The Rudolf Steiner Archive

8 o'clock, Glass House: Meeting of the German friends in the presence of Rudolf Steiner. At the end of yesterday's general meeting, a German member asked when the German friends would meet to discuss their particular tasks. Dr. Carl Unger replied that the next day, from 8 o'clock in the morning, there would be a report for all friends who had come over from Germany.

This early Sunday morning meeting of the German friends was introduced by Dr. Carl Unger, who set out the three points to be discussed: 1. the appeal for funds, 2. the Swiss resolution, 3. the moral fund.

Steiner then took the floor. (Stenographic notes by Hedda Hummel.)

Dornach, July 22, 1923, 8 o'clock in the morning.

I will not be speaking for too long, as I want to leave the details to you. I would just like to say a few words: I would like to take this opportunity, when only German representatives are here, as it seems to me, to say something that should perhaps be known, or known about, only among the German representatives. For of course, the times are such today that the things that should actually be known are misunderstood in the most diverse ways. I would like to say the following, but I expressly note that, of course, there is not the slightest bit of national or similar opinion behind it, but only facts.

The Anthroposophical Society is only justified if it takes into account what can arise from anthroposophical knowledge from time to time, and, I would say, in relation to direct life. You will see what I mean from the following suggestions.

You see, it was of course a kind of naivety to believe that the weak forces of Central Europe could physically hold out against the whole world. I look back on the past times. It was naive to believe that when the coalition of the whole world outside Central Europe came into being. And it was clear from the beginning, since 1914, that it would be naive to believe that there could be any talk of an external victory for Central Europe. Central Europe has not really abandoned this belief until now. It always falls back on certain areas and will not be deterred from extending this belief, at least in the economic sphere, as long as the same is not experienced in the economic sphere as in the political sphere.

It is, therefore, naive to believe that somehow, let us say, within the realm of the physical plan of Central Europe, the means of power of the whole world will be opposed. On the other hand, it must be realized that what the Central European, especially the German spirit has to say to the world has not yet been said and done, that Central Europe still has an enormous amount to accomplish for the world in spiritual terms, and that Central Europe should finally acquire an eye for the fact that in the, if I may put it this way, in the Maja, things sometimes even appear contrary to reality. So that what is currently happening in the world, both in the political and state and in the economic sphere, is actually the opposite of what is happening in the spiritual sphere. It is the true opposite. Because in reality the victories that are being won – and the economic victories will be too – are actually defeats; defeats in the face of evolving humanity. And it will be experienced that in spite of all striving for political and economic preponderance, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of all this, in spite of The spiritual must be taken from Central Europe! And there will arise in the world a longing to take the spirit from the place where one is actually enslaved in an outward way. And this will be intimately connected with the future shaping of the world.

But I do not want it to be forgotten that such things are in many ways connected with human freedom in our present cultural epoch; that it is therefore simply not possible to miss the right moment; that in view of this, vigilance is necessary. And the Anthroposophical Society, above all, would have the task of being alert to what is happening in the immediate present. It would be very easy to miss the moment, which, one might say, is predetermined in history, when the view emerges from numerous centers in the periphery surrounding Central Europe: Yes, we have indeed achieved tremendous external power over Central Europe; but if we do not want to perish spiritually on earth, we must regard Central Europe as the source of spiritual life.

Just imagine the unimaginable possibility that these judgments, more or less emotional judgments, would flare up in the various centers of the world and in Germany all the people would stand around selling their mouths and would not understand what is happening and what actually needs to be done.

These things are the real basis for the formation of thoughts that underlie what is called, so to speak, exoterically — if I may put it that way — “the moral demand”. In our Anthroposophical Society, things must not remain empty words — of course, every idealistic phrase-maker also speaks of moral demands — but for us they must be supported by spiritual reality.

Therefore, to give direction and strength to the spiritual muscles, I wanted to preface these few words.

[The following discussion was about the organization of work in German society, the possibilities of contributing to the financing of construction, and the question of opponents. The continuation was postponed until 3 p.m. It was about the Lempp case, see page 596 for more information.]

10 a.m., carpentry workshop: Second General Assembly of the delegates and members of the Anthroposophical Society. (See the abbreviated general report by Albert Steffen and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth.)

According to the shorthand notes, the speakers were Albert Steffen, Herbert]. Heywood-Smith, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Wachsmuth, William Scott Pyle, George Kaufmann, Lieutenant-Colonel Seebohm, Jan Stuten, Miss Henström from Stockholm, Miss Woolley from London, Baron Walleen from Denmark, Miss Henström, Lina Schwarz from Milan about a circular letter to the Italian members about the work in Dornach and asks Rudolf Steiner for a meditation to be done together. Dr. Steiner's reply: I can only discuss things of this kind in lectures, not in meetings that actually have a different character. Things of this kind belong in lectures. Then Margarita Woloschin speaks for the Russian friends, Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz, Albert Steffen, Dr. Blümel.

George Kaufmann provides a summary in English.

Rudolf Steiner: It seems to me as if we are now at the end of the conference and I would like to say what I still have to say at the end of the lecture (his evening lecture).

Albert Steffen now closes the meeting, pointing out that there are still many unresolved questions in the air, “for example, the most important one, that of a journal that would have to be formed for the exchange between the periphery and the center. But we have already discussed this question, and there are really major difficulties here that I alone cannot possibly resolve here... And so, as far as I am concerned, I would like to close the meeting today if no one else speaks,

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the newsletter — I do not consider the conference to be closed, so I do not want to say any kind of closing words, so to speak — but regarding the newsletter, which is often discussed, I would like to make the following comment. It is one thing to do many things; but it is quite another to recognize the necessity for something in a certain abstractness or to really get things going. We had to start somewhere and we really started with good reasons to found the magazine 'Das Goetheanum' here.

Yes, dear friends, but for such a thing one needs the interest of the membership first. The “Goetheanum” is still an “inactive” magazine, as they say, which means that it has to be paid for. And it can be said that this is certainly connected with the lack of interest that has already been discussed. We here are always faced with the question: we have to start somewhere, at the beginning. But often the demand is then made to start at the end. That just can't be done.

We have tried to give a picture of the ruined Goetheanum in the Goetheanum itself. Yesterday, Mr. Leinhas rightly emphasized: nothing has been done — the essays were, I believe, also printed in Anthroposophie in Germany — nothing has been done to make these things known. Apart from everything else that has to be considered when publishing a brochure, where is the prospect of such a brochure being received with any great enthusiasm and being supported in any way, other than what we have just described as the beginning? I believe that just as the Goetheanum magazine has a difficult existence here, so too does anthroposophy have a difficult existence out there in Germany. And a brochure that would be written in such a way that it would emerge from the heart of the matter — because, of course, you can't just fabricate an advertising brochure for anthroposophy —, well, that which would arise from the heart of anthroposophy would today again weigh heavily without there being any interest in it.

Now, a newsletter requires a tremendous amount. It is easy to say that such a newsletter should be made; the reasons are, of course, hundreds that can be put forward for it. But what is needed above all is a revival of interest in the things that are being done. And it is not responsible to continue doing things when the old things are always left lying around. True, a brochure has been produced in Italy, but it has remained, I would say, in a small group of people in the Anthroposophical Society.

We really need more support from our members for these things, because it is truly not an encouraging business to always have to talk about this. But it is all too often made necessary by the fact that things are talked about that really cannot be carried out in the way one imagines them, before one sees how taking by the hand develops for the beginning.

Of course, one could even greet it as a good fact if every lecture given here were to multiply itself and then be carried everywhere by pigeon post. Of course it would be a very good thing. But in thought things cannot be carried out in this way; what would be necessary first is to go into the way in which the attempt to spread the things is made out of the matter itself.

Just think about it: Mr. Steffen actually undertook to report much of what is going on here to the outside world – you can't speak of an attempt in this case, because what is complete in itself can also be considered an independent literary achievement –. Yes, of course, an educational course has been printed. But there was no response to these things from the membership, as there should have been; and there is no possibility of moving on to something more esoteric if we do not start by stimulating more interest among the membership in what is actually being done. It is the lack of interest in things that ultimately underlies the fact that everyone feels more or less unsatisfied with what is being done. But actually, perhaps one could, from the fact, for example, that within society there is someone like Mr. Steffen, who was rightly said at the last Swiss meeting here to be roughly the person who writes the best German style today; it is something that should at least be included as a positive thing.

But really, this fact, for example, which means a great deal for the whole anthroposophical movement, that the anthroposophical movement includes the best German stylist in Mr. Steffen, should be an occasion for the journal “Das Goetheanum”, of which Mr. Steffen has given the Anthroposophical Society the gift of being editor, to would be received in a completely different way than it actually is. I notice so little response from the Society to what is actually in the Goetheanum. I could, when, I think it was a fortnight ago, an attempt was made to see if an echo could be evoked by challenging people to solve the riddles; you could see that at least people wanted to find out what was meant by these riddles.¹ But otherwise far too little of what is in this 'Goetheanum' lives in society. Far too little lives in it. And really, do you believe that it is really extraordinarily difficult for Mr. Steffen or possibly for myself to stand up and say what the 'Goetheanum' actually is for a magazine. You can already... [space in the shorthand].

But you see, I have often heard the judgment: Yes, the “Goetheanum” is just not enough for us. But to this day I have [doubts] whether the journal “Das Goetheanum” means anything to the anthroposophical movement according to the Anthroposophical Society. For us here today, there is still the possibility that the magazine “Goetheanum” is seen as something highly unnecessary by the membership. This possibility still exists, after all. There is no real participation in such a thing, in which something of the best forces is actually put in here every week. Yes, it is not an invective that I would like to deliver here; but it is something to which I would like to draw attention when it is said: We cannot have enough of the “Goetheanum”, that is exoteric, people in the outside world can read that too, we need something much more esoteric. — Yes, just wait and see what fruits come when you first tend to the roots. But the roots must first be cultivated. That is already the case.

We still have the whole afternoon ahead of us, and I will say what I want to say in conclusion in my lecture at the end of the conference.

Emil Leinhas returns to the question of how to distribute the transcripts of Rudolf Steiner's lectures and says that it should also be considered “that Dr. Steiner repeatedly expressed his displeasure at the transcripts and also at their indiscriminate distribution, that it is not at all to his taste. One can well understand the desire for the transcripts, but one should also take into account Dr. Steiner's wish that the transcripts not be distributed in this way.

Albert Steffen: So before I adjourn the meeting until 3:00 this afternoon, Rudolf Steiner: It would be very difficult to meet here in this hall this afternoon.

Albert Steffen: We can immediately feel the difficulties that exist as long as there is no Goetheanum. The Germans wanted to meet in the Glass House, as far as I know, at three o'clock. This hall can only be used until four o'clock at the latest, because there is to be eurythmy at five o'clock.

Rudolf Steiner: I did not want to schedule anything earlier, but just wanted to say: According to the program, the events at five and eight o'clock are also still part of the conference. Therefore, I did not want to say any closing words before the conference ended.

Albert Steffen: I just have to thank Dr. Steiner for what he said about me as a writer. I must say that I see myself as a complete beginner in this respect, so that if I practise with words, I may perhaps achieve something to some extent. In any case, I am only just beginning. And I would at least like to thank the person who addressed me for the remark, who has the best command of the word in the present and in the past, for that person's trust.

3 p.m., Glass House: Continuation of the morning assembly of the Germans (no minutes).

One participant, Hans Büchenbacher, reported on this in “Mitteilungen, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Deutschland” No. 7, Stuttgart, September 1923, as follows:

At the meetings of the approximately eighty Germans present in Dornach, the friends from the Rhineland were in the foreground. They were convinced that they had significant contributions to make to the Society and that something important for the course of the entire conference had to come from them. At the same time, however, they were in a certain combative mood and particularly in an oppositional attitude towards the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. But the following arose from this. At the beginning of the plenary assembly of the Germans on Sunday morning in the glass house, Dr. Steiner spoke in a deeply moving way about the spiritual task of the German people in particular. [Page 585] The fact that Dr. Steiner's words could not be discussed in the following debate was not so much due to the chairmanship of the meeting as to the attitude of the Rhenish friends, as characterized above. The whole discussion took on a chaotic course as a result, and Dr. Büchenbacher was forced to compare the situation with that at the Stuttgart delegates' conference in February. They did not even want to discuss the draft of a statement for Dr. Steiner, which Dr. Unger presented on the occasion of the Lempp affair.²

It was decided to hold another meeting in the afternoon to hear only the Rhenish friends at length, as they requested. They demanded that a Rhinelander should also preside over the meeting. The executive committee did not agree to this, which was entirely justified, and Mr. Leinhas, as chairman of the afternoon meeting, gave the Rhinelanders ample opportunity to say everything they had to say. The fact that the result that emerged was very modest would not have been a problem in itself. But, one may ask, was it necessary to talk to and fro fruitlessly for hours, sometimes in a rather testy manner, so that no time was left for Dr. Steiner's words, for the manifestation for him? Would that the discussions in September, which are so important for the Society, might not be conducted with an attitude that, as the Stuttgart delegates' conference has already shown, seriously endangers the existence of the Society, despite all the emphasis on one's own point of view. So much of the time available for discussion had passed before Mr. Leinhas was able to give the German friends an account of the Lempp affair. Dr. Steiner intervened with great sharpness and certainty, for which we can only be grateful to him, and presented this matter in its fundamental significance. The result was an understandable agitation of the assembly. Now people were urging a show of support for Dr. Steiner. He had already left, as the eurythmy performance was about to begin. There was no longer time for an orderly discussion...

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

8 p.m., carpentry workshop: 3rd lecture by Rudolf Steiner on “Three Perspectives on Anthroposophy” (in CW 225) with the announced farewell words to the conference participants:

• 1. Article by Rudolf Steiner: The Philosopher as Forger of Riddles. In: “Das Goetheanum”, 2nd year, no. 48, July 8, 1923, now in GA 36. This article presents four riddles taken from the booklet “Aenigmatias. Neue Rätsel” by Franz Brentano, 2nd edition, Munich 1909.
• 2. For more information, see page 596.

Before the meeting, I received a letter from Miss Völker, delivered to me by ¹. She explained to me that she was asking to be released from the circle. At the beginning of the meeting I handed it to Dr. Unger, who read it aloud. In it she says that she does not believe that the step of bringing the group out into the open will effectively protect Dr. Steiner and that she cannot take on the shared responsibility as long as there are no deeds and no change of attitude behind the words. The letter was met with general disapproval. Unger repeatedly called it “pharisaical” and “clerical”. Fri. Völker said: “Thank God I am not like these ‘thirties’!” The admonitions it contained were empty phrases. Stein said it was due to the insult that Miss Völker received from Dr. Steiner on July 11. In the further discussion, resignation was described as “shirking responsibility” and it was decided without objection to dispense with the further collaboration of Miss Völker.

Arenson and Stein reported on it afterwards. ².

When it came to signing the appeal and providing names and addresses, it became clear how little organized the group's membership is. It was proposed that a secretary be elected for the group, which in the future will be called the “Vertrauenskreis der Stuttgarter Institutionen” (Circle of Trust of Stuttgart Institutions). I was proposed from two sides, but I shook my head each time, whereupon Arenson encouraged me: “Don't shake your head, say yes!” I replied that I did not have enough experience, whereupon Stein replied: “Just wait, you will gain experience!”

Afterwards, the following was discussed: Dr. Husemann on the Goesch case, the project of the Kennenburg insane asylum (to which Stein remarked that the Anthroposophical Society could not exist without an insane asylum, since, according to a saying of Dr. Steiner, mental illnesses will occur epidemically in the near future, if only due to malnutrition), the problem of Dr. Noll and the Vademecum, and then the meeting was adjourned until Sunday.

On parting, there was still talk of the separatism of the Rhinelanders and a letter from the editor of the “Kölner Mittagsblatts”, H. Blume, to Dr. Büchenbacher was read out, in which Blume complains about the local board and announces that he will resign his position because the newspaper is not doing well. Sigismund von Gleich is expected to be his successor. Thereupon they met again and decided to notify Kretzschmar immediately that under no circumstances should von Gleich be employed, since he would not be allowed to work for the movement in any official capacity. In this context, a statement by Dr. Steiner was mentioned, that he would not enter a house in which von Gleich was staying.

• 1. Theodor Lauer, who was serving as secretary of the Circle of Thirty at the time.
• 2. see Appendix II, page 829

Dear anthroposophical friends in Germany!

On New Year's Eve 1922/23, a tremendous fire lit up the world as a harrowing symbol of a world-historical moment. The Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, burned down to its foundations that night. An unknown person had insidiously placed the igniting spark in the sanctuary of thousands of human hearts.

This event could evoke the memory of another crime recorded in human history. On February 6, 356 BC, Herostratus hurled a torch into the sanctuary of Diana of Ephesus. He wanted to achieve immortality for himself through this act. Treasures of ancient wisdom sank into oblivion; the name Herostratus was engraved on the memory of posterity.

If the burning of Ephesus is a symbol in world history that ancient and holy wisdom had to perish so that the human personality could unfold, then the burning of the Goetheanum, which wanted to be a place of love that now wants to come to the peoples of the earth in a new form, can be a sign of how this coming of love in our time is opposed by criminal forces.

In the spirit of love, while the world war raged and the flames of ethnic hatred were raging all around, anthroposophists from 17 nationalities built the Goetheanum under the leadership of their teacher. The work of ten years of dedicated work and sacrificial love was destroyed by a senseless crime in a few fateful hours.

Immediately after the disaster, donations were also made in Germany for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum to the collection point that had been set up in Stuttgart at the time as the “Dr. Rudolf Steiner Disposition Account”. In the meantime, our friends abroad have taken steps to secure the financial means for the reconstruction. The necessary guarantees were provided by the International Assembly of Delegates in Dornach, which met from July 20 to 22 this year. Once again, people from all over the world will work together to rebuild the Goetheanum. We German Anthroposophists initially found ourselves unable to provide financial assistance. Not because we are poor; anyone who loves something as we love this building – which does not belong to us Anthroposophists, but is intended to serve all of humanity – has something to give, no matter how poor they are. But we had to be clear about the fact that money and monetary value must not cross our national border. That, dear friends, was our great sorrow: to experience that the sacrifice we wanted to make for our beloved cause was to be made impossible by fate.

But the moral power that lives in anthroposophy has shown us the way in which our sacrifice can still be effective. All the material gifts we were able to contribute out of love and a spirit of sacrifice to the construction of the first Goetheanum were destroyed by the crime of New Year's Eve. The new Goetheanum will largely have to be built from the insurance money, which will not be offered by generous friends. And we German anthroposophists had to see ourselves excluded from the material sacrifices that our friends made for the reconstruction. But the spirit of sacrifice was aroused among our friends. Therefore, we decided that all donations from Germany for the Goetheanum should be combined into a “German Goetheanum Fund”. This fund is to be used within German borders for purposes that are in line with the Goetheanum's endeavors. For example, it is planned to use this fund to support German intellectual workers within the borders of our country in their spiritual scientific work and research in the spirit of the School of Spiritual Science. Dr. Rudolf Steiner himself will have the exclusive and sole right of disposal over the funds of this foundation.

In this way, we could hope that our sacrifice, which could not be used for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum itself in material form, would nevertheless have an effect beyond the borders of our country through its inherent moral power. What we were denied by fate in the material realm should be compensated for by the spirit in which we wanted to make our sacrifice.

We presented our intention to our foreign friends at the international delegates' meeting in Dornach. Our friends have honored the spirit of our Goetheanum offering in the most beautiful way. Their delegates declared that they were determined to add to what they were already willing to do for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum, however much the amount collected in Germany for the German Goetheanum Fund and remaining there would account for. And they would do this from funds that would never have flowed into Germany. This makes it possible for our gift to remain within Germany and for its equivalent value to be used for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Each of us wants to make a sacrifice for the Goetheanum. A sacrifice that he is able to make only for this purpose, out of a clear insight into the world-historical necessity of this building. This sacrifice should have an inherent moral power, as a counterweight to the tragic facts that will affect the emerging Goetheanum.

This sacrifice should be a one-time sacrifice, so that such undertakings in our own country, such as the Waldorf School, for example, should not be deprived of the regular support that is so indispensable for these undertakings at this time.

It is with this in mind that we are turning to our German anthroposophical friends today with a request for donations to the German Goetheanum Fund. This fund will serve the reconstruction of the Goetheanum without depriving our people of anything. Just as during the world war the nations that were at war with each other worked together in Dornach to rebuild the Goetheanum, so now, while Germany is economically collapsing, anthroposophists from other nations are economically supporting us in the reconstruction process.

This fact proves that, beyond the hatred of nations, anthroposophy is able to pave the way to humanity. Because this is so, we are allowed to build again. Let us build, friends, the strength of morality, the strength of love, into this building, so that the strong building may have a strong society behind it!

May the behavior of anthroposophical friends in countries outside of Germany towards German anthroposophists set an example for nations! Then the new building in Dornach could mark the beginning of an era of understanding between peoples. In this sense, may the rebuilding of the Goetheanum be embraced by the whole world!

Stuttgart, August 1923.

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany:

Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Johanna Mücke, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Louis Werbeck.

The committee of the Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany:

Moritz Bartsch, Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Ernst Lehrs, Ren& Maikowski, Wilhelm Rath, Dr. Maria Röschl, J. G. W. Schröder.

The German members of the Executive Council of the Association of the Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science: Graf Otto Lerchenfeld, Gräfin Pauline Kalckreuth, Dr. Felix Peipers.

All donations are to be made out to the Treuhandgesellschaft des Goetheanum in Stuttgart, in favor of the “Verfügungskonto Dr. Rudolf Steiner” and sent to Bankhaus Hans Stammer & Co., Stuttgart, Rotestr. 4.

Dear attendees,

On the subject of today's discussion, it would be advisable if I could speak again in the next few days or towards the end of the discussion evenings, after one or other view has been expressed for general clarification. Today I would just like to make a few preliminary remarks, so to speak.

There are indeed some difficulties in the spread of the anthroposophical movement, of anthroposophy in general. But these difficulties can be overcome if there are as many people as possible who really take to heart the conditions of such a movement as anthroposophy is. The anthroposophical movement cannot spread in the same way as any other movement through external organization or formal organization. For someone who simply hears about the anthroposophical movement in general as a person interested in spiritual life in the present day and then asks himself the question: Should I participate in this anthroposophical movement? will very often be confronted with the fact that it appears as if the anthroposophical movement carries certain dogmas within it, to which one must profess one's belief, as if it demands that one must commit oneself to these or those sentences, I would even say, with one's name. Often one heard from within the Anthroposophical Society: Oh, he or she cannot be regarded as a true anthroposophist, because he or she has said this or that about this or that! - Then it looks as if the anthroposophical movement has something to do with orthodoxy or even faith. And that is precisely what does the most harm of all to a purely spiritual movement, as the anthroposophical movement wants to be.

Of course, such a movement must also have an organization; but what it must have in addition to the organization is the greatest possible broad-mindedness. This broad-mindedness must live more in the feeling, I might almost say in the rhythm, of those who already feel themselves to be the bearers of the anthroposophical movement, than in any principles. That is why it has always seemed questionable to me that the Anthroposophical Movement has continued to hold on to the three so-called principles that were taken over from the Theosophical Society – at the time, of course, quite rightly, when the Theosophical Society existed – but which could actually still give rise to the prejudice that the Anthroposophical Movement is somehow sectarian. The fact that this opinion can not only arise in the world, but that in many cases - forgive me for saying this quite openly - something comes from the Anthroposophical Society itself that shows the movement in a sectarian light, makes it so extraordinarily difficult for outsiders to approach the Anthroposophical movement. You only have to compare the anthroposophical movement with itself.

The day before yesterday in Ilkley, I said: I myself would prefer to have a different name for the movement for eight days just to make a change! If it were easy to do, organizationally, then that would be my favorite, because the name is something that people don't want to dwell on at first, because they think about it at first: Anthroposophy – what is that? – They form a name for themselves from the principles: one, two, three – and then profess all sorts of things, but not what really flows through the anthroposophical movement.

You see, here in England it is not yet so evident, but on the continent you would soon be able to experience how strongly the prejudice still persists that the anthroposophical movement is something sectarian, a sect. The writings that have appeared about anthroposophy on the continent today have indeed appeared in enormous numbers; one can say: every time you go to a bookstore and have the writings that have appeared in the meantime shown to you, there is bound to be some writing about anthroposophy among them. But when one reads all the writings that have been published in opposition to Anthroposophy, sometimes even by people who believe they have Anthroposophy's best interests at heart, then one is truly forced to ask oneself: What have these various writings actually done to Anthroposophy! I must confess that often, when I read not only the truly abominable opposing writings (of which there are, of course, many more), but when I also read writings that apparently want to objectively judge anthroposophy, and then I ask myself what picture emerges of anthroposophy, what picture one or the other theologian or philosopher or even a layperson in all directions has formed about anthroposophy, and I imagine this picture, then I say to myself: I really don't want to become an anthroposophist! Because the fact is that you take this and form opinions from what you have read and what your opponents have said, and also from all kinds of short reports about lectures. These opinions are then as inaccurate as possible. What it is about is that such opinions, which are the main obstacle to the spread of the anthroposophical movement, should be replaced by the real content of anthroposophy. That is what it is about. And this content of anthroposophy should actually be presented to the world in such a way that it can be seen that This is not a sectarian matter, nor is it something that can be summarized in a name. One must really face the fact that anthroposophy is now gradually spreading to all possible fields, in contrast to those brief presentations that discuss the essence of anthroposophy in four or five pages.

Take the area we have been discussing in the last fortnight in Ilkley: the educational area. This educational area is treated in such a way that only the educational and didactic methods are to be worked out in the best possible way from the anthroposophical movement. The Waldorf School in Stuttgart, where this education, this didactics, is put into practice, is not a sectarian school, not a dogmatic school, not what the world would like to call an anthroposophical school. For we do not bring anthroposophical dogmatics into the school, but seek to develop purely didactic-pedagogical methods in the way they are generally human. And in this way, from these areas, anthroposophy is pointed out in a very specific way. It is indicated in such a way that one can say: There are many movements in the world today — almost every person is starting a movement, and it cannot be said that all these movements are not very reasonable, because, above all, it is the characteristic of the present human being that he is reasonable. — We have brought it to the point that reasonableness has become a general characteristic of human beings. Therefore, I can easily imagine that today 5, 10, 15 people get together who are very clever and work out a program with 12 or 30 paragraphs that are extremely reasonable and sensible about the best pedagogy that can be had - I can imagine that there would be nothing at all to be said against such a program. But in practice, in school practice, you can't do anything with such programs; you have to know how the child develops each year, how to meet the needs of each individual child. And even that is not enough: such a very sensible program on progressive education could, for example, state how teachers should be. Yes, I could imagine could paint incredibly beautiful, glorious pictures of the nature of the teachers in such a school — but if the teachers are not there as they are portrayed in these program series, and if there is no prospect of these teachers being able to be as described in these sensible programs, then you have to take the teachers you have, the ones you can get, and do the best you can with them. That is practice — practice that also extends to the choice of people to put in any position. And so it is that at the moment when anthroposophy wants to intervene in life, it wants to be only humanly general, wants to disregard all dogmatics, wants to take hold of life itself, wants to present. One might say that the other reform movements also want this; but to see whether they want it, one must look at them today, for it is precisely today that people who believe they are most practical are in fact the strongest theorists, because they make everything dependent on theory, on the program. As paradoxical as it sounds, the strongest theorists today are to be found in the commercial and industrial and especially in the so-called practical professions. No one, if he is in a practical life today, sees real practice, but rather what he imagines.

It is therefore no wonder that the established systems of economic interrelations, which are entirely theoretical, are gradually collapsing. What we need today is to work directly in life, to see what is in people and what they can become. And this difference between the anthroposophical movement and other movements should be made clear to the world: its comprehensiveness, its impartiality, its lack of prejudice and its freedom from dogma: that it wants to be merely a method of experimentation with the general human and the general phenomena of the world.

And so we can say: in the artistic realm – yes, when you see the Dornach building, which ended so tragically, when you see the eurythmy performances – what is it that is connected with any dogmatics? In the case of the Dornach building, the forms that could be brought forth from the wood as the best, most vivid forms were used. A style of building that could arise out of the immediate life of people in the present! In eurythmy, it is not shown how, or rather, how should one say, anthroposophical dogmas should be realized, but how one makes the best movements that arise out of the human organism, so that these movements become a real, artistically designed language. And so one could say: for the most diverse fields, anthroposophy strives for knowledge and practice that is deepened by the spirit. This is what distinguishes anthroposophy from the rest of what is in the world today.

And so one would actually like anthroposophy to be able to have a different name every week, so that people cannot get used to all that follows from a naming. Just think that it is precisely this naming that has, in recent times, brought about such terrible civilization nonsense. I do not know whether it was the same in England, but in the field of painting, for instance, in the course of the last few decades all kinds of “schools” have been experienced on the Continent. There were, for example, the plein-air painters, the impressionists, the expressionists, the futurists, the cubists, and so on, and people got used to it because such names implied that they had everything to say, but only not to say anything about painting when they painted. When you are painting, it is not really a matter of whether you are a Cubist or an Impressionist or some other -ist; what really matters is that you can paint! And so it is also really a matter in life of grasping life in the right way, where it is found. And so I would like anthroposophy to be given a different name every eight days, because then people would not get used to any name at all and would approach the thing itself. That would be best for anthroposophy!

Yes, well, you have to express such things so extremely, so radically. But you will understand what is meant: it is really a matter of tactfully asserting the comprehensive nature of anthroposophy before the world and certainly not of harnessing it to anything that can evoke belief: You have to come to terms with some dogma when you have to sign your application for admission. - It is really desirable that this broad-mindedness take hold in the representation of the anthroposophical movement; then we will really be able to get over the other questions more easily than seems to be the case.

Recently, the events that have taken place within the anthroposophical movement in all countries have shown that it is best, so to speak, for anthroposophists in different countries to join together to form national societies. If, for example, a British society were to be founded, then all these individual societies would in turn join together to form a general society that would be based in Dornach. The one thing that makes it extremely difficult to bring such an international society to a certain level of satisfaction is communication. With regard to the teachings themselves, I believe that the means for this communication are really developing. We can see that here in your journal Anthroposophy, which was founded by Baroness Rosenkrantz, a very beautiful mediator between Dornach and here has been formed. But what we would need would be an international means of communication. Whether it is a single journal or whether the individual journals for the countries take care of it - it really does not matter what the external form is - but we should have the opportunity to receive something from time to time through which we can learn about the anthroposophical movement in the world.

Of course, the teachings must flow through the Anthroposophical Society; but individual Anthroposophists should have the opportunity to get a picture of what is happening here or there in the world in relation to Anthroposophy. I have been asked about this more than anything else in the most diverse countries! Again and again, people say: what is lacking in the Anthroposophical Society is that you never know what is going on in other areas, that there is no connection, no communication. Yes, you see, it can't be done that way through an organization, because organizations always dissipate an enormous amount of energy. When you set up something, you make committees and subcommittees; then each committee sets up a secretary, and then each committee needs a secretary, and then you need an office, or even a palace, where correspondence is carried on with the whole world, where addresses are written and countless letters are written that are then thrown into the wastepaper basket or otherwise never read, and an enormous amount of human energy is expended on this every day and, above all, — which must sometimes be borne in mind in the Anthroposophical Society — an awful lot of money is lost. Organization certainly achieves [many] things and all credit is due to it. It is true that if one has lived in German civilization, one does not have much time for organization, because there one does not love organization so much, but that is only an aside. So before organization, I would like to say that I have all due respect. But to set up an organization, you need to have as many people as possible who are actively developing an interest in something: then the rest will fall into place. If there were a center in Dornach where news from all countries is collected, that would be very good. There should be people from all countries who can write in all possible languages; in Dornach they will already be taken care of so that they can be read and distributed.

But it is necessary to develop interest in the anthroposophical movement in the world! It is a little bit in the whole anthroposophical movement that this is more difficult than for others. If you found another movement, you have a starting point for such goals; in the case of the anthroposophical movement, although it is something universal, it is also something that goes beyond the individual. To have something for the individual, for his heart, for his soul, is completely justified, of course; it must be so. But on the other hand, today we see the anthroposophical movement as one that has to solve the problems of civilization! And that is why it is important to really take an interest in the movement as such; then the rest will follow naturally.

Time has now progressed so far that I would like to break off the discussion for today; but I will continue it in more concrete terms in the next few days, when the opportunity arises.

When I last had the honor of speaking to you here, I had to conclude with a great concern that weighed on my soul at the time. It was the concern for the further construction of the Goetheanum, which was to be a sign here on earth for that which is to come into the world through anthroposophical spiritual science. At the time, the concern I expressed was met with understanding. [On November 19, 1922, see references below.]

Since that time, what is written as an unspeakable pain in the history of the anthroposophical movement has come to pass. This pain could not be averted. It was deeply inscribed in the destiny of the anthroposophical movement by the hostile forces that oppose it. But since that time, everything I have to say is truly suffused with what lies in this pain. And so today I must speak not only out of the same concern as when I last had the honor of speaking here, but I must speak as I now only know how to speak, out of the deepest pain that New Year's Eve 1922 brought us. During the assembly of delegates in July 1923 in Dornach, your representatives, along with those of the other countries, resolved to do everything necessary to rebuild the Goetheanum. We must, of course, strive to ensure that the Goetheanum can be rebuilt in a way that is worthy of it, even if it has to be rebuilt a second time in a different material that is less susceptible to the forces of fire.

I would like to entrust this reconstruction of the Goetheanum, which must now be the concern of those who have loved the Goetheanum and who love what it can be to the world, to your hearts at the end of these reflections today.

Let us act, my dear friends, as we must act out of our pain and out of the awareness that spiritual life must come into our culture again, and let us remain together in this awareness, even if we are not together for a while. For that which can flow out of anthroposophy, out of such a spiritual movement, is already the universal human element, so that souls can be together in spirit, even if they are physically separated: they will always find each other. But they will not only find each other, they will always be able to be together in spirit, which we seek in its true reality through such a movement.

[Rudolf Steiner, who came to the September conference of the Anthroposophical Society in Stuttgart, is taking part in the following session.

My dear friends! ¹ If it is necessary to discuss certain questions of the Society's constitution in the individual countries, this is due in particular to the fact that the anthroposophical movement has undergone a certain development in recent years. The Anthroposophical Movement began more or less with the spiritual life that it seeks to convey, and for a long time it worked together with the Theosophical Movement. And in recent years it has become the case that the anthroposophical movement as such is standing before the whole world with a certain necessity and is being judged a lot - and therefore also, which must be a self-evident side effect, is being met with a lot of hostility. The whole form of the anthroposophical movement, not inwardly but outwardly, is different.

Now, in a spiritual movement such as anthroposophy, everything is connected with inner laws, so that one does nothing other than what arises out of the necessity of spiritual life itself, as one recognizes it. So of course in this movement itself no consideration can be given to what comes from outside, whether it be opposition and hostility or recognition. The meaning of the anthroposophical movement must flow purely from the subject itself. One must do nothing but what one recognizes as necessary for a particular age, based on the spiritual life. Any consideration of external factors, be it recognition, be it success, be it contradiction and hostility, leads to a weakening of the spiritual life that should be fostered in such a movement. And that necessarily always gives rise to a kind of conflict: one must follow one's inner forces and, of course, in order for the movement not to perish, one must do what can advance the movement in the world. This always results in a conflict that requires constant vigilance on the part of the members. And so the constitution of the Society must be such that this vigilance is possible, that, as it were, a kind of vacuum is created for such a spiritual movement, an empty free space in which it can truly unfold. This is only possible if the individual groups and the connections between the groups are organized and administered in the right way.

Now, no spiritual movement can flourish in our time that is some kind of special movement of humanity. There is simply an occult, let us say, law that every truly viable and fruitful spiritual movement is universally human, that is, in trivial terms, what is called international in everyday life, is universally human. In the present day and age, if a group of people, rather than the general public, becomes in some form or other the, in a sense, group-centered, egoistic bearer of a spiritual movement, then in that moment universal human progress is harmed, not helped, and not truly furthered.

This matter is not really open to discussion, any more than a law of nature is open to discussion. It is a spiritual law that every spiritual movement that really furthers humanity must be generally human.

Of course, this does not prevent it from being fair to all human groupings. One can be just as fair to one's own nation as to the others. Every nation naturally has more or less of its great impulses to bring to the whole of humanity. And to believe that the international is linked to a disregard for one's own nation, that is not at all justified. It is precisely within the international that the points of view are given to assess one's own nation in the right way and to put it in the right light.

If, therefore, what Mr. Collison has said corresponds to a real, non-illusory judgment, then it is, of course, a deviation, should two groups form as a result, in that one group cannot abandon itself to its national feelings, would like to see a kind of selflessness in it, even to the point of opposing the valuable aspects of its own nation. If you are truly grounded in anthroposophy, if you truly understand the essence of anthroposophy, then it cannot be a matter of even entertaining a different opinion about these things.

Just as there can be no conflict in the world – forgive me for saying this triviality – about the fact that mountain air is good and sea air is good; if people have different constitutions, then one needs mountain air, it is perhaps good for a certain type of disposition to fall ill, the other needs sea air, it is good for him. Just as one cannot understand why someone sent to live in the mountain air rants terribly about the sea air, so one cannot expect that enthusiasm for one's own nation should in any way affect one's international, that is, unbiased judgment of everything in the world that has to do with the cooperation, not the antagonism, of nationalities. So in the real understanding of what the deepest anthroposophical impulse must be, such a dichotomy cannot arise. And of course it must be said: the most essential task of anthroposophical branches is precisely to avoid such dichotomies, to come to an understanding about these things. If things always go so that one group turns against the other and always says, if they do this or that, it is against what Dr. Steiner says, they are not real anthroposophists — if these things then go on in the underground and only ever talk about the fact that there are not homogeneous groups and no general groups, then nothing particularly fruitful can arise. But why should it not be possible for such things to be sorted out through the openness of the discussions in the anthroposophical branches? You see, that is what I would call — in addition to observing the way the outside world relates to anthroposophy, whether in a hostile or friendly way: vigilance within an anthroposophical branch.

One can be awake in life, or one can be asleep. I do not mean the usual states here – we will talk about that in the lecture [in GA 228] – but rather the states in relation to what is happening in the world. One can be asleep even though one appears to be awake on the outside. But to be asleep really means nothing more than to divert one's attention from something. When we really sleep at night, it also means nothing more than diverting our attention from everything that can occupy us in the earthly world. We then turn our attention to things for which we do not yet have the perceptive faculty in the present human evolution. That is why sleeping [to what is happening in the world] means nothing more than diverting our attention from something. But as anthroposophists we must take a keen interest in what is going on in the world. The world is interested in anthroposophy; if we are not interested in it, the world will become antagonistic. This requires vigilance. And it is in the spirit of this vigilance that the Anthroposophical Society as a whole must now be constituted. That is why I have been emphasizing for some time the need to organize the individual national societies into national associations. Such national associations have been formed in Switzerland, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Norway, and this year they will be established in Austria and the Netherlands, and so on. And it is of the utmost importance that such a national society also be formed here and that these individual national societies in turn join together to form the International Anthroposophical Society, which in the future can have its center in Dornach. As was planned at the delegates' meeting in July 1923 in Dornach, the merger to form the international society is to take place at Christmas in Dornach.

But this can only happen if the national societies have organized themselves in advance, because only something that has already been formed can join together. And so it would be good if the constitution of the English Anthroposophical Society emerged from the negotiations of this meeting as a national body, with the tendency to then merge with the international society at Christmas and then have the national center in London and the international center in Dornach, Switzerland. That would be good.

That is basically all I can recommend myself. Of course, everything that is to be done in detail and in particular must depend on what the friends here consider to be best.

If I may point out anything, it is that in the future there must be a much stronger connection, a much stronger collaboration, between anthroposophists in all countries. Again and again, wherever I go, I am made aware that there is a real longing to hear about what is happening here or there. Today, anthroposophists live, one can truly say, almost in the whole civilized world, but they know very little about each other. Sometimes it is so strong that someone living on one street does not even know that someone else lives around the corner. They know nothing about each other. And one longs for an international organ of communication. But this cannot be created out of the idea, but only when the national groups are really there and have come together as an international group. Then we in Dornach will also really find the possibilities for creating such an understanding across the whole world. Until now, it has always been aimed at in the abstract. When the journal Das Goetheanum was founded in Dornach, the idea was of course that it should convey messages everywhere. Yes, but first it has to be received! First everything has to be reported to Dornach, and then it can be passed on from there. Then we also get international perceptions and international opinions. That would be the way to go. But it cannot be done from here; it can only be achieved through genuine international cooperation.

A national group like this has also been set up in France under the General Secretariat of Mlle. Sauerwein.

As for the other issues discussed here, it seems to me that not a single obstacle emerges from all the individual statements made, that Mr. Collison has the very best prerequisites for his General Secretariat. I cannot see that anything speaks against it. The things that he himself has expressed here, namely about Freemasonry, do not seem to me to be at all decisive. Because – please forgive me for having to be trivial about such things, but they are things of everyday life, and in everyday life some everyday things happen. Please forgive me for having to be trivial about this – I have always said, when it was a matter of whether someone should come into the anthroposophical movement from some other movement – in this case, freemasonry was meant – what matters is not what someone is in some other movement, but that when he enters this anthroposophical movement, he is a good anthroposophist. So it is really not a matter of whether someone also belongs, let us say, to a shoemakers' guild or a locksmiths' guild – I am not making any comparisons, I am just stating the principle. It does not need to be the case that, just because he belongs to a shoemakers' or locksmiths' guild and so on, it in any way detracts from what is anthroposophical in him. If he is a good anthroposophist, that is what matters for the anthroposophical movement. Whether he is a good, bad or mediocre freemason is of no concern to the Anthroposophical Society. And I actually find it somewhat strange that people pay attention to the judgments that one or the other has, if Mr. Collison's suspicions should be correct – otherwise it would be modified –; I always say: among anthroposophists this does not happen, but in general life it does happen that one or the other makes an unwise judgment. And it would be an unwise judgment to make the value of a member as an anthroposophist dependent on whether he is a Freemason or not.

I answered Mr. Collison's question in the Netherlands from this point of view. I said that a number of the oldest and most valuable members are Freemasons. I cannot imagine how an obstacle could arise from some form of Freemasonry for belonging to the Anthroposophical Society. I cannot imagine it at all. I think the Anthroposophical movement wants to be something in itself. It would not be able to bear fruit in the world if it did not work positively out of itself, let me use the expression, out of its own seed. That is what matters: what it works positively. How it appears when compared with one thing or another is not important. When I buy a suit, it is important that it suits my taste and arises out of my intentions. What does it matter if someone comes and says: “That suit doesn't look like the one the other person is wearing.” The point is really not to wear the other person's suit, but one's own. You don't put on freemasonry when you become an anthroposophist. So it is actually quite impossible to make this judgment.

But of course there is something else behind such a thing. It becomes - forgive me for saying so - in my opinion anthroposophy is not always valued highly enough by the members. There is a tendency in present-day humanity to always value more highly that which is older, which has more fuss about it, which acts more mysteriously, and so on, and to disparage that which appears openly and honestly simple, judging it by the standard of the fuss and the like, which presents itself in an indeterminate way. It is a kind of disparagement of the anthroposophical movement when it is judged in such a way that one says: it can be harmed by the fact that this or that member comes from this or that other movement. — It would have to be terribly weak if it could be harmed by such things!

So I think what is really behind it is that somewhere or other there is always a secret longing to say: this person or that person is not a good anthroposophist. —Then you look for reasons. We are always looking for reasons for what we like or dislike. We do not base our liking on the reasons, but we look for reasons for what we like or dislike. We look for reasons and then find, for example, that the other person is a Freemason and therefore cannot be a proper Anthroposophist, and so on. — One should see whether he is an Anthroposophist, a genuine one, and only then come to the judgment that he belongs or does not belong; one should not look at whether he is a Freemason or something like that.

This always reminds me of a judgment I heard in enlightened Weimar – but I don't mean that ironically, it's something I really heard once in the market square: Two women were talking, and one said of someone that he was a liberal. The other said, “What, a liberal is he? I've known him for years, he's a shoemaker!”

The thing is, though, that you would be judged in much the same way if you said: Freemasons can't be part of the anthroposophical movement!

It's not that I, myself, if it weren't for the opposition or hostility, would refrain from judging other contemporary movements. Of course, the moment hostility, open or secret, comes from some movement, then it is a matter of taking a stand. But as long as that is not the case, it is not possible to take any stand on other movements, officially or unofficially. And that is even one of the inner laws of development of such a movement as anthroposophy. If you are constantly pushing to one side and looking to the other, you do not have the freedom to proceed positively from your own inner seed of the matter. You have to try to surrender completely to your inner impulses, not to go outwards. And I think that should be the basis of the negotiations. And if this is the actual basis of the negotiations, then I think everything will go quite well.

I believe that Mr. Collison will accept the General Secretariat from this point of view, which will undoubtedly be his. He is the man who has done the most for the translation and distribution of anthroposophical literature here in England and in the colonies; he will also be able to represent and best serve the impulsive power of the Society here in the future. It is obvious that a man like Mr. Collison cannot write every letter himself, nor be present at every meeting or council. He must therefore have a truly capable secretary. The way in which the board is composed here is something that the hearts of the members, who take the position just described and forget for a while what other difficulties there are here, will best find out for themselves from their community. I believe that this is the best way to address the question at hand.

Dr. Steiner on the proposal to add his name to the Anthroposophical Society:

Just a few words on this: because of the form that the anthroposophical movement has taken over the years, as I mentioned earlier, it is always a difficult question for me to relate to something that is named externally. I have already pointed out that the anthroposophical movement has certain laws of its own for a spiritual movement of this kind, and that is what naturally makes me think again and again when I am dealing with a question like the one that Mr. Dunlop put to me a few days ago, or actually months ago, at last year's meeting, and so it is necessary for me to say a few words about the matter here.

Externally, the anthroposophical movement must be vigilantly represented. Internally, as I have already said today, it must work purely from its own germ and do nothing but that which is in accordance with real occult laws. This is why, for a long time now, in relation to everything that is really going on between me and the anthroposophical movement, I have wanted to be nothing in relation to society other than what arises from what I am absolutely necessary for within society.

So, within society itself, so to speak, I want to be nothing other than what comes about by doing certain things that have to be done by me.

In a certain respect, this will also apply to Dr. Steiner, with whom this has been discussed again and again for years, that she too should be considered, should be named, if one may say so, as that which must be done by her.

From this the position arises by itself. And this position should be improved neither by choice nor by anything else – or mostly it is only worsened – but it should be so that everything that exists in the relationship arises directly from the way in which the personalities are needed.

Now, of course, it is important that this be understood as the basis entirely within society, then, with regard to what one considers necessary, one can fully appreciate such reasons as those put forward by Mr. Dunlop. And insofar as it is understood in society that they are only the reasons that Mr. Dunlop has presented, in the representation, also the ideal representation of the company to the outside world - the identification of the company with me in a certain respect - insofar as these are the only reasons that perhaps make it desirable today that I do not resist accepting what is offered here for this area, I want to do it. But that is just one thing: accepting, taking on this name. The other thing, however, is that society really understands that I draw no other conclusion from such an official designation than the one I have drawn from the obviousness of the facts so far: I do not want to gain any other power, any other prestige, any other authority that may be reminiscent of a right by such a naming, but only want to work in society as it arises from the matter itself. I only want to be in society what I must be one day because the things that come into consideration want to be made by me. And that is what makes the matter a duality. Both sides must be given sufficient consideration.

If that is the case – and that is indeed the intention of Mr. Dunlop, the reasons have emerged from it – then there is nothing to prevent Mr. Dunlop's proposal from being accepted. I do not believe that it will lead to anything other than what I cannot deviate from, not even a single step. The anthroposophical movement must remain an inner one, must in certain respects bear the esoteric character, so that nothing else is done by myself than what directly arises from the matter. So the matter must be viewed only really thoroughly in this way: I do not strive for any other power than that which arises from the matter itself. I must do this because of the laws of spiritual movement. And precisely in view of the way in which the Anthroposophical Society and movement are situated in the world today, it must be most strictly observed that we do not deviate from what is prescribed by the inner laws of the movement itself.

• 1. No minutes of the proceedings exist, except for Rudolf Steiner's address, which was taken down in shorthand by Helene Finckh.

A plenary meeting of the Circle – including Rittelmeyer, Ruhtenberg, Molt and others who had been away for some time – in Landhausstrasse in the presence of Dr. and Mrs. Steiner. Dr. Steiner reported on his trip to England, on the educational event in Ilkley and then especially on the summer course at Penmaenmawr, which he described as one of the most significant events in the history of the movement. This latter event took place near ancient Druid sites, many of which he described in detail. Once, he and Dr. Wachsmuth climbed up to a lonely plateau all alone and found two hollows there, one large and one small, which, seen from above, looked exactly like the floor plan of the Goetheanum. In general, he said, the entire spiritual past of these places is written in the astral sphere of this area as if in imperishable letters, and imaginations that would otherwise transform and blur remain there, so to speak. The island from which the Arthurian mysteries originated is also nearby. (As Dr. Steiner spoke, the light went out. A lamp was brought and he continued speaking by its light until the light came back on.)

Afterwards, Kolisko read out a series of statements of approval that had been received in response to the rally in No. 6 of Anthroposophy. [See appendix II, page 830 ff.]. Almost all of them were impressive and heartfelt, bearing vivid witness to what Dr. Steiner's personality means to countless people. Dr. Steiner noted down the names of all those who had sent in contributions and who were not members.

Kolisko then spoke again about his journey, which he had already reported on in detail at the meeting on August 15, and about the planned new organization of the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany,” which he had already presented on September 5. [No notes are available for these two meetings.] Through an “extended board”, the center is also to be present in the periphery. A circle of trusted individuals is to accept each member individually into the Society. Only then should they join a branch where the esoteric work is to take place.

Stein and von Grone also reported again on their trip to Thuringia. An interesting discussion about Friedrich Lienhard followed Stein's account of his visit to Weimar. His last essays in the “Türmer” were brought and read by Dr. Steiner himself. He and Frau Doktor then told a lot of humorous details about Lienhard, whom Dr. Steiner does not want treated as an “opponent” under any circumstances.

Delegates' conference ¹ in preparation for the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society

Stuttgart, September 13-17, 1923

Invitation in No. 6 of the “Mitteilungen, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Deutschland”, Stuttgart, July 1923

To the members of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany

We hereby invite all members of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, in particular the members of the extended board and the trusted representatives, to a general meeting to be held in Stuttgart between September 10 and 15 of this year. We are not yet able to present you with a detailed program for this conference, but we have the great pleasure of informing you that Dr. Steiner has accepted an invitation to give a series of lectures from September 12 to 15.

Applications for this main conference can already be sent to the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, Stuttgart, Champignystraße 17.

Dear Friends!

Since the delegates' meeting, Dr. Steiner has spoken in various places, for example at the two general meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, about the fact that the Anthroposophical Society must set itself a new task that will also gain it the respect of the outside world. The question is most forcefully raised in the eight lectures he gave in Dornach from June 10 to 17. In this issue of the “Mitteilungen” we are bringing a summary report of these lectures and would like to draw particular attention to the passage at the end: “How to give the Anthroposophical Society a certain character should be discussed everywhere.”

Such discussions have been the focus of many circles since then, and what we have been able to learn from the letters we have received has been extremely valuable to us, and we are very grateful for them. Now it will certainly move hearts to an even greater extent, just as it has here in Stuttgart, and we are confident that we will succeed in gathering the fruits of this summer's work from all sides at the main conference, so that we can then approach the work of the coming winter, which will certainly be particularly difficult, from the new perspective.

We see the necessity of resuming public work as quickly as possible with powerful lectures on the essence of anthroposophy in all major centers. We have a new style in mind for such lectures, a new language, so to speak. The students of anthroposophy, who have been drawing on the living spirit for so long, should present themselves in such a way that no one can say that it is a copy of what Dr. Steiner has said or written. We have to throw a lot of our own power of persuasion into the balance to prove the power of anthroposophy on living human beings.

To appear in this way, each individual needs a society behind them, whose organization ensures uniformity of approach. Already today, the fruitful seeds of a natural structure are emerging spontaneously in different places. We hear, for example, from our friends in central Germany that they hold quarterly meetings so that a number of working groups can exchange experiences and report to each other through their representatives. The friends on the Rhine have achieved the same, despite the endless complications caused by the occupation. Here in Stuttgart, we can look back with great satisfaction on the meetings that have taken place every four weeks, with friends from all the surrounding towns coming here to work together.

If we consciously develop the tendencies that are present here, we will be able to achieve what we cannot achieve through correspondence or sending printed material. We have written and received countless letters at the Anthroposophical Society's office and can confidently say that, aside from purely “bureaucratic” matters, which are justified and necessary in their place, the best that we have to say and give each other cannot be expressed. But if we imagine that we are creating about six to eight centers throughout Germany that can be regularly reached by all members living in a larger district, then perhaps six to eight letters are enough to achieve regular and rapid communication with all friends. Travel would also become more feasible if mutual visits and, in particular, the participation of the local board were possible at such gatherings in the larger districts.

The main conference will be able to deal with such questions. Furthermore, we want to establish the extended board and the body of trusted individuals; and these matters will in turn point to the internal work of the individual working groups. For example, the important question of an introduction to anthroposophy should be mentioned: “We have to work our way through to the individual guidelines, which will then work as the self-evident.” This is how it says at the end of the seventh of the Dornach lectures.

Overcoming the “three points”, which in their fundamental nature are reminiscent of older occult societies, is perhaps the greatest task that the Dornach lectures present to us. We hope to be able to present you with a draft in the near future that is intended to emphasize three guidelines: 1. what those who approach from outside can see as the purpose of the society, 2. what the people united in the society want to set themselves as a task, 3. what the society wants to achieve in all areas of life.

If we can summon up the right self-reflection for what has led each of us to anthroposophy, then we will also find the right words that can be heard by the “homeless souls”.

Time is short and the tasks are great.

With warm regards,

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany 1. A.: Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger. Dr. Walter Johannes Stein.

Circular letter from the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany to the working groups in Germany and Austria and to the trusted representatives:

Stuttgart, July 31, 1923

Champignystraße 17

Dear Friends,

Today we can give you more details about the main conference in September, to which you were invited in the June issue of the “Mitteilungen” (No. 6), although the program cannot yet be given its final form.

With regard to the date, there has been a slight postponement in that the conference will not take place between September 10 and 15, but from Thursday, September 13 to Monday, September 17, 1923. The conference is planned in such a way that the extended board, the trusted individuals, and the working group leaders will meet and deliberate from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. (based on special announcements to the participants).

The main lectures, in particular those by local co-workers, are planned for the afternoons from 4 to 6 o'clock. These will be followed by discussions.

In the evenings, lectures will be given by Dr. Steiner and possibly by other speakers, starting at 8 o'clock.

---

The following topics will be discussed during the morning and afternoon sessions:

I. The Anthroposophical Society and its spiritual task internally and externally. The following topics are planned:

1. Confidential organization, extended board, etc.
2. Regional associations of working groups
3. Lecture system
4. “Introductory courses”
5. Lecture transcripts
6. Membership admission
7. Financial matters.

II. Combating opponents.

III. Formation of anthroposophical societies in individual countries and founding of the international society in Dornach.

IV. Rebuilding the Goetheanum.

We request that working groups register their reports (especially on I and II) and any presentations by September 1 at the latest, so that they can be taken into account when finalizing the agenda. We also request that any other requests regarding the program be communicated to us as soon as possible. Anthroposophical Society in Germany The Executive Council:

Dr. Carl Unger.
Dr. W.J. Stein

To the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany!

Dear Friends!

We hereby invite you to a meeting of representatives that will precede our conference. On Thursday, September 13, 1923, at 10 a.m., we want to meet at the Gustav-Siegle-Haus in Stuttgart to discuss the goal of the conference. Only if the guiding idea is nurtured and supported by all the trusted representatives at this meeting will we succeed in holding a conference in which social consciousness is stirred. In the future, the board and extended board, together with the trusted figures, will have a lot to actively shape.

At this preliminary meeting, we plan to first constitute the two bodies of the extended board and the trusted figures. Each of these two bodies must see itself as a body and become aware of its task.

To create an awareness of the Society, it is important that the extended board members, who are spread throughout Germany, feel that they are fully acting representatives of their body and also express this to the outside world. There should be an awareness that the working groups (branches) are divisions of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, and that they are responsible for the inner work. They should not appear in public. All public events should be organized by individual members of the extended board on behalf of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Thus, the Society is representatively represented to the outside world by the board and extended board.

The trusted representatives accept the members. In doing so, they also develop an external effect. The person is accepted into the Anthroposophical Society (initially not into any branch). The Executive Council carries out the admission, and the person of trust proposes by signing the application for admission. So every member initially becomes a free-standing member, i.e. a member of the Society. Only then can they become a member of a branch, i.e. a member of an esoterically working group. This is just an example to show the nature of the person of trust's activity.

It is planned to have every membership card countersigned in Dornach (this suggestion comes from Dr. Steiner), so that ultimately every single member will feel that they are a member of the international society, which will have its center in Dornach. However, this will not be decided until the international society's conference at Christmas.

As you can see, it is important to prepare the national societies for this international merger. But these organizational matters, important though they are, will be of secondary importance. The most important goal of our conference is the discussion of the Society's goal and the revision of the three guiding principles contained in the draft principles.¹

These three guiding principles still contain some of the sectarianism of the Theosophical Society and are therefore not appropriate as guiding principles for a true world movement. If our Society is to expand in a way that is appropriate to its present task, then no one should be required to profess belief in the guiding principles. Instead, any person who has an interest in the existence of a Society that is legitimately seeking paths to the supersensible worlds in order to enrich life and its practical individual aspects through supersensible knowledge should be able to become a member. But there are many more people who want something like this than there are members of our society, and such a reorganization of society would therefore result in a very extraordinary expansion of it. In this expansion, however, everything will depend on the trust leaders' knowledge of human nature and on the help they receive from the entire membership. In the future, all kinds of sectarian measures for admitting members, such as demanding that they complete introductory courses, read certain books, etc., will have to be eliminated, and everything will depend on the knowledge of human nature. The trusted personalities will have to learn to seek and find people who belong to us by nature, not those who have belonged to a doctrine and now profess it. It will be necessary to overcome this tendency to develop the vestiges of a religious belief.

We will have to discuss all this and much more that the friends themselves will want to accomplish. But we hope that such a preliminary discussion can create a unity and warmth that will give the course of the whole conference anthroposophical warmth and youthful momentum.

Kind regards
I.A.: Dr. Walter Johannes Stein

---

• 1. From Rudolf Steiner's announcement of his journey to this conference after his lecture in Dornach on September 10 and the documents reproduced below, it is clear that this conference was understood as a “delegates' conference”.
• 1. See references below.

See GA 228

I cannot help but take this opportunity, because opportunities for such things do not always arise and every one should be seized when it presents itself. I cannot help but take this opportunity, in these introductory words, to point out something that is directly related to the inner content of the anthroposophical movement in a broader sense, especially at this time. Many things have been mentioned that the anthroposophical movement has achieved. And precisely in view of the situation in which we find ourselves, where there are so few opportunities to attract attention to what comes out of the womb of this anthroposophical movement, it should not be neglected that, in these days, the anthroposophical movement also has something very important to point out with regard to the research that is being done within it. If our work were as well received in the world as that in the field of external science, we could again point out how research results of the very highest order have emerged from the bosom of the anthroposophical movement. It is well known how the medical dispute between homoeopaths and allopaths has been waged over a long period of time, how all manner of arguments have been put forward against the use of the smallest entities of substances, and how, to this day, no one has been able to produce exact, authoritative experiments that show beyond doubt that entities, when suitably diluted, enter into a metamorphosis of activity that is now something quite different from their material-substantial mode of action. Now, at our Biological Research Institute, we have succeeded, thanks to the dedicated work of Mrs. Kolisko, in scientifically determining the results of the effectiveness of the smallest entities in a flawless manner up to 1 in a trillion. You see, these are things that arise from anthroposophical work. And we in our Society must not pass by such things indifferently, but it is part of the attainment of a comprehensive consciousness for a society to know what is actually going on within its own horizon, within its own body. For one cannot really imagine that anyone can have a true awareness of his overall state of health if, for example, he is unaware of the processes of nutrition that are taking place within him – I do not mean in a scientific sense, but in the sense that one feels hunger and thirst. Therefore, I wanted to take this opportunity to point out that in the writing that emerged from the Biological Research Institute, written by Mrs. Kolisko, and which can now be purchased, something has come into the world again that should actually be pointed out today. So we can already say that within the anthroposophical community today, something is happening that is worthy of being brought to the general consciousness of the Anthroposophical Society. Because of this, a strengthening and invigoration of this consciousness will certainly be able to emerge. I don't know if I have anticipated anything that someone who wanted to talk about the matter wanted to say; but I did want to take the opportunity of this introduction and also to express my warmest greetings to the biological part of our anthroposophical research on this day, when I am speaking for the first time during these days.

• 1. In Dr. Kolisko's report.
• 2. The minutes are not available.

See GA 228

...that tomorrow a discussion will begin here that will make itself felt within the Anthroposophical Society, that there is a real desire to shape this society in such a way that there is a very lively consciousness in this society of what the fully human being should be, the fully human being who must correctly understand himself as the human being of the future. For these three are also one. And what man has been in the past, is in the present, and will be in the future, that will only be, I might say, before the divine order of the world, embrace the whole Anthropos. But it will have to be striven for in such a way that an enthusiastic, wholehearted grasp of anthroposophy leads to the right, true Anthropos, the total human being, the full human being.