The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Of peculiar importance for the understanding of the history of the West in its relation to the East is the period that lies between three or four hundred years before, and three or four hundred years after, the Mystery of Golgotha. The real significance of the events we have been considering, events that culminated in the rise of Aristotelianism and in the expeditions of Alexander to Asia, is contained in the fact that they form, as it were, the last Act in that civilisation of the East which was still immersed in the impulses derived from the Mysteries.

A final end was put to the genuine and pure Mystery impulse of the East by the criminal burning of Ephesus. After that we find only traditions of the Mysteries, traditions and shadow-pictures,—the remains, so to speak, that were left over for Europe and especially for Greece, of the old divinely-inspired civilisation. And four hundred years after the Mystery of Golgotha another great event took place, which serves to show what was still left of the ruins—for so we might call them—of the Mysteries.

Let us look at the figure of Julian the Apostate.¹ Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome, was initiated, in the 4th century, as far as initiation was then possible, by one of the last of the hierophants of the Eleusinian Mysteries. This means that he entered into an experience of the old Divine secrets of the East, in so far as such an experience could still be gained in the Eleusinian Mysteries.

At the beginning of the period we are considering, stands the burning of Ephesus; and the day of the burning of Ephesus is also the day on which Alexander the Great was born. At the end of the period, in 363, we have the day of the death—the terrible and significant death—of Julian the Apostate far away in Asia. Midway between these two days stands the Mystery of Golgotha.

And now let us examine a little this period of time as it appears in the setting of the whole history of human evolution. If we want to look back beyond this period into the earlier evolution of mankind, we have first to bring about a change in our power of vision and perception, a change that is very similar to one of which we hear in another connection. Only we do not often bring the things together in thought.

You will remember how in my book Theosophy I had to describe the different worlds that come under consideration for man. I described them as the physical world; a transition world bordering on it, namely, the Soul-world; and then the world into which only the highest part of our nature can find entrance, the Spirit-land. Leaving out of account the special qualities of this Spirit-land, through which present-day man passes between death and a new birth, and looking only at its more general qualities and characteristics, we find that we have to give a new orientation to our whole thought and feeling, before we can comprehend the Land of the Spirits. And the remarkable thing is that we have to change and re-orientate our inner life of thought and feeling in just the same way when we want to comprehend what lies beyond the period I have defined. We shall do wrong to imagine that we can understand what came before the burning of Ephesus with the conceptions and ideas that suffice for the world of to-day. We need to form other concepts and other ideas to enable us to look across the years to human beings who still knew that as surely as man is united through breathing with the air outside him, so surely is he in constant union through his soul with the Gods.

Starting then from this world, the world that is a kind of earthly Devachan, earthly Spirit-land,—for the physical world fails us when we want to picture it,—we came into the interim period, lasting from about 356 B.C. to 363 A.D. And now what follows? Over in Europe we find the world from out of which present-day humanity is on the point of emerging into something new, even as the humanity of olden times came forth from the Oriental world, passed through the Greek world, and then into the realm of Rome.

Setting aside for the moment what went on in the inner places of the Mysteries, we have to see in the civilisation that has grown up through the centuries of the Middle Ages and developed on into our own time, a civilisation that has been formed on the basis of what the human being himself can produce with the help of his own conceptions and ideas. We may see a beginning in this direction in Greece, from the time of Herodotus onward. Herodotus describes the facts of history in an external way, he makes no allusion, or at most very slight allusion, to the spiritual. And others after him go further in the same direction. Nevertheless in Greece we always feel a last breath, as it were, from those shadow-pictures that were there to remind man of the spiritual life. With Rome on the other hand begins the period to which man to-day may still feel himself related, the period that has an altogether new way of thought and feeling, different even from what we have observed in Greece. Only here and there in the Roman world do we find a personality such as Julian the Apostate who feels something like an irresistible longing after the old world, and evinces a certain honesty in getting himself initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries.

What Julian, however, is able to receive in these Mysteries has no longer the force of knowledge. And what is more, he belongs to a world where men are no longer able to grasp in their soul the traditions from the Mysteries of the East.

Present-day mankind would never have come into being if Asia had not been followed first by Greece and then by Rome. Present-day mankind is built up upon personality, upon the personality of the individual. Eastern mankind was not so built up. The individual of the East felt himself part of a continuous divine process. The Gods had their purposes in Earth evolution. The Gods willed this or that, and this or that came to pass on the Earth below. The Gods worked on the will of men, inspiring them. Those powerful and great personalities in the East of whom I spoke to you—all that they did was inspired from the Gods. Gods willed: men carried it into effect. And the Mysteries were ordered and arranged in olden times to this end,—to bring Divine will and human action into line.

In Ephesus we first find a difference. There the pupils in the Mysteries, as I have told you, had to be watchful for their own condition of ripeness and no longer to observe seasons and times of year. There the first sign of personality makes its appearance. There in earlier incarnations Aristotle and Alexander the Great had received the impulse towards personality.

But now comes a new period. It is in the early dawn of this new period when Julian the Apostate experiences as it were the last longing of man to partake, even in that late age, in the Mysteries of the East. Now the soul of man begins to grow different again from what it was in Greece.

Picture to yourselves once more a man who has received some training in the Ephesian Mysteries. His constitution of soul is not derived from these Mysteries: he owes it to the simple fact that he is living in that age. When to-day a man recollects, when, as we say, he bethinks himself, what can he call to mind? He can call to mind something that he himself experienced in person during his present life, perhaps something that he experienced 20 or 30 years ago. This inward recollection in thought does not of course go further back than his own personal life. With the man who belonged, for instance, to the Ephesian civilisation it was otherwise. If he had received, even in a small degree, the training that could be had in Ephesus, then it was so with him that when he bethought himself in recollection, there emerged in his soul, instead of the memories that are limited to personal life, events of pre-earthly existence, events that preceded the Earth period of evolution. He beheld the Moon evolution, the Sun evolution, beholding them in the several kingdoms of Nature. He was able, too, to look within himself, and see the union of man with the Cosmic All; he saw how man depends on and is linked with the Cosmos. And all this that lived in his soul was true, ‘own’ memory, it was the cosmic memory of man.

We may therefore say that we are here dealing with a period when in Ephesus man was able to experience the secrets of the Universe. The human soul had memory of the far-past ages of the Cosmos.

This remembering was preceded in evolution by something else: it was preceded by an actual living within those earlier times. What remained was a looking back. In the time, however, of which the Gilgamesh Epic relates, we cannot speak of a memory of past ages in the Cosmos, we must speak of a present experience of what is past.

After the time of cosmic memory came what I have called the interim time between Alexander and Julian the Apostate. For the moment we will pass by this period. Then follows the age that gave birth to the western civilisation of the Middle Ages and of modern times. Here there is no longer a memory of the cosmic past, still less an experience in the present of the past; nothing is left but tradition.

Present Experience of the Past.
Memory of the Cosmic Past.
Tradition.

Men can now write down what has happened. History begins. History makes its first appearance in the Roman period. Think, my dear friends, what a tremendous change we have here! Think how the pupils in the Ephesian Mysteries lived with time. They needed no history books. To write down what happened would have been to them laughable. One only needed to ponder and meditate deeply enough, and what had happened would rise up before one from out of the depths of consciousness. Here was no demonstration of psycho-analysis such as a modern doctor might make: the human soul took the greatest delight in fetching up in this way out of a living memory that which had been in the past. In the time that followed, however, mankind as such had forgotten, and the necessity arose of writing down what happened. But all the while that man had to let his ancient power of cosmic memory crumble away, and begin in a clumsy manner to write down the great events of the world,—all this time personal memory, personal recollection was evolving in his inner being. For every age has its own mission, every age its own task.

Here you have the other side of that which I set before you in the very first lectures of this course, when I described the rise of what we designated ‘memory in time.’ This memory in time, or temporal memory, had, so to say, its cradle in Greece, grew up through the Roman culture into the Middle Ages and on into modern times. In the time of Julian the Apostate the seed was already sown for the civilisation based on personality, as is testified by the fact that Julian the Apostate found it, after all, of no avail to let himself be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries.

We have now come to the period when the man of the West, beginning from the 3rd or 4th century after Christ and continuing down to our own time, lives his life on Earth entirely outside the spiritual world, lives in concepts and ideas, in mere abstractions. In Rome the very Gods themselves became abstractions. We have reached a time when mankind has no longer any knowledge of a living connection with the spiritual world. The Earth is no longer Asia, the lowest of the Heavens, the Earth is a world for itself, and the Heavens are far away, dim and darkened for man's view. Now is the time when man evolves personality, under the influence of the Roman culture that is spread abroad over the lands of the West. As we had to speak of a soul-world bordering on the spiritual world, on the land of the Spirits that is above,—so, bordering on this spiritual oriental world is the civilisation of the West; we may call it a kind of soul-world in time. This is the world that reaches right down to our own day. And now, in our time, although most men are not at all alive to the fact, another stupendous change is again taking place.

Some of you who often listen to my lectures will know that I do not readily call any period a period of transition, for in truth every period is such,—every period marks a transition from what comes earlier to what comes later. The point is that we should recognise for each period the nature of the transition.

What I have said will already have suggested that in this case it is as though, having passed from the Spirit-land into the Soul-world one were to come thence into the physical world. In modern civilisation as it has evolved up till now, we have been able to catch again and again echoes of the spiritual. Materialism itself has not been without its echoes of the spirit. True and genuine materialism in all domains has only been with us since the middle of the 19th century, and is still understood by very few in its full significance. It is there, however, with gigantic force, and to-day we are going through a transition to a third world, that is in reality as different from the preceding Roman world as this latter was different from the oriental.

Now there is one period of time that has had to be left out in tracing this evolution: the period between Alexander and Julian. In the middle of this period fell the Mystery of Golgotha. Those to whom the Mystery of Golgotha was brought did not receive it as men who understood the Mysteries, otherwise they would have had quite different ideas of the Christ Who lived in the man Jesus of Nazareth. A few there were, a few contemporaries of the Mystery of Golgotha, who had been initiated in the Mysteries, and these were still able to have such ideas of Him. But by far the greater part of Western humanity had no ideas with which to comprehend spiritually the Mystery of Golgotha. Hence the first way by which the Mystery of Golgotha found place on Earth was the way of external tradition. Only in the very earliest centuries were there those who were able to comprehend spiritually, from their connection with the Mysteries, what took place at the Mystery of Golgotha.

Nor is this all. There is something else, of which I have told you in recent lectures,² and we must return to it here. Over in Hibernia, in Ireland, were still the echoes of the ancient Atlantean wisdom. In the Mysteries of Hibernia, of which I have given you a brief description, were two Statues that worked suggestively on men, making it possible for them to behold the world exactly as the men of ancient Atlantis had seen it. Strictly guarded were these Mysteries of Hibernia, hidden in an atmosphere of intense earnestness. There they stood in the centuries before the Mystery of Golgotha, and there they remained at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha. Over in Asia the Mystery of Golgotha took place; in Jerusalem the events came to pass that were later made known to men in the Gospels by the way of tradition. But in the moment when the tragedy of the Mystery of Golgotha was being enacted in Palestine, in that very moment it was known and beheld clairvoyantly in the Mysteries of Hibernia. No report was brought by word of mouth, no communication whatever was possible; but in the Mysteries of Hibernia the event was fulfilled in a symbol, in a picture, at the same time that it was fulfilled in actual fact in Jerusalem. Men came to know of it, not through tradition but by a spiritual path. Whilst in Palestine that most majestic and sublime event was being enacted in concrete physical reality,—over in Hibernia, in the Mysteries, the way had been so prepared through the performance of certain rites that at the very time when the Mystery of Golgotha was fulfilled, a living picture of it was present in the astral light.

The events in human evolution are closely linked together; there is, as it were, a kind of valley or chasm moving at this time over the world, into which man's old nearness with the Gods gradually disappears.

In the East the ancient vision of the Gods fell into decay after the burning of Ephesus. In Hibernia it remained on until some centuries after Christ, but even there too the time came when it had to depart. Tradition developed in its stead, the Mystery of Golgotha was transmitted by the way of oral tradition; and we find growing up in the West a civilisation that rests wholly on oral tradition. Later it comes to rely rather on external observation of Nature, on an investigation of Nature with the senses; but this after all is only what corresponds in the realm of Nature to tradition, written or oral, in the realm of history.

Here then we have the civilisation of personality. And in that civilisation the Mystery of Golgotha, with all that pertains to the spirit, is no longer perceived by man, it is merely handed down as history.

We must place this picture in all clearness before us, the picture of a civilisation from which the spiritual is excluded. It begins from the time that followed Julian the Apostate, and not until towards the end of the 19th century, beginning from the end of the seventies, did there come, as it were, a new call to humanity from the spiritual heights. Then began the age that I have often described as the Age of Michael. To-day I want to characterise it as the age when man, if he wishes to remain at the old materialism—and a great part of mankind does wish so to remain—will inevitably fall into a terrible abyss; he has absolutely no alternative but to go under and become sub-human, he simply cannot maintain himself on the human level. If man would keep on the human level, he must open his senses to the spiritual revelations that have again been made accessible since the end of the 19th century. That is now an absolute necessity.

For you must know that great spiritual forces were at work in Herostratus. He was, so to speak, the last dagger stretched out by certain spiritual powers from Asia. When he flung the burning torch into the Temple of Ephesus, demonic beings were behind him, holding him as one holds a sword,—or as it might be, a torch; he was but the sword or torch in their hands. For these demonic beings had determined to let nothing of the Spirit go over into the coming European civilisation; the spiritual was to be absolutely debarred entry there.

Aristotle and Alexander the Great placed themselves in direct opposition to the working of these beings. For what was it they accomplished in history? Through the expeditions of Alexander, the Nature knowledge of Aristotle was carried over into Asia; a pure knowledge of Nature was spread abroad. Not in Egypt alone, but all over Asia Alexander founded academies, and in these academies made a home for the ancient wisdom, where the study of it could still continue. Here too, the wise men of Greece were ever and again able to find a refuge. Alexander brought it about that a true understanding of Nature was carried into Asia.

Into Europe it could not find entrance in the same way. Europe could not in all honesty receive it. She wanted only external knowledge, external culture, external civilisation. Therefore did Aristotle's pupil Theophrastus take out of Aristotelianism what the West could accept and bring that over. It was the more logical writings that the West received. But that meant a great deal. For Aristotle's works have a character all their own; they read differently from the works of other authors, and his more abstract and logical writings are no exception. Do but make the experiment of reading first Plato and then Aristotle with inner concentration and in a meditative spirit, and you will find that each gives you quite a different experience.

When a modern man reads Plato with true spiritual feeling and in an attitude of meditation, after a time he begins to feel as though his head were a littler higher than his physical head actually is, as though he had, so to speak, grown out beyond his physical organism. That is absolutely the experience of anyone who reads Plato, provided he does not read him in an altogether dry manner.

With Aristotle it is different. With Aristotle you never have the feeling that you are coming out of your body. When you read Aristotle after having prepared yourself by meditation, you will find that he works right into the physical man. Your physical man makes a step forward through the reading of Aristotle. His logic works; it is not a logic that one merely observes and considers, it is a logic that works in the inner being. Aristotle himself is a stage higher than all the pedants who came after him, and who developed logic from him. In a certain sense we may say with truth that Aristotle's works are only rightly comprehended when they are taken as books for meditation. Think what would have happened if the Natural Scientific writings of Aristotle had gone over to the West as they were and come into Middle and Southern Europe. Men would, no doubt, have received a great deal from them, but in a way that did them harm. For the Natural Science that Aristotle was able to pass on to Alexander needed for its comprehension souls that were still touched with the spirit of the Ephesian age, the time that preceded the burning of Ephesus. Such souls could only be found over in Asia or in Egypt; and it was into these parts that this knowledge of Nature and insight into the Being of Nature were brought, by means of the expeditions of Alexander. Only later in a diluted form did they come over into Europe by many and diverse ways—especially, for example, by way of Spain,—but always in a very diluted or, as we might say, sifted form.

The writings of Aristotle that came over into Europe direct were his writings on logic and philosophy. These lived on, and found fresh life again in medieval scholasticism.

We have therefore these two streams. On the one hand we have always there a stream of wisdom that spreads far and wide, unobtrusively, among simple folk,—the secret source of much of medieval thought and insight. Long ago, through the expeditions of Alexander, it had made its way into Asia, and now it came back again into Europe by diverse channels, through Arabia, for instance, and later on following the path of the returning Crusaders. We find it in every corner of Europe,—inconspicuous, flowing silently in hidden places. To these places came men like Jacob Boehme,³ Paracelsus⁴ and a number more, to receive that which had come thither by many a roundabout path and was preserved in these scattered primitive circles of European life. We have had amongst us in Europe far more folk-wisdom than is generally supposed. The stream continues even now. It has poured its flood of wisdom into reservoirs like Valentine Wiegel⁵ or Paracelsus or Jacob Boehme,—and many more, whose names are less known. And sometimes it met there,—as for example, in Basil Valentine⁶—new in-pourings that came over later into Europe. In the Cloisters of the Middle Ages lived a true alchemistic wisdom, not an alchemy that demonstrates changes in matter merely, but an alchemy that demonstrates the inner nature of the changes in the human being himself in the Universe. The recognised scholars meanwhile were occupying themselves with the other Aristotle, with a misstated, sifted, ‘logicised’ Aristotle. This Aristotelian philosophy, however, which the scholiasts and subsequently the scientists studied, brought none the less a blessing to the West. For only in the 19th century, when men could no longer understand Aristotle and simply studied him as if he were a book to be read like any other and not a book whereon to exercise oneself in meditation—only in the 19th century has it come about that men no longer receive anything from Aristotle because he no longer lives and works in them. Until the 19th century Aristotle was a book for the exercise of meditation; but in the 19th century the whole tendency has been to change what was once exercise, work, active power into abstract knowledge,—to change ‘do’ and ‘can’ into ‘know.’

Let us look now at the line of development, that leads from Greece through Rome to the West. It will illustrate for us from another angle the great change we are considering. In Greece there was still the confident assurance that insight and understanding proceed from the whole human being. The teacher is the gymnast.⁷ From out of the whole human being in movement—for the Gods themselves work in the bodily movements of man—something is born that then comes forth and shows itself as human understanding. The gymnast is the teacher.

In Rome the rhetorician.⁸ steps into the place of the gymnast. Already something has been taken away from the human being in his entirety; nevertheless we have at least still a connection with a deed that is done by the human being in a part of his organism. What movement there is in our whole being when we speak! We speak with our heart and with our lungs, we speak right down to our diaphragm and below it! We cannot say that speaking lives as intensely in the whole human being as do the movements of the gymnast, but it lives in a great part of him. (As for thoughts, they of course are but an extract of what lives in speech). The rhetorician steps into the place of the gymnast. The gymnast has to do with the whole human being. The rhetorician shuts off the limbs, and has only to do with a part of the human being and with that which is sent up from this part into the head, and there becomes insight and understanding.

The third stage appears only in modern times and that is the stage of the professor.⁹ who trains nothing but the head of his pupils, who cares for nothing but thoughts. Professors of Eloquence were still appointed in some universities even as late as the 19th century, but these universities had no use for them, because it was no longer the custom to set any store by the art of speaking; thinking was all that mattered. The rhetorician died out. The doctors and professors, who looked after the least part of the human being, namely his head,—these became the leaders in education.

As long as the genuine Aristotle was still there, it was training, discipline, exercise that men gained from their study of him. The two streams remained side by side. And those of us who are not very young and who shared in the development of thought during the later decades of the 19th century, know well, if we have gone about among the country folk in the way that Paracelsus did, that a last remains of the medieval folk-knowledge, from which Jacob Boehme and Paracelsus drew, was still to be found in Europe even as late as the sixties and seventies of the last century. Moreover, it is also true that within certain orders and in the life of a certain narrow circle a kind of inner discipline in Aristotle was cultivated right up to the last decades of the 19th century. So that it has been possible in recent years still to meet here and there the last ramifications, as it were, of the Aristotelian wisdom that Alexander carried over into Asia and that returned to Europe through Asia Minor, Africa and Spain. It was the same wisdom that had come to new life in such men as Basil Valentine and those who came after him, and from which Jacob Boehme, Paracelsus and countless others had drawn. It was brought back to Europe also by yet another path, namely through the Crusaders. This Aristotelian wisdom lived on, scattered far and wide among the common people. In the later decades of the 19th century, one is thankful to say, the last echoes of the ancient Nature knowledge carried over into Asia by the expeditions of Alexander were still to be heard, even if sadly diminished and scarcely recognisable. In the old alchemy, in the old knowledge of the connections between the forces and substances of Nature that persisted so remarkably among simple country folk, we may discover again its last lingering echoes. To-day they have died away; to-day they are gone, they are no longer to be heard.

Similarly in these years one could still find isolated individuals who gave evidence of Aristotelian spiritual training; though to-day they too are gone. And thus what was carried east as well as what was carried west was preserved,—for that which was carried east came back again to the west. And it was possible in the seventies and eighties of the 19th century for one who could do so with new direct spiritual perception, to make contact with what was still living in these last and youngest children of the great events we have been describing.

There is, in truth, a wonderful interworking in all these things. For we can see how the expeditions of Alexander and the teachings of Aristotle had this end in view, to keep unbroken the threads that unite man with the ancient spirituality, to weave them as it were into the material civilisation that was to come, that so they might endure until such time as new spiritual revelations should be given.

From this point of view, we may gain a true understanding of the events of history, for it is often so that seemingly fruitless undertakings are fraught with deep significance for the historical evolution of mankind. It is easy enough to say that the expeditions of Alexander to Asia and to Egypt have been swept away and submerged. It is not so. It is easy to say that Aristotle ceased to be in the 19th century. But he did not. Both streams have lasted up to the very moment when it is possible to begin a renewed life of the Spirit.

I have told you on many occasions how the new life of the Spirit was able to begin at the end of the seventies, and how from the turn of the century onwards, it has been able to grow more and more. It is our task to receive in all its fullness the stream of spiritual life that is poured down to us from the heights.

And so to-day we find ourselves in a period that marks a genuine transition in the spiritual unfolding of man. And if we are not conscious of these wonderful connections and of how deeply the present is linked with the past, then we are in very truth asleep to important events that are taking place in the spiritual life of our time. And numbers of people are fast asleep to-day in regard to the most important events of all. But Anthroposophy is there for that very purpose,—to awaken man from sleep.

You who have come here for this Christmas Meeting,—I believe that all of you have felt an impulse that calls you to awaken. We are nearing the day—as this Meeting goes on, we shall have to pass the actual hour of the anniversary—we are coming to the day when the terrible flames burst forth that destroyed the Goetheanum. Let the world think what it will of the destruction by fire of the Goetheanum, in the evolution of the Anthroposophical movement the event of the fire has a tremendous significance.

We shall not however be able to judge of its full significance until we look beyond it to something more. We behold again the physical flames of fire flaring up on that night, we see the marvellous way in which the fusing metal of the organ-pipes and other metallic parts sent up a glow that caused that wonderful play of colour in the flames. And then we carry our memory over the year that has intervened. But in this memory must live the fact that the physical is Maya, that we have to seek the truth of the burning flames in the spiritual fire that it is ours now to kindle in our hearts and souls. In the midst of the physically burning Goetheanum shall arise for us a spiritually living Goetheanum.

I do not believe, my dear friends, that this can come to pass in the full, world-historic sense unless we can on the one hand look upon the flames mounting up in terrible tongues of fire from the Goetheanum that we have grown to love so dearly, and behold at the same time in the background that other treacherous burning of Ephesus, when Herostratus, guided by demonic powers, flung the flaming brand into the Temple. When we bring these two events together, setting one in the background and one in the foreground of our thought, we shall then have a picture that will perhaps have power to write deeply enough in our hearts what we have lost and what we must strive our utmost to build again.

• 1. Flavius Claudius Julianus, called the Apostate by the Christians, was Roman Emperor from 361–363.
• 2. See the 8th and 9th lectures in Mystery Knowledge and Mystery Centres.
• 3. (1575–1624), mystic. See Eleven European Mystics by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Publications, New York, 1971.
• 4. Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493–1541), physician. See Eleven European Mystics.
• 5. (1533–1588), mystic. See Eleven European Mystics.
• 6. Alchemist and Benedictine monk, lived from 1413 onwards in the Monastery of St. Peter in Erfurt. His writings were not discovered or printed till the beginning of the seventeenth century. See Eleven European Mystics.
• 7. Rudolf Steiner spoke in detail about this for instance in A Modern Art of Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1972 and Human Values in Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1971.
• 8. Rudolf Steiner spoke in detail about this for instance in A Modern Art of Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1972 and Human Values in Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1971.
• 9. Rudolf Steiner spoke in detail about this for instance in A Modern Art of Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1972 and Human Values in Education by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press, London, 1971.

We are trying to penetrate the theosophical life and knowledge bit by bit, but often during this penetration we have a heartfelt need to ask ourselves: why do we want and seek theosophy in the spiritual life of the present? We need not strain our minds or hearts too hard when such a question arises, and a word will come into our soul that will immediately have an enlightening and even more enlightening effect on our feelings: the word responsibility. Responsibility! This word should give us something that should exclude from the outset in our soul, in our hearts, that we are pursuing Theosophy out of some personal longing. If we observe what may befall us, perhaps without our being properly aware of it, when we hear the word responsibility in relation to the spiritual life that we call theosophical, then we will increasingly come to realize that we owe it to present-day humanity and to the best in us, which can serve this present humanity, to concern ourselves with 'theosophy'. We must not practise Theosophy just for our own pleasure, to satisfy ourselves somehow because we have this or that personal yearning, but we must feel that Theosophy is something that present humanity needs if the process of human development is to continue at all. We need only realize that without Theosophy, or whatever one might call it, without that spiritual life which we mean, humanity on earth would have to face a bleak future, truly a bleak future. This is so for the simple reason that all the spiritual impulses of the past, all that could be given to man in the past in the way of spiritual impulses, has been exhausted. It is gradually living itself out and can bring nothing new into the evolution of humanity. What would have to come if only the old impulses were to continue to work would be something that is perhaps still undreamt of today: not only an overwhelming, externally overwhelming, but numbing domination of mere outward technique, but also a perishing because all religious, scientific, philosophical, artistic and also, in the higher sense, ethical interest is moving out of the human soul. People would become a kind of living automaton if new spiritual impulses did not come. This is how we must feel when we think of Theosophy, as those whom their karma has brought to know that humanity needs new impulses.

We may well ask ourselves: What can we, each one of us, do according to our particular qualities and abilities, in the face of this general sense of responsibility? The way in which Theosophy has come into the world in recent times, and how it has developed over the last few decades into our days, is instructive for answering this question of the heart and soul, perhaps especially for you, my dear friends. We must never forget that the way the word Theosophy has entered the world in modern times is something of a spiritual miracle of civilization. This spiritual miracle of civilization is linked to a personality who, as a personality, is indeed close to you, my dear friends, since she drew her spiritual roots from your national heritage in a certain way. I am talking about Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. And for Western Europeans it is undeniable, in every respect undeniable, that the body in which the individuality, who in this incarnation was called Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, was enclosed, could only have come from the environment of Eastern Europe, from Russia. For she had all the Russian characteristics. But Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was taken from you by very special circumstances; Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was transferred to the West by the special karmic conditions of the present time. Now, let us consider what a strange cultural miracle actually took place.

Take this personality of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. She was a personality who, basically, remained a child throughout her entire life in many, many ways, a real child; a personality who, throughout her entire life, did not learn to think logically; a personality who, throughout her entire life, has not learned to control her passions, urges and desires to any extent, and was always able to fall into extremes; a personality who basically had very little scientific education. Through this personality, it is revealed to the world, one might say, as it could not be otherwise, through the medium of such a personality, in a chaotic, mixed-up, colorful way, a sum of the very greatest eternal wisdom of mankind. And anyone who is well-versed in these matters will find in Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's works wisdom, truths, and insights of humanity that could not have been understood by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's intellect and soul, not even remotely. There is nothing clearer, if one only approaches all the facts impartially, than that for everything that was in the work of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the outer soul, the outer intellectuality of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was only a detour, only a means by which significant, great spiritual powers could communicate with humanity. And there is nothing clearer than that in the way it was to happen at the beginning of the last third of the 19th century, it could not have happened to anyone in Western Europe. It took the very special, on the one hand selfless, almost des-ensouled, and on the other hand again radically selfish, egoistic nature of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, to allow what happened to happen through higher spiritual powers. The selfless nature for the reason that every Western European mind would have brought into its own forms of thinking, into its own intellect, what had been revealed. And it needed the completely selfish, egotistical kind, because in the coarse, materialistic way of life in Western Europe at that time, there was no possibility of doing otherwise than to make, one might say, iron fists out of such a radical state of mind, out of such delicate hands, which had to cultivate and care for the occultism of modern times. It is a peculiar phenomenon. But, my dear friends, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky went to the West, went to that cultural center which, in all its idiosyncrasy, in its entire structure and configuration in all fields, except America, is the most materialistic cultural area of our time, a cultural area that lives in its language, in its thinking, absolutely in materialistic thoughts and in materialistic feelings. It would be going too far here to discuss the power that led Helena Petrovna Blavatsky to England in particular. And so we see that the sum of occultism, which expresses itself in a culturally idiosyncratic way in a medium – I do not mean this in a spiritualistic sense – initially strives for the western part of Europe.

Within this European West, the fate of this occultism was initially sealed in a certain direction, because there was no way around the fulfillment of a significant karma in this materialistic European West with the founding of the Theosophical Society. This karma was also fulfilled. This Western Europe has a heavy karmic debt; it cannot penetrate the secrets of existence without this karmic debt asserting itself in a certain way. When occultism is involved somewhere, karma immediately deepens, and forces are brought to the surface that would otherwise remain hidden. And not to criticize anything in particular, but to characterize, it is said what is to be said: The European West, in carrying out something that is historically necessary, has perpetrated countless injustices against the bearer of ancient spiritual culture, against the bearer of ancient occult secrets, in whose life, although spiritual things have become rigid and no longer exist for the present, they live at the bottom of the soul. — For that is the truth in India, in South Asia. The moment occult impulses came to Western Europe, a reaction immediately set in against the spiritual forces at work in the depths of Indian culture, and it became impossible – it was already impossible in the time of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky – to retain what was indeed intended by certain spiritual powers as the actual spiritual movement necessary in our present time. It was impossible to hold on to that. The intention was to give humanity a body of occult teachings that could fit all people, all hearts, that everyone could go along with. But because of certain necessities, the impulse was transplanted to Western Europe, and an egoistic reaction asserted itself. Those spiritual powers that wanted to give the world a new impulse without distinction of any human differences were pushed back, and India, once suppressed in its occultism, took revenge karmically by infiltrating its own national egoistic occultism at the first opportunity when occultism appeared in the West. And that happened in the days of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. This was already happening when Helena Petrovna Blavatsky summarized the great truths and wisdoms of her “The Secret Doctrine”. Her first work, “Isis Unveiled”, shows only the very chaotic and illogical and passionate and confused nature of her being, but shows everywhere that behind her there are watching powers that want to guide her towards the general human. In the “Secret Doctrine,” alongside the self-evident greatest good, there is everywhere a human special interest, such an interest that emanates from certain occult centers that do not have the general human interest in mind today, but a partial, a special interest. Tibetan, Indian, and also Egyptian initiations today everywhere have only a partial human interest in mind, and want only to avenge the suppressed Eastern occultism in the Western world, to avenge the fact that the Western world has triumphed over the Eastern world through materialistic factors. It has triumphed over the Eastern world through materialistic factors; it has triumphed in so far as Christianity has been adopted into the actual progressive culture of human development, into the progressive life of human development. Christianity has not gone east of Asia, nor south of Asia; Christianity has gone west.

Now you might say, my dear theosophical friends: So it is good. Then the West accepted Christianity, and since Christianity is a stage in the onward progress of humanity, it is natural that the West should have triumphed over the East. — Yes, if that were so! If it were so, it would be self-evident. But it is not so. Christianity, which was prepared for centuries and millennia and which came into the world, has not yet triumphed anywhere on earth. And anyone today who would believe that they could truly and genuinely represent the Christ principle and the Christ impulse in the present would have fallen prey to an indescribable arrogance. What has happened so far? Nothing more than that the Western nations have adopted certain externalities of Christianity, have occupied the name of Christ and have clothed their old cultures, which had been established in Europe before Christianity, with the name of Christianity. Does the Christ reign within Christian Europe? No follower of occult movements will ever admit that the Christ reigns within Christian Europe, but will say: You speak of the “Christ”, but you still mean the same as the ancient Central European peoples meant when they spoke of their god Saxnot. — The symbolum of the Crucifixus stands over the European peoples. In a certain respect, however, the traditions of the god Saxnot prevail, whose symbol is the former short Saxon sword, which was there for the expansion of only material interests, because that was the occupation of the European peoples. Therefore, this occupation has also produced the noblest flower of materialistic culture, an appearance that is noble in the realm of materialistic culture: chivalry. Where in any culture can we find anything similar to the knighthood of Western culture? It does not exist anywhere else. No one would think of comparing the heroes of the Trojan War with the medieval knights. The Christ still lives little in people. People only speak of the Christ. When Westerners speak of Christ, Eastern peoples feel that they, the Eastern peoples, are far, far ahead in terms of their spiritual understanding of the world, in terms of what these peoples know of the secrets of existence. These Eastern peoples know this.

Even ordinary people can explain to you that, in a certain way, Eastern peoples can already appreciate their spiritual advantages. What do the Western peoples still do today in their masses, in their majority, when the secrets of existence are revealed? Well, we still sit together in quite small groups when we speak, we speak of something like what was spoken about last night, of the ruling spiritual powers and secrets that surround us everywhere. To the average Western European, this is folly or madness, for he still cannot understand Paul's words: “What wisdom is with God is often folly with men, and what is folly with men is wisdom with God.” And only those who have been infected by Westerners in the East would dare to question even the slightest of the profound truths about the spiritual secrets of the cosmos, as we try to reveal them when they hear them, because such things, as they were said yesterday, for example, are taken for granted by those who are immersed in the Eastern spiritual life. Therefore, let us not be surprised that it often seemed to these eastern peoples as if the Europeans had attacked them, as it seems to a group of people when a herd of wild animals approaches them, against which they defend themselves, which they do not resent for what they do, but which they regard as something inferior. We Westerners are, for the reasons indicated – whether this is justified today or not is not the point here – and according to the traditions of the East, naturally regarded as inferior by every member of the Brahmanical caste, for example.

And if we disregard Brahmanism and look, for example, at the cultures of Central Asia, at Tibetan or Chinese culture, which in the near future will gain in importance for the world in a way that people today would never dream of Nevertheless, we are only a short time away from this, when we see and become aware of how the souls of many Zarathustra disciples are still embodied in these cultures, then we will be tempted to take these things very seriously. We will also be able to understand that the Indian, Tibetan and Egyptian occultists could have been tempted to channel their own wisdom out of her soul into that which Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was able to give, but that which is her own belongs to a past human development process. And we must recognize the character of the past of these oriental wisdom teachings, which are contained in the Blavatsky teachings. We do not need to misjudge the value of such a matter, we do not need to misjudge that when Chinese culture, which one might say has broken its fetters, now floods over the Western world, then a spirituality comes with it that is truly the successor, in many respects still the unadulterated successor, of the old Atlantean culture. It will have the effect of something bursting open that has been held together, and which can spread to all the world; so it will pour out – on a small scale, ancient Indian culture has poured out at the first opportunity.

Therefore, my dear Theosophical friends, it was possible that from that time on, everything that was referred to in all occultism came to pass, and that from then on, the Theosophical movement was no longer a suitable instrument for the advancement of European culture. Every occultist is well aware of the saying that goes: the guiding powers of occultism or those who are in any way occultly active must never allow any special interest to prevail over the general interest of humanity. There is no possibility of working occult favorably when a special interest outweighs the general human interest. The moment a special interest takes precedence over the general human interest in occultism, the possibilities for real error are given. That is why every possible error has been able to enter the theosophical movement since that time. Due to the way in which England is connected to India karmically in the world context, there was simply the possibility that those exalted powers, which are at the starting point of the theosophical movement, were falsified. For it is a common occurrence in occultism for powers that want to pursue their special interest to take on the form of those who have given the actual impulses before. From a certain point in the theosophical movement, there was no longer any possibility of simply accepting everything that lay within this theosophical movement, and karma has willed that this has become less and less possible. And so, when the call came to us to unite with this Theosophical movement, nothing else could be done but to go back to the original sources, to those sources which, in contrast to the specific ones, we can call the general human ones. And so you have perhaps seen in Central Europe that we are trying to get at the occult sources in such a way that you will not notice in all that you are encountering that some special interest is connected with it. You may try to compare everything that can be found in Central Europe in the way of special interests with the kind of Theosophy that is practiced among us: The two things really cannot be brought together. You can take this Theosophy and probably find nothing German in it, except that, because it has to be written in a language, the books by myself are written in German. You will find nothing German in Theosophy, nothing that is somehow connected with the external traditions of Central Europe. And wherever a tendency to connect Theosophy with a special interest arises, it is immediately recognized as an impossibility.

This has now been the special task of Central Europe, to free Theosophy from the special peculiarities that it has acquired in Western Europe. It was our mission to purify Theosophy, to completely detach it from all special interests. And the more you go into the matter, the more you will find that I myself was able to detach everything that I was allowed to bring theosophically from any special interest. This is a symbolic indication, my dear Theosophical friends, but symbolically speaking – I only needed to be guided by what was present as an immediate impulse in the present incarnation, do not misunderstand, it only reflects a fact – those who were the external bearers, for example, of the blood from which I descend, they came from German areas of Austria; I could not be born there. I myself was born in a Slavic region, in a region that was completely foreign to the whole milieu and the whole idiosyncrasy from which my ancestors came. Thus it was that at the starting point of my present incarnation, I was symbolically impelled to detach myself from all special interests, so that in Central Europe, Theosophy really stands before us in Central Europe as a goddess, as something divinely detached from all humanity, that has as much to do with the person who lives there as with the person who lives there, and that will always have to remain.

The ideal we have, my dear Theosophical friends, as simple as it is expressed, will always have to stand before us because it is harder to fulfill than to express. It will have to stand before us as our ideal, the truth and sincerity, the unadulterated divine truth. Perhaps just when we strive for it, we will find the way, not for us, but for what was impersonal in Central Europe after the whole mission of Europe, for this divine theosophy to the East. And there, if I may now describe the way in which Theosophy has taken hold in the West, is passing through Europe and is to come to the East, I would again like to emphasize the word here: the word 'responsibility'. The cultures of the world develop in such a way that, as it were, one culture develops with another in a spiritual shell. One culture connects to another. The fact that Theosophy had to be so impersonal in Central Europe has given it a certain character of spirituality, of spirituality detached from all interests. This Theosophy has, my dear Theosophical friends, something brittle about it; it has the brittleness that comes from being untouched by special interests; it will therefore not appeal to those who cannot open their hearts to that which does not serve any particular interest.

But the spiritual content, this theosophy, can be found by the soul that thirsts for this spiritual content, that longs for this spiritual content. And here I must say, my dear theosophical friends, that I myself have met a soul from the spiritual world that longs for the spirit that expresses itself through theosophy. I have met this soul in the purely spiritual world. If we go up in the order of the hierarchies to the individual spirits of nations and speak within the individual spirits of nations of the national souls, then we also come across the Russian national soul, which is still young, so to speak, and which still has to develop further, as every being must develop. I know that this Russian national soul longs for the spirit that is expressed in Theosophy. It longs with all the strength it can develop. I speak of the sense of responsibility because you, my dear Theosophical friends, are children of this Russian national soul. It rules and works in you and you have a responsibility to it. The responsibility is to understand it! Don't be offended; this Russian national soul could often tell me many, many things. Most tragically, what this Russian national soul could tell me became clear to me around the year 1900. It became most tragically apparent at that time because one could notice something that I myself could only interpret in the right way long afterwards, because one could notice how little this Russian national soul is actually understood today. We in Western Europe have become acquainted with much, much from Russia, and much, much from Russia has made a great, powerful impression on us. We have become acquainted with the great impulses of Tolstoy, we have become acquainted with the psychology of Dostoyevsky, which has so deeply moved Western Europe, and finally we have become acquainted with a mind like Solovyov's, a mind that, when you let it take effect on you, makes the impression everywhere: that is how he is, as he has written. And what he has written only becomes truly clear when you stand behind him and feel the Russian national soul. And this Russian national soul has much more to say than even Solowjow knows how to say, because there is still much too much that comes from Western Europe before our hearts. Think, my dear friends, of the word sense of responsibility, think of the fact that you have this task of showing yourselves worthy of the Russian national soul, and that you should get to know the longing of the Russian national soul for impersonal theosophy. When you get to know Theosophy in terms of its innermost impulse, then, my dear friends, you will have all kinds of questions that can only come from a Russian soul: questions of the soul about the spiritual issues of Theosophy. I have found that so much noble, glorious, beautiful feeling has come to me from Eastern Europe: so much genuine, true human love and kindness, human compassion, overflowing feeling, subtle, intimate observation of what is in the world, and intense personal connection to the powers of existence. And from such loving, beautiful and noble feelings, many, many questions have been put to me by members of the Russian people, many questions – questions that must be asked one day because they are questions that humanity will not be able to live with in the future without answering. Questions that can only come from the east of Europe; so far only the Russian national soul has put them to me, the Russian national soul on the higher planes. I have often thought that the children of this national soul still have a long way to go to understand their national soul, to understand what this national soul actually longs for and how much still separates them, these children of the national soul, from the national soul itself. Therefore, do not be afraid to seek the path you can find, if you want, to your national soul. From your national soul you will find the questions without whose answers the humanity of the future will not be able to exist. But do not be afraid to go beyond personal interest, for be mindful of the great sense of responsibility that you should have towards the Russian national soul, be mindful of this feeling, for in the future the national souls will need their children, the people, to achieve their goals. And do not forget one thing. That which can carry you the highest, which can take you to the most beautiful, most luminous heights in the world, is most exposed to the danger of falling into error. You, my dear Theosophical friends, are to infuse the soul into the spiritual. You are to find the soul to the spirit. You can do it because the Russian national soul has immeasurable depths and possibilities for the future. But it is necessary that you are aware that the soul, which can rise to the spirit, has to inspire the spirit itself, and that you face the great danger of losing yourselves and getting stuck in the personal, in the individually personal, losing yourselves in the personal as such. Then the personal becomes strong when it comes from the soul.

You will not experience the obstacles that so many people in Western and Central Europe face. You are less born to skepticism; skepticism can only come to you from the West through indoctrination. You will learn to distinguish truth from untruth and dishonesty through a certain feeling in the field of occultism, where charlatanry and truth stand so close together. Not skepticism, but cynicism will be your danger. Your danger will be that the soul-spiritual, the powerful of your personalities, can spread clouds around you, astral clouds through which you then cannot penetrate to the objective-spiritual. Powerful of your personalities can spread clouds around you, astral clouds, through which you then cannot get through to the objective spiritual. Your fire, your warmth, they can spread around you like a cloudy aura, not letting the spiritual through, because you think you are enthusiastic about the spirit, but because of your enthusiasm you prevent the spirit from finding its way to you. So try to realize that you have a great advantage – now in the ideal spiritual sense – of being able to have a special interest because you are predestined, that is, your national soul, to receive the special interest of the Russian people to receive theosophy, which in Central Europe still had to be taken entirely as a divine power exalted above all human things, as something that you can receive as your own, as something that you can cherish and cultivate as your very own. For by your predestination you are endowed to breathe soul into the spirit. This has often been said in our ranks, but it is up to you to seize the opportunity as soon as possible, not to miss it, not just to develop feeling and will, but above all to develop energy and perseverance, less - if a word is to be said about the practical — to speak a word with regard to the practical side — talk about the way in which Theosophy must be in the West and in Russia and so on, and what is good for the one and the other, but first take in Theosophy, take it in, unite with the soul, with the heart. The rest will follow; it will follow for sure.

This, my dear friends, is something I wanted to talk to you about, wanted to talk about because wherever I am to speak directly to people, I have to face the sense of responsibility that we have towards people of the present day with regard to Theosophy. In the West, people should feel that they are sinning against humanity if they can have something of Theosophy and do not want it, reject it – sin against humanity! Sometimes it is quite difficult to grasp, because one must have an almost transcendental sense of duty, my dear friends, if one is to have such an obligation, such a sense of responsibility towards humanity. Your national soul tells you that it, this national soul itself, is indebted to you. The national soul has already assumed this obligation to humanity for you. You need only find this national soul. You need only let it speak through your thoughts, feelings and impulses of will, and when you feel the responsibility to the national soul, you will at the same time fulfill the duty to humanity. Therefore, you are also placed in a geographical position between the European West, which must have Theosophy, but for which it cannot become a personal matter to the same extent as for you, and the Asian East, which has had occultism and spiritual culture since time immemorial. You are placed in the middle. You would perhaps never manage to fulfill your task towards the spiritual culture of humanity in this geographically difficult situation, I would say, if you only had to think of your obligation to humanity. Because the temptations will be tremendously great when, on the one hand, not only the European West is at work, which has basically made many of the children of your national soul unfaithful to itself. In the face of a great deal of what is written by Russians and brought to us in the West, we have the feeling that it has nothing to do with the Russian national soul, but is a reflection of all kinds of Western things. The second temptation will come from the East, when the power of spiritual culture arises. There it will be our duty to know that, however great the spiritual culture of the East may be, the man of the present must say to himself: It is not the past that we have to carry into the future, but new impulses. It is not just any old spiritual impulse from the East that we have to take up, but to cultivate what the West can bring forth from its own spiritual sources. Then the time will come when Europe, if you also fulfill your duties towards your national soul, will begin to understand a little of what the Christ impulse actually is in the spiritual development of humanity. Seek, my dear friends, to understand everything that I have tried to express with and in these words, and above all seek in these words that which can become an impulse within you, not just to feel and sense that Theosophy is something something significant and great, but above all seek to take Theosophy into your soul and to organize your life and your deeds out of it.

“An interview with Dr. Steiner” from the report on the fire in the Basler “National-Zeitung” of Tuesday, January 2, 1923.

We are sitting in the secretariat of Villa Friedwart, which is the center from which contact is established with anthroposophists all over the world. Our Swiss poet Albert Steffen enters the room, and as we had expressed the wish to speak to Dr. Steiner himself, he has already picked up the telephone. We hear his affirmative reply, and a few minutes later, under his guidance, we enter the house of the much-debated man, whose work, at least the visible part of it, which took ten years of tireless labor to create, was destroyed in a single night. He receives us in his small room, whose unadorned walls are painted a deep violet blue. We sit down at the round table made of old walnut. The lined face of the man, who is probably in his sixties, shows energy and self-control. “I will only tell you facts,” he replied when asked about the questions.

The cause of the fire.

I am not mentioning all the rumors and the threats. What is important is that the fire, which had probably been developing behind the wall in the interior construction for two hours, was not caused by a short circuit or any kind of carelessness. The fuses were intact throughout. The lights continued to burn unchanged. The cables were laid in fireproof armored steel conduits. There were no cables at the exact point where the fire was. But we did find out that at 7 o'clock the lady who used the adjoining room had found the mirror that was hanging very close to the later site of the fire, thrown down and smashed. It was easy to enter this room without being noticed, all the easier because an auxiliary scaffold on the wall made it easy to climb in from the ground. The facts presented point to arson from outside.¹This suspicion was expressed by many people around the Goetheanum in Dornach and Arlesheim.

In answer to our question:

“How do you intend to continue the work?”

Dr. Steiner replied: “The work accomplished in ten years by my co-workers in and outside the Anthroposophical Society, and at enormous sacrifice, has indeed been destroyed. But the work continues undeterred. This evening at 5 o'clock, the Three Kings play will take place in the lecture hall of the carpentry workshop, followed by another lecture for the course participants. As far as the building is concerned, we are now as far as we were ten years ago, only richer in experience.

“Do you plan to rebuild?”

Absolutely. As far back as I can remember, the building is insured for 3.5 million with the Canton of Solothurn's fire insurance. Of this, 2,600,000 francs are for the wooden superstructure and 900,000 francs for the concrete substructure. In addition, there is the insurance with “Helvetia” for the valuable furniture, organ, harmonium, pianos and very precious Persian carpets. Of course, the sum is only a quarter of the cost, especially if you include the artistic work of the many who had been members of our community for years. So I will have to build differently and more modestly, and no longer out of wood. But the basic artistic tendency remains.

“Will you also get the volunteers back?”

When it becomes known what happened here and that we are building again, people from all over the world will come back of their own accord and stand by my side.

• 1. On May 25, 1924, Rudolf Steiner said in Paris: “But it is an officially recognized fact that the Goetheanum was set on fire by opponents.”

with leading German members and Rudolf Steiner

Minutes by Karl Schubert

Teacher Rudolf Meyer, Berlin, asks whether it would be right to hold the planned international conference in Berlin. He asks Dr. Steiner for guidelines.

Dr. Steiner: Is it necessary that we allow a change to occur through the catastrophe, other than that we are even more zealous than we were? I think this misfortune is something that happened independently of us, so we don't need to think about how we should do things differently than we have done so far. The only question that arises is: how will the building be rebuilt? I cannot imagine that the working method outside should be different.

Rudolf Meyer asks whether the congress should be postponed.

Dr. Steiner: The question is whether there is a possibility of achieving something on an international scale. It is questionable whether the international aspect can have any great significance in Berlin. I believe that a congress in Berlin will not be international. Do you have reasons for this other than financial ones? Not many people will come to Berlin from the western and southern countries; it is also not certain whether many people will come from Austria. Therefore, I ask: Do you have a particular interest in the Berlin congress having a truly international character?

Rudolf Meyer answers that Goethe represented a supranational soul and spiritual life.

Dr. Steiner: You won't achieve this by fostering a better understanding of Goethe in Berlin. You'd be better off going somewhere else. Not Berlin. If you talk about it in Berlin, it's likely to have the opposite of the desired effect. Goethe is not a reason to hold an international congress in Berlin. Would the English be receptive if they were invited to Berlin? If you say in Berlin that Goethe is a great man, people will not tolerate it. But if you could say it in Paris! Formally, you can make the congress international, but it would be good not to count on it working. Whether it is a congress or something else is not the point. Such a gathering, if it grasps its task correctly, could be extraordinarily important for Germany, because the Germans have every reason to educate themselves a little. In the 'name' one can allow the internationality to appear; it will hardly be possible to translate this into reality.

Dr. Unger says a few things that are not noted.

Rudolf Meyer: The building in Dornach is going ahead. The German friends will economize in order to make the [mystery] plays possible!

Dr. Steiner: I do not think it is desirable for our German friends to save, because it does not help. No matter how much they save, it means little in Dornach, while it may mean something in Berlin. If the Germans save 30,000,000 marks, that is 17,000 francs.

Dr. Unger: Perhaps we could hold a conference elsewhere.

Dr. Steiner: We lack the strength in the western countries. In Germany we have the personalities, but the conditions are terrible. We hardly have the strength for the western countries that would enable us to hold a conference. The building up of Dornach is much more concrete. The Anthroposophical Society in the western countries needs to be built up before one can think of doing anything. Whether it is financially possible or not, I do not know. A guarantee fund through a collection is a questionable matter. If it does not remain a guarantee fund, it is just a questionable matter. Is it the case that not enough people will come to Berlin in Germany?

Dr. Kolisko: It is hardly possible financially.

Dr. Steiner: If that is the case, then it is difficult to hold a comprehensive conference. Emil Leinhas: Perhaps a conference as a School of Spiritual Science event?

The following spoke: Mrs. Eljakim and Dr. Stein (not noted).

Dr. Steiner: What we might face here is an attempt to actually establish what anthroposophy is in the world. This would consist of the three courses, warmth, optics and astronomy, being further elaborated and this work being made available. Things have developed to such an extent that these courses have been locked away, so that now people are approaching me from all sides and want me to give them permission to read these courses. It would do the necessary work on them. That was intended from the beginning. Things that are defective show themselves in symptoms. For example, a paper by Theberath was announced at a public conference. Theberath did not appear. These things are not acceptable, otherwise the verdict is: What do they want to do with science!

Dr. Stein: You shouldn't have a congress; you have to work first!

Dr. Steiner: But we are working! We have counted how many scientists we have. Surely something very nice can be worked out from that. I have only counted those who are in some position with us. Those who have the opportunity to work experimentally with us have been counted.

Dr. Kolisko: The congress is impossible for financial reasons.

Dr. von Heydebrand: It is difficult to speak publicly in Prussia about 'international' matters.

Rudolf Meyer: It is not in the spirit of our friends in Berlin to hold a congress without Dr. Steiner.

Albert Steffen: There is concern about the lack of security and the possibility of riots. I have been asked to take this into consideration.

Dr. Steiner: This is only a temporary situation. But for me the first question is this: if I give lectures in Germany now, there is such a commotion that the lectures would stop being attended altogether for ever. Naturally, various things have been considered; I myself can do nothing but take aim at the noise. But that is something that will not suffice; above all, because all possible currents are mixed up. One must believe that under the present circumstances, the opposition to anthroposophy will increase immeasurably if things continue like this. There could be no clearer sign of the growth of the opposition than the burning of this building. The opposition grows with each passing week.

The inner consolidation and positivization of the Society would be necessary. It is not enough to criticize the mischief that is happening outside. If one continues to do so, the opposition will only grow. All those ventures that aim to show our opponents their own face only make the opposition more fierce. The opposition has grown because we have made many enemies in response to mere criticism. As long as we do not succeed in consolidating society, these conditions will not change.

Dr. Hahn speaks (not noted).

Dr. Steiner: I have given specific examples of this. They show that it is necessary to intensify the reception of positive anthroposophical work within our society. Things are happening in our society that, if they happened elsewhere, would actually establish something far-reaching: with us, they are allowed to pass by. But if things are treated the way this positive work has been treated, then there is no understanding within our society for what I call the inner consolidation of our society. What has been achieved in society must be recognized by society. Otherwise, it is no wonder that conditions develop as they have developed. We are going around the bush. We have to call a spade a spade!

In principle, a congress in Stockholm, Copenhagen or Kr istiania (Oslo) would be a good thing for anthroposophy, from a purely theoretical point of view. But the question is whether this is financially desirable at the moment, given the current circumstances, when we need to take care of the structure.

However, Dr. von Heydebrand has raised an important question. This question has led me to say that we cannot approach the matter from the rear. It was different when the Anthroposophical Society had a different position. Now we have to take the defense against our opponents seriously; we have to understand that. This understanding is not there. And then one might hear talk about whether something new is needed. One can always talk about what is needed. But one does not think of taking this as an important question, that Theberath announces a lecture and then does not appear. I also mentioned the treatment of Mrs. Kolisko's work. It is not possible to let things go, not to take care of things! This is how we put the movement on a dead track. By dealing with the atomic question, for example, we are putting the matter on a dead track.

The opposition does not slumber. The only way to deal with it is through the positive achievements of society. The fact that scientists have emerged in recent years means that society must begin with what wants to continue outwardly. But if we go about it in such a way that we do not accommodate our own work, we will never consolidate society. It is necessary to create conditions in society itself that make it possible for achievements to support each other. The situation with the Koliskoschen brochure is ruining society.

No minutes were taken of the proceedings, only of the remarks made by Rudolf Steiner at the end of the meeting. The shorthand notes record that the following had spoken beforehand in succession: Uehli, Vreede, Vacano, Unger, Uehli, Leinhas, Steffen, Vreede, Kaufmann-Adams, Erikson, Moser, Frau Grosheintz.

It is highly satisfying that this evening there have been repeated references to the fact that must never be forgotten within the circles of the Anthroposophical Society: It is the fact that a part, and indeed, I openly admit, even the most essential part of what is supposed to be embodied in the Anthroposophical Society, has shown its existence in the most important, decisive moments. It has already been rightly pointed out today that this consistency was shown when the idea for this now lost building was conceived and how it was truly tackled and carried forward in the hearts and souls of those involved, after our dear friends had made unlimited sacrifices for the work, for the restoration of the work, both at the beginning and in the further course — sacrifices whose extent could only be measured if one were to point out in detail how difficult they have become for some. But that is not necessary. They really did come from the anthroposophical spirit in the sense that they were made in love, in heartfelt love, and that is most certainly one of the main parts of the impulses that are to work within the Anthroposophical Society. And on the night of the fire, we saw these impulses at work again in a truly outstanding way. There can hardly be a truly feeling heart that does not feel the most intimate gratitude to all friends and to fate for what has been revealed in this way. And I would like to go further. I would like to say: The more I have come to know the Anthroposophical Society from this side, the more I have become convinced that this love will certainly not be lacking in the future either. It has revealed itself so powerfully over the past ten years of building this house, and it revealed itself so wonderfully during the night of the fire, that it can simply be taken as a promise of continuity in the future. Everyone here has done their part in their own way. I really would not have needed to call for the young and the old to work together if it had been a matter of what can be achieved and what is basically still being achieved out of this love; because it also takes a certain sacrificial effort to spend many nights here on guard duty and the like, and it is up to us to recognize all the details. And basically, when we look at the work of the young people during the last few days here, we have to say: after this work, they have truly become complete anthroposophists, just like the old ones, in relation to the point I have just emphasized.

So with regard to this first part, my dear friends, I can only express my deepest gratitude to each and every one of our friends, and you will believe me when I say that I feel these thanks deeply.

But now, since we are here together today to my satisfaction, I would like to briefly shed light on the situation from a different perspective, one that I consider to be just as important. You see, the situation is this: this building has been erected; by virtue of the fact that this building stands here, the anthroposophical cause has in fact become something different in relation to the world than it was before. Perhaps not everyone needs to appreciate this other thing that the anthroposophical cause has become. Those who appreciate more the inner, purely spiritual aspect of the anthroposophical movement alone may not feel that the construction of the building, which has made anthroposophy into something quite different in the eyes of the world, is such an extraordinarily important matter for them. But the building arose out of an inner necessity. It was there and as such it made the Anthroposophical Movement into something different from what it was before; it made it into something that has now been judged, sometimes extraordinarily well, sometimes extraordinarily foolishly, by a large part of the world.

Now, my dear friends, I am the very last person to care much about the judgments that come from outside to anthroposophy; for in relation to anthroposophy, one still has so much to achieve in the positive, in the truly creative, that it is understandable if one has no particular interest in the judgments that come from outside. But the world is the world. The world is physical reality. And even if one is not at all interested in the world's judgment, the work is, at least in many respects, dependent on it, in that this judgment can create enormous obstacles. And here I must say that with the building for the Anthroposophical Society, the task has arisen of also keeping an eye on the flourishing of the anthroposophical cause as a matter of contemporary civilization as such.

One might say: just as it happens with an individual person that when he reaches a certain age, he needs adult clothes, so too have special conditions of existence arisen for the Anthroposophical Society, in that the building here was such an enormous outward sign speaking to the world – I do not mean its inner value, but simply its size – an external sign for this anthroposophical movement that speaks so powerfully to the world. This had to be taken into account. And I can tell you that I simply had to experience this from the rib pushes that have come much more frequently since then than before.

So it is a matter of not just looking at how things have to be done today in order to rebuild the structure; that is certainly something that should actually happen once it has been erected; and I remain grateful that our friends have such a serious and holy will to build it. But today, in the face of this catastrophe, we are also faced with the task of rebuilding precisely that which has given the Anthroposophical Society a new form. Today we must also consider: How can the Anthroposophical Society do justice through its inner spiritual strength, through its energetic will, how can it do justice to that which, after all, has emerged as a renewed form for it in a certain respect?

Now, my dear friends, let me say one thing – you must not take it amiss, since you have just heard me say that I feel everything that has been so beautifully expressed today, I feel it most deeply in my heart — that I actually consider the reality of the Anthroposophical Society to be realized in terms of the love that works together, to the extent that I am completely convinced that no obstacles to the reconstruction of the Goetheanum will arise from this side. I already recognize this love as something so enduring that we can build the Goetheanum with it. But just as I am saying this, you will not mind if I attach a few other conditions to it, without the fulfillment of which I cannot imagine today, the way things have become, that the necessary reconstruction of the Goetheanum can lead to more than just an immeasurable increase in the jolts I have spoken of, the jolts that I do not mean personally, but which I mean for the cause, for the Anthroposophical cause.

My dear friends, we worked for the Anthroposophical cause until 1914. This work then culminated in the intention to erect this building, and culminated in the realization of this intention. Then came the world war. Mr. Kaufmann, for example, has rightly emphasized the influence of the world war on our work, both at the Goetheanum and in the anthroposophical movement in general. But my dear friends, these obstacles were external. We can say, for example, that we were perhaps unable to come together from the individual countries that were at war with each other as we would have been able to do without the war; but here we have truly worked together internationally. Here all the warring nations found each other in love, and in Dornach itself something was realized that, in view of the painfulness of the war, every reasonable and feeling human being should have seen as an ideal. Due to external circumstances, there were of course some interruptions. But I can say: As I see it, the world war has not actually made a breach in our inner spiritual structure as an Anthroposophical Society. In many respects, it has even forged the individual members of the various nations here in Dornach and thus across the world more closely together. This could still be seen when they came together again here or elsewhere after the war. Even before the war, the Anthroposophical Society was so firmly established from within that the world war did not actually shake its essential core. The shocks came from outside. So that basically in 1918 [at the end of the war] we were in a position to say: Nothing has come from the anthroposophical movement that we would have to discuss today in such a way that we would have to say: consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society is necessary.

And as for the opposition: most of our friends know how little I actually identify with this opposition internally and how I only give way to the necessities when it comes to dealing with it externally. But one must deal with it when it comes to the internal conditions of the existence of the anthroposophical movement. Until 1918, the hostilities were bearable, quite bearable, however ugly they may have appeared here and there.

Then came the years after the war. And when you ask me, my dear friends, when the lack of consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society began, when the great difficulties for me began, I answer: These are the years since the end of the world war. And then I cannot help but speak to you quite sincerely, but in a sincerity full of love: These are the years after the world war in which individual friends have felt obliged to justify one thing or another in order to graft it, so to speak, onto the Anthroposophical Society.

Now, my dear friends, I do not use the term “grafting” in a derogatory sense, because nothing has been added that was not compatible with the spirit of the anthroposophical movement. But what is really incompatible with this spirit is what has come over the society. And I believe that very few of you today are willing, for example, to recognize the extent to which the current state of antagonism is intimately connected with what has happened since 1919. I can only say that I had great difficulties with this, because since those years I had had the idea, the urge, to plan, to devise all kinds of projects.

If you have a sincere will, my dear friends, it can lead to good things. But experience has shown that in such matters you are dependent on personalities; and the situation was such that it could only be avoided to the detriment of the anthroposophical movement if the personalities who wanted these things, these personalities whom we accommodated, if I may put it trivially, had remained fully committed and developed an iron will to carry through what they had once brought into the world and for which the hand had to be offered, because one had to take the will of the members into account as a matter of course.

But in contrast to this, it must be said what must be felt deeply today in the face of this misfortune. It is this: the way the work has been done since 1919 must not continue. All the love and sacrifice in the broad circles of the members is of no avail if the working methods that have come into being under the project management since 1919 are continued as they were practised: deciding this or that in meetings that lasted for days, sending out programs that were forgotten after four months at the latest, and the like. They rushed from program to program; they had big words that had never been heard before within the Anthroposophical Society; working methods have been introduced that are actually unmethodical.

My dear friends, you can check this in detail. I have to say it, if only because I would consider it a crime not to say it in view of the devoted love of the majority of the Anthroposophical Society, as it has once again shown itself during this night of fire.

What is necessary is to abandon the working method, not the fields, but to abandon the working method; not to get involved in something that is abandoned the next day, but to remain energetically with the things that were once begun, which one has said oneself that one wants to consider as one's own.

I know that I am not speaking to the majority of the Anthroposophical Society in particular; the majority of the Anthroposophical Society has always done its part when it mattered. What is at stake is that working methods are not introduced into the Anthroposophical Society that are actually unmethodical. What is needed is the introduction of a strong will, not mere wishing. A strong will, not just setting up ideals, but a strong will in one's own field, not just setting oneself up and intruding into the fields of others. It is a matter of having a clear eye and an energetic will to introduce different working methods than those that have become popular in many circles or at least in individual circles in the last four years and that the majority of members have perhaps not even looked at in the right way in their lack of method. What we need is to have an open eye.

I know, my dear friends, that it will be easy to work with the majority of the members; but it must be ensured that the paths that have been taken in many areas since 1919 are not continued, and that in this direction in particular, it is not always just glossed over, but that through insight into the mistakes, through a sharp assessment of the mistakes, it is recognized what must be done in the future.

This, my dear friends, is what I ask of you. I thank you very much for everything that has been said here. I appreciate such wonderful words, as those just spoken by Mr. Leinhas, for example, and I am also most sincerely grateful for these words, in the interest of the Anthroposophical Society above all. But I call upon those friends who still have an understanding of the inner workings of the Anthroposophical Society, even where it becomes blurred in its peripheral branches, where it draws practical circles, I call upon the friends to finally put an end to such methods, which have been adopted for four years, to examine where the mistakes lie and to recognize to what extent a large part of the opposition, which extends beyond many areas, beyond which there used to be no obstacle, has actually made the lectures impossible. It is not so much a matter of repelling the opponents; they are sometimes glad when they are given a blow, it helps them, it does them no harm. It is not about that, but rather about the fact that within the Anthroposophical Society a prime example is actually being set of a methodically recognized, that is, will-inspired work. Not a setting up of projects and desires that one abandons at every turn, but one that one sticks to, and in which one really does dedicated work, not just a meddling. This is what a movement based on such foundations, as the anthroposophical movement is, needs above all. I must say it because I reciprocate the love that has been expressed to me again this evening. But if I am to return this love in the right way, then I must speak sincerely to those who can expect it, and then I must say: the friends on whom it depends must seriously consider which methods that have become non-methods in the last four years must be abandoned. Only then will the beautiful love, this love that is not only unimpeachable but cannot be praised highly enough, in which people worked together in the Anthroposophical Society until the start of construction and during the construction until 1918, only then will this love be guided into the right channel, into the right current. And above all, I ask that the matter be considered in such a way that the words I am speaking today only out of the most inner compulsion do not fall on deaf ears. Rather, I ask you to take the love that is present and push it to the point where you will seriously see to it that the methods of the last four years are examined, so that we may once again come to the point — which is necessary — that the Anthroposophical Society, above all, begins by practicing what it preaches to the outside world. As long as we are our own worst enemies, we need not be surprised if, since we are standing on occult ground, a terrible opposition strikes from outside. If we also seek self-knowledge there, many things can be put into the right perspective.

This, my dear friends, is a great task, a task that should be carried out as quickly as possible by those in positions of responsibility in the face of great misfortune. For me it would be impossible to continue working on such a basis, as it has been created from many sides in the last four years, that it would not be an abuse of the love that is practiced by the majority of the Anthroposophical Society: it would be an abuse of this love by me, if I continued to lend my support to these improper methods and if I did not demand that the consolidation of the Society be helped above all by those in positions of responsibility actually and energetically investigating the nature of these improper methods that have brought the Society to this pass, in order to test, when the Society itself is once more in a state appropriate to it, how the opponents can then be dealt with. Please forgive me, my dear friends, but it would have seemed unkind to me, in spite of all the kindness you have shown me today, if I had not told you this in all sincerity, which is very close to my heart.

and the new participants: Carl Unger and the two Waldorf teachers Paul Baumann and Dr. Herbert Hahn. The following are proposed as the new board: Emil Leinhas, Dr. Hahn, Paul Baumann, Dr. Kolisko, who replaces Ernst Uehli, who has resigned from the central board.

The meeting begins ¹ with a proposal concerning the future composition of the Central Executive Committee, from which Mr. Uehli has withdrawn. The Committee of Seven has been expanded to include three members: Dr. Unger, Baumann and Dr. Hahn were invited to the meeting. Dr. Kolisko is the spokesman; he is provisionally taking over the place of Mr. Uehli on the Central Board. It is said that it is necessary to cultivate more concrete relationships with young people and that Dr. Unger cannot find his way to the young; their way does not connect with his.

In response to the proposals and resolutions put forward by the four gentlemen to place anthroposophy more intensively at the center of their work, Dr. Steiner remarked that this was the only way to deal with the opposition in the youth circles. Even if the youth, who have been tendentiously influenced in this direction, find Dr. Unger's lectures too dry, this should not be a reason for him to become inactive; the work of Dr. Unger is also urgently needed for the branch.

The gentlemen also discuss the fact that the members and branches in the periphery should be given information about the burning issues of society. The representatives of the branches would be asked to come to important meetings in Stuttgart in the near future. Communication with the religious renewal movement should be sought. A new attitude towards the opposition is recognized as necessary.

Dr. Stein: We want to work together. I believe that Dr. Unger can also work with us.

Dr. Unger: The most pressing tasks are summarized in these proposals. What makes you think that there will be trust?

Dr. Steiner: I would like to raise a question regarding the proposals that have been made. It does not matter that a number of personalities now have the things that have been formulated here in their heads and are expressing them; because these four walls here are listening very silently! At first, it may be thought that things will go extremely well; but one must start by wanting to understand whether this is a reality. Lack of trust has been much discussed. How would you imagine summoning the thirty-strong circle of Stuttgart-based personalities on Monday to present the finished proposals? Can you imagine what the assembly would make of these things? Can you imagine nothing but agreement? What about the first meeting of the committee of seven? —You can't say that Mr. Uehli, for example, was there last night. He wasn't really there. He came to make his positions available. I didn't get the impression that Mr. Uehli brought the committee of seven to me either. I didn't get that impression. I did have the impression that Mr. Uehli was only dragged along. Really, I did not have the impression that Mr. Uehli brought this circle to me. I could not have had that belief.

First, Mrs. Marie Steiner speaks. Then several people comment on the situation as they see it.

Dr. Steiner: This representation would be a small opiate. If we begin in this way, without clarity, we are basing it on something that is not true. How could one have come to the conclusion that Mr. Uehli brought about this committee of seven? — There has been so much talk of active energy that has now been awakened by becoming aware of what happened during the first sessions. Not everyone present was aware of this. Mr. Uehli was not really there; nor can it be said that Mr. Uehli was present when the results of the first evening were discussed.

Several people describe their impressions and resolutions.

Dr. Steiner: If something is to happen now, it is important that it be built on a living foundation, as it were. Those who are rousing themselves must say: What is necessary for society as a whole has not happened so far, and we must do it now. Otherwise it is not enough; they must be imbued with the realization that things cannot go on like this. Even in a circular letter it must be said: It cannot go on like this. Everything must be justified and substantiated. It must be quite clear: Do we want to keep the old leadership, or do we want something new?

Take the example of “Religious Renewal” that you brought up on the agenda. This “Religious Renewal” is an event. One day, Dr. Rittelmeyer and Emil Bock appeared and launched this thing. It started from the various meetings that were held with prominent figures in the religious renewal movement. The leading personalities drew their conclusions from all these meetings. Mr. Uehli was present at all these meetings. It was not Mr. Leinhas who was called upon, but precisely Mr. Uehli. He knows exactly what it is all about. The other course participants had begun their action, but the member of the Central Board had sat down on the curule seat! ¹From this emerged the porridge that you now have to boil down.

Another lively debate ensues. Dr. Steiner concludes it with the following words:

Dr. Steiner: So we would meet on Monday with the thirties group and with people you want to involve as well. Right, the thirties group is the first periphery for now. The point now is to determine who else should be there.

Names are mentioned and the meeting is closed.

• 1. In Marie Steiner's edition - based on the protocol of Karl Schubert - marked “Shortly after January 8, 1923”. The exact date could only be determined now.
• 1. Uehli was not only a member of the Central Board, but also a teacher of religion for the free religious education of the Waldorf School. Because of these two functions, he had been invited to the lecture courses for the religious renewal movement. Rudolf Steiner had expected it to be a matter of course that the Society would be informed by the Central Board or by Uehli respectively. Since this did not happen, Rudolf Steiner provided this information himself in his two lectures given immediately before the fire at the Goetheanum (December 30 and 31, 1922). After the fire, the following message from the Central Board appeared in the “Mitteilungen” (no. 2, January 1923), which it had published:
  "The appearance of the movement for religious renewal has caused difficulties and misunderstandings in many circles of the Anthroposophical Society. Shortly before the beginning of their public work, the three members of the Central Council of the Anthroposophical Society [Dr. Carl Unger, Emil Leinhas, Ernst Uehli] had a conversation in Dornach with the four leading personalities of the religious renewal movement [Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Emil Bock, Werner Johannes Klein, Gertrud Spörri] about the two movements working together. In the light of this discussion, the Central Council had decided to bring a brief account of the historical development and tasks of the religious renewal movement to the attention of the members at this point. This account was to be sent out immediately after the conclusion of the events taking place in Dornach over Christmas and New Year. The devastating event of the destruction of the Goetheanum by a maliciously set fire has meanwhile penetrated into all hearts as a terrible pain. The last lectures Dr. Steiner gave at the Goetheanum were on the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society and Movement. On December 30, 1922, the day before the catastrophe, Dr. Steiner spoke about the religious renewal movement. Instead of our presentation, which was already prepared, we will present a free rendering of this lecture.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emil Leinhas speaks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Several other proposals are made.

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

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

  A large number of members speak.

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

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

  A number of other personalities speak out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Dr. Steiner,

Stuttgart, January 23, 1923

I thank fate for allowing me to attend yesterday's meeting and to gain insights into things that one may have felt for but not known in their reality.

For a long time now, I have felt the need for renewal in the Anthroposophical Society. I know that the icy coldness that prevails in it in the relationship between people is an expression of the wrong attitude, which results in fragmentation and cannot cope with the struggles outside. If we had lived by even a small portion of social principles, many attacks and perhaps the worst incident at New Year would have been avoided. Yesterday, I was forced to say that we are not authorized to make accusations against the leadership. I believe that this is impossible under the impact of the findings and facts and should only be done by the doctor. Yesterday evening might have yielded better results if, in addition to what the doctor had to say about the personalities of the board and their mistakes, we had also dealt with and expressed our own suggestions for consolidating the society. I had to ask myself whether it was a good idea to immediately name the three personalities who were nominated for the new election – whether it would not have been better to call for an unprejudiced new election in the relatively small circle without immediately singling out certain personalities, which would have immediately led to a position being taken. My immediate feeling that the society should not be led by three Waldorf teachers was confirmed by Dr. [...]. However, the group from which these proposals arose has, despite all their good intentions, shown that their potential leadership will also require supplementation. This consideration again made me realize how difficult it is to find the right board of directors, because we are all only more or less able to contribute, and it is only by complementing each other that we can become suitable. I therefore thought that a force like Dr. Unger, whose clear and decisive representation, which we have once again experienced on recent significant occasions, will be difficult to replace, and I thought that if a more fortunate addition were chosen instead of Mr. Uehli, the bureaucratization that we all feel bitterly about could be eliminated. So I asked for the re-election of Dr. Unger. I also wished to advocate the election of a woman to the board because I believe that women have a specific role to fulfill in society and that a representative on the board is necessary. I wanted to bring all this up yesterday, but it turned out that I could not speak. Allow me, dear Dr. Unger, to do so today, in this way. Not because I consider what was said important, but for the sake of clarification of what I said yesterday.

May I say a few words about religious renewal. I certainly do not want to deny that the board is to blame for the confusion among the members of the Anthroposophical Society. But each member had a greater responsibility for himself. For Dr. Unger had already touched on this sense of responsibility at the very beginning of the religious renewal. So, as a member of the Anthroposophical Society, I have to say to myself: If the doctor shows leniency towards us members of the Anthroposophical Society in this matter, then this leniency is more burdensome than the accusation against the leadership of our Society. This protection is proof of our immaturity. Many anthroposophical friends believed that they would receive esotericism through the ritual of the religious renewal - the longing for this is great. I also acknowledge this longing, although I know that esotericism could be found and that it is only my weakness that prevents me from finding it.

Oh, dear Dr. Schuessler, enthusiasm is there, but so much else is missing to make us suitable, and it is one of the most bitter sufferings to find ourselves unsuitable, as we did yesterday, when the doctor's call comes to us. — The heart is overflowing, but the hands that are supposed to do deeds are empty. — But I want to!

In deep admiration, Lia Stahlbusch

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.

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”.