The Rudolf Steiner Archive

at the beginning of the evening lecture

I would just like to briefly report that the Nordic trip that I have just completed has, I believe, been quite satisfactory. I was able to give 13 lectures in Norway over eight days, and that enabled me to bring up a good deal of anthroposophy. I believe that our friends in Norway are very good workers at the present time and that we can look there with a certain satisfaction.

Of these lectures, two were public, the others private lectures for members and friends of members, that is, for a smaller circle of members and also non-members who were personally invited.

I would also like to note that the Norwegian Anthroposophical Society was formed during my time in Norway.¹ It now exists in a similar way to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. It has appointed Mr. Ingerö as its General Secretary and will work out its further statutes. At the General Assembly held during my presence, it expressed its willingness to join the international society based in Dornach if the international society is established. If we then establish the individual branch societies one after the other, following the example of the Swiss society, it will be possible to bring about the constitution of the whole society in a way that takes account of today's circumstances. I would like to mention this in particular because it is perhaps important for a forthcoming General Assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society to consider the fact that national societies have now been founded for a general Anthroposophical Society.²

• 1. See page 469.
• 2. See page 512.

Words of Introduction before the Lecture

The conference in Vienna that I have just come from went very satisfactorily. Two public lectures were held on September 26 and 29, which were very well attended: the first lecture on Anthroposophy as a contemporary challenge, the second lecture on the moral-religious significance of Anthroposophy. I was then able to give four branch lectures at the conference, in which I dealt in particular with the relationship between anthroposophy and the human soul, incorporating some of the material that has already been discussed here from a wide variety of perspectives: the significance and possible renewal of the Feast of St. Michael.

Then, on Sunday, September 30th, there was a very well-attended eurythmy performance at the Vienna New City Theater. The success of this eurythmy performance has given rise to the fact that next Sunday, the day after tomorrow, another such eurythmy performance will take place in Vienna. The eurythmy performances have also been given a further impetus by the fact that just this evening, while I am speaking to you here, one is taking place in Gmunden in the Salzkammergut. It is possible that other eurythmy performances will follow in Austria.

On Monday, October 1, a meeting of the Austrian members of the Anthroposophical Society took place. The Austrian Anthroposophical Society will now join the other national societies, so that the Austrian Anthroposophical Society will also be present among the national societies at the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas in Dornach.

On Tuesday evening, thanks to the extremely valuable suggestion of Dr. Wegman, our medical friend Dr. Glas in Vienna was able to give a lecture and hold a very detailed discussion with a number of Viennese doctors, scientists and medical students at the home of Mr. van Leer. We can already say that just like the similar one in London at the beginning of September, went very well, so we can hope that a lot can be done for this medical-therapeutic side of anthroposophical endeavor.

Meeting with the Thirties Group

Dr. Steiner: It is important that the Anthroposophical Society asserts what it wants.

Emil Leinhas: It is to be presented what is still to be said about the presentations [about the various institutions at the assembly of delegates].

Several: Heyer, Stein, Maier, Hahn, Stockmeyer, Rittelmeyer, Krüger and Leinhas speak about the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Federation for Free Spiritual Life). One should give it concrete tasks for young people.

Dr. Steiner: The “day to come” can no longer finance things. With the large expenses that our institutes require, it will not be possible to finance such things. But then it must be shown that the world is interested in them. The “day to come” could only be in a position to finance such things if it could be placed on a broader basis. We often encounter the opinion that people do not want to join the “Kommende Tag”, but would like to profit from it. As long as it is not possible for us to involve everyone in the “Kommende Tag”, we will not be able to achieve anything.

A large number of speakers – Stockmeyer, Kolisko, Werbeck, Baravalle, Heyer, von Grone, Leinhas, Kolisko, Rittelmeyer – speak programmatically about the “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life” and also about the newspaper “Anthroposophie”.

Dr. Steiner: If we had learned by chance that a lecture was to be given on eurythmy, we would naturally have found it out of place. Eurythmy has its own content. The point is that there is no need to talk about eurythmy at all. Imagine if the report on religious renewal contained instructions on what the leaders should do, for example, in worship! On the other hand, there are a number of agendas that fall to the Society with regard to the religious renewal movement. In the same way, we would have to talk about such things as the newspaper [Anthroposophie] and the Bund für freies Geistesleben. On the other hand, we are constantly discussing the substance of the matter. This will not be the task of the assembly of delegates, but rather to show what the Anthroposophical Society as such has to contribute. You will also not be able to present the lecture on the Waldorf school in such a way that you talk about the curriculum, but rather about what the Society has to do. If we do not stick to the issues, people will leave. The questions must be addressed in such a way that the assembly of delegates gets the impression: these people know what they are doing with “Anthroposophy”, these people know what they are doing with the “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life”.

Now it is a matter of giving the members suggestions as to what the Anthroposophical Society has to do to enable the anthroposophical movement to be fed by it. The discussion should be concentrated on this point. One should give a picture, for example, of the “Bund für freies Geistesleben”, that it has a great justification in the whole spiritual life of the present day. A few strokes are needed to indicate the factors from which it can draw its substance. One would have to show how society wants to absorb this and what it can do in the process.

The question of financing is answered by the anthroposophical movement. We have never worried about financing the anthroposophical movement. We have not financed anything. The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for an Independent Spiritual Life) is best financed when it is left to finance itself. If one continually strives to create funds that are spent in the most inappropriate way until there is nothing left, and does not ensure that the cause finances itself, it will not work. In the Anthroposophical Society we had no need to discuss financial questions until 1918. If one has to talk as one has done just now about financial questions, it is because one thinks only of funds.

Things that have inner life will assert themselves. The meeting on Wednesday must not break up without having achieved anything; without having talked about everything except the specific tasks of the Society, these great tasks that lie ahead for the Waldorf School, for the Research Institute, eurythmy and art. Then the discussion of community life comes up by itself. If we continue our conversation as before, the members will leave at the end as they came. It must be shown that the things are there and what one has to do with them. When the tasks of the society are discussed, it will emerge from such a discussion that the newspaper is also being properly edited.

The publishing house [“Kommender Tag”] is discussed: Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Dr. Kolisko.

Dr. Steiner: The publishing house of “Kommender Tag” is precisely an institution for a free spiritual life, which in turn is a gift of the Anthroposophical Society. The Society should continue this activity.

Gratitude must be expressed by spreading the spiritual knowledge. The existence of spiritual knowledge gives rise to the obligation to protect it.

The Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press is mentioned.

Dr. Steiner: The Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press can be satisfied. It will fulfill its tasks even when the Society is really up and running. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “It will at most receive new tasks when the Society is functioning.”) In itself, it hardly needs to be mentioned.

Marie Steiner: But there was a time when it was presented as overcome and people wanted to move beyond it. There was a time when it had to defend itself.

Dr. Steiner: The important thing is to let what is going well develop properly and to point out the real harm. This lies in the tendency to want to do something for the publishing house. The real task is to not interfere in something that is solidly grounded in itself. It must be placed on a more general footing. There have been cases in the past where a tendency has emerged to interfere with things that were in order. Instead of dealing with the things that were out of order, people have always been concerned with things that were in order.

Marie Steiner: It was thought that the women's economy should be done away with and that the matter had to be handled in a cosmopolitan way.

Dr. Steiner: It is mentioned as justified in the matter, in lectures on economics as an example that is based on a healthy foundation. First there was consumption, so that it is based on a healthy foundation. It must be mentioned from the anthroposophical point of view. Of course, you can also have a framework first and then give it content. The basic difference between these two publishing houses is that the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag emerged from the anthroposophical movement, while the Kommende Tag Verlag came into being because people wanted to found a publishing house in opposition to the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag. That is one aspect here. One is something that has become necessary out of anthroposophical affairs; the other is something that is tremendously linked to things that have been founded out of unobjective points of view. All these kinds of foundations have caused the movement many difficulties as a result. You cannot imagine the difficulties we are now facing, the huge difficulties that have arisen from the fact that, for example, the quirk has arisen of having the financial affairs of the Goetheanum administered by a Stuttgart trust company. This is something that hangs around like shackles. In the last few days I have even been obliged to tell the experts that they wanted to pass off as reasonable something that I regarded as unreasonable. These things were justified by “really practical people”, and they turn out to be the most impractical stuff there can be. Of course, if the personality and its energy are behind it, you can put a lot into such things. This must be talked about in the next few days. You can't just sweep the things that have happened since 1918 under the carpet; but you have to explain that you want to give them substance.

Dr. Krüger comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: It depends a lot on how things have been done since 1918. It must become apparent that things will not be done in the same way, that they will not be done from points of view that are heterogeneous to anthroposophy. Something has been added from outside to purely anthroposophical activity. It is not anthroposophy that cuts one off from the rest of the world. You may even find that people are very interested to know about anthroposophy. It is the things that have happened that discredit anthroposophy. We must call things by their right name.

Was it necessary to go to the President of Württemberg in 1918 without my knowledge, so that these things are now attributed to me? Was it necessary to combine something so un-anthroposophical with the anthroposophical current? These things are what has led us into the abyss. We must realize that things must not be done in this way. Was it necessary to do all this work? If in the next few days there is no talk of the things that matter and about which one can say: mistakes have been made — and the mistakes are avoided in such a way that one becomes aware of the direction in which the mistakes were made and how one will therefore do things differently — we will not make any progress. It must be shown that it is this positive doing-differently that matters (Dr. Heyer's note: “not pater peccavp”).

Ernst Uehli: I have offered to give a talk on eurythmy.

Dr. Steiner: I am just taking this opportunity to point out that we need to address the question of what the Society has to do in relation to the problems at hand. We can talk about the things that have led us away from our anthroposophical endeavors. All these endeavors should have been guided by anthroposophy, as was the case with eurythmy. All these things could have been done in the anthroposophical sense. But they were done in a bureaucratic sense. It would be just as if one were to improve the Waldorf school method by mixing in all kinds of nonsense.

But in the other areas, all kinds of nonsense has been mixed in from the outside.

Louis Werbeck is to give the presentation on the opponents.

Dr. Steiner:

But in the other areas, all kinds of nonsense has been mixed in from the outside.

Louis Werbeck should take over the presentation about the opponents.

Dr. Steiner: You have to take the standpoint of the real conditions. It is important to realize that conditions are getting worse, so that we have to expect that the books will be boycotted by the retail book trade. We have to be prepared for this fact. Now, in the next few days, our members must be spoken to in the same way that the “Berliner Tageblatt” dared to speak to its subscribers. The French have banned it in the Ruhr area because of certain articles. The Tageblatt has said: “We will nevertheless find ways and means that all those who previously received it will continue to receive the Tageblatt.” We cannot achieve anything by getting books from booksellers. We have to look for ways and means of spreading our literature.

Then it will be necessary for the branches to become disseminators of anthroposophical literature in a real way, but in such a way that it can be seen that the Society is actually working for the various fields. We must seek out new channels. I have been recommending this for two or three years; only it has not been taken into account much. To find new channels, you have to put your brainpower to work. Only cleverness belongs in criticism. We really do not lack genius. But there is a lack of goodwill. With goodwill, one must apply one's brainpower. This is not necessary with genius. One can be a genius and a mere automaton at the same time.

The question of the opponents of the Goesch case is discussed.

Dr. Steiner: You only need to take the thick document that Goesch wrote shortly after he was expelled. You just need to look at it: constant repetitions, nitpicking, fear of physical contact like shaking hands, and so on. You can put together an absolutely reliable clinical picture from these things. I do not think it is right to put things together from his own statements. That is not decisive. With these things one can throw in “situations”. I have mentioned the matter somewhere; one could know that, since every piece of rubbish is copied. For example, Goesch writes that the children spit eight days before a great battle. If you take the concoction, you will find all the symptoms that make up a complete clinical picture. I have dealt with this clinical picture in a Dornach lecture.

The main thing is that the Anthroposophical Society would understand what its duties are. The Goesch case has been left lying around; it has been left lying around. No further attention has been paid to it. But if the Anthroposophical Society is there and makes demands, it would be obliged to follow up the matter. It is a matter of drawing attention to what the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society are in each individual case.

It is just as easy to make it clear with Seiling. He has become an opponent simply because our publishing house has not accepted his Christ brochure. It is of no use if this is mentioned in a subordinate clause. This must always be brought to the attention, it must be said again and again. The archives have made it their business to lock things up and not take any responsibility for them. So the lectures in which something like this is said were locked up, so that the things have now become a scandal. This is part of the bigger picture. You have to characterize your opponents correctly.

Goesch is a medical case. He has to be destroyed professionally because he is simply a pathological case. Many people could have written a paper about him, but they didn't. I don't understand why it wasn't possible to find this Goesch case interesting. It's an interesting medical case. One really has to say: any journal with even a passing interest in psychiatry would have accepted this paper if 'y' had been used instead of 'Goesch'. Today one could have pointed to Goesch. Psychiatry is entitled to do that. There is talk of Dr. Steiner's scientific courses 'The Doctrine of Heat and Light' [GA 320, GA 321] and their publication.

Dr. Steiner: The point is that you yourselves do what you consider necessary. The point of the courses is that I would have to correct them so that they do not contain various cabbages, but are consistent. We can no longer avoid the fact that all these things are being made accessible to a wider public.

One course was about thermodynamics. Now, on the basis of this course, a theory of heat can be written in the way one is accustomed to writing a theory of heat. On the basis of this course, an optics can be written on the basis of this course on light, so that physicists would see that it is possible to treat such chapters anthroposophically in this way. In doing so, it would be shown that some things have been treated briefly there. We shall have to consider how to treat this or that problem from the point of view of the course. The chapters in question would have to be treated in such a way that, based on these principles, a theory of heat and an optics would be written anthroposophically. I have made that clear.

It happens again and again that others express their own opinions and then claim that these are my opinions. I never said that this course should only be used to do experiments. That is a task that is never complete. I don't know why people keep putting their own opinions out there as if I had said them. You can tell whether I said it or not.

Dr. von Baravalle: That is my favorite answer. In that sense, I would have liked to have taken on this task.

Dr. Steiner: I would not have had the slightest objection to things being done this way after my course. Steffen's account of the pedagogical course is an independent work. But why do people keep racking their brains over how to solve my tasks? It would have been quite a different matter if someone had reported on the courses in Anthroposophy in the manner of Steffen in the Goetheanum. Anthroposophy must solve the tasks on its own initiative.

The processing of the language course given by Dr. Steiner, “Geisteswissenschaftliche Sprachbetrachtungen” [GA 299], is discussed.

Dr. Steiner: The only thing that can be done is to write a short linguistics paper as an independent work. A Zurich student has dealt with the problems in his own way. The Stuttgart students are so lazy that they let the things in the archive gather dust. A suitable terminology would have to be found. If the Stuttgart people could do what they are capable of, the Anthroposophical Society would be the most brilliant society in the world. The suggestions that are made must be reviewed by me myself. I thought that the work would be based on the linguistic course. Instead of that, it has not been worked with at all.

There is talk of the Hochschulbund and the academic youth.

Dr. Steiner: The Hochschulbund was the pivotal point of the matter, where things were started and left lying around. From the outset, I had said that the Hochschulbund would only be taken on if there was a will to carry it through to a successful conclusion. It was left lying around. The Hochschulbund is one of the things that most clearly illustrates what must not be done. This Hochschulbund phenomenon, which we knew would be used to send private lecturers after us, was a complete waste of time. You have had opportunities here to interact with a whole range of young people and thus to see for yourself what these people say, in order to gain something positive from what now remains as a sad wreck.

When I sat with the young people here after the illustrious assembly ended the other day [on February 14], they presented their scientific problems and wanted to know what they, as anthroposophists, have to do in relation to science. The young people are completely wild. You have to make it clear to them: the possibility must be created that such a free college is enabled to issue doctoral diplomas. It is one of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society to do something with this “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life” so that it does not end in failure. To do that, you need the young people. You can't do it with the old fogies, you can only do it with the young people. Then you also have to have young people for the Anthroposophical Society. At present there is no heart for the Anthroposophical Society. I have the feeling that the young people would prefer it if there were no society at all.

That can only happen if you are able to awaken real enthusiasm in these young people. The great fiasco was that no enthusiasm was awakened. You have to awaken enthusiasm in young people. Youth goes along when enthusiasm is awakened. Nationalist university folly has the youth behind it because it has awakened enthusiasm. But if the Genualität is used to present dry theories, then the youth will not go along. Anthroposophy must have momentum! Why is it that in Stuttgart genius is not used? That there is a reluctance to activate the will in order to use the head? Why is the seat of the organs of perception the most active and why does the soul not want to rise up into the head?

The Free School and the World School Association are discussed. Dr. Hahn and Dr. von Heydebrand discuss this.

Dr. Steiner(?): Healthy self-confidence could be given to society.

Louis Werbeck: Society should be interested in the central school.

Dr. Steiner: The difficulty is this: initially, for the first step, the people who live somewhere have no direct interest in supporting a school in Stuttgart that they cannot send their children to, so they have to say to themselves: We support a school, but we cannot allow our children to benefit from it. The only way to overcome this is to make it a matter for the whole of humanity. To support something that I have often emphasized: to propagate the idea of a free school in the form of a world school association. Then people would broaden their primary judgment and say to themselves: We see that schools can become better through this method, and such a school must exist as a model school. Then people would not focus so much on the effectiveness of the details but on the big idea of the free school. Something like this would have to be popularized and introduced to the branches. It would have to be seen as a general anthroposophical matter that free education was being addressed. Then something could really be achieved.

Then one would be able to maintain one school through contributions, and the other schools would be treated in such a way that one would say: You can found them if you have the money to maintain them in a private way. But one matter for the Anthroposophical Society is the one model school, which is simply intended to demonstrate the practical side of this methodology. In all things, it is important to present it to the whole world. Then it would work. But the founding of the World School Association has been thrown to the wind. I don't see why it couldn't have been supported. I don't see why the World School Association shouldn't have come into being. But when it comes to putting the genuality into action, then the forces fail.

In Hamburg, the matter has been messed up. What was the starting point? Pohlmann came and said he wanted to found a school. In this matter, he alone is fully responsible. Today, Pohlmann would have to be obliged to fulfill his obligations: he should found his school as a private citizen. I thought this community would be a good one, because this community of Pohlmann and Kändler seems to suit me quite well, and that would have worked. If only our membership would take something like this seriously and not always go awry! I don't know why this private school, which Pohlmann wants as a hobbyhorse, why this school had to be a branch affair. Mr. Pohlmann took over this school, so he should also carry it out.

It was not possible to found the World School Association. The Stuttgart vice also came to light outside of Germany.

Nor did Germany try to encourage friends abroad. The difficulty is that people say to themselves: We cannot send our children to Stuttgart. Therefore, this matter would have to be put on a different map.

Louis Werbeck: People feel it is a world affair.

Dr. Steiner: You can be sure: If the same conditions were possible today as before the war - that a large number of people could easily give their children away -, then a large number of parents would be scattered in different places and people would have much more heart for the Waldorf school for primary reasons. We need to popularize the secondary reason: the idea of a free school. People are easily inspired by educational ideas. Apart from isolated praiseworthy exceptions, our society is not characterized by what must be called enthusiasm. How often have I expressed my despair here in such terminology, how difficult it is to get a thirty-strong committee moving! There is a viscousness there like in strudel dough. Everything is coughed up. Only when there is something to grumble about is there momentum. Momentum is lacking in ideal things. If only momentum could be injected into them! Ingenuity is there, but momentum and enthusiasm would have to be injected into this ingenuity! It is no exaggeration to say that enthusiasm and drive are lacking here. People carry the Curule chair with them, even when they walk. Things are discussed so endlessly cleverly. This endless cleverness also characterizes the way the other person is judged.

My dear friends! Today an even greater number of friends of Anthroposophy have made their appearance here, who have never before attended, and so I am obliged, with a few introductory words, to speak about the principles of the school. It certainly must be considered with utter gravity, that with the Christmas Conference here at the Goetheanum a breath of fresh air has come into the Anthroposophical Movement. And the entrance of this fresh air must penetrate thoroughly into awareness, especially so for the members of our School of Spiritual Science. Yes, I have pointed it out time and again, but I know that there are many friends of Anthroposophy here today, who have not yet been informed of the matter, and so I must lay it out once again.

It is certainly so, and it has had to be declared again and again since the Christmas Conference, that the Anthroposophical Movement must be strictly distinguished from the Anthroposophical Society.

The Anthroposophical Movement represents the infusion into human civilization of spiritual intervention and spiritual life-impulses, that can and should come into being in our time directly out of the spiritual world. The Anthroposophical Movement is there, not because human beings desire that it be there, but rather because it appears appropriate to the spiritual powers controlling and guiding the world, working to ensure the proper course of human history, it appears appropriate to these spiritual powers, to allow spiritual light, light that can come appropriately through Anthroposophy, to flow today into human civilization.

To that end the Anthroposophical Society was established as a governing body, to govern anthroposophical wisdom and institutions. And it had to be emphasized, time and again, that Anthroposophy is something above and beyond the Society, and that the Anthroposophical Society is merely the exoteric governance.

This has changed since the Christmas Conference here at the Goetheanum. Since the Christmas Conference it is quite the opposite. And only because the case is quite different, am I ready to clarify, with the Executive Council¹ established at the Christmas Conference, am I able to carry out the work that is appropriate, the work moreover that needs to be taken up, and only so am I able to clarify, together with the Executive Council, the assumed functions of leadership of what was established at Christmas as the Anthroposophical Society. What has happened through all this, I can address in just one sentence. This sentence is, that since Anthroposophy will now govern throughout in the Anthroposophical Society, all that occurs now within the Anthroposophical Society must be Anthroposophy itself. Since Christmas, Anthroposophy must be what is done in the Anthroposophical Society. Every individual deed must henceforth have the immediacy of an esoteric character. The appointment of the Dornach Executive Council on Christmas Day was an actual esoteric implementation, an implementation that must be considered as having come directly out of the spiritual world. Only when this is kept in mind by our anthroposophical friends can the Anthroposophical Society, which was actually founded in this manner, only then can the Anthroposophical Society flourish.

And so the Executive Council in Dornach, as underscored since the Christmas Conference, is an initiative executive council. Understandably, governance must take place. But governance is not the first matter of business to be attended to, but rather the business of allowing, of doing everything to allow Anthroposophy to flow through the Anthroposophical Society. To accomplish this is the aim.

The installation of the Dornach Executive Council took place in just such a way within the Anthroposophical Society. And it must be quite clear that from now on relationships within the Anthroposophical Society cannot be built on just any sort of bureaucratization, but rather must be built throughout on humanization. The statutes containing various paragraphs were produced in this way at the Christmas Conference. One must be aware, when one is a member, and must give affirmation to this, or else as described in detail in the statutes, the Executive Council at the Goetheanum must do what it has to do. And the Anthroposophical Society is constituted this way today. It is grounded on human relationships.

It is a small matter, but I must again and again emphasize it, that a membership card has been handed out to each member, signed by myself, so that at least, since at first it is a somewhat abstract matter, it is nevertheless handled with some personal rapport. It would have been quite possible to have had a stamp used with my signature on it. I don't do this, even though it does not lead to equanimity, by and by appending my signature to twelve thousand member-cards, I don't do it, because in reality the most abstract personal relationships would be established, in not having paused for just once, for just a moment, for each individual member, to focus on the name borne on the member's card. And self-understandably, by doing this, all future relationships will be somewhat more humanistic, and will put a mark on the commencement of concrete effective work within our society.

In this regard it must also become clear, I must emphasize this also, it must lie within the awareness of the membership, I emphasize this as otherwise many transgressions will occur, it must lie within the awareness of the membership that when the name General Anthroposophical Society is used, that the affirmation of the Executive Council at the Goetheanum has been obtained first. Even so, if something or other of an esoteric nature is distributed from the Goetheanum in Dornach and broadcast, this should only happen on the basis of an agreement with the Executive Council at the Goetheanum. Therefore, so that nothing will be claimed as going out in the name of the General Anthroposophical Society, that for those of us here, nothing given here as formulation and instructions will be claimed as having been authorized by the Goetheanum, that is, unless an agreement with the Executive Council at the Goetheanum is in place. No abstract relationships will be possible in the future, only concrete relationships. Whatever goes out from the Goetheanum, must have the stamp of approval of the Goetheanum, made in concrete. This is why we need the title "General Anthroposophical Society", for someone may put out something about lectures that may have been held, or about formulations of various sorts given here, someone, as an active member of the Anthroposophical Society, might share a document prepared with the letterhead of the General Anthroposophical Society at the Goetheanum, or from Frau Wegman, and this must give the impression that the Executive Council at the Goetheanum is in agreement. It is really important for the Executive Council at the Goetheanum to be regarded as being at the center of the Anthroposophical Movement in the future.

Now and always, the relationship of this School to the Anthroposophical Society must be held in the consciousness of the membership. Someone may be a member of the Anthroposophical Society, if he has the inner heartfelt drive to get to know, to learn to live with, what goes through the world as anthroposophical ideas of wisdom and impulses of life. One undertakes no other commitment as such, other than taking up with heart and mind what has been bestowed by Anthroposophy itself. Out of this general membership, one can, when the time is right, for now a minimum of two years has been stipulated, one can after a time of having lived within the flow of the membership of the General Anthroposophical Society, one can then seek membership in the School of Spiritual Science.

In coming into this School of Spiritual Science, a person undertakes a really serious commitment to the Society, to anthroposophical endeavors, specifically, in becoming a member, he commits to being in truth a representative of anthroposophical endeavors before the world. This is essential in this day and age. Under any other conditions, the leadership of the School of Spiritual Science cannot readily commit itself to working together with someone as a member.

Do not think that this constitutes a limitation on your freedom, my dear friends. Freedom itself requires that all who here concern themselves with this remain free. And as members of the school can and should be free in this endeavor, so also must the leadership of the school be free, that is, in being able to establish with whom they can and will work, and with whom not. Therefore, when the leadership of the school, for one reason or another, is led to conclude that a member cannot be a true representative of anthroposophical matters before the world, then it must be possible, for instance, if admission is sought, to disapprove the admission, or if admission has already occurred, the person under discussion having already become a member, to say that the membership must be forfeited. This must be adhered to in the future unconditionally in the strictest sense, for through this in actual fact a free working relationship of the leadership of the school with the membership will be ushered in.

As has already been stated in the Members’ Supplement to the Goetheanum News, we are endeavoring step by step to make it possible for those unable to participate at the Goetheanum to take part in some way in the continuing work of the school. In great measure all that was possible would have already been presented, but there has been much to do here since the Christmas Conference, and we can only take the fifth step after the fourth, and not the seventh step after the first. We may look through various newsletters, and in what is released to peripheral members partake of what goes on here in the school. We have already started, and those in the school involved in medical affairs may participate by partaking of the newsletter Frau Dr. Wegman is sending out concerning the work of the school. Gradually other possibilities will emerge and I beg you to be patient in this respect.

The most comprehensive thing yet to be mentioned would be this, that the school in particular must not become attached to a mode of operation stemming from human impulses, but rather to a mode of operation from the side of the spiritual world. A resolution of the spiritual world is to be taken up with whatever means are possible. This School ought to be an institution of the spiritual world for the present day, as has been the case at all times in the mysteries. It must be pronounced today that this school itself must develop, so as to become what it actually can be in our time, a real mystery school. Thereby you will come to be the soul of the Anthroposophical Movement.

Along with this, moreover, it has already been pointed out in what manner the membership of the school is to be attached in earnest to the school. It is self-evident that whatever esoteric work has been going on will be taken into the work of the school. For this School is the fundamental esoteric bedrock and wellspring of all esoteric work within the Anthroposophical Movement. And to this end, various personalities of whatever background, in founding something esoteric in the world, must have the agreement of the Executive Council at the Goetheanum. These personalities must either come into full agreement with the Executive Council at the Goetheanum, or else they cannot in the least allow what emerges from the Goetheanum to flow into their impulses or into their teachings. Whoever seeks to strive esoterically under conditions other than these just mentioned, simply cannot be a member of this School. In this case such a person must be outside of the school, striving esoterically but by this School unrecognized, and he must himself be clear, that such undertakings can incorporate nothing of what wells up within and emanates from this school. Association with the school must be as thoroughly and concretely joined as possible. In this way each member of the School of Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum in Dornach, each and every member, must make clear to himself, that the school must be able to be regarded in such a manner, that a member is actually a true representative of anthroposophical matters before the world, that every single member's exoteric involvement with Anthroposophy is just so, that it is dealt with as a member of the school.

The attempt has certainly been made at the Goetheanum, in the event of my no longer being in a leadership position, no longer being the President of the Anthroposophical Society, for the school to develop in a fashion similar to other schools. Solely by means of interpersonal relationships that will not be possible. Here one finds real esoteric substance, which just cannot be found in any other school. And of course, no attempt will be made to rush into some sort of concordance with schools of the world, but rather what should begin at once, is to bring up questions, whenever an honorably searching person of today, from some area of life or another, comes upon this substance, questions that just cannot be answered outside of the esoteric.

It must be so in the future, especially for members. It is simply the way it is, for with the Christmas Conference something actually occurred, and this occurrence must be taken seriously. It has occurred, and in the future, because initiatives ought to be disseminated from this site, from the Goetheanum, in fulfilling its mission, it must be taken most seriously, it must be maintained unconditionally as a standard in fulfilling its mission, it must be crystal clear, and in the future in all the falderal attended to by members of the School it must be hearkened to, and again and again attention must be drawn back to it, in order to have a firm yet free acquaintanceship with it, which is by name, that I am present as a representative of Anthroposophy that flows forth from the Goetheanum. Whoever does not do this with a will, whoever cannot take this up again and again in an unconstrained free and easy manner, mulling over Anthroposophy quietly until after quite some time being prepared, striving in some manner or another along the lines of this policy, whoever believes that he will progress by first disavowing us in order then to be led back to us, usually does not really return to us, and should rather just give up his school membership at once. Membership in the School in the future, I can assure you, will be taken most seriously. I believe that for the various members of the school who henceforth really take up Anthroposophy with a will, taking it up not just for any reason, but taking Anthroposophy up in their work, taking up Anthroposophy in their work in the manner of holding it dear in their hearts, that it will lead again and again to the following phrase coming to mind, that one should approach people with Anthroposophy not just as immediately present and obvious. It must be communicated, by mouth or in some other fashion, in such a way that people can choose merely to remain within their own point of view outside of the school.

All this is what I must once more set out before you. And it had to be mentioned here today, because there are many, many friends of Anthroposophy who until now have not taken part in the work of this School. And specifically, because so many friends are here today who are new to the Class, we have had to wait awhile to start the lesson, we also, before the lesson has even begun, have had to attend to this preamble, which is, in a certain sense, an introduction to today's lesson. I will be holding a second lesson, the date of which is still to be determined, but no other friends will be able to attend this second lesson, other than those who are here today. Also, I will ask any others, who may be coming later, to be patient. Essentially, we cannot accomplish anything, when each time, whenever a lesson is held here, if ever and again new members arrive. With today's lesson we must be considered ourselves fulfilled with those actually in possession of memberships at this time. Certainly, one can become a member, although at the next lesson only those can take part, who are also already in such a position today. Yes, only those will be in this day's continuation.

Well, I would like here and now to begin the declamation, but at first please take note of this, that initially you are merely witnessing the mantric formulation as a reference to what initially emerged throughout time in the mysteries, and then by way of the outgoing mysteries from there hence unto the stars, as the imprinted script unto the entire cosmos, and into human souls, resounding in human hearts, resounding as the great clarion call to human beings, to strive after a real insight, a real knowing of one's self. The clarion call is this, "O Man, know yourself!" It resounds out of the entire cosmos.

As we gaze out to the resting stars, to those stars that in especially significant script stand in the zodiac, to those resting stars which through their gathering together in certain forms bring to expression the great cosmic script, then for one who understands this writing, there will initially be inscribed the contents of the Word of Worlds "O Man, know yourself!"

As one gazes out upon those, that as wandering stars journey along their ways, initially the sun and the moon, although also the other wandering stars, among which are the sun and the moon, then may be revealed, wrapped into the journeying paths of these wandering stars, as also in the forms of the resting stars, the content of the world-strengthening, soul-daunting Word of Worlds, and just so in the movement of the heart’s-, the heart’s world-content, the contents of one’s innermost nature.

And we take part through what we experience in the elements around about us out in the circumference of the earth, as well as experiencing them through our skin, through our senses, through having them nearby us, moving in us, and acting in our own bodies as Earth, Water, Fire, Air, through all that will the impulse of willing be embossed in the following words.

In this way we may allow the Word of Worlds to be intoned to human beings, to work on our souls by means of these mantric words:

O Man, know yourself!
So sounds the word of worlds.

You hear it soul-forcefully,
You feel it spirit-powerfully.

Who speaks so world-mightily?
Who speaks so heart-inwardly?

Does it work streaming through space
Into your sense’s self-experiencing?

Does it sound weaving through time
Into your life's evolving stream?

Are you the one, who yourself
In sensing space, in experiencing time
Creates the word, feeling yourself
Estranged in in space’s soul-emptiness,
As you lose the power of thinking
In time’s destroying stream?

My dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, nothing is known but what flows forth from the spiritual world. Whatever passes as knowing by mankind, but is neither fathomed from what emerges from the spiritual world, nor is shared by those who are able to quest within the spiritual world, is not real knowing. The human being must be clear about this, when he gazes around about the world, gazing in the realms of nature at the things that present themselves in color upon color, at the things that are revealed radiant and resplendent, at the things living overhead in the beaming stars, at the things presenting themselves in the warmth of the sun, and at the things that sprout forth out of the earth. In all of these things there is sublimity, grandeur, beauty, and the fullness of wisdom. And a person would be greatly in error, if he were to blithely pass by this beauty, sublimity, enormity, and fullness of wisdom. The person must, when an esoteric wishes to press on with him into real knowing, he must also have a sense of whatever is around about himself in the world, an open, free sense. For during the time between birth and death, during his earthly existence, he is obliged to draw his forces out of the forces of the earth, to carry out his work within the forces of the earth.

But so true it is, that the person certainly must take part in all that is around him in color after color, tone after tone, warmth after warmth, star after star, cloud after cloud, creature after creature in the external realm, so true it is, that the person looks there around about at all of the abundance, grandeur, sublimity, fullness of wisdom, and beauty imparted to him through the senses, and can nowhere find anything, of what he himself is. Directly then, as he has a real sense of the sublimity, beauty, and grandeur in his surroundings in life on earth, then he will immediately take notice, that nowhere to be found in this light, bright realm of earth is the innermost source of his own existence. It is elsewhere. And having a full, inward appreciation of this, this brings the person to the point of seeking an opening into the state of awareness in which he can grapple with what we call the threshold to the spiritual world. This threshold, that lies immediately before an abyss, this must be approached, and when there it must be remembered, that in all that surrounds a person on the earth in earthly existence between birth and death, the fountainhead of what it is to be a human being is not to be found.

Then one must know that on this threshold stands a spirit-form that is called the Guardian of the Threshold. This Guardian of the Threshold is concerned in a way for the welfare of the person, that the person does not come unprepared, without having thoroughly lived with and taken deep into his soul the things that I have already spoken about, that the man does not approach this threshold unprepared.

However then, when the person in all seriousness is really prepared for spiritual knowing, and it may be that he acquires it in clairvoyant consciousness, or it may be that he acquires it through healthy common sense, for in keeping informed both are possible. Whichever is the case, whether knowing about or seeing the Guardian of the Threshold, just then is it possible, that the Guardian of the Threshold may really reach out with a guiding hand and allow the person to look out over the abyss. There, where the person seeks his inner being’s true condition, his actual origin, lying there initially, however, on that side of the threshold, is uttermost darkness.

My dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, we seek light, in order to see the origins of our own human essence in the light. Darkness however spreads out at first. The light that we seek must stream out of the darkness. And it streams out of the darkness only when we become aware of how the three fundamental impulses of our individual soul-life, namely thinking, feeling, and willing, are held together here in life on earth through our physical body. In physical earth existence thinking, feeling, and willing are bound together.

If I were to draw it bundled together schematically, I would draw it first with thinking [yellow], then with feeling [green] extending over into thinking, and then with willing [red] extending over into feeling. In this way the three are bound together in earthly existence.

The person must learn at heart that the three may separate from one another. And he will learn this when he steadfastly, more and more, takes the meditations recommended by this School as the forceful content of his life of soul. He will notice that it starts to happen. [It was once again drawn on the board.] Thinking [yellow] will become free, cast loose from its union with feeling, as will his feeling [green], as will his willing [red]. For the person learns to perceive without his physical body.

The physical body had been holding thinking, feeling, and willing together, drawn together into one another. [Around the first drawing an oval was drawn.] Here [by the second drawing of thinking, feeling, and willing] the physical body is not at hand.

Gradually, through the meditations that he receives here from the school, the person begins to feel himself outside of his body, and he comes into that state of being in which whatever the world is, for him will be the self, and whatever self was, for him will be the world. As we stand here on the earth in our earthly existence, we feel ourselves as human beings, we say, in that we become inwardly aware, that this is my heart, these are my lungs, this is my liver, this is my mouth. The various things that we call our organs, called by us our human organization, we label as our own. And we identify around about, there is the sun, there is the moon, there are the stars, the clouds, a tree, a stream. We denote these various things as being external to us, as we are bound up in our organs. We are quite distinct from those things that we identify externally as the sun, the moon, the stars, and so forth.

When we have prepared our soul sufficiently, so that we are able to perceive without the body, that is, distinct from the body, in the spirit-all, then a directly opposite awareness commences. We speak then of the sun as we speak here in earth existence of our heart, namely, that is my heart. We speak of the moon as that which forms my character. We speak of the clouds in a manner similar to speaking of our hair on earth. We call our organism all of what was a part of the whole surrounding world for the earthly man. And we identify outwardly, look there, a human heart, a human lung, a human liver, they are objective, they are the world. And as we here as men and women look out toward the sun and moon, as we gaze about in a physical body, so do we gaze about from the perspective of the world-all, in which the sun and moon and stars and clouds and streams and mountains are in us, and we look out at the person, who is our external world. The difficulty is only in the relationship of space. And this difficulty will be overcome.

And we may be sure, that as soon as we step out with our thinking out of our physical body, this thinking is at one with all that reveals itself in the resting stars. As we call our brain here, that it serves as the workhorse of our thinking, so do we begin to appreciate the resting stars, namely the resting stars of the zodiac, as our brain, when we are out there in the world and then gaze down upon the man external to us.

And those things that revolve as wandering stars, we perceive as just what our force of feeling is. Our power of feeling moves then in the coursing of the sun, the moon, in the coursing of the other wandering stars. Yes, between what we experience as thinking in the resting stars, and feeling, is the sun within ourselves [Between yellow and green on the second drawing, the sign of the sun was placed.] And between feeling and willing lies the moon, which we feel as being within ourselves. [Between green and red the sign of the moon was placed.] And quite simply, in meditating on these figures, lying within these figures is the force, ever more and more, for us to approach a spiritual perspective. One may come to this only when the substance of what I speak, of what I articulate here with these words, can actually be inwardly experienced, namely going out and beyond the physical body, extending oneself out over the cosmos, feeling the members of the cosmos, sun and moon, stars, and so forth, as one's own organs, and looking back at the person as being in the external world.

Dear friends, dear brothers and sisters, the thinking that people practice here on the earth between birth and death is just a corpse. It is not living. What a person otherwise likes to dwell on endlessly in his head about beauty, sublimity, and grandeur about the physical world in his vicinity, these thoughts do not live. But in pre-earthly existence they were living. They were living, these thoughts, before we descended into the physical world, while we were still living as beings of soul and spirit in the soul-spiritual world. Thoughts such as we have here upon the earth were full of life there, and our physical body is the grave in which the dead world of thoughts is buried, when we descend down upon the earth. And here we carry the thought-corpses within us. And with the thought-corpses, not with fully living thoughts, we think about what is in our sensory surroundings here upon the earth. But before our descent down into this physical world, there was active in us fully alive thinking.

My dear friends, one only needs, ever again and forever, with all of one's inner power and force, to thoroughly absorb this truth within. One comes to the point of developing in one's awareness a certainty that it is so. One learns to know the person as such. One learns to know him, so that one can gaze upon him, and say, there is the human head. [An outline of a head was drawn.] This human head is the base and the bearer for earthly corpse-thinking. They sprout forth, [It was drawn as an elongated form down to the right.] these thoughts, but dead, overlaid upon what has been taken in through the eyes, taken in through the ears, through the sense of warmth, taken in through other senses. This is how we regard thinking, in reference to the earth.

But gradually we learn to penetrate through this thinking. Behind it in the spirit-cell of the human head, there still reverberates true, living thinking, the thinking in which we lived before we descended into the physical world. As one gazes at a person, then most certainly one gazes initially at his dead thinking [Drawn as a red part of the head.]. But behind this dead thinking, in the head's spirit-cell, is living thinking. [Drawn as a yellow part of the head.] And this living thinking has brought along the primal force to construct our brain. The brain is not the producer of thinking, but rather the product of pre-birth living thinking.

And so, if one were to gaze with the proper awareness behind what the person reveals in the superficiality of his head's earthly dead thinking, looking into what is behind the spirit-cell, then one might gaze upon the living thinking which certainly is there. This is similar to an act of will coming to one's attention, willing as such in the human musculoskeletal system, for it is certainly there in us, but sleeping. We simply don’t know how a thought goes down, when it has the intention, the will, to make this or that happen in our muscles and elsewhere. Looking at what lives in us as willing, we behold willing in the spirit-cell as the thinking that lies behind sensually aligned thinking. However, the willing we behold there, which we are becoming aware of as thinking, is the creative force for our thinking-organ. There this thinking is no longer just human-thinking, there this thinking is world-thinking.

Understanding a person in this way, somehow being able to look behind earthly thinking, to the thinking which first made the foundation for earthly thinking in the brain, this allows sensual thinking to be cast off into the worldly void, and what emerges as an act of will is eternal thinking.

All of this brings us into the state of mind, within which we can allow the mantric words to work in us.

Look² behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkened³ spirit cell
Willing ascends from bodily depths;
Through the strength of your soul
Let dead thinking flow into worldly void.
And the will, it shall arise
As world-thought-creating.

The imagination must gradually stand before you, my dear friends, the imagination that from the top of your head are streaming out the dead thoughts that are aligned with the sensory world. Behind this lies true thinking, at first merely as darkness, shining behind and through the sensory thinking, the true thinking that actually configured the brain, into which a person descends out of the spiritual world into the physical. It is however a sort of willing. And one sees, then, how willing ascends from a person [A few white lines were drawn from below upward.], spreading out then in the head, and then becoming world-thoughts, because what lives in willing as thinking, is even now world-thinking.

Toward this end one seeks ever more fully to understand, ever more inwardly to grasp, and ever more and more to bring to an inner anchorage the mantric thoughts which one places within the soul, with these words, in the following way. [The first stanza was written on the board.]

Look behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkened spirit cell

Please note that one must gaze behind the thinking. [Behind was underscored.]

Willing ascends from bodily depths;

Now one must be strong in soul, to allow the customary sensory thoughts to be cast off.

Through the strength of your soul
Let dead thinking flow into worldly void.
And the will, it shall arise
As world-thought-creating.

In these seven lines is contained most certainly the secret of human-thinking in its connection with the world-all.

One must not make a pretense of this, in just grappling with these things with the intellect. One must allow these things to live as meditations in the heart's depth. And these words have strength. They are constructed harmonically. Thinking, willing, worldly-void, willing, and world-thought creating [These words were underlined on the board.] are joined together here in an inner organization of thought, so that they can work effectively upon imaginative awareness.

Even as we can look behind the human head, the human head becoming a mediator in gazing into world-thought creating, so may we glance behind the human heart, as the representation, the physical representation, the imaginative representation of the human soul. Even as thinking is the abstract representation of the human spirit, so may we glance behind the human heart, as the representation of feeling. Even so we can gaze into feeling as it is related to the ways of earth in human earthly existence between birth and death. We can gaze into feeling, although here not behind feeling, but rather within feeling [drawing, a yellow oval]. Then, just as we may discern world-thought-creating behind spirit-cell-thinking, so we may grasp in feeling, the representation of the heart, we may truthfully grasp in feeling, streaming through feeling, something that goes in and out of a person from the entire cosmos. World-living is what we truly grasp, world-living that in men and women becomes human-soul-living.

As it must stand there [in the first verse], "behind thinking's sensory light," so must it now be called, "into feeling's" in the second mantra, which must become harmonically interwoven together with the first.

Look into feeling's wafting of soul,
How in the diminishment of dreams
Living streams from world afar;
Through calm of heart in sleep
Let human feeling waft away;
And world living shall come alive
As human-being’s-power.

[The second stanza was now written on the board.]

Look into feeling's wafting of soul,
How in the diminishment of dreams

Feeling is merely a waking dream. Feelings are not so well known to a person as are thoughts. They become known to him as the builder of dreams. In such manner are feelings dreams while awake. And just so are they called.

Look into feeling's wafting of soul,
How in the diminishment of dreams

Living

Here [in the first verse] "willing" streams out of body's depths, although here streaming out of world distance into soul-weaving is "living." [The word living was underlined, and the mantric line was continued.]

streams from world afar;

[In the drawing four horizontal arrows were made.]

Now similarly, as here [in the first verse], thinking should be cast out through strength of soul into the world-void, we now allow feeling’s dreams to waft away, in order, however, to discern in feeling's fabric of soul, what streams in as world living. When feeling's dreams fully fade away in sleep, when the individual human feeling ceases, then moving within a person is world-living.

Living streams from world afar;

[The writing was continued.]

Through calm of heart in sleep

Here [in the first verse] we need strength of soul; here [in the second verse] we need complete inner peace in sleep to allow feeling's dreams to fade away, and for heavenly world-living to stream into the human soul.

Through calm of heart in sleep

[The writing was continued, and the words "waft away", "world living", and human-being's-power" were underlined.]

Let human feeling waft away;
And world-living shall come alive
As human-being’s-power.

In these seven lines is the whole secret of human feeling, how out of the unity into the trinity, it can itself contain self-understanding.

Even so we can gaze out upon the human limbs, in which willing manifests. There, when we gaze out upon these human limbs, in which willing manifests, [On the drawing, a white arrow was drawn up in elongated form.], there we cannot say "look behind" or "look into", there we must say, "look over," for thinking streams down from the head in willing. In customary awareness a person is not able to observe it, but streaming from the head into the limbs are thoughts, in order that willing can work in the limbs.

Then, however, when we observe willing working in the limbs, when we see in every arm movement, when we see in every leg movement, how the stream of willing streams, then we will also be aware, how in this willing a secret thinking lives, a thinking that grasps earthly existence immediately. Yes, it has been laid in the foundation of our being from earlier lives on earth, that just there, through the limbs, earthly existence is grasped, apprehended, so that through this apprehension we have present existence. Thinking sinks down into the limbs. And when we see it in the willful movement of the limbs, how it sinks down of its own accord, this thinking, then we may catch a glimpse of thinking in willing. [On the drawing, red was drawn downwards in elongated form.]

As we gaze out with the soul, it otherwise would be concealed from us, how thinking lives in arms, in hands, in legs, in feet, and in toes, and then we must see that this thinking is actually light. It streams, thinking as light streams through arms and hands, through legs and toes. And by itself it transforms willing, which otherwise lives in the limbs as sleeping willing. It transforms willing, and thinking appears as willing’s magical essence, which is transferred into a person from an earlier life on earth, carried by the spirit, into the present life on earth.

Look over willing’s bodily working,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from forces of head;
Through soul-viewing brought to light
Let human willing be transformed;
And thinking, it shall appear
As willing’s-magical-essence.

It is a sort of conjuring, it is effective, magical, this unseen thinking in the limb's willing. A person begins to understand when he knows that thoughts, because we sleep in the will, that thoughts, even when not apparent in willing, are magically effective in the limbs as willing. And he begins to understand true magic, a magic that at first appears as thoughts, that lives through arms and hands, through legs and toes. [The third stanza was written on the board, during which the words "thinking", "transformed", "thinking", and "willing’s-magical-essence" were underlined.]

Look over willing’s bodily working,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from forces of head;
Through soul-viewing brought to light
Let human willing be transformed;
And thinking, it shall appear
As willing’s-magical-essence.

And in this is the secret of human willing, how such willing, formed out of the world-all, works magically, is contained in human beings.

And so, my dear friends, my dear brothers and sisters, we will observe this as a foundation, for the time still to be announced, when I will build further upon this foundation. We will observe this as a foundation, using it in meditation, as we allow the mantric words ever and ever again to be drawn through the soul.

Look behind thinking's sensory light,
How in the darkened spirit-cell
Willing ascends from bodily depths;
Through the strength of your soul
Let dead thinking flow into worldly void.
And the will, it shall arise
As world-thought-creating.

Look into feeling's wafting of soul,
How in the diminishment of dreams
Living streams from world afar;
Through calm of heart in sleep
Let human feeling waft away;
And world-living shall come alive
As human-being’s-power.

Look over willing’s bodily working,
How in sleeping fields of work
Thinking descends from forces of head;
Through soul-viewing brought to light
Let human willing be transformed;
And thinking, it shall appear
As willing’s-magical-essence.

• 1. der Vorstand
• 2. One may say Sieh in German, but in English one does not say “See over there,” or “see into your heart,” but rather “look over there,” or “look into your heart.”
• 3. Finstren is one of two variants of the uninflected comparative form of the adjective “dark” (finster). As this adjective is also sometimes inflected in German, meaning the ending of the word changes to express a grammatical function or attribute, it is confusing to translate, but a new ominous word such as darkling should not be invented. Dark or darkened seem to capture the meaning.

Morning Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at 9 am.

Address by Dr. Rudolf Steiner

My dear friends! After the way our meeting went on the first two days, I felt compelled yesterday to give a few guidelines — as I already said: out of my concern for the further course of the negotiations. Because today we have to come to a positive result, and it must not be the case that our dear friends who have traveled to this assembly of delegates leave tonight in the same way as they arrived on Sunday. We must arrive at a positive result. I tried to say what I said based on the reality that emerged from the negotiations. We must always take things as they appear in reality, and our present reality is what emerged from the negotiations over the past two days. We could not come to this meeting with a finished program, because then we would not have needed to meet. Otherwise, some program could have been worked out and sent to each individual, and that would have been the end of it. The point is that these negotiations are to be taken seriously and that every member of this assembly is to have a say through the delegates.

Now it has become clear that, quite apart from smaller groups, two main groups have emerged in the membership and that it is quite hopeless to expect these main groups to agree on an absolutely common program.

I will start with a completely different point to show how things really are. At the beginning of my lecture yesterday, I said: In the two decades of the Anthroposophical Society's life, something has been experienced. The Anthroposophical Society is not something that can be newly founded, something that can be spoken of as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But that is how someone who has only recently joined must speak. That can be extremely good, but it is spoken from a different point of view. I had to experience this life of the Anthroposophical Society from my point of view. And for this experience of mine, the shades that emerged in the last two years were very sharply present. How were they present? You see, my dear friends, when I came to Stuttgart, I met the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society here. That is how the really experienced circumstances had unfolded. When I came here, I came for certain reasons, there were intentions to be carried out, purposes to be carried out. When I spoke here in Stuttgart with someone who had been involved in his work here for many years, then, so to speak, I only needed to press a button and in a few minutes what I had to say was done. They understood me, they knew the needs of the Anthroposophical Society. For example: a Waldorf school teacher is immersed in his subject for a long time, because he was already immersed in education from an anthroposophical point of view before he became a Waldorf school teacher. The mistake was not that I was not understood in Stuttgart – most people assume that. I was understood – it was just that what was understood was not carried out. But that is what is needed. Of course, I do not have the time to explain all this in detail. I will explain why there is no time for that in my lecture today.

So on the one hand, here in Stuttgart, people who are really well informed and strengthened by the experience are immediately understood. In terms of understanding, everything goes like clockwork. These are the old, good members who have developed a kind of intuitive genius for anthroposophical matters. In this respect, everything is in order. And I only had to make the effort to find the committee myself, after weeks of back and forth negotiations, to tell us how it wants to find the bridge from easy understanding to the will! Therefore, my appeal to this committee is to finally tell us what it actually wants.

It was not right, how the essentials were misunderstood. It seemed grotesque to me when, out of complete ignorance of the circumstances, a proposal was put forward that we should now, in the midst of all the unfinished business, start to elect a new central committee. How impossible that is, will be understandable when I now characterize the other party.

You see, the following is quite natural: when I negotiate with someone, be it a group or an individual coming on behalf of a group, at first they understand nothing of what I say. That is quite natural — they understand nothing of it, absolutely nothing! But there is an infinite amount of activity, an infinite amount of goodwill. Anything that has not been understood will be done immediately! The speeches of those coming from outside are imbued with the noblest anthroposophical intentions. But one must grow into the old history, one must become familiar with all the details! And no matter how long these two groups may say to each other: We have the best will to grow together, they will not come together, they will always talk past each other. Do not think that I am only referring to the Youth Group. There are very old members of the Anthroposophical Society who are in the same situation. They do everything I say — but they do what has not been understood. Now we are faced with the truly worrying necessity of nevertheless continuing the Society in absolute inner solidarity and solidity. This can only be done if we find a form for it in which both groupings can flourish; in other words, if the old Anthroposophical Society continues to exist in accordance with our principles, and in such a way that it is led first by the committee of nine, which was not brought about as a mere [*] See note on p. 571.

was brought about not as a mere matter of necessity, but also arose out of historical circumstances. So that which has become historical must be carried forward historically. And the others will form a loose association, regardless of whether they are old or young, ninety-five or fifteen years old, whether they are Waldorf students or senior citizens – they are still members of the Anthroposophical Society – so that they then have an inner esoteric connection according to the karmic connections of these or those members, so to speak. Something definite will come out of this loose association. The group that represents history will have to indicate, from its experiences, which are abundant, what it and each individual wants to do next. But those who form the loose association will initially form this loose association by saying to themselves: We are genuine, true anthroposophists – these are often the youngest ones – and we will now continue to seek a form for our work. They don't need to come to any kind of election or the like right away; they will try to bring their loose association so far that we can then create the binding link between the two.

After our negotiations ended yesterday, I was asked at 12 o'clock [at night] to come to another meeting at Landhausstraße 70. At the end of the meeting, the objection was raised: We have seen that those who represent the old society, which has its leading figures here in Stuttgart, cannot properly relate to the individual institutions and enterprises from an anthroposophical point of view. Those who do not agree with this now, certainly not! If that were the case, these enterprises would be a complete failure and would have no following. I said that if that were the case, then the desirable state would have been reached, because the abstract desire to help is worth nothing. A healthy state will only come about if the enterprises here in Stuttgart – I do not mean this ironically – are left alone with good advice. The mistake made by the departments was that they always talked about the enterprises and not about the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society in relation to the enterprises. The enterprises as such are either in order or not in order. The eurythmy enterprise is in order, the Waldorf school is in order, the Kommende Tag is in order. The Federation for a Free Spiritual Life, however, is not in order. But a federation for a free spiritual life will not be founded out of this assembly; nor, my dear friends, will the two magazines ¹ can be edited by this meeting. The point at issue is that the Stuttgart undertakings must be left alone. One can have confidence in them, and there is no question of the personalities who are in these institutions being tested for trustworthiness. Every day at the Waldorf School, for example, shows that the Waldorf School has excellent leadership. We are here to talk about what the Anthroposophical Society should become in the future. The point is that we proceed in such a positive way - I ask you to discuss my proposal - that all those who can feel: are not connected historically with the time when one only had to press the pen for their joint work within the whole of anthroposophy, will find such a form that has lasting value. Then there will be absolutely no need for the concern, which can be formulated something like this: What will the old Society do with the enterprises if the young do not participate? The loose association will take an interest if – forgive the ugly word – it is organized the way they want it. Then interest will awaken. I would like a form to be found within which real interest can exist.

That, my dear friends, is what it is about: not a division into two groups, but a classification so that those who are familiar with the things that need to be present can actually continue to prevail in their way, but without disturbing the others, and so that both groups can work together in harmony. You can't try to bring them together. They will never talk to each other, but they will work together splendidly. Everyone must do what they are good at and are predisposed to do. So we actually come to find a way for society to continue to exist.

I would like to mention a grotesque fact again and again. The Federation for Threefolding has had three heads in succession.² The first head — as I have already briefly explained — remained until I declared: I can no longer participate. The second main person was someone who, when working in the right place, worked extraordinarily well; this was demonstrated in many places within the Anthroposophical Society. I had not been there for a long time when I came back. A meeting was taking place with the leadership of the Federation for Threefolding. I asked what had happened, and I was told: We have created a card index of such and such slips of paper; all the newspaper clippings are here and there; then we have larger slips of thicker paper, and then there are all the opposing articles; and then we have other slips of paper that are thinner and can be folded, with the indentations and so on. So I finally said: Yes, but my dear friends, I don't want to know what you have in your card catalogs. Don't you also have heads? I don't want to deal with card catalogs, but with heads. — The heads were not absent, but they were eliminated, and a card catalog was placed opposite me.

They laugh at it! In a sense, it's not even funny.

Those who are thinking of realizing a more original form of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society, of being in a union of smaller groups in which they are not constrained, will be able to live it up. And that is what matters first. I do hope that in this way we will get to the point where everyone knows which group they belong to. Then it can continue, then the loose union can form, can give itself a head in such a free or unfree way as it wants. A connecting link can then be created — not between the two Anthroposophical Societies, but between the brothers, the two groups of the unified Anthroposophical Society. But we will have to discuss that, my dear friends. I just threw that in as a guideline.

On behalf of the nine-member board, which has now taken the place of the old central board, Dr. Unger makes the following statement:

1. Mr. Uehli has definitively left the old central board.
2. The other two members of the central board have co-opted the members of the committee and are willing to co-opt further individuals to form an extended board.
3. These individuals on the committee are willing to take over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society as the new board.
4. The members of the new executive council residing in Stuttgart will take over the administration of the Society's affairs.
5. They will assume particular responsibility, together with the leading figures of the institutions founded in Stuttgart, for the proper integration of these foundations into the Anthroposophical Society.

The new leadership of the Society has set itself the following guidelines:

1. The leadership will feel responsible for ensuring that the life of the anthroposophical movement as a whole is led into all parts of the Society. This includes reports on lectures, research and the fruits of anthroposophical work. A newsletter as the organ of the Society should serve these purposes.

2. The leadership of the Society will feel responsible for ensuring that the individual creative powers in the Society can develop and that the personalities involved in the work feel supported by the interest that the Society takes in their work.

For both tasks, the leadership relies on trusted personalities in the sense of the draft principles of an Anthroposophical Society.

The Executive Council hopes to find support for the affairs of the Society and help in carrying out its tasks in a body of trusted individuals to be formed.

The following tasks are among the objectives that the Anthroposophical Society has set itself in accordance with the draft principles: cultivation of universal anthroposophical life — development and cultivation of anthroposophical community — imparting of anthroposophical teachings to the outside world — introduction and continuation — study groups — organization of defense against opponents - focusing the work on the future.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Our group is still in the process of coming into being, and it is therefore clear that we cannot come up with a program at the beginning of this process. That is quite impossible. So I can only give you a very brief description of how we actually view this whole undertaking, so to speak, from within. The starting point is that what we see as anthroposophical striving for development has not been realized in the narrow-mindedness of the Anthroposophical Society, so that we were initially in a position where we could not communicate at all and were the impetus for what could have ultimately led the Society into chaos yesterday. When Dr. Steiner suggested dividing the Society into two societies because of the two different directions of will, we were shocked by this conclusion. But then we realized that it was precisely through this structure that harmony in society could arise again. So we are very grateful to Dr. Steiner for helping us to find a way to continue our own anthroposophical development without having to contribute to the creation of such chaos, an atomization of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, it is now a matter of us having to try to assert our own developmental conditions in a certain independence from what has become the historical society. But it is self-evident for us – if we now have the opportunity to grow further as anthroposophists – that the fruits of this development must then benefit the whole anthroposophical movement. That the development of the Anthroposophical Society will then have its strongest supporters in us, and that we are convinced from the outset that we need the individual institutions, the publishing house, the institute and so on, but that we can bring our development to fruition better with a certain independence, with a certain distance.

If older members of society sympathize with us, then it is quite natural for us that these “young people” can also include those who are ninety-five years old, as Dr. Steiner said. For example, it is perfectly possible, according to this view, for one and the same person to be actively involved in both branches of anthroposophy, and every member of the older friends can work with us. We want to be completely free in this, depending on whether people come together out of human or anthroposophical impulses.

For us, this actually anthroposophical aspect is such that this difference between age and youth, which has often complicated the debate in a highly philistine way, does not exist. The fact is that I myself am older than some of those who did not get on with the youth. So from this side it can be said that, with regard to the danger of further disintegration and fragmentation, we are convinced that this danger does not exist. It is part of a basic impulse that there must be no difference whatsoever in age, status or occupation, that for us these things are so entwined with the anthroposophical that we would immediately become untruthful if we were to make any distinction in this regard. We must see to it that we introduce anthroposophical truthfulness.

We can try to work from these developmental possibilities to strive for a certain connection that will then lead to a free organization. But that is not really the first concern, nor what this connecting link to the old society will look like. I am thoroughly convinced that these things will arise of themselves, if, on the one hand, the Anthroposophical Society can continue to work out of its own developmental conditions, undisturbed by an opposition that cannot help it and thus does not help itself either, and if, on the other hand, the youth group can also develop according to its own nature. Then this connection will come about of its own accord, because after all, we are aware of both sides: they are anthroposophists and we are anthroposophists. Thus the connecting link, as whose representative Dr. Steiner is here, is present.

From the points of view presented by Dr. Steiner, Dr. Unger and myself, the discussion could now be continued in a truly friendly and objective manner and take on a completely different character from yesterday's. It would be necessary for us to stick to the good starting points and persevere with what we have begun as a positive path shown to us by Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, talks about the formation of a trust organization ³ and warns against letting it develop in a bureaucratic way. A real trust organization must form itself through living relationships. The minimum is the right of the trusted personalities to propose members for admission to the society. In addition, the most diverse relationships must arise between the society's board and the trusted personalities. The board must have the opportunity to work with very different personalities as trusted persons in different matters. The trusted personalities should be appointed by the board, not elected by the members, but they should be trusted by the members. In principle, the matter of the trusted organization is already regulated in a comprehensive way by the “principles”. On the basis of these principles, the relationship with the youth group can also be organized in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

When approaching such a matter as the creation of a trust organization, one must be careful not to fall into a sense of optimism. We have to go back to what was given at the starting point of the Anthroposophical Society when it was founded as a draft of the principles. There we find exactly how a trust organization must be managed.

For example, one might think that a person of trust can be appointed by one member being proposed to that effect by seven others. The persons of trust have to provide a guarantee when members register. That is, so to speak, the minimum of what the persons of trust would have to do; beyond that, the organization of the persons of trust would have to be built up. I now believe that it is important that we do not appoint trusted personalities in some theoretical way, but that such an organization is formed out of the work. The starting point would be that trusted personalities are proposed and the Central Committee recognizes these personalities. Then a basis is created for admitting members, and the relationship of trust must begin to develop. This must now arise out of the work that the Central Committee and the trusted individuals thus appointed do. It cannot be a matter of the Central Committee saying yes and amen to everything, but it must satisfy itself that it can take responsibility. Of course, it is easy to find seven people whom one does not know at all and thus bring in trusted individuals who are not really trusted at all. We cannot work only from the bottom up in the Anthroposophical Society; we must also work from the top down. This must not be forgotten, otherwise we will end up with a kind of democracy or Bolshevism.

Then there is the question of a trusting, lively interaction. But both parts belong to this. Good will must be shown by both the leadership and the members.

Furthermore, Dr. Steiner must be relieved of the enterprises, but not dismissed. Dr. Steiner has often said the same thing over the years, and it was not heard. And finally today we are coming to the realization that we actually have to do what Dr. Steiner said years ago. I could show you this with practical examples. If he is heard, then he gets by with very little time, and we have our hands full implementing it. For the rest, they have to say to themselves: We should not interfere in the enterprises. What kind of advice do you think I received in the first place regarding commitments? Everyone should say to themselves: Not what should the others do, but what should I do?

Mr. Leinhas reports that there are about 55 requests to speak and some written communications.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Now that it has been made clear that such a division is not a “split” but an “outline,” I would like to say that I do not want to hold on to what I have said about it.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, emphasizes the necessity of young people working together with old people.

Count Hermann Keyserling, Koberwitz near Breslau: The depression that has probably weighed on all of us has given way to a joyful feeling when Dr. Steiner kindly helped us out of our plight. Speaker thanks the committee of nine for the selflessness with which they have undertaken such a great task as the preparation of this conference. Speaker moves that the discussion should not continue, but that a vote should be taken on the committee of nine's program.

Mr. Otto Coppel, Edenkoben, says that the management has not made it sufficiently clear what it wants. Therefore, the attempt to break up the meeting the day before yesterday, as nonsensical as it was, was only natural. Now, before voting, the program should be discussed.

Now a procedural debate is taking place as to whether a vote should be taken or whether the discussion should continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: We are in danger of going in the wrong direction. We are all anthroposophists and differ only in the way we have become so; the question is not whether we should vote or continue the discussion, but I would like to make the following suggestion: Now that the direction for further development has been set, it would be necessary for a number of people to step forward and say: I believe that this and that is the right thing, and I think it is good for the following reasons.

Mrs. Emma von Staudt, Munich, emphasizes that one should not overlook the tremendous amount of self-criticism and self-knowledge that has been practiced from within. It will be difficult to live with two families under the same roof. Therefore, she would like to make a tactical suggestion for living together. If the three different directions: art, science and religion were represented more, without prejudice to the actual leadership of the branches, this coexistence would be easier.

Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart: It is not a matter of voting on whether to join the old or the new society, but rather of recognizing that things have become so and that we can only continue within the Anthroposophical Society if we now work on the one hand in the way history has developed, and on the other hand in the way that seems right to those for whom Dr. Büchenbacher has just spoken. It was mentioned earlier that individual parts of society do not understand each other with other parts. It seems to me that this cannot be the case, they do understand each other. But it would depend on whether it would be expressed as strongly and from as many sides as possible, to what extent they can understand each other very well, how they can establish a connection with the institutions and an understanding for these institutions among the members. It seems to me to be very necessary that it not be expressed simply through silence: yes, now it is just so, we agree with it, but that this agreement be expressed through speeches. It would be necessary to speak very briefly about how one understands the whole matter, how one believes one can work within this so-divided society.

Of course, one or two things could be said about Dr. Unger's program, but it seems to me that the important thing is not to discuss the program, but to implement it.

At the request of the chairman, the assembly unanimously approves the program.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, points out that a relatively large amount has been achieved in Hamburg; he speaks of a “Hamburg system” based on the activation of the human being. The personalities here have earned antipathy as well as sympathy because the “activation of the human being” has not happened. However, he has already found some things in the work of the committee that go in this direction. He said that he would do whatever lay in his limited power to ensure that this “activation of the human being” gradually became decisive in the committee, which would be expanded. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: I would like to say a few words about the situation that has now been created, which I could not say yesterday because I did not understand it. As you have heard, I resigned from the Central Executive Committee because I was unable to work fruitfully. Now the situation is such that I am growing naturally into the organization of the Free Community because I believe that I can work in the way that is possible, out of friendship for people. Whether I continue with the other things or not is a matter for the committee; it does not belong here, for example, the 'Federation for a Free Spiritual Life' or the newspaper 'Drei'. I want to be able to work as a free human being.

Mr. August Everbeck, Brake: Yesterday the Society threatened to dissolve into chaos - today the difficulties no longer exist after listening to Dr. Steiner. (He wants to explain how the Stuttgart work looks from the periphery. — There is an interjection: Positive suggestions! - The speaker then summarizes his remarks: The only thing that was missing in the branches was the connection with Stuttgart.)

Dr. Josef Kalkhoff, Freiburg: If we had absorbed “Practical Thinking” and “The Philosophy of Freedom”, then we would not have needed a great physician to tell us what is missing. Anyone who believes that they have things to contribute to the discussion can send a paper to Stuttgart, and it will be processed – or thrown away.

What needs to happen is not terribly new, it just needs to be brought to consciousness. We have a medical working group. One can also continue to work in the threefold order, because it is not work that should be abolished, only the organization. What emerges from the discussion should not be thrown in the trash. We should not commit ourselves to a program; that would take care of itself.

Professor Hermann Craemer, Bonn: These are practical suggestions for the future, and what the assembly has suggested should be put into practice, and to be clear about the first steps, based on the nature of such an assembly. There are over a thousand people who are supposed to communicate with each other, and that is extremely difficult. We have also seen that within this large group there are individual groups, especially the youth movement, who, when one person stands up, understand each other perfectly without the person concerned having said much. We still have to learn the art of communicating in large gatherings and not talking at cross purposes. This can be achieved if the branches practice learning to listen to the other person, to be interested not only in the content of what he says, but in the fact that he is saying it. If we practice this coming-to-the-experience-of-you in the branches and continue to practice it in somewhat larger circles, we will gradually come to understand each other in larger gatherings as well. People who live in geographic districts should work together, starting with the simplest personal interaction and working through the problems we face. Here we have to start from scratch and spare no sacrifice so that we can grow together from fragmentation and atomization into one organism.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart, agrees with the program of the new central committee as the spokesperson for the Kerning branch in Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it was noted that there is a discord against one person of the new central committee, which he also shares; this is the person of Dr. Carl Unger (heckling). Speaker Leinhas explains that he will talk to Dr. Unger personally.

Dr. Praussnitz, Jena, fully supports Mr. Leinhas and has a request to make to the assembly: to return to the religious revival movement this evening.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: There can be no question as to whether the Neuner Committee should continue the matter or not. The matter requires that the affairs of this committee be continued.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, discusses the matter of founding the Free University; he reports that Mr. Emil Molt has donated ten million marks for the Free University.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: You, the members of the Committee of Nine, are wondering what we should do when we are carried by the trust. Please do not think that it is only an honor to sit here at the committee table and be flattered. That is not what motivates us; rather, we make ourselves available out of a sense of duty and responsibility. It should not be so difficult for you to say: You must!, as it is difficult for us to say: We must! When we meet again, we will not be able to make excuses: We have not had time! (A voice from the audience asks the assembly to shout unanimously: You must!)

End of the morning discussion.

II. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [in GA 257]

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at half past two.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, of Jena, announces that a committee has been formed consisting of the following members: J. G. W. Schröder, Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Rene Maikowski, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Maria Röschl, Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, probably Rector Bartsch and Ernst Lehrs.

Mr. Rene Maikowski, Stuttgart, announces the personalities of the committee that will deal with the founding and tasks of the School of Spiritual Science: Emil Molt, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Ernst Lehrs, Werner Rosenthal, Louis Werbeck, Rene Maikowski.

Mr. Manfred Kries, Jena, points out the necessity of working together, especially in the field of medicine. As physicians, one must begin with anthroposophy. The moral, the powers of love, are what one must start from. We can only be successful in spreading the remedies if we have the necessary support from the clinic. We cannot work only in a propagandistic way; we need the experience of those who stand behind us. There is a characteristic that shows how differently the young and the old approach medicine. We cannot appropriate a new method from our own experience and proceed from there to the physical plane. We have to start from pure anthroposophy. We have to develop to the point where we can specialize the purely human, the general, to such an extent that we can penetrate to the individual physical organ.

Mr. Otto Maneval of Stuttgart said that concern for the Waldorf School is an important task of the Anthroposophical Society. Not all members of the Anthroposophical Society are members of the Waldorf School Association. The idea of the Waldorf School must also be brought to bear on the state by professing it.

Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, believes that the basis for genuine community building is an artistic and educational approach. One should not only find common ground with anthroposophists, but also with non-anthroposophists. With such people one could work in some area. If one does it right, such work will automatically lead to anthroposophical work. If you come from the Ruhr area, you feel a particular need to speak to people in the moment, to grasp them morally in the world situation. We have to pay attention to this: what is the spiritual world saying, what is Dr. Steiner saying, what needs to be done today? If we listen to this, a rhythmic inhalation and exhalation will arise. The bridge to other people can only come from the heart, from love. Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart, points out that what Mr. Maneval said earlier should be taken into account. The financial situation of the Waldorf School is very difficult, and in this regard he must remind us of the dangers that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the last general assembly of the Waldorf School Association. It is absolutely essential for the economic survival of the school that it be the constant concern of all Anthroposophical Society members. The school would not have been able to survive at all without the help of friends abroad. But this is by no means enough. It should be pointed out to the state that the 1925 primary school law allows the admission of pupils to the first class of private schools for the last time. It is therefore important for the Waldorf School to gain such strong support that this paragraph cannot apply to it. So material means and ideal interest, that is what could ensure the continued existence of the Waldorf School.

Mr. Jürgen v. Grone, Stuttgart: My dear friends! I have been asked to serve on the provisional committee of the younger generation and am thus active in both committees. To explain my position, I would like to refer to an experience I had in Berlin in 1908.

Around this time, several young people from very different walks of life, from different parts of the world, came together and met weekly at Motzstraße 17 to study Dr. Steiner's philosophical writings intensively. It was a seemingly random community. But the significant thing was that what moved people to come together in community was the love that each person had for delving into the world of ideas. Through this collaboration in Motzstraße, the personalities involved were able to get to know each other very intimately, and, as I was later able to observe, this work created links of destiny. When I came to Stuttgart a few years ago, I met people again who had belonged to this circle, and I can assure you that we immediately felt how a shared inner experience had connected us precisely through this study of the philosophical works. Our eyes lit up, so to speak, when we saw each other again.

After the war, when I was studying the 'Kernpunkte' and realized that something needed to be done from an anthroposophical perspective that would directly address the social needs of the present, it was this impulse that led me to work on the newspaper. For me, there was indeed a strong connection between the memories from 1908, the anthroposophical experience of that time and the will to translate this anthroposophical experience into social action. On the other hand, I must emphasize that since the seemingly so spontaneous community work in the past, I have a deep, inner understanding of what today's anthroposophical youth and all those who feel connected to it want. Since then, I have taken a keen interest in working with those communities that, above all, consider it necessary to promote true anthroposophy in a group of people through intensive collaboration.

I only wanted to point out these two points of view so that you can see why I agreed to be a member of the committee and why, on the other hand, I agreed to be a member of the provisional committee for the time being.

Dr. Gabriele Rabel, Stuttgart: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak before a larger circle of anthroposophists. I want to make my personal position on anthroposophy as clear as possible. I joined two years ago in order to get to know anthroposophy thoroughly. At the time of my admission, everyone knew that I was not a follower. It was also Dr. Steiner's intention that I should be offered the opportunity to study the matter thoroughly. The result of these two years of examination is a peculiar mixture of sympathy and antipathy.

I feel warm sympathy for everything I have observed in the movement that is personal and human, in the soul, and in the honest striving for spiritual perfection; I feel the warmest sympathy for what is happening in Landhausstrasse and here in these days. It was wonderful of Dr. Steiner to have made such wise use of the burning of the Goetheanum, to have taken it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and reflection.

The spirit of self-knowledge that shone through these speeches suggests that it could easily be the case that in a few years the fire at the Goetheanum will be seen not as a disaster but as a piece of good luck. Every event is only what we make of it.

I have heard the word: the Goetheanum could not have burnt down if we had been what we should have been. That is a distinctly religious attitude. My personal conviction is that it is in this attitude, in the emphasis on the religious character, that the salvation and future of anthroposophy lies.

On the other hand, I am very skeptical about another area to which Dr. Steiner attaches great importance: anthroposophical science. I am an opponent of that. I am not just a so-called opponent, as Dr. Steiner said, I am a real opponent. I have truly shuddered at the abyss of ignorance, inability to think and arrogance of people that I have encountered in a large number of anthroposophical works. It is truly disheartening to read such works. They are written by people who have no idea of natural science. And the people in question have doctorates. Unfortunately, it is one of the saddest chapters of the universities today that a doctorate can be acquired very easily.

Of course, I cannot prove these assertions in detail here. I have already begun to provide evidence in the last article in “Drei,” and I want to continue doing so as long as the editorial staff of “Drei” is so loyal and kind as to publish my critique. I feel obliged to offer a critique. It is necessary to address the details objectively. But it is not enough to say that the whole polemic is insubstantial. It is necessary to show in detail where the errors in thinking lie. I will endeavor to do this as clearly and distinctly as possible.

This discussion about atomic theory has made me clearly recognize the dangers of the Anthroposophical Society in another way. These are dangers that have been pointed out many times, including by myself. But it is quite a different matter whether one speaks of something in general or whether one has concrete examples that can be used to show: There it is. In the first article I wrote the following: the position of anthroposophy on atomic theory is completely unclear. Dr. Steiner himself did not believe in the reality of atoms in the past, but has since been persuaded by the facts, as he mentioned in conversation, and now believes, like us, in the existence of atoms. In response to this, I was told by the anthroposophical side that this is yet another myth that is being peddled solely for the purpose of undermining trust in Dr. Steiner's personality. A scientific person is completely baffled and at a loss in the face of such an attitude. It would be natural for me to lose all trust in him if he could not be belied by facts and stubbornly clung to something he had once said just because he had said it.

But what about anthroposophy? If you believe that Dr. Steiner is not dependent on considering the facts, that he sees through all connections from his own thinking, then of course it is only logical when one comes to such views. There is a gulf between anthroposophy and science. As anthroposophists, you believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner; as scientists, you cannot believe in it. I know very well that you will tell me: We do not believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner, on page so and so much it says: The clairvoyant can err. Yes, there it is, you can read it there, but in practice I have never known anyone to express doubt about what Dr. Steiner said. If he took the floor in a procedural debate or in some kind of scientific discussion, then the case was settled. And now Dr. Steiner spoke recently about the atomic discussion and confirmed the legend that I had told at the time. He explicitly said that I (this opponent) was right, that it was useless to deny the results of science. Yes, what do these gentlemen do now, who have been so fanatically committed to the fact that atoms do not exist? If you have arrived at this conviction, not through blind faith in authority but after careful consideration of the facts, then you cannot just let go of your conviction so easily. This thought seems quite absurd to you, that one of you could polemicize against Dr. Steiner. That is the great cancer. That is what we cannot understand. It is a religious attitude. I use the word religious here in the best sense, that one's own judgment is subordinated to something that one perceives as a higher power, to which one looks up in humility and reverence. I do not want to disgust you with this attitude. But it is not the scientific attitude. The scientific person must be completely free to form his or her own judgment. And so, the more I delve into anthroposophy, the more deeply I am convinced — earlier it was only a hunch — that no synthesis is possible between faith and science, because the scientific person must be free and independent, and the religious person desires to be the opposite. Both attitudes have their good and beautiful aspects. But you cannot mix them. I have the impression that what is being criticized as the system of double accounting is the only possible clean separation: on the one hand, a scientist, on the other, a religious person. I just wanted to say that these are some of the reasons why science must view anthroposophical science with skepticism. I cannot see at present that this conflict can be resolved unless anthroposophical science teaches me better.

There is one more point I would like to mention, which is also a major stumbling block for science. I know you and I are already bored by this, but it is the unholy mystery of Dr. Steiner's changes. It is not possible to get past this point. This question must be thoroughly addressed.

Recently, I have read all the articles that Dr. Steiner wrote between 1886 and 1903. I have read all the articles and found much that is beautiful and good. But I absolutely do not see how one should get over these contradictions.

Speaker reads the following passages:

“But however hard one may try, no one will ever succeed in reconciling the Christian and the modern scientific world view. Without a personal, wise leadership of world affairs, which announces itself in times of need by pointing the way, there is no Christianity. Without the denial of such a leadership and the recognition of the truth that all the causes of events lie in this world accessible to our senses, there is no modern way of thinking. Nothing supernatural ever intervenes in nature; all events are based on the elements that we reach with our senses and our thinking. Only when this insight has penetrated not only into thinking but also into the depths of feeling can we speak of a modern way of looking at things. But our modern minds are quite far removed from this. It works with thinking. The minds of contemporaries are gradually coming to terms with Darwinism. But the feeling, the feeling, are still thoroughly Christian.“ ⁹

"We are entering the new century with feelings that are essentially different from those of our ancestors, who were educated in Christianity. We have truly become ‘new men’; but we, who also profess the new world view with our hearts, are a small community. We want to be fighters for our gospel, so that in the coming century a new generation will arise that knows how to live, satisfied, cheerful and proud, without Christianity, without an outlook on the hereafter.” ¹⁰

I cannot bring myself to read this and then read the essays that appeared five years later in Lucifer-Gnosis and then assume that the man who wrote the two essays has not changed. If a conversion has taken place, I would find it understandable. I have given myself the interpretation that it happens very often in world history that one condemns everything one preached before and vice versa. But that without such a transformation both opinions can be reconciled, I do not understand. I have not received any explanation about this from anyone. The agreement with Haeckel goes so far that he could say: We, the small Haeckel community, are the community of the future, we proclaim the gospel. In an article in the journal Drei, he tried to say what would have captivated him, and it would have been the artistic element. I must urgently ask, also in the name of all the scientists who are trying to have faith in Dr. Steiner: Well, the gods are on this side; the gods also belong to nature. These are conjurer's tricks. I request that this question be addressed. I am very willing to be educated and will gladly proclaim, publicly and loudly, as I stand here with my accusation, that Dr. Steiner has been wronged and that the matter has now been clarified for me.

The speaker concludes with a request that Dr. Steiner himself comment on this question if possible.

Dr. Praußnitz, Jena: I must first express my appreciation of the extraordinary courage that Dr. Rabel has shown by presenting her point of view calmly and unconcernedly. I know what it takes for an anthroposophist to speak in the face of opponents. Regarding the question of the atomic theory, I must state that I am also a specialist in the field; I have encountered the same difficulties as Dr. Rabel, and for me, too, the path from the philosophical side was the only possible one to approach it for the first time. I also openly admit that I have not yet been able to deal with the anthroposophical treatment of science.

One must ask the question: has anthroposophical science, as represented in Stuttgart, actually taken the path it must take to make itself understood to other, outside natural science? I believe that this is where the catch lies... Our young friends want us to become different people through anthroposophy, not just to concern ourselves with anthroposophy. I myself have been involved in the movement for a long time and have not yet had the time to immerse myself in the science as you have. We can only approach this science when we have become different people. —Speaker discusses further details of atomic theory.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein: Dr. Steiner pointed out in his lecture that all the individual actions of our opponents are ultimately based on the fact that they say to themselves: “How do we force the spiritual researcher to defend himself?” Dr. Rabel's remarks culminated in her request that Dr. Steiner comment on what she had said against him. Dr. Steiner should therefore defend himself.

Now, I don't know if he will do that, but I would like to present what I have to say in the way that he has asked us to behave towards our opponents. Dr. Steiner called on us to immerse ourselves with all our love in the souls of our opponents. It is far from my mind to believe that something like what I am about to mention is consciously present in Dr. Rabel. But it works in her, as in every opponent, that which Dr. Steiner just said underlies all opponents' actions. And we should pay attention to this fact. Dr. Steiner said that it is of the utmost importance to know the limits of the different states of consciousness and not to blur them. One must not carry dream consciousness into the sense world, nor what is right for the sense world into the supersensible world. One must change one's way of thinking when moving from one realm to the other. But that is precisely what Dr. Rabel does not do. What she does not understand in Dr. Steiner's work and attitude is because she uses the same habits of judgment and forms of thinking that are right for the field of ordinary science, but she also wants to include what belongs to the spiritual realm of the supersensible. Of course, this would have to be shown sentence by sentence, but one could show that Dr. Steiner's lecture answers point by point what he himself has to say about Dr. Rabel's objections, with the exception, of course, of the quotations that have been put forward, but otherwise really everything. You see, what Dr. Rabel cannot properly observe is what we call the right crossing of the threshold, that is, the actual demand of reality that one must have a different way of behaving in the sensual than in the supersensible. She says: I can sympathize with the religious, but not with the scientific. She also sees a separation between these fields. But what is the reason that forces her to speak of double bookkeeping? The reason is that she does not bring to consciousness the act that a human being must perform when crossing the threshold from one to the other in the right way. Therefore, she does not understand why Dr. Steiner behaves in one way in one area and in a completely opposite way in another area, even for the different areas of life or the objects of knowledge. For her, the areas stand side by side, and she would like to embrace them all in one way or keep double books for them, instead of recognizing the metamorphosis as factually grounded in the area. That is where the difficulty lies for her, and she does not have the right understanding for it. Nor does she have the right understanding for what Dr. Steiner discussed today: tolerance. For the essence of tolerance is that one always speaks from the heart of the matter. When Dr. Steiner arrives at certain forms of judgment in his essays in the 'Magazin', he does so on the basis of very definite presuppositions, and these must be taken into account.

I have repeatedly tried, and really tried in good faith, to make it clear to Dr. Rabel how things stand in this area. But the misunderstanding is surely due to the fact that two basic conditions have not been sufficiently taken into account.

1. As Dr. Steiner explained, the consideration of the changeover when crossing the threshold between the sensory world and the supersensible world.
2. The consideration of the changeover when moving from one area of fact to another.

Of course, all the sentences that were read by Dr. Rabel and that are quoted in the “Magazin für Litteratur” are written in such a way that Dr. Steiner could write them down today word for word exactly as they are there. For when he rejected Christianity there, he did not mean the Christianity that he later presented in his spiritual scientific works, but rather he wanted to show how he had to reject at that time the Christianity that was known at that time as the only one in the world: namely, the Christianity of Christian theologians. And these theologians reject Dr. Steiner today just as much with what they call Christianity as they reject him. So I don't see how there could be any change in Dr. Steiner's position. There is none in the sense that Dr. Rabel suggests. It is simply a matter of getting fully involved in the matter and judging it from that point of view. Then one understands Dr. Steiner, understands his behavior, and does not speak of sleight of hand out of one's own lack of understanding. But for us anthroposophists, something else is important. We must be vigilant in our society in the future. And vigilance also means noticing this powerful phenomenon, which consists of Dr. Steiner's appearance and self-defense in his lecture, and the fact that the accusation is brought forward with the demand that Dr. Steiner be forced to make a statement, to defend himself.

Evening Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting.

Dr. Hans Theberath, Stuttgart: If Dr. Rabel sees something dangerous in anthroposophical science, she cannot be referring to my atomic essays, since Dr. Steiner himself described these essays as anti-anthroposophical. However, there is no reason to oppose anthroposophical science on the basis of these essays.

Dr. Steiner has not denied the existence of atoms in the past either, but only opposed interpreting atoms into phenomena. Therefore, I referred this alleged change of heart by Dr. Steiner to the realm of myth.

Dr. Rabel asks what those gentlemen who did not believe in atoms in the past are doing now. I do not know, because I have always believed in the existence of atoms. [See Notes below.]

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: I would just like to say a few words about the fact that the events that have taken place here in the Anthroposophical Society are connected with the destruction of the Goetheanum. It has been repeatedly emphasized here that all these events are completely independent of the Dornach catastrophe, since the origins of this crisis go back to December 10, when the aforementioned conversation with Mr. Uehli took place. It is necessary to emphasize this in view of the misunderstandings that could arise if one speaks ironically about matters that should be most sacred in the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot allow ourselves to be treated in this way.¹¹

In response to the polemic in the “Drei”, I would like to say that Dr. Rabel's essay has been accepted and will appear at the same time as an essay of mine that will attempt to lead this entire polemic out of the deadlock in which it has been mired.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: The words spoken by Dr. Rabel in her “Farewell Address to the Anthroposophical Society” vividly reminded me of what Dr. Rittelmeyer said during the conference when we were dealing with the question of opponents. He said that we must achieve a situation in which the many people of good will who, although they could not profess anthroposophy themselves, consciously had the attitude: “But it is something whose seriousness and high striving we have recognized too clearly to allow it to be destroyed by wickedness,” that they, as a ‘league of decent people,’ could be a wall around the movement. Well, I could feel that Dr. Rabel belongs to such people, and I sincerely hope that she will continue to belong to them! And we can be grateful that, among all the muck and filth of opponents, we were able to hear a person who has really tried to engage with anthroposophy.

I would like to address two points in Dr. Rabel's words: first, Dr. Steiner's article from the “Magazin”, and then the atomic theory.

With very few exceptions, which are also known to the public, I was previously unaware of any of the passages quoted by Dr. Rabel from the “Magazin”. However, I immediately noticed the exclusivity with which Dr. Steiner refers to the actual results of sensory research. In those articles he does not once acknowledge the mental speculations about the background of the phenomena of the senses! And conversely: at the very latest scientific course at the last turn of the year in Dornach, the call went through Dr. Steiner's entire cycle to recognize the tremendous results of sensory research, yes, it is to be redeemed at all from their sleep of magic, in which the intellectualism has banned, by spiritual research methods! If, therefore, we look closely, we see that the opposite of the alleged 'break in world-view' is the case. Nevertheless, we may perhaps wonder at first why Dr. Steiner once championed with such energy the world-view that had emerged from Darwinism. When I heard Dr. Steiner's words for the first time, as I said, I had a wonderful experience. I realized what a situation he was in with regard to a world view. And it cannot be better described than with Nietzsche's words, which he used in the speeches “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions”, already quoted on another occasion, where he talks about the grammar school. In the few words that I will quote, all you have to do is replace the word “grammar school” with “ruling world view”. With this change, the passage reads:

"We both know the prevailing worldview; do you also believe, for example, with regard to this, that the old tenacious habits could be broken up with honesty and good new ideas? Here, in fact, it is not a hard wall that protects against the battering rams of an attack, but rather the most fatal tenacity and slippery nature of all principles. The attacker does not have a visible and solid opponent to crush: this opponent is rather masked, able to transform himself into a hundred forms and in one of them to escape the gripping attack and always confuse the attacker anew through cowardly yielding and tenacious rebounding."

That was the terrible situation in which Dr. Steiner found himself at the time! No one before Haeckel had had the courage to be a materialist not only on weekdays but also on Sundays! A muggy, soft haze obscured the view of the consequences of the life of knowledge. Dr. Steiner's words swept in like a fresh spring wind. A viscous paste of philistine mental and spiritual laziness was spread by the spiritually dominant class around everything. And if Dr. Steiner saw it as his task to break down the wall of materialism, then he himself had to first help harden and erect this viscous mass into a wall. But what was the hardening agent? Consistency! Dr. Steiner first had to force the world to be consistent! No call for spiritual consistency could find resonance without materialistic consistency. And that is what is so close to the hearts of us young people, the consistency of thinking, feeling and morality that the world still does not know! And so those decades-old words of Dr. Steiner are said precisely from the heart to us youngest in the Anthroposophical Society!

And now to the controversy over the atomic theory, which Dr. Steiner has so vigorously opposed of late. What has happened here, and what has Dr. Steiner, and in fact every anthroposophist, had to oppose? In the discussions as they were conducted in the “Drei”, our scientists allowed themselves to be drawn by Dr. Rabel from the field of anthroposophy into their own field, instead of forcing them to enter the anthroposophical field! The whole battle was not at all in the anthroposophical field, but in the intellectual field! For they have fought with proofs. Just during the conference, we were able to hear again from Dr. Steiner what is to be thought of “proofs” in the field of anthroposophy. One can actually “prove” every assertion and its opposite: it just depends on one's attitude! Dr. Rabel cannot be refuted because she is right! Anyone who tries to refute her by providing evidence is wrong!

An example from a different area that I recently experienced can shed a bright light on the point at issue here. An anti-Semitic publishing house has issued a pamphlet entitled “Moses, a dynamiter and manufacturer of explosives!” It claims that Moses was a great initiate. The initiatic system consisted of certain personalities having power over the higher forces of nature. The higher forces of nature are those that have been accessible to all people since the dawn of the scientific age: the physical and chemical energies. There are no others. This explains the fire on Sinai, the untouchability of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., etc. Moses instilled in the Jewish people a fear of God by means of fireworks and the like, by which he could make himself their lord, and under the lying sign of which all Jewish development has stood since then. Etc.! Here then we have the strange fact that this book, just as we do, calls Moses a “great initiate”! But the terrible thing is that it is right in its conclusions if one asserts: there are only material energies! Can the opposite be proved? No! Two world-views are confronting each other: both call Moses a great initiate, one recognizes only material forces, the other also supersensible ones; one comes to the conclusion that Moses was a swindling explosive bomb manufacturer, the other sees in him a messenger of the gods! What alone can bring the decision here? Only by pursuing these trains of thought to the point where they become moral, where they touch on human value and human dignity. And there it shows that if you try to experience yourself in the stream of becoming human with all the consequences, with the attitude of those books, you can't do anything but hang yourself from the nearest window nail, while the other attitude lets you carry your head higher, makes your step more proud and yet lets humility and love prevail in your heart! Only in this way does Anthroposophy “prove” itself!

And only in this way can Dr. Rabel prove the validity or invalidity of the atomic theory. She continues to assert it, to pursue it, to teach it, because it is her duty, as long as she has not experienced “the other”! But she never will, as long as she is attacked where she is right by herself! Rather, I call out to her in farewell: “You spoke of your religious feeling, to which anthroposophy is so sympathetic. Now I ask you from the bottom of my heart: Go through the coming decades of your life with an ever clearer view of the souls of the people you meet! Become more and more alert in these experiences! Take them deeper and deeper into your heart and let them grow and grow in the warmth of your religious feeling! And when you begin to suffer from the fact that it is increasingly cold and unworldly souls that may still be interested in your atomic theory, but that all those whose nature you affirm from the bottom of your heart will call out to you more and more: Oh, how I suffer from your atomic theory, how it kills my noblest, how I freeze in the coldness of your science! Where, where is the science in whose warming light the flower of my life can flourish! — When these calls will resound to you, shaking you to the marrow of your life, then perhaps the reality of the atomic theory will prove itself to you!"

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer of Stuttgart, speaking on behalf of the religious movement, first expressed his deepest gratitude to Dr. Steiner for the tremendous benefit to life that he has provided to humanity through his help and advice in this movement, in the most selfless purity and greatness. He then also thanked the anthroposophists, who have prepared the way by their voluntary support in the movement's first most difficult days. In many places, it has not yet been possible to reach non-anthroposophical circles, for which one is determined to work. Also, before Dr. Steiner's Dornach lecture, Steiner's lecture in Dornach, the dangers that arise particularly from the new movement of the Anthroposophical Society were not sufficiently perceived, both in that financial help is withdrawn from it, and in that the satisfaction of human community needs in the cultic community distracts many from the Society, and above all in that many exchange the path of knowledge, which they once embarked upon, for the more beneficial path of cult. The Christian Community cannot take pleasure in Anthroposophical members who neglect their financial responsibility to the Anthroposophical Society in favor of the Christian Community, or who cannot find a way to remain fully loyal to their path of knowledge. On the other hand, he asks the Anthroposophists to regard those members of the Christian Community who, now or in the future, wish to work with both movements out of their own free will and with knowledge of the material, as fully Anthroposophical, since the cult offers many opportunities for inner participation and does not necessarily have to be celebrated only by emotionally immersing oneself in it, which is certainly un-Anthroposophical, but also spiritually, not soul-like and passive, but spiritually, actively. He further asked the Anthroposophists never to expect any special privileges as members of the Anthroposophical Society in the Christian Community, since the new movement must place itself on an equal footing with all people if it is to fight its way through successfully. And finally, Dr. Rittelmeyer asked for ongoing support in the The Christian Community finding the people it needs, and for inner understanding and support in the tremendously difficult task it has to fulfill.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: Mr. Weishaar did not speak this morning. However, it is extremely important to me to do and say what I consider necessary on my own initiative, so that in the future, as far as my relationship with the Kerning group and its leader, Miss Völker, is concerned, there will be no further misunderstandings. I regret that remnants may still be apparent from a time when it was necessary to make a point of distancing myself from the Theosophical Society and to act against various phenomena that were connected with the unjustified mysticism or mystical eccentricity in the Anthroposophical Society. Perhaps I sometimes overshot the mark. But as far as my relationship with the group and its leader is concerned, I would like to emphasize that for many years I have always advocated that the fully-fledged working method of this working group and its efforts to carry out this work in a closed circle must be respected. As for my personal relationship, I can only say that I have known Ms. Völker for many years, that we have been together frequently and have discussed anthroposophical matters, and that I hope this will continue to happen in the future.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart: Miss Völker cannot yet be completely satisfied with these explanations. But I do not want to bother the assembly with this. I would like to hand over the whole matter to the new central committee for further action and hand over the relevant files to them.

A distinction must be made between the personal relationship between Ms. Völker and Dr. Unger. In this regard, Ms. Völker is completely satisfied and in agreement with what Dr. Unger has said. But we must also consider another point of view: that Fräulein Völker, as the chair of an old working group, is on one side and Dr. Unger, as a member of the old central committee, is on the other. It is therefore necessary to provide clarification with regard to matters that need to be addressed; but the matter will then be settled.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Lecture on “The Opponents” [see references below]

Our opponents want to block the source from which spiritual knowledge flows. Because they consciously or unconsciously serve a current of spiritual world view that believes the publication of spiritual knowledge must be prevented. The first sentence in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is: “There are abilities slumbering in every human being through which he can acquire knowledge of higher worlds.” This is the voice of a school of thought that wants to include all people in the transcendental knowledge, who want to attain such knowledge themselves or want to know how others attain it. In this way, anthroposophy documents itself as a spiritual path that cannot include any aspirations to power. Power arises from knowledge that is withheld from others. The schools of thought that have aspirations to power have a different cosmic goal than the school of thought that wants to develop freedom and love for all beings.

To give you an idea of what the unfolding of these effects is based on, the following should be presented to you: In his book “Exercitia spiritualia”, Ignatius of Loyola gives the following meditation: “Imagine Lucifer planting his standard on a desolate rock near Babylon, where everything is in the greatest confusion and turmoil; how he sends the demons into the world to lure human souls to follow him. Christ, on the other hand, planted the cross banner in a field near Jerusalem, where everything is at its most beautiful and peaceful; he sends out his holy “soul zealots” to invite the whole world to follow him, with the assurance that everyone who swears obedience to the cross banner, patiently endures contempt and suffering, will possess his heavenly kingdom for all eternity. Here you have initially placed two images, which will be discussed in more detail in a moment. Both show that we are dealing with a spiritual-military organization that is not based on freedom but on obedience. This obedience even extends to the ability to comprehend: “[...] it cannot be denied that obedience includes not only the execution – that one does what is commanded – and not only the will – that one does it willingly –; but also the judgment, so that everything the superior commands and judges appears both right and true to the subordinate, so that, as I said, with his strength, the will is able to bend the power of judgment.” (Quote from a letter by Ignatius of Loyola from April 1553. Cf. ‘Jesuitica’ by Roman Boos, Dreigliederungszeitung No. 40, April 1920.) So we are dealing here with a spiritual-military organization that exerts power deep into the innermost being of the human being. But now let us see – let us see by means of an historical example – how such power works. In Schiller's 'Thirty Years' War', in the first book, we read about Ferdinand II that he was educated and taught by Jesuits at the Academy of Ingolstadt. And then it says: “On the one hand, he was shown the indulgence of the Maximilian princes towards the followers of the new doctrine and the confusion in their lands, and on the other hand, the blessing of Bavaria and the relentless religious zeal of its rulers; he was given the choice between these two examples.” Here you have a historical example of how a prince received a meditation, the effectiveness of which is proven by the course of history. That was the case during the Thirty Years' War. At that time, it was necessary to eradicate a spiritual current that can be symptomatically grasped in the work of Comenius, which was entitled Pansophia. Why did Comenius call what he represented a pansophia? Because he wanted to create a wisdom for all people. He was moved by the same impulse to which the first sentence in “How to Know Higher Worlds” refers: he wanted to address what lives in every human being. That is why he spoke of a pansophia. It has been eradicated by impulses that have already been characterized.

In our age, however, people speak differently. They say to young Solothurn: “Gather together! Storm the Goetheanum!” (See “Das Goetheanum” of January 7, 1923.) These words were spoken at a meeting of Catholic associations from Dornach, Arlesheim and Reinach. It was in the afternoon of September 19, 1920 at the Hotel Ochsen in Dornach-Brugg. The speaker at this meeting was Pastor Kully. A brochure written by this pastor Kully and directed against Anthroposophy concludes with the words: Christus vincit / Christus regnat / Christus imperat.

It is not without significance that another book, the Jesuit Baumgartner's biography of Goethe, ends with the same words. I characterized the book in a lecture that was then printed in issue 8 of “Die Drei”, November 1921, first year of publication. No one would want to compare the two-volume, gold-edged, painstakingly and scientifically written biography of Goethe with Pastor Kully's pamphlet. But both books serve the same impulse. It is significant that they end with the same words. One book is directed against Goethe, the other against everything that comes from the Goetheanum. Goethe's true nature is overlooked and denied. What he himself fought against is presented as his true nature. And this is because they want something very specific in the world. Goetheanism, Pansophy, Anthroposophy have their enemies. Because they address everyone, and that must not be. For higher knowledge should be possessed only by a few, to whom the many owe obedience, obedience graduated in degree. And that is to be achieved by a spirit-military system. And the reflection of this system? Where is it? There is also a militarization of economic life. The extreme end of this is Bolshevism. What was it invented for, for example, to organize the working class? Why teach them party opinions? Because there are powers that want to eradicate individual judgment and free will. In theory, this lives as a will in the materialistic conception of history, and in practice in everything that this conception of history, which is as one-sided as can be, increasingly makes the only correct one. The mirror image of a world view built on freedom and love is an associative economy in which one selflessly sacrifices one's life experience to the other, thereby renouncing any display of power, as it lives, for example, in competitive struggle. But a militarized spiritual life is reflected in a militarized economy. However different the things of the world often are, if you look deeply enough, very dissimilar things reveal a power. We could also learn a lot from the lectures given by Father Muckermann S.J. here in Stuttgart. He spoke about scientific problems. The undertone of his remarks was that science should be a mere physical science. As such, it is rightly materialistic. But science finds its limits everywhere. Beyond these limits, the Church rules. It administers souls just as science administers the body. There is no need to talk about the spirit today. It was abolished in 869. Materialistic science serves the same impulses as the Church, which administers souls. The two belong together. If science dared to embrace body, soul and spirit, then the souls would begin to govern themselves. Therefore, there must be no spiritual science. There must only be physical science. That is, materialistic natural science is needed. It serves the same impulse as all the striving for power already mentioned.

In the lectures that Dr. Steiner gave in Dornach on Thomas Aquinas, it is clearly shown how Goetheanism and Anthroposophy are straightforward continuations of what was present as realism in the Middle Ages. And in brief summary, what can be said about the position of anthroposophy in relation to Catholicism can be found in the first part of the writing “The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum”. There, especially on pages 24 and 25, it is shown how fully in line the methodology of the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is with what the most orthodox Catholicism has declared to be correct. Nevertheless, the Catholic side declares, as does Father Zimmermann SJ, for example, that anthroposophy is incompatible with true Catholicism. There, anthroposophy is also deliberately mixed with Anglo-Indian theosophy and presented as gnosticism and all sorts of other things. In reality, however, all sorts of things have been incorporated into Catholicism that are certainly not Christian. For example, the doctrine of the eternity of hell punishments is Aristotelian and not Christian. To prove this, I quote Brentano's words here, with which he reproduces Aristotle's teaching on page 146 of his book on Aristotle and his world view: '[...] When the departed human spirits behold the plan of the world and see themselves interwoven with their life on earth, one recognizes himself as identical with one who practices the noble, and another with one who accomplishes ignoble deeds. The knowledge they attain is at the same time an eternal, glorifying or condemning judgment of the world. .. ."

Likewise, the doctrine of creatianism is Aristotelian. This doctrine consists in denying pre-existence and thinking that the higher human being that descends into the incarnation is created by God at the time of procreation. Likewise, the mass is largely a continuation of Egyptian initiation rituals. Thus a close examination would show how Catholicism contains within itself elements that are older pre-Christian spiritual material, partly of oriental origin. The assertions that say similar things about anthroposophy are not only wrong, but project onto anthroposophy precisely that which is characteristic of the accuser himself. Anthroposophy has something of a mirror in itself. The opponent sees himself in it and, by supposedly describing anthroposophy, sketches his own portrait. Anthroposophy does indeed teach pre-existence. In doing so, it goes against the Council of 869. The aim of the latter was to eradicate the spirit. All orientalism, which always pointed to the prenatal, was covered up by Aristotelianism. Only the after-death could be talked about. This also applies to Protestant theologians. They began by appealing to the soul's egoism. The soul has an interest in outliving death, but not in having existed before. A kind of horror of the prenatal, spiritual, cosmic realm emerged, from which the soul descends into birth. This horror can be clearly observed, for example, in Professor Traub. He is afraid that the ethical significance of the mystery of Golgotha will be lost if its cosmic significance is brought to the fore. This fear is based on an important fact. This fact will be demonstrated by means of a symptomatic case. Thomas More presented the results of supersensible experiences in his work Utopia (= non-locality). He describes how Egyptian and Roman ways come to his island, but not Christianity. That is, Thomas More must form the opinion through the experiences he has that in the supersensible world he describes, Christ is not to be found. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has beatified Thomas More. So the paths of those who are beatified into the higher worlds are such that they do not find Christ there. So one can understand that a kind of horror develops before entering the supersensible world. There are reasons for it when on one side the spiritual cosmos, from which Christ once descended to earth or from which the soul descends into birth, must be thought of as being incompatible with ethics or morals. And one must understand why one needed Aristotelianism from this side, which denies pre-existence. In this case, which Dr. Steiner pointed out, one can see that certain realities underlie the horrors of the opponents, which do not have to be conscious to all those who have such horror.

Another thing became clear to me in a long conversation I once had with our opponent Gogarten. He had a different horror. He took offense at the fact that we interpose hierarchies between God and people. From what Gogarten told me, I had to assume that he had inner experiences. He described how he felt united with God, indeed experienced it. He described God. If I apply his description to what we know, I would have to say that he described what we call an angel. Now we have to understand Gogarten. We do not insert hierarchies between angels and humans either. We also believe that the angel stands directly above the human being. But we do not worship this being, which is so close to man. For the angel is, after all, the higher self of man, and each person has his own special angel. So if someone prays to his angel, he would worship a god that is not the general god of man. The result would be self-idolatry, and besides, everyone would have their god and someone else would have theirs.

You see, but these are again things that one accuses anthroposophy of. It promotes self-redemption, yes, self-deification. There are already such things, Dr. Steiner has also pointed this out - but they are not to be found in anthroposophy. If you say something about anthroposophy – that it is this or that – and it isn't, then it is just some thought form that people think, and so it must come from somewhere. Usually, those who claim something about anthroposophy that is not true attach to anthroposophy something that characterizes them. So Anthroposophy is a being that defends itself, with a shield that shines brightly, that reflects, that holds out its true face to everyone. And when you see the true face in the mirror, then you know how all our opponents are striving towards the same goal.

They live in a spiritual cosmos that they consider immoral because the Christ does not appear to them in this spiritual cosmos, or because they do not want him to appear through the paths they take. Therefore, they deny the entire prenatal spiritual world, or at least want to admit only a few into it. They lay claim to the souls for an earthly church. They teach a mere physical science and shape social economic life in such

that initiative of the will weakens and individuality dies. And over this a network of power is organized. Where does this lead? It leads to the fact that after the spirit and soul have been killed, mere bodily automatons remain, without judgment, without their own will, subordinated to higher ones, whom they obey. A subhuman race, directed and led by one or more directing group souls. They want to encircle the Earth, the Earth that will one day disintegrate into dust, and eternalize it and populate it with those subhuman beings. That is a terrible cosmic goal. They are all working towards it, consciously or unconsciously. Then the Earth's goal will be gone. Then no Jupiter development will be possible.

These powers that strive for this create a fog. A fog in which error and truth become indistinguishable. Flocks of thoughts and emotions swirl in this fog. Snatches of quotes and thoughts, enveloped in what instincts can provide as a cover, an elementary flood of fog, sweeps around the earth. In this fog, power is born. All dishonest power is based on campaigns of lies. These power instincts today arise from all kinds of group souls. Family and racial souls stand up against the movement that is based on the individuality struggling for freedom. Anthroposophy fights for a cosmic goal. Last time I was able to show you how the Zeitgeist wants to take hold of our society, today I must point to the spirit of the planet. Anthroposophy fights for the future of the earth. Its shield shines brightly, its sword flashes brightly. But this sword is the word of truth, which unfolds no power that rules, which develops love that forms. Those who fight for the future of the Earth must feel themselves to be knights not of the sword but of the word. For heaven and Earth will pass away, even if dark forces seek to perpetuate what should become dust – but the word of truth will remain if we feel responsible for the evolution and future of the Earth and humanity through love for all beings who are human beings and fellow human beings.

Rector Moritz Bartsch, Breslau: Dr. Rabel said that we are too dependent on the authority of Dr. Steiner in our views and decisions. We faithfully accept everything from him, do not see the contradictions in his work, etc. Is that right? Are we so unfree as people or do we have a different concept of freedom than many people today? Well, many of you will have felt the same way I did. If you take a superficial look at Steiner's works, you will initially come across contradictions. Many years ago, I asked Dr. Steiner about this myself. Dr. Steiner is a true modern educationalist. He does not point the facts out to you, but expects you to make an effort to find the solution to the riddle yourself. Dr. Steiner also pointed out to me that if I understood such sayings in context, I would recognize that there are no real contradictions. I did so, and after years of arduous searching I succeeded in finding the red, uninterrupted thread of development in Steiner's career: the “contradictions” dissolved. Today it is almost incomprehensible to me how one could once be so foolish, so terribly superficial. In the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings, which were written by Dr. Steiner as early as the 1880s, the idea of communion with the world spirit in the act of knowledge is put forward, among other things. In my defense, however, I must say that I had not yet studied these books at the time. — When studying spiritual science, one has strange experiences in general. Our intellectually steeped consciousness initially finds it quite difficult to understand Steiner; since we see ourselves as very clever people, we consider the spiritual-scientific writings to be unclear, confused or foolish and wrong. Over time, however, we realize that such obscure passages express very profound truths. One realizes that Fichte is right when he says that a person must be born or educated to philosophize. Indeed, a person must mature to receive the truth. One must recognize, as Fichte did, that a person's world view is what he is like. Wisdom alone knows nothing of the content of the world; thinking only provides the form for the idea content of being. In order to be able to receive it, a person must purify his character, and above all, he must have respect and reverence for the wisdom of the world. The path from modesty to reverence can be found by experiencing one's own maturing during the study of Steiner's writings and by realizing that the limits of one's own knowledge are not yet the limits of knowledge for all people, that there are spirits with much broader horizons than one's own. One becomes modest and grateful to people whose horizon extends beyond the portals of the beyond into the supersensible world. In the presence of such a person, a feeling of reverence arises as a human matter of course. And is it such a great crime for modern man to learn to look up to a greater being again, to be cured of his self-important subjectivism!? Does he thereby surrender his freedom? Not at all! Even today I have a completely free relationship with Dr. Steiner. I represent that part of spiritual science that I have made my own through years of work, and what I do not yet understand, I leave for the time being in the hope that I may yet mature to these deeper truths. Of course, before one has gained this point of view, one sometimes fears for one's independence. I once had a conversation with Dr. Steiner about this matter years ago. I believed that I would become somewhat dependent on representing Steiner's spiritual ideas in lectures. But I was persuaded that in the spiritual realm it is similar to the physical plane: the farmer did not produce the field, but he regards what he produces on it through his labor as his own. Spiritual wealth is also given to the majority of people by a few creative minds; what the individual acquires through his own efforts he may regard as his own. Today man has a false concept of freedom. He seeks it in that subjectivism which believes it knows everything better and criticizes everything. But only the person who has made the content of the world his own, and allows it to become the motivation for his actions, is truly free. Such a person follows his own path and is allowed to follow it; he is free. But this freedom is not achieved through arrogance, but through humility. Sophia only condescends to the one who worships her. — One can see: our worship of Dr. Steiner does not lead to bondage, on the contrary, it is the forerunner of true freedom. — The speaker then humorously comments on the youth movement and declares his approval of the election to the board of the Free Anthroposophical Society.

Final words from Mr. Emil Leinhas

(The event cost an awful lot of money... there are baskets set up outside for collecting money.

The committee has made a decision: to provide a report on this assembly of delegates shortly in the form of a newsletter that can then be made available to all members.

I believe that we are all convinced that we have lived through an important piece of the history of the Anthroposophical Society together during these days. After the intense preparations that have taken place, we entered the delegates' meeting with anxious concerns. And the delegates' meeting itself proved that these concerns were not unfounded. And if we emerged unscathed from some of the chaos that occurred, we owe that primarily to the fact that Dr. Steiner himself intervened in the right way at the right moment. We must therefore express our gratitude to him for his active help at the end of this delegates' meeting. If we can look to the future with joyful confidence, it is thanks first and foremost to Dr. Steiner's intervention.

We also thank Dr. Steiner and the eurythmists who contributed to the fact that not only unpleasant things were dispelled but that there was also the opportunity to find recreation in the realm of art and beauty.

Thanks on behalf of the committee to the various speakers, who, whether they received more or less applause, made a sincere effort to deliver their presentation.

Thanks also to the speakers in the discussion, who have ensured that things have got into a certain flow here. In addition to the speakers, we must not forget the delegates and members who have come here and who have made an effort to endure a great deal as hosts. We must give special thanks to the youth, who, through their intervention, have brought a certain freshness and liveliness into the deliberations of the Anthroposophical Society for the first time. May they retain this, for there are some signs of it.

It is still the most beautiful society in the world, one of our friends told me yesterday, and his joy was evident despite all the clouds. Another friend from out of town said, “Yes, when I was here in the summer, my throat felt like it was tied up, that was because of the icy air; but now I have hope again.

This gathering has had some success after all. May it also have the effect that an understanding of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society takes root in all our hearts and souls in the right way. May there not only be understanding, but may the will be ignited to fulfill the tasks. A start must be made, then the right action will also be found through the work. The progress of the work cannot come out of discussions and deliberations, but only by finding the strength in the work itself and through the work itself for ever greater and more extensive work.

The blessing must lie in the doing, not in talking about what others have to do. The doing itself, not talking, but working, should be our task. If we look at things this way, we can look forward to the future with joy.

May we all look up to our cause with great enthusiasm, and also to the example set before us, which can give us courage and strength in the face of the difficult tasks that lie ahead. May this conference help to make it very real in all our hearts, so that we all say and feel, not only when we are together here, but also when we go out to our work, that our work must be ennobled by the conviction that we represent the most glorious cause in the world today.

With that, I declare the meeting closed.

Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger, Dr. phil. Walter Johannes Stein *

• 1. “Anthroposophie” and “Die Drei”
• 2. They were: 1) Mr. Hans Kühn, 2) Mr. Walter Kühne, 3) Mr. Ernst Uehli.
• 3. See page 463 of this volume.
• 9. The passage quoted here from ‘Magazin für Literatur’ can be found in the article ”Charles Lyell. On the 100th anniversary of his birth], Magazin für Literatur 1897, No. 47 [today in GA 30], and reads:
  ”...I cannot speak of Lyell or Darwin without thinking of Haeckel. All three belong together. What Lyell and Darwin began, Haeckel continued. He expanded it in the full knowledge that he was serving not only the scientific need but also the religious consciousness of mankind. He is the most modern spirit because his world view is no longer tainted by old prejudices, as was still the case with Darwin, for example. He is the most modern thinker because he sees in the natural the only field of thought, and he is the most modern feeler because he wants life to be arranged according to the natural. We know that he celebrates the anniversary of Lyell's birthday with us because for him it must be the day that brought the one founder of the new world view. The festive day that is celebrated in honor of Lyell makes us realize that we belong to the Haeckel community. When Haeckel talks to us about the processes of nature, every word has a secondary meaning for us that is related to our feelings. He is at the helm; he is steering hard. Even if at some point we don't want to go where he is taking us, he still has the direction we want to take. He has received the rudder from Lyell and Darwin; they could not have given it to anyone better. He will hand it over to others who will lead in his direction. And our community will sail swiftly forward, leaving behind the helpless ferrymen of the old worldviews. These are the ideas that the 14th of November, on which Lyell's birthday was celebrated for the hundredth time, has stirred in me."
  In a lecture at the Stuttgart Anthroposophical Congress on September 1, 1921 (reprinted in ‘The Three’, 2nd year, issue 7/8) [today in GA 78] Dr. Steiner said the following about the passage quoted above:
  "And when I had to write in 1897, on the hundredth birthday of Lyell, a founder of the modern scientific-monistic way of thinking, Haeckel also stood before me alive in the soul's eye. A community appeared to me in spirit that could be capable of continuing the process of living in nature, which can be found in the line of spirits from Lyell to Haeckel, in the direction in which it must be continued. That is why I wrote for this ideal community, which should seek the path that had just begun with Haeckel's monism, those words which, if understood correctly, can suggest that with this monism, a wall has now been crossed, beyond which one must no longer return to earlier times if one does not want to deal with the decline of if one wishes to deal with the rising, not the declining, forces of human evolution. Yes, my dear ladies and gentlemen, we must advance from this monism; we must never go back to the old worldviews that have been overcome by this monism. That is why I wrote the words at the time: Even if in some places we do not want to immediately move past the one he leads us to (namely Haeckel) – nobody can do that when anthroposophy is germinating in their soul – he still has the direction we want to take; he has taken the rudder from Lyell's and Darwin's hands, they could not have given it to a better person, and our community is sailing forward quickly! Yes, may it absorb into itself the strict scientific spirit that true natural research has brought forth, and may it quickly advance into those depths of world existence that lie in the supersensible and yet can only be fathomed by supersensible research!"
• 10. Magazin für Litteratur 1898, pag. 310. [Today in GA 33, page 129.]
• 11. This protest was directed particularly against Dr. Rabel's statement that Dr. Steiner “made wise use” of the burning of the Goetheanum and “took it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and inner reflection”.

Dr. Steiner: The negotiations on the current affairs have been going on for so long, and it is so urgent to deal with other matters, that it would almost be a catastrophe under any circumstances if the negotiations this evening were to be as inconsequential as those of last Monday. I have asked that these negotiations not be conducted before such a large body as before, because that only serves to make things go without result and to prevent us from emerging from the current crisis. I myself will say as little as possible; I want to hear what intentions there are for the future of the Anthroposophical Society.

I just want to say this so that there is no misunderstanding about the significance of our deliberations. Such deliberations, as we are now accustomed to, would not have been possible up to a certain, not very distant period. They have become possible and are now taken for granted because most of the people gathered here today have been able to gradually take on the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society in a leading position over the past four years or so. So the earlier situation in which many of those gathered here today found themselves, namely that they had joined the existing Anthroposophical Society and, so to speak, did not have the full measure of responsibility, no longer exists today.

They must be aware that a large number of personalities have, so to speak, taken the lead in anthroposophical affairs with their own full initiative. Therefore, it has become necessary today that the responsibility for a large part of anthroposophical affairs falls back on these personalities. And these personalities should be aware that the changes that have taken place cannot be erased.

After these changes occurred in the membership, it was therefore quite natural that I was obliged to turn to the leading personalities regarding the question that arose for me from the circumstances, before appealing to the individual members to possibly restore the former situation. These changes imposed duties on me that have withdrawn me from my previous duties. It is therefore natural that before I try to restore the previous conditions, I once again turn to the leading personalities – which of course has been done in vain – to get them to see what they want to do before I turn to the individual members. I do not want to participate materially in today's negotiations. Today I will first of all just listen to what comes out of the bosom of this meeting today, to see afterwards how we can move forward. So it depends on whether you conduct the negotiations in a fruitful way. Otherwise I will have to assume that you have no interest in it if the Anthroposophical Society is led into a catastrophe in the very near future.

I ask you, so that we do not part without result, to at least approach the matter with the utmost seriousness and a sense of responsibility today. I ask you to consider this as an introduction to today's negotiations. Much will depend on what you do today.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko speak. Dr. Unger: We have to look for ways to overcome the “Stuttgart system”. Dr. Maier, Dr. Palmer, Miss Toni Völker, Paul Baumann speak.

The question of an intended medical vade mecum is addressed.

Dr. Steiner: We should have learned to rethink the clinical pictures in general. We must not obstruct, that goes without saying. One can construct a building, although the difficulties are infinitely great; but they are not considered at all. Just as little as the method of deliberation was considered when the Waldorf School was founded. The question is what could have been done two years ago today. These omissions are the issue. If we beat about the bush and make excuses, then it is self-evident that the excuses are not suitable for writing a vade mecum. The description of heart disease must be thought of in a different way, quite apart from whether the individual remedies can already be used. We must think differently about heart disease. Presented in a different way, it will be able to appear before the world more plausibly than in the previous manuals. What is needed is the good will to rethink in the field of medicine, based on the principles of spiritual science. But because all the discussions are being led down dead tracks, I have to speak. I cannot imagine what should happen, but I can imagine that medicine can be rethought if the will to do so exists. Perhaps there is a much greater need to work from physiology and to rethink the disease patterns physiologically. This does not depend on whether or not the disease remedies have been tried out. This is something that applies “in itself”. However much we may not underestimate the difficulties, we must not beat about the bush about them, as has been done, otherwise we will get nowhere. It is not a matter of presenting the pathology in its entirety. The manuals are always being corrected. It is not about merely recommending remedies to the world. I consider the “remedies list” to be the most harmful thing that could have come about. The point is to advocate the method. I consider everything else to be something that has only harmed us. We do not have to wait for people to accept something like this today; then we can wait until the next incarnation. The point is that we advocate the matter before the world, just as others have advocated their methods; they throw no small amount of abuse at each other. It is not a matter of painting the thing into the mouth of every single professor of medicine, but of presenting it as it could have been presented six months after the inauguration of the matter. That is to say, we present the matter as natural healing methods were once presented. It is a question of medical thinking. The discussion should not be led down dead tracks. We should talk about what is at issue, not about what is self-evident. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Before this vote, Dr. Steiner had already spoken twice during the negotiations. One time, in response to the description of the specific difficulties given by Dr. Noll, he said that one would end up in a ‘regressus ad infinitum’ if one made ‘methods’ out of the difficulties. The other time he said: When would we ever have been able to found the Waldorf School?"

Dr. Unger: I wanted to talk about active trust.

Dr. Steiner: I have described the methods in detail and in detail. The doctors have not been born out of a heavenly realm in which the task has been set for them. Generally speaking, it seems either plausible or implausible.

The doctors Dr. Husemann, Dr. Noll, Dr. Palmer, and also Eugen Benkendberfer speak to the matter.

Graf Polzer: Who will write the Vademecum?

Dr. Noll: It will definitely be written.

Emil Leinhas, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko speak to this.

Dr. Steiner: It would have a certain value if there were a discussion about why the Vademecum has not yet been created, and if it could then be seen that it can come about out of an understanding of the true reasons. If the reasons are really discussed, then one can count on it being produced in the future – I am convinced that one man can produce it in six months – but there are reasons that are not objective and that would have to be uncovered. Then one could see whether it will be produced in the future.

If we continue to conduct the further discussion as we have done so far, it will not be possible to see whether society can be led beyond this crisis! The crisis has been brought about by the fact that since 1919 a movement has come into being that has led to all kinds of foundations. The point is that personalities must feel responsible and that they take on this responsibility. That should become clear if we want a guarantee for the continued existence of society. Perhaps then it would be discussed what difficulties there are in bringing about a physical examination. We would learn something about why a lecture is announced to the public but then does not take place.¹ There are quite different difficulties behind that. We urgently need to discuss the things that are already related to anthroposophical life. If the discussion is not to be led into a fruitful field at all, by doing passive resistance, then I would like to draw attention to individual things that show that these are very central anthroposophical matters.

It was before the Vienna Congress [June 1-12, 1922]. Dr. Kolisko had intended to go to Vienna and give a lecture. I was not very pleased that he had the migraine topic in mind. But in the end it is not my business. For me, it was a matter of starting the conversation about it. During this conversation, the following words were uttered: “When I go to the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute, they refuse to give me the material.” — The thing is that such a word can be uttered! If it is really true that the migraine material has been refused for lectures, then we come to the conclusion that this is not an anthroposophical attitude in this matter. If we were to behave in an anthroposophical way, things would come about that are meant to come about. The external developments since 1919 have run into difficulties precisely because of the non-anthroposophical behavior of the individual personalities living in Stuttgart. When there is talk of inhibitions, the real inhibitions should be mentioned. It seems that people want to avoid these things.

I only wanted to point out this characteristic, but I would still like to bring the discussion back to a more fruitful track than the one we have been led to. If these attacks do not cease, then those who are supposed to work together anthroposophically will not work together, but will mutually prevent each other from writing the Vademecum. I have been confronted with this many times: it has been said that individuals prevent each other from writing it. These are the things that would have to be understood, and if they are understood, if the wounds are really pointed out, then there would be a guarantee that the things could be stopped in the future. From what has been said so far, there is no such guarantee. There is no other guarantee than that it is said why there is no cooperation between Gmünd and the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute [in Stuttgart]. Things are then related when asked why there is no collaboration! There is a kind of obstruction going on. This is what I ask you to consider. If there is no serious talk today, it will lead to a catastrophe for the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot continue to work on mere promises.

Dr. Kolisko: Regarding the migraine question, the material was sent to me later. It was not quite what I needed. Personal differences between the gentlemen prevent “the book” [Vademecum] from being written.

Dr. Steiner: In any case, the situation was such that it could be said: Those at the top do not publish their work. If I compare this case with the attitude of the [Clinical Therapeutic] Institute towards the work on the spleen,² I have to say that these things are not very promising.

Some members are speaking.

Dr. Steiner: It would have been better if two individuals had spoken. Again, I don't see where the method lies through which we will make progress.

Emil Leinhas: We must talk openly about things and their reasons.

Dr. Steiner: What has been said is the following: From the very beginning, when medical activities were to take place here, I said that it was not a matter of offering individual remedies, but of offering a medical method. I will only mention that once the method of homeopathy was taught, another time another method. It is important to advocate a medical methodology. In Landhausstrasse, quite a long time before this little book saw the light of day, I suggested to Dr. Noll that we sit down and write a vade mecum. I said that I did not expect much from a “college”; it had to be written by a single person. I made this comparison very early on, to show how homeopathy and naturopathy were represented. This comparison was made to show that agitating for a single remedy cannot be the right thing to help the world in this case, but that it is a matter of telling the world: Here is a certain medical way of thinking. This, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Peipers as a conviction before the doctors, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Noll, this then led once again to my saying in summary: This methodical approach can best be made clear to the world by a vade mecum.

When I say something like that in front of laymen, it is immediately understood that all of these things can only discredit us. The fact that van Leer has come forward is due to the fact that at the meeting that was held recently, it was necessary to discuss what the basis for the effectiveness of our remedies is, and that it was necessary to say again that the methodology must be disseminated first, just as the homeopathic methodology was disseminated at one point. The layman van Leer understood this and drew the conclusion from it; the layman understands this immediately. But our medical college has drawn the conclusion from it that a pedantic-methodological treatise must be written.

These are things that one would think one would only have to mention for people who are familiar with them in their practice of life to understand. One could cite a hundred examples to support this. Again, without judging their value or lack of it, I will cite this.

Schlegel of Tübingen once invited a circle of physicians. He spoke to this circle of physicians and took a stenographer with him. Apart from the value or worthlessness of the method, an extraordinarily stimulating little book was created. A kind of vade mecum was created. They had a case of how something like this arises in practice when you wall. This booklet has helped Schlegel a lot. Imagine, homeopathy is being discussed all over the world. If they had come up with something like this that would have meant something to people, they would have really had something. It is a medical methodology, like homeopathy or allopathy. That is what it is about.

Miss Rascher speaks.

Dr. Steiner: This depends only on the will. I would like to make the assertion that the vade mecum you are asking for should be in the mind of every doctor. Something that you naturally have in mind must be written down. I would like to know where we would be today if we had something like this vade mecum! I would like to know where we could be today! We are not getting far enough with the list of therapeutic products.

I just wanted to point out that the vade mecum could be written in a relatively short time and that the objections that have been raised today are not the ones we need to talk about. As long as we lack the will to speak the truth, we will not get the Anthroposophical Society back on its feet. Do you think that if we were to start talking at the teachers' conference as if there were uncertainty about the method!

Emil Leinhas: Unreserved discussion is necessary, otherwise things become chronic. The expression 'pigsty' has been used.

Dr. Palmer says he does not believe that Dr. Noll can write the thing.

Dr. Steiner: Are you convinced that Dr. Peipers or Dr. Husemann can do it? We must be clear about the fact that completion through joint work would at best turn out to be an acceleration, but that it is something that each of us can do alone.

Dr. Palmer: There is so much material in the lectures. But it is terribly difficult to rework it.

Dr. Steiner: That would only justify you making the claim that you cannot do it on your own. I did not make the unreasonable demand on you personally. I assumed it from others and was clear about the fact that I could assume it there; just as I was equally clear about the fact that I could not assume it with you. The case can be resolved. I was clearly aware from the antecedents what it would be about: namely, that the other gentlemen do the scientific work while you do the practical work — and then the scientific work failed. The only person I cannot reproach is you; that can be said just as sincerely as the other: whether it might not have been possible after all to advance the matter, as one says in popular language.

Dr. Palmer says there was an inhibition.

Dr. Steiner: What was this inhibition? You did not say what the inhibition was.

Dr. Palmer: One might have thought that there was a lack of goodwill and enthusiasm.

Dr. Steiner: I always maintained that goodwill was lacking. It is very important to me that you admit this today.

Dr. Peipers: We are hearing for the first time today that Dr. Noll had this assignment.

Dr. Noll: I did not take on the task as if I alone were capable of doing something like that.

Dr. Palmer: Just admit that the matter is up to you.

Dr. Kolisko: It had become clear to me that Dr. Noll cannot make up his mind about anything.

Dr. Steiner: I don't think we will be able to come to a decision on this question. It will be a matter of seeing how the other things stand in relation to this question. Whether or not we face a catastrophe depends on many individual things. So, first of all, we want to put Dr. Palmer's promise on record.

Then I would ask you to continue discussing the things that you also believe need to be discussed. It would be important to get information about such things. The question goes far beyond the scope of what concerns Stuttgart. It just radiates out from Stuttgart. Certain difficulties that we encounter in Dornach when the affairs of the local laboratory are discussed always lead to the fact that it cannot be done here with Gmünd. This relationship has also been discussed in my presence. I have always been convinced that more could be done in terms of cooperation than is being done in our circles. Because it is true that people are such that they also put obstacles and difficulties in your way! You have to deal with the difficulties. Now some of the difficulties may lie with Dr. Knauer. But they won't change him. I could never understand the situation regarding the relationship between the Clinical Therapeutic Institute and Dr. Knauer.

Emil Leinhas: It is Dr. Knauer's character.

Dr. Steiner: It is necessary in our movement, once a step has been taken, not to break off the commitment to the first step without further ado. I had no objection to the doctors bringing Dr. Knauer in. If he had not been drawn into the intimate details, it would have been possible to deal with him later. But now that he has been drawn into it, we must say B to A. That means: We must also deal with him further. These things must be taken into account. Not taking such things into account causes the greatest damage to our society. Something is always started in a certain careless way. I am only pointing out how careless we were with Sigismund von Gleich! This is how our anthroposophical troubles arise, from not having the will to say B after saying A. This is one of the things that must change for us.

Dr. Palmer and Emil Leinhas comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: It always seemed to me that the more intelligent person gives in. Dr. Knauer cannot be considered an authority. If he had only impressed the medical council, then it would have been fine. You gambled away the chance with him. We cannot have the principle that you first bring someone in and then throw them out when they are no longer convenient. You can see that a large part of what is inflicted on us from the outside [in the way of opposition] is based on a few expulsions that were carried out by the Anthroposophical Society against my will.

The discussion moves on to a different topic. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “At this point it was 1 a.m.”)

Dr. Kolisko speaks about the Research Institute and about Dr. Theberath.

Dr. Theberath speaks about his failure. Dr. Schmiedel put his name on the program without asking him.

Dr. Steiner: Don't you feel obliged to do something for the public interest of the Anthroposophical Society?

Dr. Theberath: I felt obliged to carry out the experiments. A delay in the experiments occurred because what was previously a minor matter became a major one.

Dr. Steiner: In this way we will never get anything out of our research institutes.

Dr. Kolisko: I should have rejected Dr. Theberath's article. There is an error in the editing.

Dr. Steiner: If we start from the principle that the one to whom something is reproached simply justifies himself, then I am convinced that everything that is discussed will end in a justification. If we think in this direction, we will not make any progress. You must remember that the ideas of these foundations have arisen from the bosom of society. Now you cannot necessarily assume that society will go bankrupt because nothing is achieved in this research institute. It is self-evident that a series of experiments can be made more precise and more precise, but it is necessary to show something to the world. The only valid objection to the spleen experiments is that the series of experiments could have been extended. Of course, scientifically it could be justified that a series of experiments never comes to a complete conclusion. I do think, however, that the question should be asked as to how the [research] institute can be made fruitful through work. If we take every question only personally — and Dr. Theberath's view of this question is a prime example of this, then one can only say that the Anthroposophical Society is proving incapable of continuing along the paths of 1919. Then the matter must be abandoned and it must be pushed back to the state it was in in 1918. If you absolutely do not want to deal with the question in such a way that the matter bears fruit and that the leading personalities reflect on it: How do we present the matter to the world so that it bears fruit? Then we will not make any progress.

Liberation in these four different directions – then I will be finished. And please make an effort not to come to every meeting unprepared, but to come prepared once in a while.

• 1. See note on page 68 and the program on page 851.
• 2. See note on page 70.
• 3. M. Steiner made the following comment in her edition: “They wanted to exclude Dr. Unger.”
• 4. There are no minutes available for this meeting of the Stiebener Circle.
• 5. Dr. Kolisko took the place of Ernst Uehli.
• 6. A member of the youth group. The meeting in question was the extended meeting of the 30s on January 22, 1923. What Miss Ruben said has not been recorded.
• 7. With the Circle of Seven, see page 221.
• 8. Bock's remarks must also have been made at the extended meeting of the Thirties on January 22 and rejected by Rudolf Steiner at the meeting on January 29, for which, however, there are no minutes.
• 9. Here, in Karl Schubert's transcription, it is noted: “gap”.

The preceding considerations have essentially been concerned with showing how man in this day and age can gain an awareness of his present position in the evolution of mankind on earth. Even in circles that today do not want to know about the knowledge of spiritual worlds, some conception of this consciousness of the relationship of man to the universe is formed. And let us recall something that is much spoken of today in this connection, in this direction. Where all views of the universe are derived from the outer sensory events and the intellectual grasp of these sensory events, it is also said that the whole world consciousness of modern man has changed over the last few centuries. Attention is drawn to the great change that has taken place in this world consciousness of man through the Copernican world view.

We need only look back to the centuries that preceded the Copernican worldview; we need only look back, for example, to the scholastic worldview, which has been mentioned again here recently, and we find that for this worldview, spiritual forces and spiritual beings were present in the world of the stars. We hear how the scholastics spoke of the inhabitants of the stars, who belong to higher hierarchies in the development of their natures.

Thus, the people of this world view have directed their gaze out into the universe, have looked towards the planets of our planetary system, and towards the other stars in the night sky, and they have developed an awareness that not only etheric-material light from the starry worlds penetrates to them, but that, so to speak, when they look at the starry sky, the eyes of spiritual beings, whose outer embodiment can be seen in the stars, fall into their souls. Today, when man looks up at the planets and the other stars, he first of all forms an idea of how material bodies, permeated by ether, are floating freely in space, and how light emanates from these stars. But man does not think at all of the fact that from these stars the glances of spiritual beings of higher hierarchies meet him.

For modern man the Universe has become dead and unspiritual. And in the sphere of earthly existence, the man of ancient times found that which was intimately connected with the spiritual life of the universe. In the spiritual beings of the other stars were creative powers that had something to do with what develops spiritually and soul-wise here in man, spiritually, soul-wise and bodily, we might say. Men have looked up, let us say, to Saturn. They saw in the forces that come down from Saturn to Earth with the rays of light those forces that work within the human being and bring about the power of memory in this human being. They looked up to Jupiter, saw Jupiter connected with spiritual beings of higher hierarchies, who send their effects into man, so that the consequence of these effects in man is the development of the power of imagination. They looked up at Mars: they were of the view that the forces that work into man from the spiritual entities of Mars give man the power of reason.

Thus, a person belonging to an older stage of human development on Earth looked up at the starry sky and saw in the starry sky the origins of that which he perceived in himself spiritually, soulfully and physically. Man felt that he belonged together with beings of higher hierarchies, and man saw the outer revelations of these beings of higher hierarchies in the stars.

With the advent of the Copernican worldview, this world view also fell away. For it will be understood that an earth, which was seen as being under the influence of the immeasurable spiritual forces of the universe, was, one might say, also a gift of the whole universe for man, that man, by living on earth, saw in this earth the confluence of the effects of innumerable entities. Man felt, as it were, as a citizen of the earth, but, in feeling as such, at the same time as a citizen of the universe.

He looked up to the gods, worshiped his gods, but spoke of these gods in such a way that it was in their intentions to determine the course of human development on earth. The earth was explained in terms of its history, the earth as a dwelling place for man was explained from what was understood of the cosmos, what was understood of the universe. The earth was explained from heaven, and the gods were sought for the intentions for what was seen in the orbit of earthly events, and with which man was intimately connected.

What has emerged from the Copernican worldview gives modern man a completely different view of the world. Man increasingly felt that the earth is an insignificant world body flying around the sun. And when he reflected in a modern way on the relationship between this earth and the rest of the universe, he could not help but call this earth a speck of dust in the universe. All the other celestial bodies that his eye could see seemed more important to him than the earth, because external physical size became decisive for him. And in terms of this, the earth can hardly compete with a few celestial bodies.

Thus, for man, the earth became more and more a mere speck in the universe, as it were, and man felt insignificant in the cosmos on this insignificant earth, insignificant in the universe. With his spiritual powers, he was no longer connected to this universe. It must have seemed impossible for him to believe that what happens on this insignificant speck of dust in the universe, called Earth, is connected with the intentions of divine beings in the universe. One would like to say: All that man has seen on earth, because he recognized that heaven is populated by spirits and spiritual forces, all that has been lost to man in modern times. The universe has been desensualized and de-spirited. The earth has shrunk to an insignificant speck of dust in a world that has been de-spirited and de-spirited.

One must understand such a change in the world picture not only from the standpoint of a theoretical explanation of the world, but also from the standpoint of human consciousness itself. Man, who saw himself on an earth influenced by innumerable spiritual beings that had their realization, their intentions in man of the earth, otherwise knew himself, otherwise these views affected man, than the more spiritual space, in which glowing, spatially formed globes stand and move, of which one conceives no other activity than movement in space, than the revelation through light. How different must the human being, who now knew himself to be on one of the smallest of these world bodies, feel in the spiritless, soulless space, than within earlier world pictures. And yet, this conception of the world must have arisen in the course of the evolution of mankind. What an older mankind once knew about the heavens and their inhabitants, the divine spiritual beings, was indeed the inspiration, the imagination of an ancient dream-like clairvoyance, which was something that as such clairvoyance had descended from the universe into man. One must only imagine this correctly. When people in ancient times looked up at Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and saw divine spiritual forces at work in these heavenly bodies, it was because these revelations penetrated from the heavenly bodies themselves into their inner being and were reflected in them, so that through the influences of the universe, of the cosmos, they knew within themselves what was flowing from the cosmos into the earth. And so, through what heaven gave him, the earth became intelligible to him. Man looked up to his gods and knew what being he is on earth. In the modern conception of the world, he does not know any of this.

In the modern world view, the Earth has shrunk to a speck of dust in the universe, and now man stands as a small, insignificant creature on this speck of dust. Now the gods of the stars no longer tell him anything about plants, animals and the other kingdoms of the earth. Now he must direct his senses only to what lives in the mineral, plant, animal, and human kingdoms, what lives in wind and wave, what dwells in clouds, lightning and thunder. Now he can receive no revelations other than those that his senses give him about the things of the earth, and he can then only conclude from the revelations of the things of the earth about what is in the universe, according to the sensual and intellectual revelation.

Man has undergone this significant transformation in the fifth post-Atlantean period, which signifies the development, the unfolding of the consciousness soul. Everything that had previously come to him from the universe, and which then shone again within his soul, had to be squeezed out of him, so that he could stand there and say to himself: I know nothing but that I live on a speck of dust in the universe. This universe gives me nothing that enlightens me about the spiritual and soul life within me. If I want to experience such spiritual and soul life within me, I must extract it from my own being. I must renounce the idea that the revealing powers come to me from the vastness of the universe. I must fill my soul through my own efforts and activity, and perhaps hope that something in what wells up out of my soul is alive, which, conversely, gives me an insight into the universe from the human point of view.

In the past, man had the opportunity to gain insight into himself as a human being through what the universe revealed to him. He was able to see himself as the son of heaven because the heavens told him what he was as such a son of heaven. Now man had more or less become the earth's hermit, who in the solitude of his life on the dust-grain of the universe must gather strength in order, so to speak, to develop in solitude that which can be developed in him, and to wait to see whether that which reveals itself within is something that can shed light on the universe.

And for a long time, for centuries, what was revealed within was not about the universe. Man described the mineral kingdom according to spatial-temporal forces. He then described the workings of this mineral kingdom in geognosy, in geology. He described the outer sensory processes, how they take place, how plants sprout out of the mineral ground of the earth. He also described the sensory processes that take place in the inner being of the animal and the physical human being itself. He looked around everywhere on earth, inquiring what his senses told him about this earthly existence. Above all, they told him nothing about his own soul, about his own spirit. It was precisely out of this cosmic mood, if one grasped it properly, out of this mood, which can be expressed in the words: I, a human being, am an earth hermit on a speck of dust in the universe — it was precisely out of this mood that the impulse had to come to develop the truly human in free inner unfolding.

And a great, all-embracing question had to arise: Is it really true that in the whole range of what my senses can see, feel, hear, etc., here on earth, what can be combined by the intellect from them, is it really true that there is nothing in this range that gives me more than these senses can tell me? Man has developed a science. But this science, however interesting it may be, says nothing about man. It aims at abstract, dead concepts, which then culminate in natural laws. But all this leaves man indifferent. Man cannot possibly be merely the confluence of these abstract concepts, I would say, this receptacle for all natural laws! For these laws of nature have nothing spiritual, nothing of the soul about them, although they are conceived out of the human spirit.

You see, the person who felt this mood at a time of great significance for the development of world views was the young Goethe. And the expression of what he felt is what he wrote in the first form that he gave to his “Faust”.

Let us recall how Goethe, in the very first form he gave to his “Faust”, really presents this Faust, still remembering what it is that man should seek in the universe, how he would like to feel as a spirit and soul within spirits and souls, but how he feels rejected by the soulless and unspiritual world. How he then reaches for the old revelation of the mystical, the magical, opens an old book in which he finds descriptions of how the higher hierarchical beings live in the stars and their movements, a book that speaks of how heavenly forces ascend and descend and pass golden buckets to each other.

Such a view had existed, but in the times in which Goethe places Faust, such a view no longer captivates people. And Faust turns away, as Goethe himself turned away from the old explanation of the universe, which sought a spiritual and soul element in the whole universe, and he opens the book of the Earth Spirit. And then we read the remarkable words with which the Earth Spirit speaks:

In the flood of life, in the storm of action,
I surge up and down,
I weave to and fro!
Birth and grave,
An eternal sea,
A changing weaving,
A glowing life,
So at the whirling loom of time I labor,
And work the living garment of the Godhead.

But that there is something not quite right in the encounter between this Earth Spirit and Faust is clearly shown by Goethe in that Faust falls under the effect of this Earth Spirit, and that he is then exposed to the influences of Mephistopheles.

If you look at the monumental, succinct words of the Earth Spirit from the point of view of a concrete world view and are unbiased enough to make an assessment that was actually close to Goethe's own feelings, in that he did not stop at the Earth Spirit scene when writing Faust , but continued, if one considers all this, then one must fall into a kind of heresy in the face of much of what has been said and printed about “Faust,” but which certainly does not reflect the real opinion, the real view of Goethe. After all, what has not been said in connection with “Faust”!

You keep looking back to the words that Faust speaks to Gretchen, who is around sixteen years old, later in the course of the Faust epic: “the all-embracing, all-sustaining... Feeling is everything, name is sound and smoke,” and one feels so tremendously philosophical when quoting all that the expression is supposed to mean for one's own soul concepts, and now also quoting what Faust gives as instruction to a teenage girl. It is a schoolgirl instruction. It is actually compromising that one can cite this schoolgirl instruction from people who want to be clever as the quintessence of what one puts into words as a world view. This does indeed result, even if it is heretical, in an unbiased consideration.

But something similar also applies to the lapidary, monumental words spoken by the Earth Spirit: “In the floods of life, in the storm of action” and so on. They are beautiful, these words, but very general; we find something of a mystical pantheism of a sensually nebulous kind in them. I would say that it does not feel cloudy to us when we have this before us:

In the flood of life, in the storm of action
I surge up and down,
I weave to and fro!
Birth and death,
An eternal sea,
A changing weaving,
A glowing life,
So at the whirling loom of time I labor,
And fashion the living robe of divinity.

Nothing happens that does not give us the ability to look concretely into the universe, into the cosmos.

Goethe certainly felt this, especially later, because he didn't stop there, he wrote the Prologue to Heaven. And if we take the prologue in heaven: “The sun resounds in the old way, in the spheres of the brothers' song” and so on, then it is much more reminiscent of the heavenly powers that float up and down and pass the golden buckets than of the somewhat nebulous tides and weaves of the earth spirit. Goethe returned from – well, one cannot say the 'divinization of the earth spirit', but something similar. Later, as a more mature person, Goethe no longer regarded this earth spirit as the one to which he wanted to turn solely and exclusively in the form of Faust, but he took up again the spirit of the great world, the spirit of the universe. And even if the words spoken by the Earth Spirit in the first version of Faust are beautiful, succinct and monumental, these words spoken by the Earth Spirit are also distantly related to the “All-embracing, All-sustaining One” and the teachings of the sixteen-year-old schoolgirl. only distant kinship – these words spoken by the Earth Spirit also have a distant kinship with the “All-embracing, All-sustaining One”, with the instruction of the sixteen-year-old schoolgirl. Why shouldn't they be beautiful for that reason? Of course, when instructing schoolgirls, one must take particular care to say things beautifully! Why shouldn't they be beautiful?

But of course we have to be clear about the fact that Goethe, as a mature man, did not see in nebulous pantheism that which gives man a real world-consciousness.

But there is something else at the root of it. Goethe, with his concrete way of looking at the things of the world – at least to a certain degree – would not have been able to draw his Faust in the way he did if he had portrayed him as a representative of humanity for the 12th century of Western civilization. He would have had to take on a different form, but he would never have been able to draw this form as he drew his Faust. Faust should not have put aside the book of Nostradamus and turned from the spirit of the great world to the earth spirit, because at that time there was an awareness that man, when he understands himself correctly, understands himself as a son of heaven, and the spirits of heaven have something to say to him about his own nature. But Faust is the representative of humanity who belongs to the 16th century, thus already to the fifth post-Atlantic period, the period that approaches the view: I live as the earth hermit on a speck of dust in the universe. It would no longer have been honest of the young Goethe to have Faust look up to the spirit of the great world. As a representative of humanity, this could not be the case with Faust, because in his consciousness, the human being no longer had any connection with the heavenly powers that rise and descend and pass the golden buckets to each other, that is, with the entities of the higher hierarchies. That was darkened, that was no longer there for human consciousness. So Faust could only turn to that with which he could be connected as an earthen hermit: He turned to the genius of the earth.

That Faust turns to the genius of the earth is something, I would say, radically grandiose, which occurs in Goethe: for this is the turn that human consciousness has taken in this age, away from the darkening powers of heaven to the genius of the earth, to whom the spirit itself has pointed, which has gone through the Mystery of Golgotha. For this genius, who has passed through the mystery of Golgotha, has connected himself with the earth. By connecting himself with the evolution of humanity on earth, he has now given man the power, in the time when he can no longer look up to the spirits of heaven, to look to the spirits of the earth, and the spirits of the earth now speak in man. Formerly it was the stars in their motion that revealed the words of heaven to the human soul that could interpret and recognize these words of heaven. Now man had to look at his connection with the earth, that is, ask himself whether the genius of the earth speaks in him.

But only nebulous words, mystically pantheistic words, can Goethe in his age wrest from the genius of the earth. It is right, it is magnificent that Faust turns to the genius of the earth, but I would like to say that it is quite magnificent that Goethe does not yet let this genius of the earth express anything that can already satisfy. That the Genius of the Earth first stammers and stutters, I might say, the secrets of the world into mystic pantheistic formulas, instead of pronouncing them in a sharply defined manner, shows that Goethe has placed his Faust in the age in which he saw his Faust and himself.

But one must feel one's way towards this relationship between Faust and the Earth Genius, so beautifully portrayed by Goethe, so that the Earth Genius will gradually become more and more understandable to man, so that he will reveal himself more and more clearly to man when man allows the activity of his own soul, the activity of his own spirit, to reveal what is in the heavens. Formerly the heavens revealed to man what he needed to know for the earth; now man turns to the earth, because the earth is, after all, a creature of the heavens. And if one gets to know the genius or genii that have taken up their residences on earth, then one nevertheless gets to know things about the heavens.

That was also the procedure adopted, for example, in my book 'Occult Science: An Outline of Its Methods'. There, everything within the human being was questioned and asked to speak. There, much was actually drawn from the spirit of the earth. But the spirit of the earth speaks about the Saturn age, the Sun age, the Moon age of the earth, the Jupiter age, the Venus age. The spirit of the earth speaks to us of what it has retained in its memory of the universe. Once upon a time, people turned their gaze out into the vastness of the heavens to gain insights about the earth. Now, they look down into the human soul, listen to what the spirit of the earth has to say about human nature from the memory of the world, and through their understanding of the genius of the earth, they gain macrocosmic knowledge. Today, of course, if one attaches the right importance to spiritual science, to spiritual knowledge, one would no longer present Faust's conversation with the Earth Spirit as Goethe did, although in his time it was ingenious to present it in this way.

Today, the earth spirit should not speak in those general, abstract words that can be said to express anything from a floating water wave to a spirit of the earth. Only that is mystically dark, because this floating wave of water is now sitting at a loom and weaving! I know, of course, that many people feel extraordinarily well when such vagueness stirs in them through the soul; but one does not thereby attain the inner human conscious stabilization that one needs as a modern person. There is always something of a reverie or even of intoxication about it: “All-embracing, All-sustaining,” “in the tides of life, in the storm of action,” one is always a little beside oneself, not quite in oneself. It certainly gives people a sense of well-being when they can be a little beside themselves; some people prefer to be completely beside themselves and let all kinds of ghosts give them insights into the world.

By this I would just like to suggest that we cannot do otherwise in modern times than to turn to the genius of the earth that lives in ourselves! The fact of the matter is this: if we simply take what the scientific ideas of modern times give us, as it is, as it is laid down in external civilization today, then it remains abstract, leaving human consciousness cold. But when one begins to wrestle with these concepts, to wrestle even with Haeckel's abstractions, then something very concrete, something that can be experienced directly, comes out of this wrestling: Then the great realization comes over us that although we initially receive the indifferent scientific ideas, this form is only a mask. We must first realize that the genius of the earth is telling us what we receive. We must first listen with the whole ear of the soul to what we initially hear with the abstract mind. And in this way we learn to understand the genius of the earth in a concrete way by listening.

In this way we approach the way in which man, in the age of consciousness soul development, must attain world consciousness. These things must be grasped by the human being in a way that is felt. Then, with feeling, I would say with his heart's blood, he approaches the anthroposophical world feeling. And this, not just individual ideas about the world, but this world feeling, must be acquired by the modern human being if he wants to feel and think in the right way, in accordance with the suggestions that I have made here recently.

Tomorrow, my dear friends, I will continue these reflections. Today, I would first like to say a few words to you about the state of the negotiations in Stuttgart. These negotiations are connected with what you have noticed as a kind of crisis within the Anthroposophical Society.

At this moment, the Anthroposophical Society must decide in its leading personalities whether it has viability or not. You have also heard various things here about the living conditions of the Anthroposophical Society. I would just like to say a few words about this today: this anthroposophical movement started in Central Europe. But it is of interest to the broadest international circles. And anthroposophy itself has gone through the three phases I spoke to you about last time. The Anthroposophical Society has not fully kept pace with the development of anthroposophy, and today there is an abyss between the work of the Anthroposophical Society and the reality of anthroposophy as it can be found today. This abyss must be bridged. And since the anthroposophical movement originated in Central Europe, it is a matter of fact that conditions must first be put in order in Central Europe. Then, when they are in order in Central Europe, we must immediately think about the order of the international anthroposophical societies, which will then have their center here or elsewhere. But the vagueness in which the Anthroposophical Society finds itself today must first be resolved. For this reason, the first step was to work on the consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society in Stuttgart.

Now the negotiations were extremely difficult. This crisis arose for the reasons I mentioned here on January 6, and the situation is as follows: on December 10, I gave a kind of mandate to one of the members of the Central Council, Mr. Uehli. I said at the time: It has been noticeable for a long time that the Anthroposophical Society needs consolidation, and I can only hope for success if the Central Board in Stuttgart, supplemented by leading personalities in Stuttgart, tells me the next time I am in Stuttgart how they would like to begin the consolidation; otherwise, if the Central Board does not come up with ideas about the consolidation, I would have to approach each individual member myself. Only this alternative is possible. —

You can see from this, my dear friends, that what was presented as a necessity for the consolidation of the Society was said on December 10; so it has nothing to do with the fire. After the fire, after this terrible catastrophe that has shattered our hearts, it must be said: if reconstruction is to happen, a strong Anthroposophical Society is needed; because without it, reconstruction would not be possible.

So it is imperative that a consolidation, an inner strengthening, a clear will of the Anthroposophical Society comes about.

This has involved very difficult negotiations in recent weeks, initially in Stuttgart. I said: They have to happen first, then they will be able to be on international ground. Well, I would have to tell you a book, a very thick book, if I wanted to tell you everything that has been negotiated in these weeks. But basically it was inconclusive until yesterday. And the day before yesterday I suggested that, now things have turned out this way, a kind of committee should deal with drafting a circular letter in which the great questions affecting the Anthroposophical Society and movement today be brought to the attention of the members; that such a circular letter call for the calling of a meeting of delegates in Stuttgart, initially for the German and Austrian branches, so that work can be done on this consolidation [see $. 268].

This committee, whose effectiveness is initially intended only until the delegates' meeting, which is to take place at the end of February, on February 25, 26 and 27, is a provisional one. Until this delegates' meeting, it is to have the leading position in the Central European Anthroposophical Society. The representatives on the committee are Dr. Unger, a member of the old Central Executive Council, and Mr. Leinhas, representing the “Kommenden Tages”; then, as a result of the circumstances, there are a number of prominent Stuttgart citizens: Dr. Rittelmeyer, Mr. von Grone, Mr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko; from elsewhere, Mr. Werbeck from Hamburg and, representing the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press, Miss Mücke. This committee has been entrusted with the preparatory work for the consolidation. After all the other efforts failed, a draft of the appeal to the assembly of delegates was produced yesterday. It is to be finalized and sent out at the beginning of next week and is to include the real issues facing the Anthroposophical Society today. So that is what I have to announce for the time being.

The negotiations were indeed accompanied by widespread dissatisfaction. After we had finished the negotiations on the draft appeal yesterday morning, I was able to speak to the members of our academic youth movement who were particularly concerned; so I hope that during the days I am now here in Dornach, the young will negotiate with the old in an appropriate way. The day before yesterday I expressed it in this way: I said, “I hope that now, taking into account the new committee, the young will be accepted by the old among the young.”

Something like this had to take place, because everywhere people are demanding a new, fresh element of life. That must come. Youth is knocking at the gates. It has every right to do so; it must be understood. But age cannot be ignored; it must be allowed to work; the foundations of the Anthroposophical Society have come out of it. A modus operandi must be found as quickly as possible that will lead to a strong Anthroposophical Society, otherwise we will not be able to continue our work.

I wanted to share this with you today so that you are informed about these matters. The old Central Executive Council has ceased to exist, and this committee will now manage affairs until the end of February.

with Dr. Steiner [Dr. Rittelmeyer is a new addition] in the chair.

Dr. Kolisko reads the circular letter [the new draft of the Appeal].

Adolf Arenson is not in favor of the whole story going out into the world in print, but only to be presented to the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Schwebsch asks Dr. Rittelmeyer what impression he has gained from the matter that has been read out.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I had the impression that the Society was being set on fire. Discussions like the one on Monday are impossible. This afternoon I was present. [Dr. Steiner did not attend this meeting.] On the whole, I would like to see a warmer tone adopted, so that the positive things that the Society wants and can do are convincingly expressed. The tone that is struck should bear witness to the fact that each individual is brought to carry out his function. Great slogans must come from Stuttgart. Each of the speakers should see that something great is happening through it. Care should also be taken to ensure that the anthroposophical spiritual material is properly conveyed. Efforts should be made to ensure that the right kind of polemic and apologetics are provided.

Dr. Steiner: Our opponents must not be given the opportunity to gain the negative impression from us.

Many speakers speak: Dr. Hahn, Dr. Schwebsch, Alexander Strakosch.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: What is at stake is that we come to self-reflection in the face of the tremendous hour of destiny. Would it not be right to make a positive suggestion that a number of us, quite on our own, without regard to the programs that have been presented so far, would reflect on the deepest essence of the anthroposophical impulse and put it on paper. Then it could either be used as it is, or the most suitable thing, with which everyone can best identify, would be sent out.

Dr. Husemann supports this proposal.

Dr. Steiner: I would have found it understandable if Dr. Husemann had made such a proposal three weeks ago today. It is understandable that Dr. Rittelmeyer is making it. But that Dr. Husemann, at this psychological moment, expects us to do something for a society around which – as Dr. Rittelmeyer rightly said – a fire has been set, which I have always emphasized, too – when Dr. Husemann expects us to do something like that, then I can only say that I cannot understand his whole view and sympathy. The psychological moment has not come to sit down again and brood over nothing for as long as possible. There has been enough time since the many weeks when we always spent the time driving back and forth between Dornach and here to learn about the things that have been discussed here. Dr. Husemann, you must not think that you can be offered anything!

Dr. Hahn will speak about this.

Dr. Steiner: The best must be expressed in the appeal. Mr. Arenson says that this version will immediately be in the hands of the enemies. I consider the belief that this will do no harm to be the greatest naivety. One must be clear about the fact that one cannot sleep through the whole process of the Anthroposophical Society. You have to realize that whatever version is published, tomorrow it will be in the hands of the enemies. So you have to realize that you are publishing a version that can fall into anyone's hands. This version must not begin with the sentence: 'The hour of destiny has come for society'. If you send out the matter in this version, then those who started the fire will have the very best foundation. I was pleased that this was said today in the middle of the discussion. I have emphasized it myself again and again. It's just that no one ever listens to what I say. Everyone must admit that you could have known this. Everything here is done as if there were no opposition. You can only want to send out such an appeal if you are completely cut off from the real facts of the situation. We had this appeal almost word for word yesterday. That is why I asked for it to be discussed today. The result of the discussion is that the same appeal appears again.

Adolf Arenson and Mr. Baumann will speak about this.

Dr. Steiner: On page 2, the sentence: “This order was not recorded by Mr. Uehli. Such omissions were openly admitted.” Page 3: “Since Dr. Steiner insisted at all meetings that one should press ahead until the real damage was known...” Page 4, for example, the impossible sentence: “do better from now on and expose mistakes unreservedly...”, “Don't let the question of personalities come to the fore...”.

If you write down a sentence like this, for example, you will see that a large number of people who are pushing for a reorganization say, “These people don't even understand the very basics. They make suggestions to downplay the question of personalities.” The question of personalities is exactly what matters! Out there, it's about people, not about the central committee.

Only today I was told how bad blood it made when the pedagogical course met here and the invitations had to be obtained. The matter was told to me in this way – it serves only to characterize the “Stuttgart System”, it may even be possible to correct it -: The matter was that this youth league, which had organized the course, was supposed to invite the central committee; a conversation is said to have taken place between the invitees and Dr. Unger, in which Dr. Unger is said to have said that it was not important to him to be invited personally, but that the central committee had to be invited. The young people invited the three gentlemen personally and individually; but they had not invited the central committee.

If you throw these sentences into the fire that exists within the Society, people will say: They don't have the slightest talent for doing what matters. — By saying this, you are conjuring up an impossible intensification of this fateful hour.

The whole of what follows as a portrayal of the coming day is a single point of attack. For example, that I should also give my advice to those who work for threefolding outside the movement. People will laugh at that. As if I had assumed that I should give advice to the whole world! The relationship to religious renewal is also presented quite wrongly here. —- “The leading personalities are fully aware of the omissions and wrong methods. That these methods have been particularly emphasized by Stuttgart...” When such sentences appear in an appeal, then above all the people who would now like to have the Society as you know it – above all the outside opponents – will say: So that's all; they not only wash dirty linen in their own house, but what this Society is doing is hanging out its dirty linen for the whole world to see.

I have tried so hard to point out what would lead to the matter being brought before the world in a plausible way. This has not been taken into account. Of course, the damage also had to be mentioned. But the damage was only mentioned in order to get to the positive things.

Several people present speak.

Dr. Steiner: The matter is so obvious. One must look at the things I have mentioned that belong to the positive part of the call. One could say: It is a fact that since 1919 the prominent personalities we have in society have moved here to Stuttgart. This should have led to a powerful impulse for the movement emanating from here. Instead, these foundations have been established. A Waldorf school has been set up. The Waldorf teachers feel that they can ignore what is going on around them, because they have the school.

I said: We can't go on like this. This is something that plays into the hands of our opponents. Has anyone ever paid attention to what I said? It was like that every time. I was very glad when Dr. Rittelmeyer gave his speech. He emphasized that this “alliance of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” is bringing up certain things from the past. This is a very important clue that can now be put to extremely good use. Was it necessary that we did not take the defense of the anthroposophical cause itself into our own hands years ago? That we did not repeatedly point out specific defamations in an appropriate manner? I myself do not get around to it because other things are more necessary. It was not necessary to continually supply new material to the opponents, but to also take the defense of the Society into our own hands. Now they are making an appeal accusing the Society. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The ‘Federation of Non-Anthroposophical Connoisseurs of Anthroposophy’ presents facts that we should make use of in order to point out the specific slanders with a single blow —— defense of the Anthroposophical Society —— The appeal must state that we now want to do what was not done earlier.”)

Mr. Fink: The individuals should withdraw and work something out.

Mr. Stockmeyer supports the motion that the individuals should withdraw, that each person should draft the appeal and that they should then meet again.

Dr. Steiner: I would like to briefly outline what Dr. Rittelmeyer said. Firstly, that fires have been set everywhere around the Anthroposophical Society; secondly, that impossible discussions have taken place here in the branch twice in a row; thirdly, that he wishes there to be a warmer tone overall; further, that the positive should be strongly emphasized; that certain strong slogans should be issued; that the sectarian spirit must recede; that the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge be imparted in a careful, not distorted way as by the opponents of the world; that he had listened to the offensive in the discussions and that the story of the cloud secret [...] then came out; that above all he misses correct mediators of the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge.

Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Röschl): Why can't one reveal that one is familiar with the writing [of the league of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy]? [It says:] “It is a fight to the death.” Should we openly document that we do not care about our opponents?

Dr. Noll: Dr. Goesch characterizes himself as an epileptic. Two absences. These

people are going to be led around by an epileptic.

Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Noll): Do it! You are a doctor, aren't you! The weekly journal Anthroposophie is waiting for material for its next issue. Anthroposophie is as boring as it can possibly be because no one provides any material, and those who know the material provide nothing.

A motion has been made that we adjourn.

The meeting is interrupted and the participants write their proposals. After two hours the meeting continues.

Continuation (night session, starting at 10:30 p.m.)

Dr. Steiner: Then we can begin.

A large number of the participants read out their proposals or talk about the difficulties of society: Dr. Noll, Mr. Apel, Dr. Heyer, Dr. Röschl,

Dr. Stein, Mr. Stockmeyer, Mr. Maier, Mr. Wolffhügel, Mr. Strakosch, Dr. von Heydebrand.

Dr. Steiner: Twelve calls! I request suggestions as to the form in which we want to negotiate.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: It seems to me that the calls are mostly full of empty phrases. There is far too little concrete discussion based on the situation. Seriousness is mentioned, but it is not given enough consideration.

I imagine it could be worded something like this – I have written it down: “We have become aware that society in its present form is not the right vehicle for spiritual values. It has become too entrenched, too selfish and self-indulgent. There has been a lack of cohesion of forces. So it has come about that precisely the yearning that awakens in youth has not found the right place in society where it can be satisfied. The universal need for spiritual knowledge has not found the right organ. The present situation calls on us to be mindful of our duty. An opposition has awakened that has already given us all kinds of tests. We must become fully aware of the high spiritual good that has been entrusted to us in this hour of world history. We bear the responsibility for ensuring that this spiritual good is conveyed in the right way. New, elastic, free forms must be found for what has been entrusted to us. Everywhere it is a matter of leading the spirit in full freedom and purest clarity to the depths where the solution of the problems shines forth. If we become aware of the tasks, then we may hope that a solution can be found.

Paul Baumann: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be asked to write the appeal.

Jose del Monte is opposed to a single person making the appeal. He should come about through the combined efforts of everyone.

Dr. Unger: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be involved.

Dr. Stein: Dr. Rittelmeyer should choose those with whom he believes he can do it.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I am actually only in a position to make the material I have written available to you. I need at least until tomorrow morning so that I can present it. I don't want everything that was in the other individual calls to be lost.

Dr. Steiner: We are back to square one. The situation has become tragic. Isn't it true, just consider this: yesterday I asked you to summarize the individual institutions. But let's refrain from doing so at this moment. What preceded the discussions that have begun about the reorganization of society? This was preceded by a polemic against the improper behavior of anthroposophists towards the “Movement for Religious Renewal”. Then a small committee was formed that is historically connected with this defense against what was overgrowing the society. A committee of seven was formed to take charge of the reorganization. And now the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society themselves are transferring the reorganization of the Society to the leader of the religious renewal! That is the fact that you have now organized. Just consider that the person who made the request was also the leader of the committee of seven.

If you believe that we will make progress in this way, that the steps we are taking will have any significance, then the situation of society is quite tragic. Because just admit what it means to hand over a reorganization plan with nothing but negative criticism. Yesterday I myself suggested calling Dr. Rittelmeyer. I have only given all this as a description of the situation we find ourselves in.

Marie Steiner: Now the Anthroposophical Society is buried, and the gravestone can be placed on it.

Dr. Unger (jumps up): If no one else offers to do it, then I will undertake to make the appeal alone. I repeat the offer to make this appeal. It could be ready by tomorrow morning.

Dr. Steiner: Just consider what the deeper meaning of all these weeks of discussions is. It is this: when something happens in the Society, the will of people must also stand behind it. It is not enough to express thoughts and then have others say that they agree with them. It just so happens that the people who have held the leadership of the Society externally in recent years have moved to Stuttgart. Today we have reached a point where it is no longer possible to merely have the appearance of leadership, but where leadership must be taken up with real power. No matter how many thoughts I would say, it would be of no use to you. After all that has happened, it is of no use to hand down thoughts with which one then declares one's agreement. If society had been left with the standpoint of 1918, there would have been no “Kommende Tag” and no Waldorf School. Now that all this is in place, it is a matter of actually taking control of it. To do this, the will must be connected with the thoughts of those who want to lead, otherwise there is no will and no power. You have to muster the strength to do something. This strength must be able to turn into something positive. You have to have something in yourself. And, isn't it true, if an attempt is made to put something like this forward here, it ultimately leads to suggestions like the one just made. Until yesterday, the whole of society had not thought of inviting Dr. Rittelmeyer. The whole of society, which has been discussing here for weeks what to do, is now calling on Dr. Rittelmeyer to write the appeal. It must not be understood as if the whole Anthroposophical Society agrees with this.

Adolf Arenson: I felt a sense of relief when Dr. von Heydebrand spoke earlier.

Dr. Steiner: We could have said that we ourselves did not want anything and transferred the whole thing to Dr. Rittelmeyer. It is better to say everything as it is. There is no other way than to say: the old board stays, and then we wait to see what the others say, who have been shaken up in this way. That is the conclusion: the old board stays, since no result has been reached; we will wait to see what the company says about it tomorrow. But what was the whole campaign for? Why was all this staged?

Dr. Stein: They wanted to perform a feat.

Dr. Steiner: We started by saying that the old board had become a laughing stock, and we end up with the result that the old board has to stay because of the lack of results.

Dr. Blämel: Could Dr. Steiner, as the occult leader, not designate those who have the ability to lead the Society out of chaos?

Adolf Arenson: The task now is to write the appeal. Emil Leinbas: The old central committee can no longer function.

Dr. Steiner: The point is that the Anthroposophical Society should want something in its leaders; this may even differ from what I myself consider desirable. What the Society wants in its leaders must emerge. This is quite independent of the accident in Dornach. It arose from the task I gave Mr. Uehli on December 10. I asked Mr. Uehli to meet with other members of the central committee, reinforced by leading personalities here in Stuttgart, to make proposals about the opinions that exist in the central committee and in the committee regarding the further continuation of the Society. Nothing came of this. Because when I arrived here, a committee of seven members, actually under the leadership of Mr. Uehli, met me. This committee really behaved as if it had the philosopher's stone in relation to reorganization; and its criticism culminated in the fact that the old board was a laughing stock. Since then, negotiations have been ongoing. I also presented the other part of the alternative: that otherwise I would be forced to turn to each individual member of the Anthroposophical Society myself in order to somehow put the Society itself in order. Now, as I said, instead of the Central Board carrying out the task, a committee has confronted me here, and the actions of this committee have now led to this result, which has just been characterized. Either the leadership of the Society declares: We give up the possibility of continuing the leadership —— or it must express what it wants. But it must offer some kind of guarantee that the Society has a will and is not just grumbling. There must be a real will.

Now, the negotiations have been carried this far for the reason that I must, of course, offer the utmost chance that the Anthroposophical Society can continue to act as a society. You have to look at things as they are. We cannot undo what has happened. What does it mean to go back to the situation in 1918? I will mention just two things. One would be to close the Waldorf School; the other would be to pay out all the sums that have been paid in for shares. We must be clear about the consequences of everything. It is easy to make speeches, but we in the Society have institutions that must continue to function. Therefore it is not an easy matter when I have to address each individual member. You can't close the Waldorf School! You can't buy back the shares! But these are the real foundations for such an action. If I were now forced to do so, it would mean that nothing would remain of the old Anthroposophical Society but these real institutions. The “Kommende Tag” must be treated in such a way that it does not lose its reputation; the Waldorf School must continue to exist. But the Anthroposophical Society must dissolve, and I turn to the members to create something new.

Therefore, the last chance must be seized. When the Anthroposophical Society was constituted, I expressly stipulated that I would not be a member. You have only to discuss whether you want to resign your leadership or continue to lead. Please bear in mind that I have never been involved in the administration of the Anthroposophical Society. Things must be taken as they are. You cannot act as you have done, out of your emotions, and say that the old Central Board is a laughing stock. Do you think it is easy to face people and say that we have once again sat through a night without results? Oh, we already know what the sparrows are saying on the rooftops: “Let's get rid of all your leadership!”

Marie Steiner: The will is directed towards dismissing Dr. Unger. But there is no pure will for the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society and for the cause itself.

Dr. Steiner: One also has the right to dismiss someone; but one must know whom one then puts in his place. Just imagine: it would rightly be laughed out of court if, after three weeks of negotiations, the decision were taken to adjourn the meeting. And that after twelve appeals have been made! After two hours, twelve people had decided to take action, after otherwise just waiting for someone else to do something. I can only say: the simple fact that twelve calls have emerged after two hours testifies to the lack of interest in a matter that one has represented with an unparalleled zeal. What could have been achieved if the same intentions that have been developed in the last two hours had been present earlier!

It is not surprising that nothing of any significance has been said. The way people think about a matter that is serious in the deepest sense is what has characterized the “Stuttgart system” to this hour. I do not want to reorganize the Anthroposophical Society. I have to turn to those who have turned to Anthroposophy. You are deciding the fate of the Anthroposophical Society! We cannot go on telling people: “Be so good as to wait!”

Adolf Arenson talks about the reorganization. He gives a summary of the points on which he intends to negotiate with the Friends: What is it that is still missing? He sees only the need to call the Friends together to make the weak points strong.

Dr. Steiner: We must not just give programs. If we want to issue a declaration of will, we must say something in it. The words must express a direction of will. Dr. Rittelmeyer's suggestion was good, but the tragic situation is that the others think that without what Dr. Rittelmeyer called “strong slogans,” they could no longer save society at all; everyone else should adhere to these slogans. What do you think? The people you call here as delegates want to find leadership here. The situation must be created in which the people say: Now the people of Stuttgart are confronting us in such a way that we want to follow them. In Stuttgart, people must know what needs to be done. The others are waiting to hear what is being done here in Stuttgart. Otherwise we will end up in pure negation.

Youth is not the most important thing. What do you think will happen if you don't come up with slogans today? Tomorrow, young people will say: “They don't know anything; now we have to do it!” Young people don't know anything either; they only think they know something, but they don't know anything. They are passing judgment on society with what they want or don't want now. This must be taken into account. You can't just say: Well, let's call a meeting of delegates; they'll then tell us what we should want.

The following spoke: Adolf Arenson, Miss Dr. Röschl and Dr. Schwebsch.

Dr. Steiner: The committee that was formed yesterday met today.¹ A spokesperson presented the first draft. This is the committee's appeal. Then, aren't they, the other appeals that have also been put forward are from Dr. Unger, Dr. Heyer and so on. These are personal appeals, just like the others. These two things must be considered absolutely separately.²

The fact of the matter is that yesterday this committee had Dr. Kolisko's draft as something finished. We parted: firstly, with the appointment of the committee; secondly, with the request to this committee to convert the draft into a positive one. Furthermore, the draft, with all that it contains, cannot of course be signed by the provisional central committee. So the starting point for today's appeal was, secondly, that its negative points should be converted into positive ones. The mistake, then, is not that any positive points have been newly added, but that only the old negative points have remained. I expected the negations to be transformed into positives. Substantially, it is important that the twelve appeals suffer from an excess of phraseology; they do not have enough substance. Those who make the appeal do not act independently enough.

Dr. Stein once said: We should not let the life's work of Dr. Steiner be taken away from us. — The appeal has now made the following impression: The points that I myself gave were heard, but they appeared in the appeal without any inner connection. The point is to make such a thing one's own. That is why I repeated these things again. What you have written in there does not have enough affinity with the personalities. That is what it comes down to.

José del Monte speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Dr. Rittelmeyer began his speech by saying that he had reported in detail to the committee on what he had said. I am just surprised that there is nothing about this in the committee's appeal, nor about what was decided yesterday: to transform negation into a positive.

I cannot formulate the points that should ultimately be the positive ones. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “It would be detrimental if I were to state the positive points.”) This must be done by those who have been given the task of working in the direction indicated.

Now, as a result of all the misery yesterday, we have come to form a committee that is roughly the same as the one I had imagined the old board could have formed. I imagined that the old board would have formed this committee from the synthesis of positive activities in the anthroposophical cause. It is composed of all the necessary antecedents. This committee has the opportunity to represent the shades of the old, and through its two members, Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth, who are young, it has the opportunity to be accepted by young people. So this morning, because we had to give the young people some information, I said: ³ I am just curious to know whether the old people among the young will accept the young people among the old. So I asked if the old among the young would accept the young among the old. I was told that it would only depend on how they would approach us. — The new committee has the opportunity to exist as something old; and at the same time it has the opportunity to be accepted by the youth.

Things must arise out of the real facts. Furthermore, as already mentioned, the committee is composed in such a way that it is a synthesis of those positive activities that are decisive in the anthroposophical movement. This committee is given out of the nature of the matter itself. But if we don't achieve anything, then the society must abdicate.

If only the committee acts in the right way. Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old; he is already called the “second soulless dialectician”; Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old. Because this committee has two prominent, still completely undiscovered personalities among its members, it only needs to reveal itself in the right way in one or the other direction. A committee must be such that it can work in a wide variety of directions. The committee could not be better composed. I cannot understand why it should not work.

Just consider: before I left last week, we had heard the most serious accusations against each other. Before I left, I asked the Provisional Committee to prepare the matter so that we could discuss it the following Monday. I had in mind what had been read here. The question was whether another Monday meeting should be held here. At least the call could have been made. What happened on Monday? This Monday meeting was a mere repetition of the meeting that had taken place before I went to Dornach. The same thing happened again. Of course, small variations occur; time alone makes them because the earlier process is no longer remembered exactly. When I complained that there was an exact repetition, I was told that it was with other bases. I was also told that negotiations had to be conducted with the people. Now we were at the point where there had been a straightforward repetition and it had to be made clear once again that such an appeal had to be made. We can continue the matter like this. From yesterday to today it is a straightforward repetition, with the exception of what the pause for thought has produced.

We had a memorable vote yesterday.⁴ I had a vote on who had read Mr. von Grone's essay. I had a vote on who had not read it: that was the vast majority. When I go to the Waldorf School, the magazines lie there for many days. Lack of interest begins with only taking care of one's own narrow field. Here one is no longer an anthroposophist by degrees; one is really no longer an anthroposophist. It takes three weeks before one comes to the decision to reflect on anthroposophy.

What Dr. Rittelmeyer said this evening follows from all of this. If you had been present at the small committee meetings, you would not be able to deny that all these points have already been raised; most of them in even greater detail. No one has taken care of this. They could have drawn on the things that have been discussed here for weeks. As long as we do not make an effort to draw from reality and do not get tirades out of a book, we will get nowhere. The reader senses whether there is anything real in the appeal. The spirit must enter in, which engages with the facts with good will. And it is this spirit that is being opposed.

Now I don't know whether we will see another copy tomorrow night. If we don't make every effort, then we will end up with a revolution in full swing in society. At least we should be clear about that, that Mr. Leinhas would also have to stay if we stay and only

Friday morning. But then the time would have to be used for work.

Adolf Arenson: I object to the fact that it is said that this group made that suggestion.

Dr. Steiner: Anyone who did not make the proposal can object. The fact remains that this proposal was made this evening by this group. You can now be appalled that this fact has come to light. Such a group should at least agree on the most fundamental things, so that it does not reduce itself to absurdity.

So tomorrow the whole group.

• 1. Without Rudolf Steiner. There are no minutes of this.
• 2. Of the numerous drafts that were made for the appeal, nothing is available.
• 3. No protocol.
• 4. It was not possible to determine in which district the vote took place.

Dr. Unger: The task at hand is to prepare for the assembly of delegates. I have consulted with Dr. Kolisko and prepared yesterday's discussions for the central theme: the society must be consolidated.

Dr. Kolisko: The Representatives' Meeting should take place soon.

Dr. Unger: How should this circle work until the meeting? The question must be asked whether it will still work with me.

A conversation takes place between Dr. Schwebsch and Dr. Unger.

Dr. Schwebsch: Yesterday one could have had the impression that it was the Unger-Arenson family that was concerned and not the Society.

Dr. Kolisko: First of all, a provisional arrangement must be made, also in the branch matters.

Dr. Unger: The mistrust against me continues.

Marie Steiner: At the time when the question of the merger of the two branches arose, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Baumann and Mr. Palmer worked against Mr. Arenson and Mr. Unger. If requests such as the one made by Miss Hauck arise, it shows that these things can be dealt with. Why shouldn't it be possible?

Dr. Schwebsch: These are imponderable things.

Dr. Unger: The opinion here is that it won't work with me.

Dr. Steiner: We won't get anywhere if we discuss this question. It is an absolutely unnecessary question that has no place in this evening's discussion. What is at issue is not what the Stuttgart branch finds desirable or not desirable for itself, or how the work of Mr. Arenson and Dr. Unger is evaluated, but the question is that the central committee has not achieved anything in these years. The second thing is that something must arise that makes it clear that something can arise. All other questions must be considered from these two points of view. The question of mistrust or trust must also be considered from this point of view. We cannot talk about it for another fortnight. That is it. It is about the Anthroposophical Society in Germany and Austria, and that was mentioned in Mr. Uehli's mandate. What will become of the Stuttgart branch is a completely different matter. I have always meant by the “Stuttgart system” that which has had a subversive effect on the Society from here, because the Central Council had no ideas. That must be the direction of the conversations.

Marie Steiner: I think that Dr. Schwebsch has turned in a very one-sided way and does not see the essential.

Dr. Steiner: The essential thing is that the second positive element does not emerge anywhere and that what the ladies and gentlemen intend to do does not emerge. Consider the sterile situation in which we find ourselves! The previous board of directors thought it was compatible for one of its members to make his functions available and for Dr. Unger to resign provisionally. Then we had a sad night session, and then there was another session in which we tried to sketch out where the journey should go. Now I expected that the deliberations would be along these lines: where the journey should go.

The first session was a tumultuous critique. Then a general silence fell; we sat down around the table, and those who had talked the most in the critique talked the least when it came to sketching out a positive structure.

Dr. Unger: I was anxious to present something new. Dr. Steiner: The two appeals are merely bureaucratic documents: convening meetings! If you think that this will be wiser than what has been done so far, then you are mistaken. The point is that the Anthroposophical Society must be led, and so the person who is already convening meetings must have ideas about how the journey should continue. These calls have created bureaucratic documents.

Several speakers speak, often with reference to “yesterday”. Marie Steiner: It is not usual for those who have something to say to speak.

Emil Leinhas speaks.

Marie Steiner: – – but those who are possessed seem strong. Unless you have years of experience, you do not notice the effect at the first glance. One is not always equal to it, and “eternal youth” falls for it after all. What Dr. Unger says: “to illuminate Dr. Steiner's life's work from all sides,” is perhaps not new, but – –

Miss Dr. Maria Röschl speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Take the things as they have been in these days. Basically, much of what should have been said has always been said in the Thirty Committee. On December 10 [1922], I spoke [with Mr. Uehli] and said that I expected the Central Committee to approach me with some other people, otherwise I would have to address the Society myself in a circular letter; this Society is disintegrating. — I do not want to repeat everything that has happened in the meantime. I came here again. You all gathered independently of the assignment that you expressed by criticizing the central committee so harshly because nothing is happening. – Please, what is it that needs to be done? The district must point to the personalities whom it believes know.

Dr. Maria Röschl [to Dr. Unger]: How do you envision the branch work?

Dr. Unger: The book “Theosophy” should be studied. It should be expanded to include the entire movement. Archives should be opened in the right way. A “leader” should be developed through the works of Dr. Steiner.

Several others speak, then Mr. Uehli and Dr. Unger.

Dr. Steiner: There has been no leadership since 1919. The establishment of this and that has created the necessity for the Society to be led by personalities. It needs leadership, but it is not being led because the personalities who should lead are not aware that they should lead. How are things going in the Society? What is happening? And what is not happening?

The “Movement for Religious Renewal” has emerged. A lady went into it with all her passion; she felt nothing but that she was supposed to go into it. No plausible directive emerged for her. She heard about my lecture on December 30 [in GA 219]; she was told all kinds of things that led her astray. Now, I gave a lecture here last Tuesday.¹ From the lecture she had the impression that she would find her earlier opinion again. Afterwards she was told that it was clear from my lecture that no anthroposophist should take part in the religious renewal movement. Well, now she has completely lost her temper. This “should” and “should not”! You should always do this or you should not do that — but that does not appear at all in what I said.

It is not actually working. What is a classic example of this movement: it is not working to spread anthroposophy, but to prevent the right way of looking at anthroposophy. This is the case of working to prevent the right way of looking at anthroposophy. No work was done on it until the end of December. So it happened that this whole complex of questions, which has arisen in relation to the religious renewal movement, is a misjudgment. No position was taken on it until the end of December, when the Central Council came and wanted to make a mere defensive move, which came much too late. And this was not accompanied by the real awareness: What should the Anthroposophical Movement do? It was a struggle with something else.

Let us add to this that the Anthroposophical Movement was founded in 1901 and continued positively until 1918. And that from then on, foundations began that have become part of the finished Anthroposophical Society. Anthroposophy was made into threefolding, it was made into everything possible. Everywhere, the stubborn or the comfortable ways were sought, while everything I emphasized was blown through the fingers, with the exception of the only thing that Mr. Leinhas took the reorganization of “Futurum” into his hands. There is a complete lack of real leadership. And that is why there was talk of the “Stuttgart system”, which consists of grafting everything possible onto the Anthroposophical Society, but not making the effort to work for anthroposophy. On the other hand, there is the system of starting everything and not continuing it, such as the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Federation for a Free Spiritual Life), which has remained only on paper. And then, isn't it true, everywhere the easiest way is chosen and then abandoned, no further attention paid to it. Sitting on curule chairs without any activity! All this is typical of the “Stuttgart system”.

These are the absolute “unmethods”: to carry out one's office, but to avoid any real activity. Activity has been avoided since 1919. Nothing has been pursued, while all the same promises have been made to pursue things. These are the things that come into question above all. It seems to me that it would be easy to move on to the positive. For example, when I look at Dr. Stein's activity, it seems to me historically like this: at first he ranted and raved so that he rose to the point of saying that the board of directors had become a laughing stock for children. Then he lapsed into lethargy. It would be hard to highlight anything positive. It's no use for you to tell me to guess. Then it leads to something that I say being passed on. I am not criticizing you for saying it; it is just that it is not helpful. Only what grows on one's own soil helps, but in such a way that it becomes concrete and permeates the will. As long as we remain in the stage of not getting beyond generalities, we act as if society were not there at all. But since it is there, we have to speak differently. We have to talk about real things. We are not faced with the question of founding the Anthroposophical Society now. “Finding the other human being”: these are expressions used in every humanitarian society.

Now this committee of seven was formed. It could only come together by saying: We want this or that, and therefore we are dissatisfied with this or that.

Wherever there was an opportunity to achieve something in a positive and humane way during this time, it was not seized. This is what I have explained as the system of inner opposition.

In this way, we are constantly practicing inbreeding by continuing the system of the last four years in society. In the last four years, inbreeding has been practiced constantly, with the exception of those people whom I myself appointed. The path of convenience has always been chosen. How much has been ruined here because people did not understand how to cultivate talent. Those who are there are not even cared for. They are scolded. The task is to cultivate them, to use them in such a way that they put their talents and knowledge at the service of society.

The “circle” does not even have the opportunity to get beyond its own clique. They never think of bringing in others to make use of their talents or good will when they themselves get stuck. So they keep on inbreeding. It is not becoming for a couple of Waldorf teachers to sit down and reform society if they can't do it. If they can, then they should just go for it.

Nobody knows about this appeal by Dr. Unger. Nor about the other one, which is almost identical. People don't know why they should come. Of course, it is only of value if those who want to take the matter into their own hands say what needs to be done. There is nothing in it for society to do, and it is not being done because society is not functioning.

We have researchers and institutes! There are: Dr. Theberath, Maier - Strakosch is the head of them -, Smits, Lehofer, Dechend, Pelikan, Streicher, Spiess. Nine researchers have emerged from the Anthroposophical Society. It is an urgent question that the “Kommende Tag” does not go bankrupt on these nine researchers. That is one of the most burning questions of the Anthroposophical Society. All of this has emerged from the bosom of the Anthroposophical Society. Have you taken care of the things that are not being done?

Dr. Kolisko: We are well aware of these questions.

Dr. Steiner: Otherwise everything will spiral out of control if the Society does not take care of the things that have grown out of it and does not think about maintaining them. The Anthroposophical Society can be administered in the same way as you are discussing it today, in the same way as it was administered in 1910. People have demanded the Waldorf school. There is no longer any possibility of continuing with things as they were in the past. People have demanded activities that need to be carried out. The responsibility to take care of them is growing on the people who demanded them. Instead, we hold meetings that prevent us from taking care of them.

I would like to continually point out specific issues. I would like to point out the researchers you let go for a walk. The central board has not even considered that it has an obligation to ensure that they do something. There is nothing in the magazine Anthroposophie. But nine researchers and four doctors go for a walk. Of course, the “Kommende Tag” will go bankrupt because of these nine researchers, who are joined by four doctors. And that is how we get the opposition. The result is that people say we promise the world all sorts of things and none of them come true.

Emil Leinbas speaks.

Dr. Steiner: The moment people hear that there are people sitting around doing nothing, we get opposition.

Marie Steiner: At the last meeting I expected these things to be mentioned.

Dr. Steiner: It didn't occur to anyone to speak of these real things, although I said other things. Since 1919 they wanted to have something other than the Anthroposophical Society.

Some members comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: There is not enough time for that. This means that the responsibility has fallen to the others to take care of the Anthroposophical Society. That is what needs to be done. We could have arranged to take care of the archives and arrange lectures from the archives anyway. What was needed in 1919 requires the help of others, not just from the inner circle. If nine researchers are employed, it is the responsibility of everyone who wants science to be done.

Marie Steiner: No one thought of eurythmy.

Dr. Steiner: Our friends first had to be persuaded to find something in eurythmy, while other things are taking hold here parasitically. The actual things are being thrown to the wind. This must be stated in the appeals, even if not in the words I am using to express it.

If we just keep talking about “finding the human being,” we won't get anywhere. I feel there is an injustice here. Is it heard that I have been directing research goals in a very specific direction for some time now, saying that the things are in the air? Mr. Strakosch recently told me that the things are already being done. The deeds of our researchers must be included in “Anthroposophy”, and the Central Board is responsible for this. |

The point is that our doctors are doing something. They have enough to do; there are specific tasks.

Opinions are being expressed loudly about some of the events of the last year.

Dr. Steiner: We cannot afford to become complacent in the face of such blatant injustice, nor refuse to feel it in all its depth. The matter has not been discussed in such a way that it is “a scandal” when something like this can happen.

Dr. Kolisko speaks.

Dr. Steiner: It is not the same thing to take something by the horns as it is to merely discuss it. I mention this only as an example. I have always said that one speaks in generalities. At the Waldorf School, you should use this intellect, which has come about through a very special selection from Central Europe. The inbreeding within this circle leads to nothing. This also ruins all branch foundations. We will not attract new people.

Marie Steiner: Everything should be imbued with a different attitude. In addition to Waldorf teachers, other people should also be considered.

Some people present speak.

Dr. Steiner: I am only talking about the things that can be done as a matter of course. You can travel to Dornach and you can give a lecture. When the brochure on the spleen appears, you can claim that it should have provoked a continuous discussion. An investigation takes time. Of course, that should also arouse some interest. I am not saying that there are many people who are interested in such things; but what everyone can and must do is to bring something before the public that is a positive treatment of the anthroposophical material. That can be done. All you need to do is get down to it. I am not talking about genius at all; there is no lack of that. I don't know about Spiess. The others have the capacity, but they are not hardworking. They can do something, but they are not encouraged to do it. What has come out of the researchers, except for the pendulum story by Rudolf Maier? That is the only really positive result.

Schmiedel did not talk to me about Maier's lecture. That's the way it is with all these things. And even if he had, it would only prompt Schmiedel to write a refutation. That's what would follow. It could lead to a very interesting debate.

There is talk about the mood of opposition among young people.

Dr. Steiner: Miss Mellinger wanted to express the mood of young people. These ideas, which come from this corner, all assume that people say that no leadership is needed. You know, if the community is there, the appropriate leader can be found. It won't work without leadership. Purpose must be brought into the assembly. She can perhaps make her objections if the people do not suit her. There are Polzer, Miss Mellinger, Lauer – Maikowski is only the voting leader. It is all more decrepit than one would imagine. Those who are accustomed to using their tongues must express their point of view. It is sad that Dr. Stein has suddenly become mute.

Marie Steiner: I thought that these shortcomings would be discussed. I lived under this assumption, but I hear nothing about it.

Various voices are raised.

Dr. Steiner: Polzer represents the current Austrian faction, which is still active. Miss Mellinger can say anything negative. – Lauer is, of course, a representative of the youth; Maikowski is the youth's theorist. – They can be obliged not to speak for the beginning. – Little by little, the position becomes impossible if Miss Mellinger is included and

Maikowski is not. Just take Polzer and Lauer.

[Dr. Steiner?]: Wednesday at 8:30 pm,

• 1. Lecture Stuttgart, January 23, 1923, in GA 257.

[There are no minutes of this meeting, but there is the following report from a personal letter dated June 11 from Ernest Etienne of Chancy/Geneva; cf. also the report by Dr. Ernst Blümel at the Annual General Meeting on June 10, page 522.]

I was in Dornach for the group leaders' meeting and the meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. We had a meeting from three to five in the afternoon last Saturday, then eurythmy and a lecture, followed by a meeting from ten o'clock until one o'clock at night with the delegates, at which Dr. Steiner was present. A declaration was read in which Dr. Steiner was asked to take charge of the reconstruction of the Goetheanum and granted full freedom in the choice of those who should help him and also with regard to the finances necessary for the reconstruction. On condition that no one interferes with his arrangements, Dr. Steiner accepted, naturally also taking full responsibility for the construction and the finances. He has now requested a further three million to get started, in addition to the three million promised by the insurance company. He has stated that the insurance company has paid up and that the Canton of Solothurn wants the reconstruction and will provide the necessary funds. It would be made of concrete and would retain the character of the new organic forms typical of anthroposophy. The construction would be completed quickly, taking about 12 to 15 months. In view of the exchange rate fluctuations and the difficulties they cause, Dr. Steiner is opposed to taking out a loan and would prefer donations à fonds perdus.¹

Long discussions arose among the delegates to create an organization in Dornach to better inform the branches. This was a rather unpleasant matter that took up a lot of time. First, they demanded a great deal, and then they refused to give the necessary credit. The Bernese were quite bureaucratic and demanded a set of rules of procedure and an employment contract for the person who was to be entrusted with this matter. Another difficulty was the location, the furniture and finally the person himself. They were not satisfied with Storrer, who has taken everything upon himself. He was only provisionally confirmed, and Mr. Stokar was added to him, who is to receive 300 francs a month and can share the existing facilities.

I emphasized the necessity of guidance for the branches and for members who do not belong to any group. My proposal was accepted:

1. Minutes of the Dornach meetings should be taken.
2. More frequent meetings of the delegates.
3. Written communication of the issues discussed and those that need to be discussed.

It was decided that the branches in Bern, Zurich, Olten, St. Gallen and Basel should each have a delegate on the committee to oversee relations between the branches and the center and the use of funds. Mr. Steffen should have nothing to do with these financial matters. Stokar will take care of the communications and the minutes. The contributions of the branches were increased in that they will pay ten francs for each member for this organization instead of five as before, and the members who do not belong to a branch (and therefore have no expenses arising from branch membership) will pay 25 francs.²

• 1. This decision was read out and approved at the general assembly the following day.
• 2. Was confirmed by the General Assembly the following day.