everything in the higher worlds of the spirit has to be looked at in an entirely different way than one looks at the sense world. One must learn to think and feel differently. Just as dreamers have to switch over into a totally different state of consciousness if they want to share a life with others in an ordinary state of waking, so must there be similar awareness of the fact that the content of anthroposophy cannot be approached with the attitude of soul one has toward the things of ordinary experience.

That is the root of the problem of reaching any understanding and agreement between the everyday consciousness, which is also that of ordinary science, and the consciousness anthroposophy makes possible. When people come together and talk back and forth, one with the ordinary consciousness exemplified in the usual scientific approach and the other with a consciousness equal to forming judgments that accord with spiritual reality, then it is exactly as though a person recounting his dreams were trying to reach an understanding with someone telling him about external facts. When a number of people meet in an ordinary state of consciousness and fail to lift themselves and their full life of feeling to the super-sensible level, when they meet to listen in a merely ordinary state of mind to what the spiritual world is saying, there is a great—an immeasurably great—chance of their coming to blows, because all such people become egotists as a natural consequence.

There is, to be sure, a powerful remedy for this, but it is available only if the human soul develops it. I am referring to tolerance of a truly heartfelt kind. But we have to educate ourselves to it. In a state of everyday consciousness a little tolerance suffices most people's needs, and social circumstances put many a situation right again. But where the ordinary everyday state of mind prevails, it often happens that people talking together are not even concerned to hear what the other is saying. We all know this from our own personal experience. It has become a habit nowadays to give only scant attention to somebody else's words. When a person is part way through a sentence, someone else starts talking, because he is not the least interested in what is being said. He is interested only in his own opinion. One may be able, after a fashion, to get by with this in the physical world, but it simply cannot be done in the spiritual realm. There, the soul must be imbued with the most perfect tolerance; one must educate oneself to listen with profound inner calm even to things one cannot in the least agree with, listen not in a spirit of supercilious endurance, but with the most positive inner tolerance as one would to well-founded utterances on the other person's part. In the higher worlds there is little sense in making objections to anything. A person with experience in that realm knows that the most opposite views about the same fact can be expressed there by, let us say, oneself and someone else. When he has made himself capable of listening to the other's opposite view with exactly the same tolerance he feels toward his own—and please notice this !—then and then only does he have the social attitude required for experiencing what was formerly merely theoretical knowledge of the higher worlds.

This moral basis is vital to a right relationship to the higher realms. The strife that I have described as so characteristic of the societies we are discussing has its root in the fact that when people hear sensational things, such as that man has an etheric and astral body and an ego as well as a physical body, and so on, they listen for sensation's sake but do not undertake to transform their souls as these must be transformed if they are to experience spiritual reality differently than they would a chair or a table in the physical world, and one experiences even these objects differently in the physical world than one does in dreams. When people apply their ordinary soul habits to what they think they are understanding of teachings about the higher worlds, then this inevitably develops strife and egotism.

Thus it is just by grasping the true nature of the higher worlds that one is led to understand how easily societies with a spiritual content can become involved in conflicts and quarreling, and how necessary it is to educate oneself to participation in such groups by learning to tolerate the other person to an immeasurably greater degree than one is used to doing in situations of the physical world. To become an anthroposophist it is not enough to know anthroposophy from the theoretical side: one's whole approach has to be transformed in certain ways. Some people are unwilling to do this. That resulted in my never being understood when I said that there were two ways of occupying oneself with my book, Theosophy, for example. One way is to read or even study it, but with the usual approach and making the judgments that approach engenders. One might just as well be reading a cookbook as Theosophy for all the qualitative difference there is. The value of the experience is identical in both cases, except that reading Theosophy that way means dreaming rather than living on a higher level. When one thus dreams of higher worlds, the impulses one receives from them do not make for the highest degree of unity or the greatest tolerance. Strife and quarreling take the place of the unity that can be the reward of study of the higher worlds, and they keep on spreading. Here you find the cause of the wrangling in societies based on one or another method of gaining insight into the spiritual world.

I said that the various paths described in part in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds lead into the spiritual world. Now when a person has to concern himself intensively with seeking knowledge of those higher worlds, this requires his developing a certain attitude of soul, as you will understand from what I have been explaining in this pair of lectures, though in quite another connection. A true spiritual investigator has to have a certain attitude of soul. One cannot find one's way to truth in the spiritual realm if one is constantly having to give one's attention to what is going on in the physical world in ways quite proper to that sphere, if one has to occupy oneself with matters requring the kind of thinking suited to the physical realm.

Now you will agree that a person who gives his fellowmen a reliable account of things in the spiritual world, a person justified in calling himself a spiritual investigator in the sense in which the other sciences use that term, needs a lot of time for his research. You will therefore find it natural that I, too, need time to do the research that enables me little by little to present anthroposophy or spiritual science in an ever widening perspective in my lectures.

Now if one goes one's way alone, one can of course make time for this within the framework of one's destiny. For a person who is a genuine spiritual investigator and wants to give his fellowmen a trustworthy account of what he discovers in the spiritual world will, as is natural, form the habit of ignoring his opponents. He knows that he has to have opponents, but he is not bothered by their objections to his statements; he could think up the objections himself. So it is natural for him to take the attitude that he is simply going to go his own positive way without paying much attention to anyone's objections, unless there is some special reason to do so.

But this attitude is no longer tenable when one has joined forces with the Anthroposophical Society. For in addition to the responsibility one feels toward the truth, one has a further responsibility in relation to what the Society, of which it is often said that it makes itself an instrument of that truth, is doing. So one has to help carry the Society's responsibilities. This can be combined to a certain extent with the proper attitude toward opponents. Until 1918 that situation obtained with the Society and myself. I paid as little attention as possible to objections, and did so, paradoxical though this may seem, as a consequence of maintaining the tolerance I have been describing. Why, indeed, should I be so intolerant as to be constantly refuting my opponents? In the natural course of human evolution everything eventually gets back on the right track anyhow. So I can say that up until 1918 this question was justified, to some extent at least.

But when the Society proceeds to take on the activities it has included since 1919, it also takes on the responsibility for them. Their destiny becomes involved with that of the Society, and the Society's destiny becomes involved with that of the spiritual investigator. The spiritual investigator must either assume the burden of defending himself against his opponents—in other words, of occupying himself largely with matters that keep him from his spiritual research, since they cannot be combined with it—or else, to get time for his research, turn over the handling of opponents to those who have accepted a certain responsibility for the peripheral institutions. Thus the situation in our Society has undergone fundamental changes since 1919, and this for deeply anthroposophical reasons. Since the Society, as represented by certain of its members, decided to launch these institutions, and since the foundation on which they are all based is anthroposophy, that foundation must now be defended by people who do not have to carry full responsibility for the inner correctness of the material that genuine research has to keep on adding, day by day, to the previous findings of spiritual investigation.

A large proportion of our opponents consists of people in well-defined callings. They may, for example, have studied in certain professional fields where it is customary to think about things in some particular way. Thinking the way he does, such a person simply has to oppose anthroposophy. He doesn't know why, but he has to be an opponent because he is unconsciously on the leash of the profession in which he has had his training and experience.

That is the situation in its inner aspect. From the external standpoint, the question whether what has been established as the Anthroposophical Society is to flourish or decline requires that these opponents be dealt with.

But the real leaders of the opposition know full well what they are about. For there are some among them who are perfectly familiar with the laws that govern spiritual research, even though their view of those laws and that of anthroposophy may differ. They know that their best means of keeping a person who needs peace to pursue his spiritual research from doing his work is constantly to bombard him with hostile writings and objections. They know very well that he cannot give his attention to both refuting them and carrying on his research. They try to put obstacles in his path with their opposition. The mere fact of their putting these attacks in writing is the hostile act. The people who know what they are doing are not so much concerned with the contents of such books as they are with using them as weapons to hurl at the spiritual investigator, and they are particularly intent on tricking and otherwise forcing him into the necessity of defending himself.

These facts must be looked at completely objectively, and everyone who really wants to be a full member of the Anthroposophical Society ought to know them. A good many people are, of course, already familiar with what I have just been saying. The trouble is that some informed members habitually refrain from mentioning any such matters outside their circle.

Experience has long shown that such a course cannot be maintained in the Society. The Society used to publish lecture cycles labeled, “For members only.” Here in Germany, and probably elsewhere too, one can go to public libraries and borrow these same cycles. All the cycles are available to non-members. One can tell from writings of our opponents that they too have them, though it may sometimes have been difficult to get hold of them. But people of this sort are far less apt to shy away from difficulties than is sometimes the case with anthroposophists.

The secrecy that many societies still find it possible to maintain is simply out of the question in the Anthroposophical Society, due to its special character as an institution based on the most modern concept imaginable. For its members are meant to remain free individuals. They are not bound by any promises; they can simply join the Society as honest searchers after knowledge. I have no desire to make secrecy an aim. If that interested me, I would never suggest setting up a loose confederation of groups alongside the old Anthroposophical Society. For I predict, though without implying condemnation, that a great many more escape channels will be opened to the world at large by such a confederation, allowing egress to material that older members believe should be kept in their own cupboards. But the innermost impulse of anthroposophy cannot be grasped by people unwilling to see it put to work in complete accord with the most modern human thinking and feeling. It is, therefore, the more essential to understand what the prerequisites of such a society are.

Now I want to bring up something that I will illustrate with an example taken from my own experience, though not in a spirit of foolish conceit. Last summer I gave a course of lectures at Oxford on the educational methods of the Waldorf School.¹ An article appeared in an English journal that, though I cannot quote it verbatim, made the following point. It began by saying that a person who attended the lectures at the Oxford educational meetings without prior awareness of who Dr. Steiner was and that he had some connection with anthroposophy would not have noticed that a representative of anthroposophy was speaking. Such a person would simply have thought him to be a man speaking about pedagogy from a different angle than the listener's own.

I was exceedingly delighted by this characterization because it showed that there are people who notice something that is always my goal, namely, to speak in a way that is not instantly recognized as anthroposophical. Of course, the content is anthroposophical, but it cannot be properly absorbed unless it is objective. The anthroposophical standpoint should lead, not to onesidedness, but, on the contrary, to presenting things in such a way that each least detail can be judged on its own merits and its truth be freely recognized.

Once, before the Oxford lecture cycle was delivered and the article about it written, I made an experiment that may not seem to you at all significant. In June of this year I attended the Vienna Congress and gave two cycles comprising twelve lectures.² I undertook to keep the word anthroposophy out of all of them, and it is not to be found there. You will also not find any such phrase as “the anthroposophical world view shows us this or that.” Of course, despite this—and indeed, especially because of it—what was presented was pure anthroposophy.

Now I am not making the philistine, pedantic recommendation that anthroposophists should always avoid using the word “anthroposophy.” That is far from my intention. But the spirit that must inspire us in establishing right relations with the rest of the world can be found by looking in that general direction. That spirit should work freely in leaders active in the Society; otherwise I will again be held responsible for unanthroposophical things that are done in its name. Then the world would have some justification for confusing the one agent with the other.

Here too the objective spirit of anthroposophy needs to be properly grasped and, above all, manifested in what is done. We will first have to undertake some degree of self-education to that end. But self-education is needed in anthroposophical circles; countless mistakes have been made in the past few years for want of it, with the launching of the peripheral institutions contributing to the problem. I state this simply as an objective fact, without meaning to accuse anyone personally.

If the Anthroposophical Society is to flourish, every single one of its members is going to have to become fully aware of these facts. But this cannot happen under present day social conditions unless an effort is made to set up a lively exchange, even if only in the form of some such medium as a news sheet conceived as a link between the Society's various centers of activity. But again, that would require every such circle, even if not every individual member, to develop a living interest in the concerns of the whole Society, and particularly in its ongoing evolution. There has been too little of this. If the Anthroposophical Society did not exist, there would presumably still be a certain number of books on anthroposophy. But one would not have to be concerned, as a society is, with the people who read them. These people would be scattered all over the world, singly or in groups, according to their karma, but one would not have to have any external contact with them. The spiritual investigator is not in any fundamentally different situation, even in a society such as ours was up to 1918. But the situation changed at the moment when the Anthroposophical Society assumed responsibility for things that existed on the physical plane.

I am putting all this in a much more plain spoken way than I have on other occasions. But say them I did, in one form or another, when the peripheral institutions were being launched. I couldn't, of course, whisper them in every member's ear, and I don't know whether it would have helped if I had done that. But the Society existed and had leaders. They should have seen to it that conditions in the Society were such that it could include the various institutions without jeopardizing spiritual research.

I will call this the negative aspect of community building in contrast to the positive aspect I presented yesterday. I would like to add that everyone interested in creating community of the positive kind that I described from the standpoint of the prerequisites of its existence must be aware of the matters discussed today in relation to the Anthroposophical Society's life and progress. They must all be taken into consideration as affecting the various areas of anthroposophical life.

In this connection let me cite the following instructive example. I come back again to the tragic subject of the ruined Goetheanum. In September and October 1920 we held a three week course there, the first of the so-called High School courses. Yesterday, I described how the Goetheanum was built in a definite artistic style that was the product of an anthroposophical approach. How did this style originate? It came into being as a result of the fact that persons to whom we cannot be grateful enough undertook, in 1913, to build a home base for what existed at that time in the way of anthroposophical works in a narrower sense, and what, again in that narrower sense, was still to issue from anthroposophy. They wanted to create a home for the staging of mystery plays, for the still germinal but nevertheless promising art of eurythmy, and, above all, for presentations of anthroposophy itself as these projected cosmic pictures derived from spiritual-scientific research. That was my intention when these persons asked me to take initiatives in this connection. I saw it as my task to erect a building designed in a style artistically consonant with the work that was to go on in it. The Goetheanum was the outcome.

At that time there were no scholars or scientists in our midst. Anthroposophy had indeed taken some steps in a scientific direction. But the development that was to include activity in the various professional fields among the Society's functions had not yet begun. What developed later came into being as a direct outgrowth of anthroposophy, exactly as did the Waldorf School pedagogy, the prime example of such a process.

Now an artistic style had to be found to suit each such development. It was found, as I believe, in the Goetheanum. The war caused some delay in building. Then, in 1920, I gave the course of lectures just referred to. It was given at the behest of the professionals who had meanwhile joined the Society and were such a welcome addition to it. They arranged a program and submitted it to me.

In my belief, complete freedom reigns in the Anthroposophical Society. Many outsiders think that Steiner is the one who decides what is to go on in it. The things that go on most of the time, however, are such as Steiner would never have thought up. But the Society does not exist for my sake; it exists for the members.

Well, I sat there, all attentiveness, at this lecture series of September and October 1920—this is just an aperçu, not a criticism—and let my eyes range over the interior of the Goetheanum. In the Goetheanum Weekly I described how, in eurythmy for example, the lines of the Goetheanum continued over into the eurythmists' motions. But according to the original intention, this should have been the case with everything done there. So I let my inner eye test whether the interior decoration, the architecture, the sculptured forms, the painting, harmonized with what the speakers were saying from the podium. I discovered something that people did not at that time have to be faced with, namely, that everything I may call in the best sense a projection of the anthroposophical outlook, everything that had its origin in pure anthroposophy, harmonized marvellously with the Goetheanum. But in the case of a whole series of lectures, one felt that they should have been delivered only when the Goetheanum reached the point of adding a number of further buildings, each so designed that its style would harmonize with the special studies and activities being carried on inside it. In its destiny of almost ten years, the Goetheanum really shared the destiny of the Anthroposophical Society, and one could readily become aware, by feeling out the way the architectural style harmonized or failed to harmonize with what went on in the building, that an inorganic element had indeed insinuated itself into the pure ongoing stream of the anthroposophical spiritual movement.

Now this is not said to blame anybody or to suggest that things should have been done differently; everything had to happen as it did, naturally. But that brought another necessity with it: The necessity of bringing about a complete rebirth of chemistry, physics, mathematics, and so on, through anthroposophy, to give consciousness the quick forward thrust I described it as needing. For the ordinary way of looking at things simply does not provide a basis for anthroposophical presentations. But that forward thrust was not always in evidence. Its lack could be felt in the testing that the artistic style of the Goetheanum gave it; in the Anthroposophical Society it manifests itself in the phenomenon of the clouds that have gathered and hung over us these past days. Now that a most welcome destiny has brought science into the anthroposophical stream, we face the immediate and future task of bringing it to rebirth through anthroposophy. No purpose is served by losing ourselves in all kinds of meaningless polemics; the urgent task is rather to see to it that the various disciplines are reborn out of anthroposophy.

We had to make do somehow during the period when substitutes were the order of the day. I was often called upon, in response to a need somewhere, to deliver cycles of lectures to this or that group on subjects which, had anthroposophical life been progressing at a normal tempo, might better have waited for future developing. Then these cycles became available. They should have been put to use in the first place as a means of helping the various sciences to rebirth through anthroposophy. That lay in the real interests of anthroposophy, and its interests would have coincided fruitfully indeed with those of the Anthroposophical Society.

People have to know all these facts. You see, my dear friends, in the course of the various seminars held here and there under the auspices of the High School, I repeatedly assigned problems that needed solving. At the last address I gave in the Small Auditorium of the Goetheanum during the scientific course, which was held at the end of 1922 and was to have continued there into 1923, I gave the mathematical physicists an assignment. I discussed how necessary it was to solve the problem of finding a mathematical formula to express the difference between tactual and visual space. There were many other occasions when similar matters were brought up. We were confronted with many urgent problems of the time, but they all needed to be worked out in such a thoroughly anthroposophical way as to have value for every single group of anthroposophists, regardless of whether tactual and visual space and the like meant anything to them. For there are ways in which something that perhaps only one person can actually do can be made fruitful for a great many others when it is clothed in some quite different form.

Thus, the difficulties that have proliferated are a consequence of what I must call the exceedingly premature steps taken since 1919, and, in particular, of the circumstance that people founded all sorts of institutions and then didn't continue sharing responsibility for them—a fact that must be stressed again and again. These difficulties have given rise to the problematical situation now confronting us.

But none of them can be laid at the door of anthroposophy itself. What my kind listeners should be aware of is that it is possible to be quite specific as to how each such difficulty originated. And it must be emphasized that it is most unjust to dismiss anthroposophy on account of the troubles that have arisen.

I would, therefore, like to append to the discussion of just such deeper matters as these a correction of something that was said from this platform yesterday; it disturbed me because of my awareness of the things we have been talking about here. It was stated that people were not aware that the Anthroposophical Movement could be destroyed by our opponents. It cannot be. Our opponents could come to present the gravest danger to the Anthroposophical Society or to me personally, and so on. But the Anthroposophical Movement cannot be harmed; the worst that could happen is that its opponents might slow its progress. I have often pointed out in this and similar connections that we must distinguish between the Anthroposophical Movement and the Anthroposophical Society. My reason for saying this was not that the Society no longer needed to be taken into account, but that the Society is the vessel and the Movement its content. This holds true for the single member as well as for the Society. Here too, full clarity and awareness should reign. Anthroposophy is not to be confused with the Anthroposophical Society. Nor should the fact go unrecognized that developments of the past three or four years have meant, for members, a close interweaving of the unfolding destiny of anthroposophy with the Society's destiny. The two have come to seem almost identical, but they must nevertheless be sharply differentiated.

There could, theoretically, have been a Waldorf School even if the Society had not existed. But that could not have happened in reality, for there would have been no one to found and steer and look after the school. Real logic, the logic of reality, is quite a different thing than abstract logical reasoning. It is important that members of the Society understand this. A member ought to have some rudimentary realization, even if only on the feeling level, that insight into higher worlds has to be built on an awareness that super-sensible experience differs greatly from experience of the ordinary physical world. Something in the physical world can seem just as right as a dream content does to the dreaming person. But the carrying over of things of one's dream life into situations of everyday waking consciousness nevertheless remains an abnormal and harmful phenomenon. It is similarly harmful to carry over into the consciousness needed for understanding the spiritual world convictions and attitudes quite properly adopted in ordinary waking consciousness.

I can give you an instructive example. As a result of the way modern man has become so terribly caught up in intellectuality and a wholly external empiricism, even those people who are not especially at home in the sciences have taken up the slogan: Prove what you are saying! What they are stressing is a certain special way of using thought as a mediator. They know nothing of the immediate relationship the soul of man can have to truth, wherein truth is immediately apprehended in just the way the eye perceives the color red, that is, seeing it, not proving it. But in the realm of reason and intellect, each further conceptual step is developed out of the preceding one. Where the physical plane is concerned, one is well advised to become a bright fellow who can prove everything, and to develop such a good technique in this that it works like greased lightning. That is a good thing where the physical plane is concerned, and a good thing for the sciences that deal with it. It is good for the spiritual investigator to have developed a certain facility in proving matters of the physical world. Those who acquaint themselves closely with the intentions underlying the work of our Research Institute will see that wherever this technique is applicable, we, too, apply it. But if you will permit me the grotesque expression, one becomes stupid in relation to the spiritual world if one approaches it in a proof-oriented state of mind, just as one becomes stupid when one projects a dreamer's orientation into ordinary waking consciousness. For the proving method is as out of place in the spiritual world as is an intrusion of the dream state into the reality of waking consciousness. But in modern times things have reached the point where proving everything is taken as a matter of course. The paralyzing effect this trend has had in some areas is really terrifying.

Religion, which grew out of direct vision, and in neither its modern nor its older forms was founded on anything susceptible of intellectual-rational proof, has now become proof-addicted rationalistic theory, and it is proving, in the persons of its extremer exponents, that everything about it is false. For just as it is inevitable that a person become abnormal when he introduces dream concerns into his waking consciousness, so does a person necessarily become abnormal in his relationship to higher worlds if he approaches them in a way suited to the physical plane. Theology has become either an applied science that just deals practically with whatever confronts it or a proof-minded discipline, better adapted to destroying religion than to establishing it.

These, my dear friends, are the things that must become matters of clear and conscious experience in the Anthroposophical Society. If that is not the case, one takes one's place in life and in human society simply as a person of many-sided interests who functions sensibly at all the various levels, whereas from the moment one concerns oneself with the material contained in innumerable cycles, one cannot exist as a human being without spiritual development.

The spiritual investigator does not need to rely on proof in meeting his opponents. Every objection that they might make to something I have said can be taken from my own writings, for wherever it is indicated I call attention to how things stand with physical proof as applied to super-sensible fact. Somewhere in my books one can always find an approximation of the opponents' comments in my own statements, so that, for the most part, all an opponent need do to refute me is to copy passages out of my writings. But the point is that all these details should become part of the awareness of the members. Then they will find firm footing in the Society. To occupy oneself with the anthroposophical outlook will mean finding firm footing, not only in the physical world but in all the worlds there are.

Then anthroposophical impulses will also be a fountainhead of the capacity to love one's fellowmen and of everything else that leads to social harmony and a truly social way of life. There will no longer be conflict and quarreling, divisions and secedings among anthroposophists; true human unity will reign and overcome all external isolation. Though one accept observations made in higher worlds as truth, one will not wander about like a dreamer in the physical world; one will relate to it as a person with both feet set firmly on the ground. For one will have trained oneself to keep the two things separate, just as dream experience and physical reality must be kept separate in ordinary life.

The key need is for everyone who intends to join with others in really full, genuine participation in the Anthroposophical Movement within the Society to develop a certain attitude of soul, a certain state of consciousness. If we really permeate ourselves with that attitude and that consciousness, we will establish true anthroposophical community. Then the Anthroposophical Society, too, will flourish and bear fruit and live up to its promise.

• 1. Spiritual Ground of Education Oxford, August 16-25, 1922. Rudolf Steiner Press, London.
• 2. The Tension Between East and West, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1963.

Introductory words before the evening lecture.

My dear friends! I too have various matters to bring up in connection with the delegates' meeting.¹ Some of these matters have already been brought up by me. I will also repeat those things that I have already mentioned, because new friends arrive here every day.

First of all, we will need to make an extension because of the gratifyingly large number of visitors here. I already said yesterday that it would be a kind of “inner, internal villa” to make it possible for all visitors to really listen to the things that can be brought up during these days.

But then I would also ask you to take into account the fact that the first two rows this time should remain reserved without exception for all those friends who are somehow hard of hearing or lame or the like and who need these rows.

In this context, I would also like to ask you to please note that we are obliged to put the chairs in their places because of the large number of visitors, and we depend on the chairs staying in their places. So, for fire safety reasons, we have to create empty seats – we ask you not to do what usually happens after lectures here; so that every chair stays in the place where it was standing.

Furthermore, I ask that you please note that the rooms will only be opened half an hour before an event and will only be closed half an hour after the event. There is no other way.

I would also like to mention once again that we are dependent on exercising strict control this time; therefore, even older friends have to show their membership cards when entering. Otherwise it would be very difficult to tell who should and should not show it. As I said yesterday, it doesn't happen, but if it should happen that someone forgets their membership card, I ask that they have an interim card issued that they show every time they enter.

Then I would like to point out that there will be a eurythmy performance here tomorrow at five o'clock. These performances, the eurythmy performance and the Christmas play performance, can of course only ever be held in front of a smaller group. Now, the fact that most of them are repeated twice will ensure that everyone can attend the performances, provided that our friends are accommodating. Tomorrow, tickets will be issued for seats from which you can see something. And then the friends who can't get tickets tomorrow should just make an effort and say that tomorrow's performance will be repeated on Friday, December 28, so that everyone will have the opportunity to see it. But I really ask you not to take this as an excuse not to come tomorrow and then say to yourself, “We'll see it next Friday.” So, I ask you, despite the snow and so on, to take it upon yourself not to get tickets if you come too late. So, tomorrow at five o'clock.

Then, my esteemed attendees, I have something else to bring up, especially with regard to what is about to happen during the days of our delegates' meeting here. This assembly of delegates will have to shape the Anthroposophical Society, and this shaping will already have to be such, my dear friends, that this Anthroposophical Society fulfills the conditions that simply arise from today's circumstances. And I have to say that this Christmas meeting must proceed in such a way that one can expect from it: Now a workable Anthroposophical Society will emerge. I must say that if this prospect does not exist, I would have to draw the consequences that I have repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, I consider what has to happen during and through this Christmas event, for the founding of the Anthroposophical Society, which was preceded by the founding of the national societies, to be something extraordinarily serious and meaningful. So that here in Dornach, something will actually have to be created that is real simply by its existence. I will have to speak about the essentials at the inaugural meeting, which will take place next Monday; but what must be said today — because even the, I would like to say, original beginning must happen in such a way that one sees: the tone of the Anthroposophical Society will now be different. This is because, right from tomorrow, when most of the friends who want to co-found this Society will be here, there will be a provisional board of directors, which must become a definitive board of directors in the next few days, so that it can really work as such. And truly, my dear friends, I have been very, very much concerned with the question of how to shape the Society in recent times. I have also been involved in many foundations of regional societies, learned many things that are now alive among the members and so on, and I have been quite thoroughly involved with what is immediately necessary in the near future. And so today I would like to present my proposals first, preliminarily, because the matter must simply be dealt with before we begin.

You see, it cannot be otherwise: the seriousness of the matter will not be taken into account if the conditions for the continued existence, that is, actually for the reestablishment of the Society, of which I will speak on Monday, if these conditions are not met. But in order to fulfill these conditions, I myself have to set certain conditions, which may at first seem somewhat radical to some people. However, they are conditions that I feel I must set, and I say that I see no possibility of continuing to work with the Society on anthroposophical ground unless these conditions are met. And so, in order for you to familiarize yourselves with the idea, I would like to make the following proposal for the constitution of the executive council, which will function provisionally at first simply because I am making the proposal to you today, and I hope it will become a definitive executive council.

This executive council must be such that it can actually place Dornach at the center of the Anthroposophical Society. As I said, I have given a great deal of thought to the question of how to constitute the Society, and I assure you I have given it a great deal of thought. And after this thorough consideration, I can make no other proposal, my dear friends, than that you elect me as the chairperson of the Anthroposophical Society, and indeed as the official chairperson. I must therefore draw the conclusion from the experiences of recent years that I can actually only continue to work if I myself am elected as the real chairman. I want to renounce all honorary chairs and the like; I will not go into all those things where one only has to stand behind the scenes and be good for what others do. I will therefore only be able to continue working if I myself am elected as the real chairman of the Anthroposophical Society that is to be founded here. Of course, it is then necessary that, since I will be taking the work into my own hands, I will be assisted by those people who, due to the conditions in the work that has been prepared, are now the closest ones who can work here with me at the center. So, if I am elected as chairperson – otherwise I would not participate at all – I will propose the following: as second chairperson, or deputy chairperson, Mr. Steffen; as third board member Dr. Steiner; as fourth board member Dr. Wegman as secretary; As the fifth member of the Executive Council, I propose Dr. Vreede; as the sixth member, Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth, who would then take on the office of secretary and treasurer.

On Monday I will explain the reasons why I am only proposing people who live here in Dornach for the actual central council. A council that has to be sought out all over the world will never be able to work properly and cannot actually work. So they must be people living in Dornach. And those whom I have now proposed, as I said, myself, Mr. Steffen as deputy, Dr. Steiner, Dr. Wegman as secretary, Dr. Vreede, and Dr. Wachsmuth as secretary and treasurer, that would be the board, which would have to work from here.

But now, as I have already shown some friends in The Hague,* I understand the board of directorship in such a way that it is not only on paper, but that it stands in all responsibility on the board and represents the association. Therefore, I will ask that from tomorrow on, this provisional board of directors actually places itself in a representative position here in front of our friends at every opportunity, so that the matter is really as I made clear to our friends in The Hague: it cannot be done without a certain form in a proper company that is to function. Form must be there from the very beginning. I therefore request that this be taken into account, that as many as are provisional members of the board initially, there are chairs and that these board members

* See page 664 f. are seated facing the other members, so that one is constantly aware that this is the board. If one sits there and the other sits there, you can never get them together when you need them. So the point is that things are now really being taken up as realities. As I said, it's just because I wanted us to have a board of directors from tomorrow, so I have appointed this provisional board. The reasons for these things, which are already contained in what I have said, I will explain in detail on Monday in my opening address. On Monday I will also make a proposal for a constitution — I hope the statutes will be printed by then — which, based on the current conditions, is to underlie the constitution of the Society.

And now, my dear friends, I have said what I wanted to say at the starting point of our Christmas Conference here. But I still have to expand and continue in these two lectures today and tomorrow what I said in the last lectures about the mystery of the different times.

• 1. Earlier, Dr. Wachsmuth spoke of handing over the passports.

My dear friends!

We have seen two of the most self-sacrificing members of our Anthroposophical Society pass through death and depart from the physical world in quick succession. Mrs. Ferreri died recently in Milan during the time of my absence, and today is the first time that I can reflect on this departure. Mrs. Ferreri was a long-standing member of our society who worked for it in the most self-sacrificing and dedicated way. Wherever it was a matter of selflessly standing up for something that affected the interests of society in one way or another, Mrs. Ferreri was there.

She was not only active in northern Italy, working from Milan for the anthroposophical cause, to which she was completely devoted, but she also worked in distant Honolulu to establish a branch that is actually her work. Although it is not seen much here because it is so far away, it is thriving in an extraordinarily favorable way and has a warm and supportive effect within the anthroposophical movement. It is precisely from this branch that we repeatedly receive the strongest evidence of interest and participation.

It was always extraordinarily touching to see how devotedly Mrs. Ferreri worked in every respect. And for her, this arose from a deep inner connection with the anthroposophical cause, from that deep inner connection that I would call an inner knowing faith, knowing through its certainty. That is how it was with her: knowing through the certainty of being inside the anthroposophical movement. And so she remained faithful in her heart until her death. She was so faithful that, although she was extremely ill and although she undoubtedly received every help in the place where she was, in Milan, she still wanted to travel here during the last days of her illness because, as she wrote to Dr. Wegman, she believed that she could only recover here, at the center of the Anthroposophical Movement. Only her rapid death prevented her from coming and taking this last step, which was one of the most beautiful testimonies of her loyal devotion to the cause.

I think that we – and I mean the most diverse among us, numerous members who are also gathered here today, numerous other members – have come to know the wonderful mind and noble soul of Mrs. Ferreri in the most beautiful way. and that we follow with our thoughts, in the deepest feeling of our hearts, the soul that has passed through the gate of death and will certainly continue to live in intimate relationship with the anthroposophical cause. I ask that with these thoughts, which linger with the thoughts of the departed, our dear members, insofar as they are gathered here, rise from their seats for a while to unite their thoughts with the departed.

Now, my dear friends, on the occasion of a member who was deeply involved in the construction of the Goetheanum in Dornach, who was actively involved in the construction of the Goetheanum itself, has left the physical plane, and now, at this very moment, the coffin has to be closed and taken away, you will allow me to interrupt this lecture for ten to fifteen minutes to close the coffin and then continue it. It is Saturday, and there is no other way, the coffin has to be transferred to the crematorium in Basel today. (pause.)

My dear friends, now we have had to send the earthly remains of Edith Maryon to the crematorium in Basel. Friday morning, the membership of our Anthroposophical Society, as far as they are here, were affected by the painful news that our long-standing colleague, a colleague since the beginning of the work here at the Goetheanum, Edith Maryon, has left the physical plane. Today it is my task to briefly point out some of the things that the deceased found and gave within the Anthroposophical Society, what she has done here at the Goetheanum, and we will then gather at the Basel Crematorium at 11 o'clock on Tuesday for the actual funeral service.

Edith Maryon sought out what could be found in the anthroposophical movement by first becoming a member of another esoteric group and participating in the most diverse works of this group as a very active member. This was an esoteric group that later found its way into our anthroposophical movement through a number of its members. Then, still during brief visits to the anthroposophical movement in Germany, Edith Maryon came over from England. At first she found it difficult to integrate on the outside, as she did not understand German. But with an iron will she overcame precisely this obstacle and was thus able to fit into everything that was happening within the German-speaking part of the anthroposophical movement in a relatively short time. She identified so closely with the Anthroposophical Society that she participated from the very first task here in 1914, from the perspective of her particular artistry.

Edith Maryon had been a well-known sculptor for many years. She has created sculptured portraits of prominent figures in English politics, diplomacy and society that have received acclaim. It is, of course, difficult to make an impact in the field of art today; but Miss Maryon has, to a high degree, succeeded in making a name for herself in the art of sculpture.

But the most essential thing in her soul was not any particular branch of human activity, even if it were art; the most essential thing in her soul, her soul's intentions, was the striving for spirituality, which, as already mentioned, she had sought in that esoteric group in which she had been before she joined the Anthroposophical Movement. It was mainly this esoteric deepening that she then continued to seek within the Anthroposophical Society for herself and for the striving of her soul. But she was inspired by a far-reaching and comprehensive intention to work with us on our work. And that is what I would like to present here, because Edith Maryon was a long-standing and intensive collaborator, and we have now lost her in her.

I would like to point out how exemplary she was in certain respects, especially in the particular way she devoted herself to the Society in terms of her work for it. Anthroposophy today, my dear friends, is not only a much-challenged but also a difficult thing to accomplish if it is taken seriously. If anthroposophy and the anthroposophical movement are taken seriously, then there is no other way than for the individual to offer what they are able to contribute in this or that field at the sacrificial altar of the work of the society. And so it was with Miss Maryon. She offered her entire artistic talent at the sacrificial altar of the anthroposophical cause. She had grown into a kind of sculpture that one acquires today by going through the appropriate school, by going through everything that then brings about the opportunity to present one's work to an audience interested in art and so on. All this – it may be said, because Miss Maryon understood it perfectly – actually helps nothing within the Anthroposophical movement. Anyone who believes that it helps within the anthroposophical movement is on the wrong track. You cannot bring anything into the anthroposophical movement in a certain sense; rather, you must first leave what you have before if you want to work actively. If you do not believe this, then you do not have a clear idea of the extent to which the anthroposophical movement must draw on the very earliest sources of human development in order to fulfill its task and achieve its goal. And just as it is possible in the most diverse fields, my dear friends, so it was also possible in the field of sculpture when it came to building this Goetheanum, which unfortunately was so painfully snatched from us.

Edith Maryon not only took part in the development of the central group, but also in the most diverse sculptural work that was needed for the construction of the Goetheanum. And it was not always just a matter of producing some model or other. It was also a matter of doing all the work that was not actually visible on the outside, but which was necessary if such a special art was to be integrated into what the Goetheanum must generally achieve. And so, if we fully penetrate ourselves with the awareness from the outset that in Miss Maryon a person has come into the anthroposophical movement who has sought the esoteric in the most ardent, fullest sense, we can throw into the balance the way in which she, who has now left the physical plane, really engaged with the work. That is what I would like to characterize in particular by evoking her memory in you.

It is quite natural, my dear friends, for someone to bring in something from outside, be it this or that art. Anything that is brought in through external training is actually something that I cannot agree with, so that what is brought in is actually not something that I can agree with. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the whole to flourish that the individual contributes his abilities. You understand from the outset that the individual must contribute his abilities. The sculptor must contribute his abilities. The painter must contribute his abilities, and so on and so forth. You understand this, because otherwise I would have had to carry out the whole Goetheanum construction alone. So, in the truest sense, co-workers were really needed for the Goetheanum, co-workers who could bring the best of their abilities, but who could also sacrifice this best of their abilities, because, if I express it in external terms, I can never actually agree with what is brought in.

What I myself now had to accomplish in the field of sculpture was, of course, something quite different from what Miss Maryon could contribute. So what was it actually about? It could not be about working together in such a way that some kind of resultant of the interaction would arise, but it could only be about the work being done the way I had to have it done, the way it had to be done according to the intentions of the Goetheanum, which I had to represent.

You see, my dear friends, what comes into consideration here is that a completely new interest arises: the interest in the work itself. For this to happen, people are needed who have this interest in the work, without anything else, so that the work itself comes about. Whether or not they agree with each other, the work must come about, the work must be possible. In characterizing this, I am characterizing precisely what is needed for the work at the Goetheanum.

And Miss Maryon had two qualities that I would say are most needed for the real work in the Anthroposophical Movement: two qualities on which the work of Miss Maryon here at the Goetheanum and in the Anthroposophical Society in general was actually based. The first was absolute reliability. There was no possibility that anything I intended that Miss Maryon was supposed to carry out would not be carried out, would not be taken completely seriously and taken as far as it could be taken, as far as it was intended to go. That is the one quality needed – I mean within anthroposophical work – so that when I state something about myself, it is then sufficient in the statement, that the fact of the statement can simply stand, and that there is then certainty that the matter will be carried out.

The second was an extremely well-developed practical sense. This can be said precisely with regard to the occasion of passing away from the physical plane, for the reason that this practical sense is actually what we leave behind here on earth when we go through the gate of death, but which is indispensable when it comes to really working. You see, there are many idealists who are mere idealists without a practical sense. And it is good when there are idealists, and the idealist himself is good. But the idealist with a practical sense is what is needed in the world. And mere idealists are dependent on those people who develop a versatile practical sense, if only these practical people stand at the same level of idealism. Contempt for practical sense is not at all what can somehow lead to such work, imbued and permeated with spirit, as is urgently needed within the Anthroposophical Society and movement. People with a practical mind are particularly valuable there. People who are sculptors are valuable there, but also people who, when necessary, can make a lampshade in a place where a special design is needed, who can actually do everything they set their minds to, in a certain way. Of course, this is always subject to certain limits. But we do need people within the anthroposophical movement who can really do what they want, because many people want to do, but the prosperity of our Anthroposophical Society is based on those who can do what they want.

Fichte's saying has also been quoted here often: Man can do what he should, and when he says, I cannot, he will not.

These two qualities then led Miss Maryon to do a great deal, which was done in a quiet, calm manner, after she had actually only sporadically brought her own sculpture to bear, and without which the work of the last few years would not have been possible.

In doing so, she extended her practical interest and sense to other things, which certainly helped our movement. It is thanks to her selfless efforts that the teacher training course was held here, which was attended by English teachers and was held around Christmas time some time ago. It is thanks to her selfless efforts that Mrs. Mackenzie has campaigned so energetically for the movement in the field of education in English-speaking countries. Finally, it is also due to her selfless efforts that the Oxford course was able to take place, the Stratford Shakespeare visit was able to take place and many other things were able to take place precisely because of her mediation between the anthroposophical center and the English-speaking regions.

It was extremely valuable that she, on the other hand, never encountered strong resistance in her work when it came to completely changing an intention that was dear to her. For example, the idea of the eurythmy figures originated with her, as did the first attempts to make such eurythmy figures. The idea was extraordinarily fruitful. But the form of the eurythmy figures had to be completely changed. Miss Maryon never shrank from completely changing anything to suit the circumstances, so that the resistance of an attachment did not work in this direction.

And so I may say, my dear friends, that through her work, many quiet and peaceful tasks have been accomplished for the Anthroposophical Society, for which it has every reason to be deeply grateful. I do not even want to look so much at the quantity, certainly, in terms of quantity, very many achieve very much, but in terms of the quality of the work, of the way this work is integrated into the anthroposophical cause, very much has been achieved by those who have passed away that is actually irreplaceable. Only that which has a special inner quality is irreplaceable in the development of humanity. Of course, even such things can be replaced, but then an equal inner quality comes. As a rule, however, they are not replaced in the process of development. And it must be reckoned with this karma that precisely this special quality of Miss Maryon will be lacking in the building of the second Goetheanum.

The most remarkable chains of fate are connected with the construction of the first and second Goetheanum. The germ of Miss Maryon's illness was laid during the night of the fire at the Goetheanum. And from what was laid by that germ during the night of the fire at the Goetheanum, she could not be cured, no matter how careful the care. These are karmic connections. And although much can and must be done through the art of healing against these karmic connections, karma is nevertheless an iron law, and only when even the most careful care has failed can we truly think of karma. While a person is still on the physical plane, we must think only of how he can be cured. And in this direction, through the completely self-sacrificing efforts of Dr. Wegman, everything that could be done has been done. Edith Maryon also left the physical plane at Dr. Wegman's side – I myself was unable to be present due to other commitments.

Now, my dear friends, I have thus pointed out the special kind of connection that existed between the Anthroposophical Society and Edith Maryon. And I believe that this kind of connection will be what makes Miss Maryon unforgettable for the Anthroposophical Society. She will be unforgettable to all those members whom she has met in one way or another over the years, and I may call out to her in particular what is still to be said about the deceased when we have the funeral service at the Basel Crematorium at eleven o'clock on Tuesday.

What I had to say today should culminate in showing how a quiet, self-sacrificing working life within the anthroposophical cause has been effective here, that it is irreplaceable, and that I am certain that those who understand what it actually means to work in a leading position within the anthroposophical movement, as I must do, will take what has been said in an understanding sense. It is not easy to work responsibly within the anthroposophical movement.

My dear friends, please regard what I am about to say about Miss Maryon's death as something that I would like to say to you in general today. This leadership, what does it require? This leadership requires the following, and in particular, since the Christmas Conference, I have often had to point out what this leadership of the anthroposophical movement requires. It requires that I myself be able to carry up to the spiritual world what happens in connection with me, so that I am not only fulfilling a responsibility towards something here on the physical plane, but a responsibility that goes up into the spiritual worlds. And you see, if you want to participate in the right way, you have to be willing to participate in what the anthroposophical movement has become since the Christmas Conference, to understand what it means to be accountable to the spiritual world for the anthroposophical movement.

I could talk a lot about this topic, and I would like to say one of the many things on this very occasion. Of course, a wide range of personal matters are expressed by people in the anthroposophical movement. What is represented on earth as personal, when it mixes with what is supposed to happen for the anthroposophical cause, is an element that, when it remains personal, cannot be justified to the spiritual world. And what difficulties arise for someone who has to justify a matter to the spiritual world when they sometimes have to bring with them what they have to answer for, which comes from the personal aspirations of the people involved. You should be aware of the effect this has. It causes the most dreadful setbacks from the spiritual world when one has to face the spiritual world in the following way.

Every person working in the anthroposophical movement is working with personal ambitions, personal intentions, personal qualities into that which they are working with. Now one has these personal ambitions, these personal tendencies. Most people are unaware that they are personal; most people consider what they do to be impersonal because they deceive themselves about the personal and the impersonal. This is then to be taken along. And this has the most dreadful repercussions from the spiritual world on those who have to carry these things, which arise from personalities, into the spiritual world.

These are the inner difficulties, my dear friends, that arise for a movement such as that of Anthroposophy within the Anthroposophical Society. And it must be pointed out. It is certainly terrible that we have such terrible opponents, but these opponents must be treated in the right way in some way. But as regards the inner life, as regards how anthroposophy is to be represented, it is much more terrible when it becomes necessary to carry the fruits of the labors of the anthroposophical movement burdened up into the spiritual world, burdened with the personal interests of one or other. And little thought is actually given to this fact.

This is what I must mention when I want to characterize the particular achievement of Edith Maryon. And in this respect, the Anthroposophical Society owes a great debt of gratitude to the departed, because she has increasingly understood how to carry out her work in this spirit. These are the things I wanted to and should mention today, based on the idea that such achievements, symbolically speaking, are truly entered in the golden book of the Anthroposophical Society, and above all should be entered in the books of the hearts of its members.

I am sure you would also want me to place what is to be developed today and on Tuesday at the cremation in your hearts in such a way that I ask you to direct your thoughts to her, who has entered the spiritual world, for her thoughts will most certainly be with the further progress of the Anthroposophical Movement. And because of the way she has engaged with it, her thoughts will be full of strength, and it will therefore also be a powerful experience to connect with her thoughts. And as a sign that this is our will, we will rise from our seats in honor of the departed, in the certain confidence that a beautiful, lasting, and powerful connection for the anthroposophical movement has been created.

Now, my dear friends, I have said all I wanted to say today, which in a sense is also connected with the idea of karma, for life and teaching are connected for us, already incorporated into the two obituaries that I had to speak with a heavy heart today. It will now be my task to continue the reflections on karma so that what we have gained from the consideration of individual karmic connections in the human world can now be applied when we ask the big question in our own hearts, in our individual being, how what we personally experience, what we see as often overwhelming, often distressing events in our environment, what we see that is distressing, that we are distressing part of, how that relates to karma, if we want to observe it in a fateful, karmic way, if we want to come to a powerful effect in life by observing the Katmas. This will be able to follow on from the karmic considerations that we have been practising for weeks and which we will then begin to develop in this way tomorrow, applying them specifically to the individual human being, that is to say to individual human experience, to the personal position of the human being in relation to karma.

Having talked about various outer circumstances as well as the more intimate aspects of modern spiritual movements, I will attempt today and tomorrow to provide an interpretation of the conditions which govern the existence of the Anthroposophical Society in particular. And I will do so by means of various events which have occurred during the third phase of the movement.

We have to understand clearly our position at the time when the second phase of the anthroposophical movement was coming to an end, around 1913 and 1914, and our position today. Let us look back at the progress which was achieved in the first and second phases by adhering essentially to the principle that progress should be made in line with actual circumstances, that the movement should move forward at the same speed as the inner life of anthroposophy expands.

I said that in the first phase—approximately up to 1907, 1908, 1909—we gradually worked out the inner spiritual content of the movement. The foundations were laid for a truly modern science of the spirit with the consequences which that entailed in various directions. The journal Luzifer-Gnosis was produced until the end of the period. It regularly carried material by me and others which built up the content of anthroposophy in stages. When the second phase began, the science of the spirit came to grips, in lectures and lecture cycles, with those texts which are particularly significant for the spiritual development of the West, the Gospels and Genesis, a development which included the broader public in certain ways. Once again real progress was made.

We started with the Gospel of St. John, and moved from there to the other Gospels. They were used to demonstrate certain wisdom and truths. The spiritual content was built up with each step. The expansion of the Society was essentially linked with this inner development of its spiritual content.

Of course programmes and similar things had to be organized to take care of everyday business. But that was not the priority. The main thing was that positive spiritual work was undertaken at each stage and that these spiritual achievements could then be deepened esoterically in the appropriate way.

In this context it was particularly at the end of the second phase that anthroposophy spread more widely into general culture and civilization, as with the Munich performances of the mystery dramas. We reached the stage at the end of the second phase when we could begin to think about the construction of the building which has suffered such a misfortune here. This was an exceedingly important stage in the development of the Anthroposophical Society. The construction of such a building assumed that a considerable number of people had an interest in creating a home for the real substance of anthroposophy. But it also meant that the first significant step was being taken beyond the measured progress which had kept pace with the overall development of the Anthroposophical Society. Because it is obvious that a building like the Goetheanum, in contrast to everything that had gone before, would focus the attention of the world at large in quite a different way on what the Society had become.

We had our opponents in various camps before this point. They even went so far as to publish what they said about us. But they failed to draw people's attention. It was the construction of the building which first created the opportunity for our opponents to find an audience.

The opportunity to construct the building assumed that something existed which made it worthwhile to do that. It did exist. A larger number of people experienced its presence as something with a certain inner vitality. Indeed, we had gathered, valuable experience over a considerable period of time. Since a society existed, this experience could have been put to good use, could be put to good use today. Everything I have spoken about in the last few days was meant to point to certain events which can be taken as valuable experience.

Now this period has come to an end. The burning of the Goetheanum represents the shattering event which demonstrated that this period has run out. Remember that these lectures are also intended to allow for self-reflection among anthroposophists. That self-reflection should lead us to remember today how at that time we also had to anticipate, anticipate actively, that when anthroposophy stepped into the limelight the opposition would inevitably grow.

Now we are talking in the first instance about the start and the finish. The start is represented in the courage to begin the construction of the Goetheanum. Let us examine in what form the effect achieved by the Goetheanum, in that it exposed anthroposophy to the judgement of an unlimited number of people, is evident today.

The latest evidence is contained in a pamphlet which has just appeared and which is entitled The Secret Machinery of Revolution.¹ On page 13 of this pamphlet you will find the following exposition:

At this stage of my inquiry I may refer briefly to the existence of an offshoot of the Theosophical Society, known as the Anthroposophical Society. This was formed as the result of a schism in the ranks of the Theosophists, by a man of Jewish birth who was connected with one of the modern branches of the Carbonari. Not only so, but in association with another Theosophist he is engaged in organizing certain singular commercial undertakings not unconnected with Communist propaganda; almost precisely in the manner in which Count St. Germain² organized his dyeworks and other commercial ventures with a like purpose. And this queer business group has its connections with the Irish Republican movement, with the German groups already mentioned, and also with another mysterious group which was founded by Jewish intellectuals in France about four years ago, and which includes in its membership many well-known politicians, scientists, university professors, and literary men in France, Germany, America, and England. It is a secret society, but some idea of its real aims may be gathered from the fact that it sponsored the Ligue des Anciens Combattants, whose aim appears to be to undermine the discipline of the armies in the Allied countries. Although nominally a Right Wing society, it is in direct touch with members of the Soviet Government of Russia; in Britain it is also connected with certain Fabians and with the Union of Democratic Control, which opposes secret diplomacy.

The only thing I need add is that my trip to London is planned for August, and you can see from this that our opponents are very well organized and know very well what they are doing. As you know, I have said for some time that one should never believe there is not always a worse surprise in store.

As you can see, we have our opponents today and that is the other point which marks the end of the third phase who are not afraid to make use of any lie and who know very well how to utilize it to best advantage. It is wrong to believe that it is somehow appropriate to pass over these things lightly with the argument that not only are they devoid of truth, but the lies are so crude no one will believe them. People who say that simply show that they are deeply unaware of the nature of contemporary western civilization, and do not recognize the powerful impulses to untruth which are accepted as true, I have to say, even by the best people, because it is convenient and they are only half awake.

For us it is particularly important to look at what lies between these two points. In 1914 the anthroposophical movement had undoubtedly reached the point at which it could have survived in the world on the strength of its own spiritual resources, its spiritual content. But conditions dictated that we should continue to work with vitality after 1914. The work since then consisted essentially of a spiritual deepening, and in that respect we took the direct path once again. We sought that spiritual deepening stage by stage, without concern for the external events of the world, because it was and still is the case that the spiritual content which needs to be revealed for mankind to progress has to be incorporated into our civilization initially in any form available. We can never do anything in speaking about or working on this material other than base our actions on these very spiritual resources.

In this respect anthroposophy was broadened in its third phase through the introduction of eurythmy. No one can ever claim that eurythmy is based on anything other than the sources of anthroposophy. Everything is taken from the sources of anthroposophy. After all, there are at present all kinds of dance forms which attempt in one way or another to achieve something which might superficially resemble eurythmy to a certain extent. But look at events from the point when Marie Steiner took charge of eurythmy.³ During the war it was cultivated in what I might describe as internal circles, but then it became public and met with ever increasing interest. Look at everything which has contributed to eurythmy. Believe me, there were many people who insinuated that here or there something very similar existed which had to be taken into account or incorporated into eurythmy? The only way in which fruitful progress could be made was to look neither left nor right but simply work directly from the sources themselves. If there had been any compromise about eurythmy it would not have turned into what it has become. That is one of the conditions which govern the existence of such a movement; there must be an absolute certainty that the material required can be gathered directly from the sources in a continuous process of expansion.

Working from the centre like this, which was, of course, relatively easy until 1914 because it was self-evident, is the only way to make proper progress with anthroposophy.

This third period, from 1914 onwards, witnessed an all-encompassing phenomenon which naturally affected the anthroposophical movement as it affected everything else. Now it must be strongly emphasized that during the war, when countries were tearing each other apart, members of sixteen or seventeen nations were present here and working together; it must be emphasized that the Anthroposophical Society passed through this period without in any way forfeiting its essential nature. But neither must it be forgotten that all the feelings which passed through people's minds during this period, and thus also through the minds of anthroposophists, had a splintering effect on the Anthroposophical Society in many respects. This cannot be denied.

In talking about these things in an objective manner, I do not want to criticize or invalidate in any way the good characteristics which anthroposophists possess. We should take them for granted. It is true that within the Anthroposophical Society we managed to overcome to a certain extent the things which so divided people between 1914 and 1918. But anyone watching these things will have noticed that the Society could not avoid the ripple effect, even if it appeared in a somewhat different form from usual, and that in this context something came strongly to the surface which I have described before by saying that in this third phase we saw the beginnings of what I might call a certain inner opposition to the tasks I had to fulfil in the Anthroposophical Society.

Of course most people are surprised when I talk of this inner opposition, because many of them are unaware of it. But I have to say that this does not make it any better, because these feelings of inner opposition grew particularly strongly in the third phase. That was also evident in outer symptoms. When a movement like ours has passed through two phases in the way I have described, there is certainly no need for blind trust when certain actions are taken in the third phase given that the precedents already exist whose full ramifications are not immediately clear to everyone. But remember that these actions were undertaken in a context in which, while most certainly not everyone understood their full implications, many things had to be held together and it was of paramount importance that the anthroposophical movement itself should be defined in the right way. That is when we observed what might be described as such inner opposition.

I am aware, of course, that when I speak about these things, many people will say: But shouldn't we have our own opinions? One should certainly have one's own opinions about what one does, but when someone else does something with which one is connected it is also true that trust must play some role, particularly when such precedents exist as I have described.

Now at a certain point of the third phase during the war, I wrote the booklet Thoughts in Time of War.⁴ This particular work elicited inner opposition which was especially noticeable. People told me that they thought anthroposophy never intervened in politics, as if that booklet involved itself with politics! And there was more of the same. Something had affected them which should not grow on the ground of anthroposophy although it sprouts in quite different soil. There were quite a few such objections to Thoughts in Time of War, but I am about to say something terribly arrogant, but true nevertheless; no one ever acknowledged that the whole thing was not really comprehensible to them at the time but if they waited until 1935 they might perhaps understand why that booklet was written.

And this is only one example among many which demonstrates clearly the strong intervention of something whose almost exclusive purpose was to undermine the freedom and self-determination within the Anthroposophical Society which we take for granted. It should have been self-evident that the writing of this publication was my business alone. Instead, an opinion began to form: If he wants to be the one with whom we build the Anthroposophical Society, then he is allowed to write only the things we approve of.

These things have to be stated in a direct manner, otherwise they will not be understood. They are symptomatic of a mood which arose in the Society and which ran counter to the conditions governing the existence of the anthroposophical movement!

But what has to play a particularly significant role in this third phase is the awareness of having created a Society which has taken the first steps along a road which a large part of mankind will later follow. Consider carefully that a relatively small society is set up which has taken upon itself the task of doing something which a large part of mankind is eventually supposed to follow.

Anthroposophists today must not think that they have only the same commitments which future anthroposophists will have when they exist by the million rather than the thousand. When limited numbers are active in the vanguard of a movement they have to show commitment of a much higher order. It means that they are obliged to show greater courage, greater energy, greater patience, greater tolerance and, above all, greater truthfulness in every respect. And in our present third stage a situation arose which specifically tested our truthfulness and seriousness. It related in a certain sense to the subject matter discussed at one point in the lectures to theologians.⁵ Irrespective of the fact that individual anthroposophists exist, a feeling should have developed, and must develop, among them that Anthroposophia exists as a separate being, who moves about among us, as it were, towards whom we carry a responsibility in every moment of our lives. Anthroposophia is actually an invisible person who walks among visible people and towards whom we must show the greatest responsibility for as long as we are a small group. Anthroposophia is someone who must be understood as an invisible person, as someone with a real existence, who should be consulted in the individual actions of our lives.

Thus, if connections form between people—friendships, cliques and so on—at a time when the group of anthroposophists is still small, it is all the more necessary to consult and to be able to justify all one's actions before this invisible person.

This will, of course, apply less and less as anthroposophy spreads. But as long as it remains the property of a small group of people, it is necessary for every action to follow from consultation with the person Anthroposophia. That Anthroposophia should be seen as a living being is an essential condition of its existence. It will only be allowed to die when its group of supporters has expanded immeasurably. What we require, then, is a deeply serious commitment to the invisible person I have just spoken about. That commitment has to grow with every passing day. If it does so, there can be no doubt that everything we do will begin and proceed in the right way.

Let me emphasize the fact. While the second phase from 1907, 1908, 1909 to 1914 was essentially a period in which the feeling side, the religious knowledge of anthroposophy, was developed, something recurred in the third phase which was already present in the first, as I described yesterday. The relationship between anthroposophy and the sciences was again brought to the forefront.

It was already evident during the war that a number of scientists were beginning to lean towards anthroposophy. That meant that the Anthroposophical Society gained collaborators in the scientific field. At first they remained rather in the background. Until 1919 or 1920 the scientific work of the Society remained a hope rather than a reality, with the exception of the fruitful results which Dr. Unger⁶ achieved on the basis of The Philosophy of Freedom and other writings from the pre-anthroposophical period. Otherwise, if we disregard the constructive epistemological work done in this respect, which provided an important and substantive basis for the future content of the movement, we have to say that at the start of the third phase the scientific aspect remained a hope. For scientific work became effective at this stage in a way exactly opposite to what had happened in the first phase. In the latter period people were concerned, as I explained yesterday, to justify anthroposophy to science; anthroposophy was to have its credentials checked by science. Since it did not achieve that, its scientific work slowly dried up. In the second phase it did not exist at all, and towards the end everything concentrated on the artistic side. General human interests took the upper hand.

Scientific aspirations emerged again in the third phase, but this time in the opposite way. Now they were not concerned, at least not primarily, with justifying anthroposophy to science, but rather sought to use anthroposophy to fertilize it. All kinds of people began to arrive who had reached the limits of their scientific work and were looking for something to fertilize their endeavours. Researchers were no longer looking for atomic structures, as they had done when physics and astronomy had led them to look for atomic theories to apply to the etheric and astral bodies. Now, when enough progress had been made to make a contribution to science, the exact opposite occurred.

This tendency, and I wish to discuss only its positive aspects today, will only be effective for the benefit of the anthroposophical movement if it can find a way of working purely from anthroposophical sources, rather in the way that eurythmy has done in the artistic field, and if it is accompanied by the commitment which I have mentioned. As long as so much of the present scientific mode of thinking is carried unconsciously into the anthroposophical movement it will not be able to make progress productively.

In particular, there will be a lack of progress as long as people believe that the current scientific establishment can be persuaded about anything without their first adopting a more positive attitude towards anthroposophy. Once they have done that, a dialogue can begin. Our task with regard to those who are fighting against anthroposophy today can only be to demonstrate clearly where they are not telling the truth. That is something which can be discussed. But of course there can be no dialogue about matters of substance, matters of content, with people who not only do not want to be convinced, but who cannot be convinced because they lack the necessary basic knowledge.

That, above all, is where the work needs to be done: to undertake basic research for ourselves in the various fields, but to do that from the core of anthroposophy.

When an attempt was made after the war to tackle practical issues in people's lives and the problems facing the world, that again had to be done on the basis of anthroposophy, and with the recognition that with these practical tasks in particular it was hardly possible to count on any sort of understanding. The only proper course we can pursue is to tell the world what we have found through anthroposophy itself, and then wait and see how many people are able to understand it. We certainly cannot approach the world with the core material of anthroposophy in the hope that there might be a party or a person who can be won over. That is impossible. That is contrary to the fundamental circumstances governing the existence of the anthroposophical movement. Take a women's movement or a social movement, for instance, where it is possible to take the view that we should join and compromise our position because its members' views may incline towards anthroposophy in one way or another; that is absolutely impossible. What matters is to have enough inner security regarding anthroposophy to be able to advocate it under any circumstances.

Let me give you an amusing example of this. Whenever people are angry with me for having used the Theosophical Society for my work, I always reply that I will advocate anthroposophy wherever there is a demand. I have done it in places where it was only possible once, for the simple reason that people did not want to hear anything further from me a second time. But I never spoke in a way that, given their inner constitution, they could have been persuaded by superficial charm to listen to me a second time. That is something which has to be avoided. When people demand to hear something we have to present them with anthroposophy, pure anthroposophy, which is drawn with courage from its innermost core.

Let me say that these things have all happened before in the anthroposophical movement, as if to illustrate the point. For instance, we were invited to a spiritualist society in Berlin,⁷ where I was to talk about anthroposophy. It did not occur to me to say no. Why should those people not have the right to hear something like that? I delivered my lecture and saw immediately afterwards that they were quite unsuited, that in reality this was not what they were seeking. For something happened which turned out to be quite funny. I was elected immediately and unanimously as the president of this society. Marie Steiner and her sister, who had accompanied me, were shocked. What should we do now, they asked? I had become president of this society: What should we do? I simply said: Stay away! That was perfectly obvious. By electing as their president someone they had heard speak on only one occasion, those people showed that they wanted something quite different from anthroposophy. They wanted to infuse anthroposophy with spiritualism and thought that they could achieve it by this means. We come across that kind of thing all the time.

We need not hold back from advocating anthroposophy before anyone. I was invited once to speak about anthroposophy to the Gottsched Society⁸ in Berlin. Why should I not have done that? The important thing was not to compromise over the anthroposophical content.

That was particularly difficult after I had written the “Appeal to the German People and the Civilized World”, and after Towards Social Renewal: Basic Issues of the Social Question had been published.⁹ The essential thing at that time was to advocate only what could be done on the basis of the sources underpinning these books, and then to wait and see who wanted to participate.

I am convinced that if we had done that, if we had simply adopted the positive position which was contained in the “Appeal” and in the book, without seeking links with any particular party—something which I was always against—we would not be stumbling today over obstacles which have been put in our way from this quarter, and would probably have been able to achieve one or two successes. Whereas now we have achieved no successes at all in this field.

It is part of the conditions governing the existence of a society like ours that opportunities must always be found to work out of the spirit itself. That should not, of course, lead to the stupid conclusion that we have to barge in everywhere like bulls in china shops or that we do not have to adjust to the conditions dictated by life, that we should become impractical people. Quite the contrary. It is necessary to inject some real practical life experience into the so-called practical life of today. Anyone who has some understanding of the conditions governing life itself will find it hard not to draw parallels between contemporary life and the life of really practical people,¹⁰ who have such a practical attitude to life that they immediately fall over as soon as they try to stand on both feet at once. That is what many people today describe as practical life. If these people and their real life experience manage to penetrate a spiritual movement, things really begin to look bad for the latter.

As I said, today I would rather dwell on the positive side of the matter. We should not pursue a course so rigid that we run headlong into any obstacle in the way; of course we need to take avoiding action, make use of the things which will achieve practical progress. The important factor is that everything should contain the impulse which comes from the core.

If we could progress in this way the Anthroposophical Society would quickly shed the image—not in any superficial or conventional way, but justifiably—which still makes it appear sectarian to other people.

What is the use of telling people repeatedly that the Society is not a sect and then behave as if it were one? The one thing which needs to be understood by the members of the Anthroposophical Society is that of the general conditions which govern the existence of a society in our modern age. A society cannot be sectarian. That is why, if the Anthroposophical Society were standing on its proper ground, the we should never play a role. One repeatedly hears anthroposophists saying we, the Society, have this or that view in relation to the outside world: Something or other is happening to us. We want one thing or another. In ancient times it was possible for societies to face the world with such conformity. Now it is no longer possible. In our time each person who is a member of a society like this one has to be a really free human being. Views, thoughts, opinions are held only by individuals. The Society does not have an opinion. And that should be expressed in the way that individuals speak about the Society. The we should actually disappear.

There is something else connected with this. If this we disappears, people in the Society will not feel as if they are in a pool which supports them and which they can call on for support when it matters. But if a person has expressed his own views in the Society and has to represent himself, he will also feel fully responsible for what he says as an individual.

This feeling of responsibility is something which has to grow as long as the Society remains a small group of people. The way in which that has been put into practice so far has not succeeded in making the world at large understand the Anthroposophical Society as an eminently modern society, because this practice has repeatedly led to a situation in which the image which has been set before the public is we believe, we are of the opinion, it is our conception of the world. So today the world outside holds the view that the Society is a compacted mass which holds certain collective opinions to which one has to subscribe as a member. Of course this will deter any independently minded person.

Since this is the case, we have to consider a measure today which need not have been thought about, perhaps a year ago, because things had not progressed to a stage in which we are tarred with the same brush—with certain ulterior motives, of course—as the Carbonari,¹¹ the Soviet government and Irish republicanism. So now it seems necessary to think seriously about how the three objects¹² which are always being quoted as an issue might be put in context: fraternity without racial distinctions and so on, the comparative study of religions, and the study of the spiritual worlds and spiritual methodology. By concentrating on these three objects, the impression is given that one has to swear by them. A completely different form has to be found for them, above all a form which allows anyone who does not want to subscribe to a particular opinion, but who has an interest in the cultivation of the spiritual life, to feel that he need not commit himself body and soul to certain points of view. That is what we have to think about today, because it belongs to the conditions governing the existence of the Society in the particular circumstances of the third phase.

I have often been asked by people whether they would be able to join the Anthroposophical Society as they could not yet profess to the prescriptions of anthroposophy. I respond that it would be a sad state of affairs if a society in today's context recruited its members only from among those who profess what is prescribed there. That would be terrible. I always say that honest membership should involve only one thing: an interest in a society which in general terms seeks the path to the spiritual world. How that is done in specific terms is then the business of those who are members of the society, with individual contributions from all of them.

I can understand very well why someone would not want to be member of a society in which he had to subscribe to certain articles of faith. But if one says that anyone can be a member of this Society who has an interest in the cultivation of the spiritual life, then those who have such an interest will come. And the others, well, they will remain outside, but they will be led increasingly into the absurdities of life.

No account is taken of the circumstances of the Anthroposophical Society until one starts to think about conditions such as these which govern its life, until one stops shuffling along in the same old rut. Only when the Society achieves the ability to deal with these issues in a completely free way, without pettiness and with generosity, will it be possible for it to become what it should become through the fact that it contains the anthroposophical movement. For the anthroposophical movement connects in a positive way without compromise, but in a positive way to what exists in the present and what can act productively into the future.

It is necessary to develop a certain sensitivity to these points. And it is necessary for anthroposophists to develop this sensitivity in a matter of weeks. If that happens, the way forward will be found as a practical consequence.

But people will only be able to think in this direction if they radically discard the petty aspects of their character and truly begin to understand the need to recognize Anthroposophia as an independent, invisible being.

I have had to consider the third phase in a different way, of course, to the two preceding ones. The latter are already history. The third, although we are nearing its end, is the present and everyone should be aware of its circumstances. We have to work our way towards guidelines concerning the smallest details. Such guidelines are not dogma, they are simply a natural consequence.

• 1. “The Secret Machinery of Revolution”, by G. G. London, 1923. (Reprinted from The Patriot. The relevant passage, with the sub-heading A Mystery League, appeared in No. 37, Vol. III, 19 October 1922, p.169. It is contained in Part VI of a series of articles entitled “The Anatomy of Revolution”.)
• 2. Died 27 February 1784. cf also the lecture by Rudolf Steiner of 4 November 1904 in Berlin in The Temple Legend. Translated by J. M. Wood. Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1985.
• 3. Marie Steiner had been involved with eurythmy from its beginnings in 1912 and took over the practice and development of Rudolf Steiner's indications from 1914 onwards. See Aus dem Leben von Marie Steiner-von Sivers, pp.74ff.
• 4. Reprinted in GA 24.
• 5. The courses for theologians (Stuttgart, 12–16 June 1921; Dornach, 26 September—10 October 1921; Dornach 6–22 September 1922) have not been published.
• 6. Carl Unger, 1878–1929. Engineer. One of the most effective advocates of anthroposophy in Germany. Member of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society from 1912 to 1923. A few moments before he was due to deliver his public lecture “What is anthroposophy?” in Nuremberg, he was fatally shot by a mentally deranged person. See his book Die Grundlehren der Geisteswissenschaft. Dornach, 1929.
• 7. It has not been possible to establish when this incident took place.
• 8. On 17 October 1904. There is no transcript.
• 9. The Appeal was printed in Stuttgart in 1919 and distributed as a leaflet with the signatures of many well-known personalities from German-speaking culture. Rudolf Steiner further included it in his book Towards Social Renewal: Basic Issues of the Social Question (1919). Translated by F. T. Smith. Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1977. See also GA 189.
• 10. Title of a poem from the Gallows Songs by Christian Morgenstern, which is often presented in eurythmy.
• 11. Literally: charcoal burners. Name of a secret political society in Italy which was connected with Freemasonry and which also established a strong presence in France in the nineteenth century.
• 12. The reference is to the three objects of the Theosophical Society: 1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. 2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science. 3. To investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.

Supplementary to the last set of Leading Thoughts

[ 1 ] It is most important that it should be understood through Anthroposophy that the ideas which a man gains by looking at outer Nature are inadequate for the observation of Man. The ideas which have taken possession of men's minds during the spiritual development of the last few centuries fail to realise this fact. Through them men have grown accustomed to thinking out natural laws, and to explaining by means of them the phenomena which are perceived by the senses. They then turn their attention to the human organism, and think that that too can be explained through bringing the laws of Nature to bear upon it.

[ 2 ] Now this is just as though, in considering a picture which a painter had created, we only took into account the substance of the colours, their power of adhering to the canvas, the way in which these colours were applied, and similar things. But such a way of regarding the picture does not reveal what is contained in it. Quite other laws are active in the revelation contained in the picture than those which can be perceived by considering such points as these.

[ 3 ] It is a question of realising that in the human being too something is revealed which cannot be grasped from the standpoint of natural law. If anyone has once thoroughly made this conception his own, then he will be able to understand man as a picture. A mineral is not a picture in this sense. It reveals only what is directly evident to the senses.

[ 4 ] To a certain extent when regarding a picture we look through what the senses perceive to its spiritual content. And so is it also in the observation of the human being. If we truly understand the human being in the light of natural law, we do not feel that these laws bring us into contact with the real man, but only with that through which he reveals himself

[ 5 ] We must experience spiritually that when we regard a man only from the point of view of natural law, it is as if we stood before a picture seeing only ‘blue’ and ‘red,’ and quite unable through an inner activity of the soul to relate the blue and red to that which reveals itself through these colours.

[ 6 ] When viewing things from the standpoint of natural law we must perceive the mineral in one way, the human being in another. In the case of the mineral it is, for the spiritual understanding, as if we were in immediate touch with what is perceived; but in the case of man it is as though we could only come as near to him through natural laws as to a picture which we do not see clearly with the eye of the soul but only touch and feel.

[ 7 ] When once we have gained the perception that man is a ‘picture’ of something, we shall be in the right mood of soul to progress to that which manifests in this picture.

[ 8 ] The pictorial nature of man does not manifest in one way only. An organ of sense is in its nature least of all a picture, and mostly a kind of manifestation of itself like the mineral. The human organs of sense approach nearest to natural laws. Let us but contemplate the wonderful arrangement of the eye, which by natural laws we are able to comprehend. It is the same with the other organs, though not often so clearly evident. It is because the sense organs, in their formation, show a certain compactness. They are arranged in the organism as complete formations, and as such assist in the perception of the outer world.

[ 9 ] But it is otherwise with the rhythmic actions in the organism. They are not complete, but evanescent, the organism in them continually forming and then declining. If the sense organs were like the rhythmic system, we should perceive the outer world in a perpetual growth.

[ 10 ] The sense organs are like a picture on the wall. The rhythmic system is like the scene that unfolds itself if canvas and painter are imaged by us at the conception of the picture. The picture is not yet there, but it comes more and more into being. In studying the rhythmic system, we have to do with a perpetual process of becoming. A thing that has already come into existence remains in existence, for a time at any rate. But when we study the human rhythmic system we find the process of becoming, the upbuilding process, followed directly and without a gap by the passing out of existence, the destructive process. In the rhythmic system there manifests itself a picture, coming into existence, but never finished nor complete.

[ 11 ] The activity which the soul discharges in conscious devotion to what is brought before it as the finished picture, may be styled Imagination. On the other hand Inspiration is the experience that must be unfolded in order to comprehend a growing picture.

[ 12 ] But this is different again in the contemplation of the metabolic and limb system. Here it is as if one was before a bare canvas and unused paints, and an artist not even painting. To get a perception of the metabolic and limb system, one must get a perception that has as little connection with the senses, as have the bare canvas and unused paints with that which is afterwards the artist's picture. And the activity that is developed by the soul in pure spirituality out of the metabolic and limb system is as when, upon seeing the painter and an empty canvas and unused paints, one experiences the picture to be painted later. In order to understand the metabolic and limb system the soul must exercise the power of Intuition.

[ 13 ] It is necessary that the active members of the Anthroposophical Society should concentrate in this way on the essential and fundamental nature of anthroposophical study. For it is not only the knowledge one gains by study but the experience achieved thereby that matters.

[ 14 ] From what has here been explained our study will lead us to the following Leading Thoughts.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 15 ] 38. We have shown how man is to be regarded in his picture-nature and in the spirituality which thereby reveals itself. Once this perception is attained, then, in the spiritual world where we see man living and moving as a Spirit-being, we are also on the point of seeing the reality of the moral laws of the soul. For the moral world-order is then revealed as the earthly image of an order belonging to the spiritual world. The physical world-order and the moral are welded together now, in undivided unity.

[ 16 ] 39. From out of man, there works the human Will. This Will confronts the ‘Laws of Nature’ which we derive from the external world, as something altogether foreign to their essence. The nature of the sense-organs can still be scientifically understood by virtue of their likeness to the objects of external Nature. In the activity of these organs, the Will, however, is not yet able to unfold itself. The nature that manifests itself in the human rhythmic system is already far less like any external thing. Into this system the Will can already work to some extent. But the rhythmic system is in constant process of coming-into-being and passing-away, and in these processes the Will is not yet free.

[ 17 ] 40. In the system of metabolism and the limbs we have a nature which manifests itself in material substances and in the processes they undergo; yet are the substances and processes in reality no nearer to this nature than are the artist and his materials to the finished picture. Here, therefore, the Will is able to enter in and work directly. Behind the human Organisation living in ‘Natural Laws,’ we must grasp that inner human nature which lives and moves and has its being in the Spiritual. Here is the realm in which we can become aware of the real working of the Will. For the realm of sense, the human Will remains a mere word, empty of all content, and the scientist or thinker who claims to take hold of it within this realm, leaves the real nature of the Will behind him and replaces it in theory by something else.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 18 ] 41. In the third of the last Leading Thoughts, we pointed to the nature of the human Will. Only when this is realised, do we enter with understanding into a sphere of the world where Destiny or Karma works. So long as we perceive only that system of law which holds sway in the relations of the things and facts of Nature, our understanding is entirely remote from the laws that work in Destiny.

[ 19 ] 42. When the law in Destiny is thus perceived, it is revealed at the same time that Destiny cannot come into existence in the course of a single physical life on Earth. So long as he inhabits the same physical body, man can realise only the moral content of his Will in the way that this particular physical body, within the physical world, allows. Only when he has passed through the gate of death into the sphere of the Spirit, can the Spirit-nature of the Will come to full effect. Then will the Good and the Evil be severally realised—a spiritual realisation to begin with—in their corresponding outcome.

[ 20 ] 43. In this spiritual realisation man fashions and forms himself between death and a new birth. He becomes in being an image of what he did during his earthly life; and out of this his being, on his subsequent return to Earth, he forms his physical life. The Spiritual that works and weaves in Destiny can only find realisation in the Physical if its corresponding cause withdrew, before this realisation, into the spiritual realm. For all that emerges in our life by way of Destiny proceeds out of the Spiritual; nor does it ever take shape within the sequence of physical phenomena.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 21 ] 44. We should pass on to a spiritual-scientific treatment of the question of Destiny by taking examples from the life and experience of individual men and women, showing how the forces of Destiny work themselves out, and the significance they have for the whole course of human life. We may show, for instance, how an experience which a man undergoes in his youth, which he can certainly not have brought upon himself entirely of his own free will, may none the less to a large extent give shape to the whole of his later life.

[ 22 ] 45. We should describe the significance of the fact that in the physical course of life between birth and death the good may become unhappy in their outer life, and the wicked at any rate apparently happy. In expounding these things, pictures of individual cases carry more weight than theoretical explanations; they are a far better preparation for the spiritual-scientific treatment of the subject.

[ 23 ] 46. Events of Destiny which come into the life of man in such a way that their determining conditions cannot possibly be found in his present life, should be cited. Faced with such happenings, a purely reasonable view of life already points in the direction of former lives on Earth. It must of course be made clear by the very way in which these things are described that no dogmatic or binding statement is implied. The purpose of such examples is simply to direct one's thoughts towards a spiritual-scientific treatment of the question of Destiny.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 24 ] 47. Of all that is latent in the forming of man's Destiny, only the very smallest part enters the everyday consciousness. Yet the unveiling of our Destiny teaches us most of all, how the Unconscious can indeed be brought to consciousness. They in effect are wrong, who speak of what is, for the time being, the Unconscious, as though it must remain absolutely in the realm of the unknown, thus constituting a barrier of knowledge. With every fragment of his Destiny that is unveiled to him, man lifts into the realm of consciousness something that was hitherto unconscious.

[ 25 ] 48. In so doing man becomes aware that the things of Destiny are not woven within the life between birth and death. Thus the question of Destiny impels him most of all to the contemplation of the life between death and a new birth.

[ 26 ] 49. Conscious human experience is thus impelled by the question of Destiny to look beyond itself. Moreover, as we dwell upon this fact, we shall develop a true feeling for the relation of the Natural and the Spiritual. He who beholds the living sway of Destiny in the human being, stands already in the midst of spiritual things. For the inner connections of Destiny have nothing of the character of outer Nature.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 27 ] 50. It is most important to point out, how the study of the historic life of mankind is called to life when we show that it is the souls of men themselves, passing from epoch to epoch in their repeated lives on Earth, who carry over the results of one historic age into another.

[ 28 ] 51. It may easily be objected that such a line of thought robs history of its naive and elemental force. But this objection is untrue. On the contrary, our vision of historic life is deepened when we can trace it thus into man's inmost being. History becomes more real and more abundant, not poorer and more abstract. In describing these things we must, however, unfold true sympathy and insight into the living soul of man, for we gaze deep into the soul along these lines of thought.

[ 29 ] 52. The epochs in the life between death and a new birth should be treated in relation to the forming of Karma. Further Leading Thoughts will indicate the way in which this can be done.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 30 ] 53. The unfolding of man's life between death and a new birth takes place in successive stages. For a few days after passing through the gate of Death the whole of the past earthly life is seen in living pictures. This experience reveals at the same time the gradual severance of the vehicle of the past life from the human soul-and-spirit.

[ 31 ] 54. In a time that comprises about a third of the past earthly life, the soul discovers in spiritual experiences the effect which this life must have in accordance with an ethically just World-order. During this experience the purpose is begotten in the soul to shape the next earthly life in a corresponding way, and thus to compensate for the past.

[ 32 ] 55. There follows a purely spiritual epoch of existence. During this epoch, which is of long duration, the soul of man—along with other human souls karmically connected with him, and with the Beings of the Hierarchies above—fashions the next life on Earth in the sense of Karma.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 34 ] 56. The epoch of existence between death and a new birth, when the Karma of man is fashioned, can be described only by the results of spiritual research. But it must always be borne in mind that such description appeals to our intelligence. We need only consider with open mind the realities of the world of the senses, and we become aware that it points to a spiritual reality—as the form of a corpse points to the life that in-dwelt it.

[ 35 ] 57. The results of Spiritual Science show that between death and birth man belongs to Spirit-kingdoms, even as he belongs between birth and death to the three kingdoms of Nature: the mineral, the plant and the animal.

[ 36 ] 58. The mineral kingdom is recognisable in the form of the human being at any given moment; the plant kingdom, as the etheric body, is the basis of his growth, his becoming; the animal kingdom, as the astral body, is the impulse for his unfolding of sensation and volition. The crowning of the conscious life of sensation and volition in the self-conscious spiritual life makes the connection of man with the spiritual world straightway apparent.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 37 ] 59. Open-minded contemplation of Thinking shows that the thoughts of the ordinary consciousness have no existence of their own, but arise only as the reflected images of something. Man, however, feels himself to be alive in his thoughts. The thoughts are not alive, but he himself is living in them. This life has its source in Spirit-beings, whom we may describe (in the sense of my book, Occult Science) as the Beings of the Third Hierarchy—a kingdom of the Spirit.

[ 38 ] 60. Extended to the life of Feeling, the same open-minded contemplation shows that the feelings, though they arise out of the body, cannot have been created by it. For their life bears in it a character independent of the bodily organism. With his bodily nature man can feel himself to be within the world of Nature. Yet just in realising this with true self-understanding, he will feel that with his world of Feeling he is in a spiritual kingdom. This is the kingdom of the Second Hierarchy.

[ 39 ] 61. As a being of Will, man's attention is directed not to his own bodily nature, but to the outer world. When he desires to walk he does not ask, ‘What do I feel in my feet?’ but ‘What is the goal out there, which I desire to reach?’ In willing, man forgets his body. In his Will he belongs, not to his own nature, but to the Spirit-kingdom of the First Hierarchy.

According to Dr. Heyer, night session after Rudolf Steiner's branch lecture)

[The unsuccessful negotiations have led to an unrecorded suggestion by Rudolf Steiner to form a committee of nine to take over the leadership until the assembly of delegates instead of the central committee.

Dr. Stein: There is so little possibility of designating new trusted personalities.

The following speak about the appeal: Dr. Schwebsch, Dr. Noll, Karl Stockmeyer, Dr. Unger, Paul Baumann, Dr. Hahn, Hans Kühn, Alexander Strakosch.

Marie Steiner: The first sentence of the appeal seems to me to place society quite suddenly on a democratic basis.

The following speak: Adolf Arenson, Dr. Unger, Miss Dr. von Heydebrand, Dr. Kolisko, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Stein – all about the appeal.

Marie Steiner: Central Executive Council? Surely such a council cannot be called a 'Central Executive Council'? Such a huge council does not deserve to be called a 'Central Executive Council'.

Dr. Blümel: What is the position of the central committee in international life?

Dr. Steiner: As things stand, one can only speak of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, not even in Austria. The Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. We have at least achieved this — as confirmed by the English teachers' visit — that other countries have accepted the fact and are willing to recognize it, despite all their other antipathy towards Central Europe: that the Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. Therefore, it is necessary that the consolidation is now taken care of by Germany. The Anthroposophical Society has been formed in Switzerland. The Society in France is in the process of being formed, as is the one in England. The Swedish Society has been independent from the outset. The Norwegian Society also wants to become independent. These Societies will be independent in the future and seek a common center in Dornach, so that the international center will remain in Dornach. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Seek Dornach, if Dornach remains.”) I have always insisted that the consolidation must take place here in Germany, because this historical fact is recognized, that the anthroposophical movement originated in Germany. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Crisis everywhere if there is no consolidation in Germany.”) But you cannot decide anything here. The French Society will recognize the fact and join with the German Society in Dornach – if it remains – as its future center. What has been said here applies only to the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Furthermore, it is necessary that this Society in Germany, as the starting point of Anthroposophy, consolidates – and everything else can then join. That is what is to be formally understood: that here, on the basis of the history, consolidation is to be carried out in all directions. Nor should membership dues be set for outside Germany. Whatever you decide internationally will not be of concern to anyone outside. A central board can only exist for the Anthroposophical Society in Germany.

Adolf Arenson speaks about the invitation of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: First, the appeal could be discussed. But you must be aware that the provisional central board cannot sign this appeal on its own initiative. Given all the reasons stated by Mr. Arenson, the majority of the former board of directors, who would remain only filled with Dr. Kolisko after the departure of Mr. Uehli, cannot sign this appeal. The appeal cannot be made in such a way that it merely proclaims self-accusation to the world. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Dr. Stein's whim to proclaim self-accusation...” It should at least be signed by a majority of the board, which does not represent the majority of the previous board.

One cannot work by signing one's own guilt. The members of the board may stand by it, but there should be a majority that does not identify with the guilt. To send out this appeal, signed by three members of the provisional board – Unger, Leinhas, Kolisko – would be to deal the final death blow to the Society. You don't establish trust by issuing a vote of no confidence in yourself. That doesn't exist. Only Dr. Stein, out of a certain lack of practical experience of life, could regard that as possible!

Secondly, you should take into account the real extent to which things have already developed. Just today I received a letter from Mrs. Wolfram, who writes that the Leipzig branch is hardly functioning anymore because the branch members have joined together to form the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life”, which will work without connection to the Anthroposophical Society. These things will multiply. People will begin to propagate anthroposophy outside the Society. The positive thing about this is that, in a sense, new people are also committed to it, not just the old ones in the majority.

It has been pointed out to me that the youth group would be quite reconciled. On the other hand, I have been given this document today. I am not at all suggesting that we should proceed in the spirit of this document; but it does show the mood. With the representation of the youth movement that is meant here, it is not the case that one person is called into the Society, but the current should be represented. This group should take responsibility for the fruitful continuation of its work. It is not possible to work on such a matter in any other way than by these people first making their decision for themselves, because this group is not yet part of the Anthroposophical Society at all. Something would have to be created that could enter into some kind of relationship with such groups as a whole. All compromises lead nowhere, because the differences soon arise again and have not been bridged.

I would like you to be clear about the fact that the three members of the executive council cannot sign the appeal in this form. Instead, you must consider ways and means of truly embracing all those who want to work with anthroposophy today, regardless of your assessment of their value.

I would also like to draw attention to the following. It is necessary that this assembly of delegates works towards the consolidation of the society. To this end, it is really not necessary to establish anything other than the principle of the composition of the delegates, other than that all delegates who are sent here work in the spirit of an anthroposophical union. No anti-anthroposophical people can come here. To consolidate, you do not need to call speakers who speak against anthroposophy. Since it is about the unification of anthroposophists, it is necessary that they speak for anthroposophy.

The link to the old organization of trusted representatives will be deeply disturbing in the truest sense of the word. Hardly anything will come about if the old organization of trusted representatives is applied. The delegates should discuss current matters of the anthroposophical union with those who are leading here. It is necessary to exclude all bureaucracy from the rally, so that you have to answer the question: Why are the delegates coming here? is that the leading personalities want to discuss current affairs in Stuttgart. Don't set out a program in advance! Then people will know why they are coming here. But if you want to create a kind of bureaucratic organization, then you will only make them angry. There is hatred for the bureaucratic system in Stuttgart. This must be avoided at all costs. As little as possible needs to be said about how the delegates are to be elected. Only that it is a matter of the people being sent by the branches or the existing groups coming together so that a joint discussion can take place here. Do it in a completely unbureaucratic way!

Then I don't think it's a good idea to emphasize the negative too much. It's coming anyway. If you put the two things together¹ you will see that essentially the negative has been emphasized and not what should be there as a positive, around which one should then gather.

But one last thing that cannot be kept secret is this: you will meet with fierce resistance if you formulate this appeal in such a way that the Thirties Committee as a whole signs it. You will drive people apart if you do that. This Thirty Committee is a stumbling block that certainly does not work. It is better and more honest than its reputation - but it cannot sign. This committee has thoroughly made itself unpopular.

Several people speak.

Marie Steiner says: We should not commit ourselves; Dr. Steiner cannot be the chairman.

Dr. Steiner: The situation of 1918 cannot be restored! – So what is said about this in the appeal is correct, that the situation of 1918 cannot be restored, that one cannot simply demand that a board of directors be formed somehow. That cannot be. It would have to take a different form. But why should we not actually take advantage of the opportunity, so that a way would be found, after all, to bring about this anthroposophical union, after all the things that have been undertaken since 1919, sometimes with great aplomb on the part of the Society. Before it is too late, a way to achieve union could be found!

But you must realize that a little worldliness is required for this. There would be no worldliness if you just put these two documents together.² You can't send anything out into the world like that today; you also have to address those circles that have already fallen away internally. For I received the following news today: a 'League for Free Spiritual Life' has been formed in Leipzig because the branch there is disintegrating and people still want to cultivate anthroposophy. They must not go about this in such a way as to create a union in which people unite in opposition to society. You will lose this matter if you do not bring about a union at the last moment. To do that, you need to talk to those who are still on the outside, such as young people, in a completely new way, without this mere pater-peccavi idea, where you only give yourself a vote of no confidence. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Otherwise people will accept it!”) That is what I fear. The point is to formulate things less negatively, so that people — even if in Stuttgart — who have not previously been identified with what is called the “Stuttgart system” will stand by it.

The congresses are a prime example of how not to do it. These congresses have been held with a great deal of effort, and then they have been absolutely not utilized in the interest of the anthroposophical movement, despite my emphasis that these congresses, because anthroposophy is discussed endlessly, ultimately create an opposition that surrounds us like a wall. The exploitation of the congresses has never happened. Hence the misfortune with the Vienna Congress! The Vienna Congress was in itself – in its framework – a great success. But due to the failure to exploit it, it actually ended to our detriment. A meeting has now been held in Dornach to discuss whether a congress should be held in Berlin [see page 66]. This has now led to the decision not to hold one in Berlin. If the earlier congresses had not been mere efforts behind which the Anthroposophical Society did not stand, but rather if it had stood behind them, then we could also hold a new congress. Just think what some other body would have made of such a congress! All the magazines would have been full of it for months! We have not done that. We are making nothing out of all this.

There has certainly been no lack of events. If the events had been turned in our favor, we would not need to talk about a consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society. The fact that we cannot make anything out of all this is precisely our misfortune. What is at issue is what comes to the fore everywhere. When the people from the 'Religious Renewal' discussed with me, I made it clear that I would not participate in beating about the bush. So I asked: Do you have anything that shows that I have ever said anything like that about the religious movement? If the right point of view had been maintained, the Anthroposophical Society would have made it clear through its organs what it means that, in addition to all the other things, a religious renewal movement has emerged from the Anthroposophical Society. I would like to know which other body in the world can point to as many things as ours! In between, the Anthroposophical Society always runs like a fifth wheel on the wagon.

We have not represented any of these things as a society, and that is what matters. You really have to take the bull by the horns. Therefore, I would say: Wouldn't it be most advantageous – now that things have taken this course – to consider whether what was intended on December 10 could not be taken up as a suggestion, so that something comes of it? The point was that the Central Executive Committee, reinforced by other prominent figures, should take up something that points in a positive way to a consolidation from within the Society itself.

We have, of course, experienced the appearance of the Committee of Seven. Unfortunately, it got lost in negations, and when the negations had been exhausted, it canceled itself, it no longer appeared. Yes, now it would be possible that the same suggestions that the central committee ignored would be taken up in some way, so that something happens, not from the thirty-committee, but from a number of prominent personalities in Stuttgart who have something to represent. I am merely offering this for your consideration. If you approach the matter in such a way that the majority of the former executive council and the thirty-member committee sign this appeal, then you will achieve nothing.

The members continue to discuss.

Dr. Steiner: There is not much time left, we have hesitated for too long. My opinion is that many people here could actually know what needs to be done. But so little comes out of the discussions. It would be sad if nothing came of it. The majority do not make use of the opportunity: that is absolutely the case. Dr. Mellinger is in the youth group. There is no point in sitting down with the youth group before the adults have consolidated. It would only lead to a debate if you were to negotiate with the youth. You might as well call together all the inhabitants of the world. Nothing can be achieved if the adults don't know what they want. It can't be any different than the youth seeking something from the adults in good faith. Before that, it shouldn't even come to sitting down with the youth. This representation of the youth can only come about when the old society has found itself. Otherwise, we cannot introduce Bolshevism in principle.

Dr. Mellinger comments on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: The matter is this – if you want to understand it in principle – the real institutions that belong together and must exist are: Berliner [Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer] Verlag; hiesiger [Kommender-Tag]Verlag; “Kommender Tag”; Zeitung [«Anthroposophie»]; Waldorfschule; früherer Vorstand; vielleicht zerstreute Interessen; «Religiöse Erneuerung»; Ärzte-Kollegium. The research institute must first show that it is there. — Not true, now it would turn out that someone from the “Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House” must be there. We can represent that ourselves; Ms. Mücke would be considered for that; only Ms. Mücke can be considered for that. — Local Publisher: W. Wachsmuth; Clinic: Dr. Palmer; Newspaper: von Grone; “Kommender Tag”: Mr. Leinhas; Former Central Board: Dr. Unger; Waldorf School: Dr. Kolisko; “Religious Renewal”: Dr. Rittelmeyer; Scattered interests: Mr. Werbeck.

In principle, something would be created that could be placed under the appeal. This is roughly how I imagined the committee I mentioned would be composed: prominent individuals whom the central board could turn to. I imagined that the central board would expand to include these individuals. After all, the day-to-day business must be taken into account. It is important to consider the fact that the movement is facing the world when the anthroposophical movement is united. Now, Mr. von Grone's essay in the last issue of Anthroposophie proves in the most emphatic sense that he has something to say in the direction he has taken in this essay, and that you must take him up. You must act on the facts.

The seven gentlemen would be able to meet again tomorrow morning as early as possible: W. Wachsmuth, Dr. Palmer, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko, Dr. Rittelmeyer, Mr. von Grone. These seven are uniting to finish deliberating the appeal. This appeal must be an act! The only thing that would stand in the way of this is if the personalities do not like each other! I would very much like to have Dr. Stein in this, as a punishment; but I do not want to do this to you. It would be a punishment for the others if he were to start again with the “pater peccavi”.

Dr. Palmer: I did not like the way Mr. Leinhas treated the [Clinical-Therapeutic] Institute.

Dr. Steiner: Mr. Leinhas represents the “Kommende Tag”; what is meant by this is that the interests will be discussed in a more intimate meeting between their representatives.

This appeal should be discussed tomorrow as early as possible. We should be able to meet again here as a committee at 5 o'clock. Tomorrow the young people will be on my back, especially when they hear that I said something about “Bolshevism”! A closed circle is only real if things remain closed within that circle. Otherwise it is the same as putting union leaders on the supervisory boards everywhere. That is, in principle, characterized humorously – don't the women gathered here have husbands and the men wives who are in the youth movement, so that everything is carried out?

We can meet again at 6 o'clock.

• 1. The most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter are probably meant here.
• 2. This probably refers to the most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter.

Before the session, a branch assembly had taken place in which a report was given on Rudolf Steiner's Dornach lectures of December 30 and 31, 1922, on the position of the religious renewal movement. Dr. Carl Unger had reported on Rudolf Steiner's address of January 6 (see page 73 of this volume) and explained that, speaking of the criticism that was being expressed about the work in Stuttgart, he did not want to be an obstacle to the progress of anthroposophical work. A discussion of the possibility of recognizing and combating the cause of the criticized unmethodical behavior was scheduled for the next branch evening.

Now the extended thirty-strong circle meeting requested by Rudolf Steiner took place with about 60 participants.

Dr. Steiner: After almost ten years of work and just as many years of worries, the Goetheanum has become our undoing, and I do not need to describe to you here the pain of this downfall, if only because great pain cannot really be expressed in words. But I would like to say a few words today before these proceedings.

It must be said that with the intention of building the Goetheanum, the Anthroposophical Society, from whose midst this building emerged, took on a different form than it had before. The building was a means of speaking to the world in general today. It was a stepping forward into this world; and it was necessary to see to it that the building was constructed in such a way that it could actually be used to speak to the whole world today. And in a sense, that is what the building has done. I might say that only now has the right opportunity arisen to tear the Anthroposophical Movement out of its sectarian nature and give it the importance that, according to the nature of the matter, has always had to be spoken of since its inception.

Now, of course, a true word about the terrible Dornach catastrophe can hardly come about unless it is spoken of from deeper foundations. But that cannot be. In recent times it has become almost impossible for anything I have said to be mentioned within even the narrowest circles of the Anthroposophical Society without our opponents taking it out of context and echoing it back to us in a distorted way within a very short time. It has become impossible to speak esoterically about deeper matters today because the words do not remain within the circles in which they are spoken. And so I must say that, apart from the fact that it is not appropriate at this present moment to speak about the spiritual side of the Dornach catastrophe, it will probably not be possible at all to speak about this spiritual side. Various people may have many thoughts as to why this could have happened. But, as I said, I must unfortunately leave these things unspoken.

Another aspect of this so infinitely painful event immediately confronts us. And since we must not allow ourselves to be weighed down by the pain, this other side is our first concern. This is what, I would say, could be immediately assumed from the night of the fire; namely, the way the echo of the world sounds to us after the disaster has struck us. The opponents use the disaster to forge further weapons for this antagonism. We see from the scorn and derision with which we are met everywhere, something like the tips of new offensive weapons, which are to become ever stronger in the near future. And we should look above all at what lies ahead for us.

That is why I had to emphasize in Dornach, and this brings me to the purpose of our meeting today, which is to deal with the future, that when it is thought of building something else in Dornach or elsewhere – something definite cannot yet be said – that could be an outward emblem of the anthroposophical movement, that it is a matter of consolidating the Anthroposophical Society. For in a sense the building at Dornach, which spoke loudly to the whole world, lacked the background of the protective Anthroposophical Society. Basically, the Anthroposophical Society fell apart from the moment the building began. Not that the number of members had become smaller, but precisely the way in which it had spread in recent years, which was necessary and gratifying, had done extraordinary harm to the cause itself. And the building would have needed the support of a strong Anthroposophical Society.

Now, my dear friends, what needs to be said in this regard has already been said by smaller bodies during my two attendances, and it should be the subject of today's negotiations. I myself would just like to say what needs to be said from my side in advance so that today's meeting does not remain incomprehensible from my side. In the course of the debate, which I do not wish to delay, only what has been a heavy concern on my mind for some time and which led me to a conversation with a member of the Executive Council when I was here in December [on December 10] should be said. This conversation was mainly concerned with the necessity of tackling the tasks that had arisen for the Anthroposophical Society from its membership. Not so much through what I myself had to do. It had become necessary to draw attention to the fact that in view of these tasks and the situation that had gradually developed, there were only two things left for me to do, since I could not continue to stand by and watch. Two things, one of which was that I had to say to Mr. Uehli, as the representative of the Central Board sitting in front of me: I assume that the Central Board will discuss the Anthroposophical Society in the very near future, so that, initially, for itself, reinforced by prominent personalities here, it will give me its opinions, and suggestions, which I will then listen to in order to see whether it is possible from within the Society, through its present leadership, to really consolidate this Society. So I said: I expect the Central Board to approach me in such a way when I am in Stuttgart the next time that they present me with their proposals. Otherwise I would be forced to continue to ignore the Central Board and to address the entire membership directly, in an attempt to make a start on consolidating the Society. I would deeply regret it if this step were necessary, and so I propose to the others.

I had to leave at the time and awaited the appropriate consequences of my request. Well, my dear friends, then the time passed with the preparations for everything that was to take place in Dornach: the science course, the Christmas plays, the eurythmy. During December I was unable to come over again. And then came the catastrophe. A large proportion of our friends here were over in Dornach. And I should not omit to mention this: on the night of the fire, as always when it comes down to doing the necessary, the membership did not fail, but worked in such a way that it met every ideal. |

Now I learned from the Central Committee that the first step to be taken was to address the members with the announcements concerning the religious renewal movement. This should be a first step, and further steps should follow. It was natural to find this understandable, because I had explicitly designated Stuttgart as the place where these things had come to a head. And so it was all right.

Now, however, after the catastrophe had affected us, a meeting of the members was to take place at the instigation of the central committee. And just before the meeting was to begin, I was asked [on January 5 in Dornach] what should happen at it. I replied: If one wants to speak in this situation, one must speak about the consolidation of the Society. Mr. Uchli said that this should take place in Stuttgart in a smaller group. I assumed that one cannot speak about it without having informed oneself about the most important things.

The next day the meeting was held [on January 6 in Dornach], and on this occasion I gave a speech that Dr. Unger reported to you [on January 9 in Stuttgart]. Then I arrived last week and a circle had somehow come into being that held a night session with me on Tuesday of last week [January 16th], in which the things were expressed that can be communicated to you by the personalities concerned. And I was basically faced with the situation that what I had asked the central committee for had not happened, but that a free group of leading personalities was waiting for me and negotiating the consolidation of society. The next day [January 17], Dr. Unger was also consulted. This afternoon I remarked to the same group,¹ Human contact has been lost to such an extent that the following question should be considered: whether, in order to revive this contact, a real meeting should be convened in which people could express their thoughts and desires. The question arises as to whether things can continue as they are, with the leadership simply dictating to the rest of society. Should the new leadership not come to an understanding with those who are to follow? When I consider that the matter here was still so immature that I had to ask this afternoon to convene this circle because one cannot say between four walls: We are making four people the new board. The response was full of well-meaning conventional statements, but it was not decidedly one way or the other. It was the expression of good intentions, but it was not the expression of a strong will.

Things like the ones I have expressed, even if I don't want to say anything bad about those involved, are quite real. I am absolutely in a position to be able to say: Here in Stuttgart there is a huge number of the best talents. The misfortune is that people do not want to apply their talents in an appropriate way. There is no lack of ability. Enlightened minds are here. If I tried to point out achievements, it is a reason for many to almost trample these achievements underfoot. That is the inner opposition. I would like to know who is in a position to say that Dr. Unger does not have the very highest abilities. There is no objection to his ability. The will must be found! It is not done with words of thunder, but with the content of the will. One must begin to study the things.

Another example is this: everything is done for the religious renewal movement. Mr. Uehli is involved. And after the matter is finished in Dornach on September 17,³ On September 17, 1922, he does not go to Stuttgart to take the appropriate measures, assuming that something important has been created, but he sits on his curule seat and does nothing. Then, at the end of December, a child is born terribly late.⁴ We are facing this today. This will cause many people who have taken up this or that position to suffer pangs of remorse. — And further: It does not matter at all that one bears a title, but that one does something. Much has been neglected. It is not a question of time, but of interest and discernment. One must have the will to look at things in terms of their importance, their significance or insignificance. A great resonance would be necessary. This consolidation must not be brought about in a bureaucratic way, but in a factual and human way.

Emil Leinhas speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps someone outside will consider the causes of these things; without that, one cannot move forward. It is a spiritual movement. One must go back to the spiritual causes of things. Rightly so, one can be terribly amazed at the successes of the religious renewal movement. One is suddenly taken aback by the popularity of these people. But no one goes back to the causes, to how the whole thing developed, how this religious renewal movement came about. If these methods continue, the Anthroposophical Society will be left standing like a plucked chicken, because all its feathers will be plucked. It may still have the original juice. —— The lectures are locked up; and then the others come to me [wanting to read them], and I have to say that they have been locked up. That is how far you get with this. Now this [religious] renewal movement has formed. Imagine if you had had the strength to absorb it in the Anthroposophical Society! But Dr. Rittelmeyer and Emil Bock left [the Society].

It was a good thing that the “Movement for Threefolding” was pursued here in Stuttgart. How was it pursued? An office was set up. What were the local groups? The branches of the Anthroposophical Society. The local groups were ruined by the Stuttgart bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of the threefolding movement undermined the branches directly from Stuttgart. If religious renewal now takes hold of the branches, it is doing no more than the threefolding movement has already done. I must confess that I remember with a certain horror how this movement inaugurated itself here. The threefolding movement has not done anything new. One recalls how the threefolding movement established itself here with no small fanfare. It cannot continue unless someone comes forward and says: We want to thoroughly sweep away the methods of 1919. — Here it is a matter of realizing these things: why, for example, one writes a letter; and why for a fortnight the heads of the “authorities” do not talk to each other. If things do not change, they will come to a halt. They will not change unless you face things realistically and call a spade a spade. What has happened so far will not change things. It is essential that you speak and act differently, and quickly, so that not everything I have said is thrown to the wind again. I didn't know why I was supposed to be here at all; ⁵ my words were thrown to the wind. With the exception of the one case that was handled excellently, it was as if they were saying to me: “Don't do anything!” It is only the seriousness of the situation that makes it necessary for me to speak in this way.

I want to evoke a sense of what is necessary. I truly don't want to teach anyone a lesson. Today, one can't help but point out the seriousness of the situation. If the Anthroposophical Society continues to behave this way, in five years you won't sell a single anthroposophical book anymore. The Anthroposophical Society has become a serious stumbling block. A complete turnaround must take place.

• 1. Circle of Seven, that there could be no question of deciding anything in the abstract, but that those who want something have to be rooted in something real, in the real intentions of the membership. And I therefore asked that the next wider circle be convened, so that there would be not just talk about it, which would be nice, but so that it could be shown whether any of it [what is being talked about] is really rooted in the people of the society.

  I hope that tonight there will be an honest debate, both on the part of those who have taken the initiative so far and on the part of the others. It is impossible to be satisfied with deluding ourselves: it will work out. — Rather, it is a matter of all the things that underlie the fragmentation of society actually coming to light, of the way in which people want to work in the future coming to light, so that society can continue to exist. Because it cannot continue as it has until now. It would be no use to build a house, because the way things are now, society would no longer exist before it was finished, it would have fallen apart into its atoms. It is a matter of speaking in the most definite way possible, so that it can be seen to what extent society can be carried out of its own bosom.

  Emil Leinhas: Members from the most diverse layers of society have been summoned for this evening in order to deliberate on the situation of the Society. A smaller circle has discussed the necessary questions in contact with me, with Dr. Unger and Mr. Uehli. A resolution has been worked out which will be read out this evening.

  Eugen Kolisko: Dr. Steiner's address [January 6] led to the task for members to take care of the leadership of the Society and the way this leadership has been handled since 1919. There is strong criticism of the Central Council and much mistrust. There is no understanding with the youth and also no harmonious cooperation within the Central Council.

  Proposals are made to reorganize anthroposophical life by creating a trust organization. A statement to the general membership is to be given. Dr. Unger is willing to resign. Mr. Uehli has resigned. Leinhas, Hahn, Baumann and Kolisko are proposed.

  Dr. W. J. Stein explains that he and his friends are willing to work together, as they have promised each other. It would be very good if it turned out that there is a willingness to work together in very broad circles.

  Paul Baumann: Kolisko is my guarantee that no clique will emerge.

  Several speakers speak out in favour of Eugen Kolisko; some ask Carl Unger to remain on the board. There is a back and forth of the most diverse opinions, and other proposals for an expansion of the board follow.

  Paul Baumann: Dr. Unger is encumbered by the people who particularly want to support him, who are his clique. Dr. Unger explains that he does not want to be in the way if another group wants to do it. Only if this group does not succeed would he feel obliged to take matters back into his own hands. It is necessary to test whether the group will be trusted.

  Emil Leinhas reminds the meeting of Dr. Steiner's remark to Mr. Uehli that he would be obliged, if nothing happened, to address the members directly in a circular letter.

  Jose del Monte: The gentlemen proposed except for Mr. Leinhas are very young in the Society; they would not find much trust among the older members. Dr. Unger should be included after all.

  Several other proposals are made.

  Dr. Steiner: Apart from questions of personalities, this meeting today should show how things will change in the future from within the Society itself. Today, reference has repeatedly been made to a group that has met here in Stuttgart as an extended group to take care of the various anthroposophical affairs. I have put forward various ideas in this circle that cannot be resolved to the very end. It could be of interest, and this is really meant without malice, that My word has been heard only once when I spoke in this circle about the need to advocate for the order of affairs over there in Switzerland, namely that since then Mr. Leinhas has devoted himself to the demands made at the time in an intensive way. This has created a difficulty for the central committee. I could not wish that Mr. Leinhas devote himself to the business of the central committee. He really had enough to do for the whole person. At the same time, it is important that the “Kommende Tag” does not appear unmethodical by not continuing to work on it, as is the case with things that are started and then abandoned. The fact that Mr. Leinhas has to be a leading figure is obvious from the nature of the matter. I emphasize this explicitly, that this was the only case where one was interested in the things I brought up. It is a great oddity that I have spoken of such an extraordinarily important matter and it is claimed from two sides that the things did not happen. So that this cannot continue like this is self-evident and proves how much it was an urgent necessity to express this.

  The things that have been discussed here have not been heard. The most important matters have not been echoed at all. It cannot go on like this. I emphasize one thing: after all, from 1901 to 1918, things were not done carelessly in the Anthroposophical Society. They came about; and so it can also be said that the Central Board emerged from history. It has this piece of history behind it. It is burdened with everything we have heard this evening. You must bear one thing in mind: it is quite impossible to bring about change merely through abstract discussions. Positive impulses of will must emerge. After what has been said this evening, I must say: I expected that something would be said about the matter, not that all kinds of proposals would be made and the like. Of course it is impossible for three Waldorf teachers to form a new leadership, as has been proposed. If this tone is used, we will not get a new leadership. There must be some visible sign that work is being done from a different impulse. As long as this is not the case, it is not possible to hand over the society to a new leadership. Something that emerged between 1901 and 1918 and that has not outgrown the era of project-making cannot be brought to a successful conclusion by simply continuing with the projects. This must be taken seriously. If this seriousness does not emerge this evening, this discussion cannot lead to a result. The majority have remained silent in order to be discontent afterwards. Saying a few words will not help. The point is that we have come together here so that the things from which a new impulse arises can be heard. No one has been called upon to just sit, and everyone must have an opinion that can become an impulse. If the discussion continues in the same vein as before, we will get nowhere. Old members who come to such important meetings merely as observers show no interest in the progress of the anthroposophical movement.

  A large number of members speak.

  Adolf Arenson: There would always have been an opportunity to have confidence and take initiatives.

  Miss Waller: It would be worth considering whether something better would not come about if Dr. Steiner were to continue on his own.

  A number of other personalities speak out.

  Dr. Noll: The consolidation has been missed. Everything will fall apart if Dr. Steiner does not get in touch with the branches.

  Dr. Krüger, Mr. Ruhtenberg, Mr. Kühn and Mr. Leinhas speak.

  Dr. Steiner: I don't know what Dr. Krüger meant by “encapsulation”. I think he can only mean the “Stuttgart system”. I will illustrate the “Stuttgart system” with two examples. It was a long time ago. Even if it no longer occurs in places where it did, it still occurs in other forms. The matter in question was that someone had something to discuss with someone at 17 Champignystraße. One was in his office on the third floor, the other on the ground floor. The gentleman in question on the third floor addressed himself to the other in such a way that he dictated a letter into the typewriter and had this letter put into an envelope. The letter was left lying until Monday morning; it was delivered on Tuesday.

  I spoke with Mr. Uehli on December 10. Mr. Uehli is a member of the central committee and a colleague of Dr. Unger; the two gentlemen run the central committee. This important message was discussed again in only an inadequate form on December 24 [and, above all, without Dr. Unger]. I ask myself: Is this so submerged because the two gentlemen did not discuss it? These are the things that happen in Stuttgart and that lead to the fact that one speaks of a bureaucratization. One encounters isolated people who have lost their way. That is the Stuttgart misfortune, that is the isolation of each from each. We have to tap into the hot porridge. Try to answer the question: How can the individual reach out to the other? I cannot believe that anything beneficial can grow out of discussions.

  The following speak in favor of the new board proposal [Emil Leinhas and the three Waldorf teachers Dr. Herbert Hahn, Paul Baumann, Dr. Eugen Kolisko]: Dr. Mellinger, Dr. Palmer, Jürgen von Grone, Mr. Kieser, Miss Völker, Dr. Streicher, Mr. Benkendoerfer.

  Dr. Steiner: Those who can imagine it should imagine what it means: three Waldorf teachers must take the lead. This cannot come from the Anthroposophical Society. Nor can it come from the Waldorf School. The Waldorf School, which is carefully maintained as a non-ideological school, has every reason not to send a single teacher to the board. It is a painful fact that only Waldorf teachers have seen the light. On the other hand, I have not noticed that Mr. Uehli was actually on the committee. The circle that came to meet me consisted only of Waldorf teachers. It is a painful event that only they have had a brainwave. They have realized the matter from their own resources. If a Waldorf teacher is on the board, that is already a lot. But the board cannot be formed as you suggest. A wider circle can collaborate. So, it is desirable that as many Waldorf teachers as possible are on the board. As soon as you make this suggestion, you show that you have not properly assessed the situation. There is only confusion. The fact that there are only Waldorf teachers is proof of the Stuttgart compartmentalization. The Waldorf school should not be a clique; it is a body. Here, those who are banished to the same room put their heads together. If they work in Stuttgart in this way, nothing will ever come of it. I am convinced that many of those who have come here work well outside. But in Stuttgart they become something special. The filing system must be overcome from within. A certain government was already tearing down; people imagined that they could govern. This already occurred in 1919, where things that were intended to be taken seriously were done in the form of “meddling”. Study how these things have developed, and just look at the sudden fuss that arose. Some of it was exasperating. And the fruits are now showing. Especially since 1919, the “Stuttgart System” has driven us into misfortune due to a certain lack of seriousness about the things that have been undertaken bit by bit. This “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Federation for a Free Intellectual Life) is just one example of this. It consists of nothing more than a piece of paper with twelve names on it.

  It is questionable whether the convening of the assembly should not be considered today.

• 2. Presumably, the intention of a general members' assembly had already been discussed, which was then realized at the end of February as a delegates' assembly.
• 3. On September 17, 1922, the Circle of Primordial Priests was founded. Ernst Uehli, as a member of the central council, had been authorized by Rudolf Steiner.
• 4. See under Notes.
• 5. “With the request for help, they turned to R. Steiner.” From Marie Steiner's notes of the first sevens session. Reaction to the meeting of January 22, 1923, from a member