The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Twelfth Lecture

[ 1 ] I have decided to give this lecture today because, before my upcoming extended journey, there are certain matters—specifically those related to the important tasks of the anthroposophical movement, or at least the intentions behind these important tasks—that should be discussed. Today, I would simply like to draw your attention to a few points in an aphoristic manner. We have every reason to keep reminding ourselves, time and again, of the historical development of the anthroposophical movement, for this movement depends on being properly understood and approached by those who wish to be its bearers. We must be fully mindful of the fact that, by its very nature, by its entire essence, this anthroposophical movement has outgrown the stage in which it was possible, so to speak, to lead a sort of unnoticed existence before the world. We must not overlook this fact, which is one of the most important in the development of the anthroposophical movement. We must, after all, be clear that the anthroposophical movement began this way—and in fact had to begin this way—for one can only create anything based on real circumstances: small groups came together and worked collectively within those small groups. However, it cannot be denied that in many cases, elements of the distinctly sectarian nature of the old theosophical movement were carried into these small groups. This was, after all, accepted by various quarters as—I would say—a working habit of some of our members; but then again, the very content of the anthroposophical spiritual science referred to here has been such from the very beginning that it could not possibly fit into any sectarian behavior. This became very evident in everything that stood in our way when construction of this Goetheanum began here in Dornach. Many in membership circles believed it was possible to present such a building to the world while still maintaining certain old sectarian customs. Such sectarian practices are, of course, all too understandable, for they are common in all theosophical societies; they are common in many orders and the like, where work is in fact carried out mostly in a spirit that might be called obscure, and where one carefully avoids engaging with precisely what must be considered if a movement is to embody a character that is universal to humanity.

[ 2 ] The working methods of certain religious orders and theosophical movements could not possibly be applied to the substance that was brought to fruition through the anthroposophical movement, simply because this anthroposophical movement, although it speaks to the heart and soul of every single human being, was, at the very same time, from the very beginning fully up to all the scientific standards that can be demanded in any way in the present day. The latter is, after all, a fact that has by no means been taken seriously by many, even within the membership. It is, after all, human nature that, on the one hand, people want to remain fully immersed in what is, so to speak, their traditional or habitual way of life. Within this way of life, there is then a certain isolated realm for them. They do not agree with what their religious tradition has brought them, they do not agree with what is otherwise offered to them in the popular dissemination of a worldview, and so they feel a certain satisfaction when they are offered something that goes beyond what can be provided both by religious tradition and by the generally shallow, popular worldview shaped by the materialistic mindset of modern times. But one would like, in a sense, to regard what one receives there as something to which one devotes oneself—I won’t say as a kind of Sunday pastime, but rather as something that stands on its own, that does not intrude disruptively into ordinary life.

[ 3 ] A movement such as the anthroposophical one, which takes into account all the life forces of the present, cannot do that, of course. Such a movement encompasses the whole person and extends its influence into every detail of life. And it cannot be regarded as something merely incidental. One may even encounter certain conflicts in specific details, but these things are actually quite inevitable, and it is not possible to live within the habits of contemporary life in its various spheres by, so to speak, on the one hand conforming like a good philistine to what life has made of you, and then, on the other hand, engaging in anthroposophical reading and embracing the anthroposophical way of life for one’s heart and soul. You see, that would indeed be the most convenient approach at first, but it does not correspond to the essence of what has been drawn from the life forces of humanity’s present-day development as an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Nor is this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—which necessarily requires a worldview, a perspective that truly encompasses everything that touches human life and world life as such— is what is cherished in the activities of certain circles that, driven really only by a certain spiritual indulgence, wish to form small, closed, obscure circles where they indulge in all manner of illusions and engage in all sorts of obscure mysticism and the like. Such things are by no means compatible with what must be pursued as an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science with a broad worldview encompassing all aspects of life. And it is indeed necessary that this be made perfectly clear to the souls of our members: that we must break with everything that smacks of any kind of sectarian practice; for today, the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science stands before the world in such a way that it is, for the time being, attacked from all sides and slandered from every possible angle. This is certainly not the case with some obscure movement. And I can tell you right away, looking ahead, about a symptom that one encounters when picking up the February issue of the monthly magazine *Die Tat*. I will speak about this in detail shortly, because this particular issue of *Die Tat* is especially symptomatic. However, the very thing that has led to entire issues now being devoted to the anthroposophical movement stands out—in the case of a particularly inept writer, I might say—with brutal clarity.

[ 4 ] There is an article there—in fact, every article in this issue, from beginning to end, is about anthroposophy—that deals with “Anthroposophy and Christianity,” written by a particularly inept author. In this article, you will find—I would say—clumsy attempts to point out the reasons why, from the outside, there are now so many disputes regarding what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is. The gentleman says: “As long as anthroposophy was practiced esoterically in circles, it could be left to its own devices, just like many other offshoots of intellectual history. But now that it has stepped forward with the claim to become the sustainable foundation of social renewal, and seeks to base public, political, cultural, and social life on its thinking and its ‘truths’—it is time to see through this ‘secret science,’ which has been fostered by cultural and spiritual decay, and to reject it and confine it to its proper limits, so that the genuine forces of renewal do not face a precursor that bears false witness to them.

[ 5 ] But for our generation, which is turning to anthroposophy in large numbers, a symbol emerges in the poignant scene from the First Book of Samuel, when Saul, forsaken by God, turned to divination on the day before his death.»

[ 6 ] You can see what prompts people to rail so viciously against anthroposophy. It is precisely what is being crudely implied and stated here in the sentence: “But our generation, which in large numbers is turning to anthroposophy... ” It is precisely that anthroposophy contains within itself certain sources of influence through which one can say that people—forgive me for repeating the expression; it is tasteless enough, because one cannot imagine what a “bright crowd” is—that people are turning to anthroposophy in “bright crowds.” But that is precisely what provokes the attacks, and people would certainly have left us alone if we had worked the way we did, say, from 1900 to 1907 or 1909. Personally, I wasn’t left in peace back then either, but in any case, the attacks—I would say—came from a more limited circle and were not accompanied by such a will to destroy as they are now.

[ 7 ] But what seems to be quite difficult to understand even within our own movement is precisely the need to break free from sectarianism. You see, one can disregard everything else—there are, of course, many other examples that could be cited in this regard—but one cannot erect a building such as the one in Dornach and at the same time continue to adhere to certain obscure sectarian customs, such as those still widely practiced by members of the anthroposophical movement. Nor can one do anything else. One cannot do what we do—in the way we do it—without a certain worldly sensibility, without a broad worldview. One can, of course, gather in small circles—whether there are six or forty people, it makes no difference—and somehow proclaim someone, for my sake, to be a reincarnation of Saint Mary Magdalene or even Christ himself, and so on. As long as that doesn’t go beyond the inner circles, one can certainly do that, and one can indulge very sensually in one’s spiritual feelings within that context. But one cannot, for example, present something like our eurythmy to the public without a certain sense of the world. It presupposes that those who participate in such a movement do not have a pretentious or narrow-minded attitude, but rather a sense of the world; that they do not have any sectarian airs and graces, nor any airs and graces that lead one to feel at ease only in small circles; rather, it presupposes that they truly wish to see incorporated into everything that binds them to the world that which must be inherent in such a movement—a movement that is not merely a worldview movement, but one that encompasses everything that is spiritual and, indeed, human life in general. Therefore, it is indeed necessary to engage, for example, with what exists in the world today in the form of various spiritual or other currents. Sectarianism, after all, has the peculiarity that, while it often speaks haughtily and with great contempt for everything outside itself, it does not understand much of what lies outside; it simply wants to shut itself off, to isolate itself. This approach is simply not sustainable for us in the long run. If our movement is to be taken seriously, it is absolutely necessary that we not simply chatter on about this or that in the same way that has often been customary, but rather that we acquire an understanding of what is happening with a—I must use this word again and again—certain sense of the world, and in doing so, to be able to illuminate, address, and so on these matters from a perspective drawn from anthroposophical spiritual science. This is necessary in all areas. Certainly, one might say that this or that person does not have the opportunity to do this or that. Certainly, one cannot demand that someone who does not have the opportunity to do this or that should do this or that. Indeed, in recent weeks we have had ample experience of how certain people within the movement have resolved to take action. This has often led to truly terrible results. And in this regard, it must be said: it may not be entirely reasonable to demand that one person or another do this or that if they do not feel suited to it. But one thing is certainly possible: refraining from certain actions. For certain things that are not refrained from continue to have the most terrible effects.

[ 8 ] My dear friends, I do not mean to suggest that one could say: “So we are expected to refrain from participating in any way at all.” — No, that’s not what I mean; I mean refraining from certain things that can easily be overlooked because of their gossipy or nonsensical nature and the like. To give just one example, there has, after all, been the folly of members of our movement participating on the opposing side in meetings that are held.

[ 9 ] These matters are, of course, difficult to discuss, because as soon as they are presented to the world in the wrong way, one might say that they require a blind determination to act and blind followers. That is by no means the case; rather, the things I am referring to are simply gross lapses in tact, which in turn prevent any effective work from being done in the most terrible way. For if our members keep bringing up, time and again, as a catchphrase, what I, for example, have done, said, or failed to do, then we as the anthroposophical movement cannot, of course, move forward. I would like to mention another example, which can also be found in this issue of *Tat*.

[ 10 ] You see, the fact that some cycles were simply printed exactly as they were transcribed really arose solely from the desire of our membership, because the work of the anthroposophical movement simply did not leave us time to do things the way they should have been done. The desire to have the cycles printed did indeed arise from the membership, but usually such things come about without one having a sense of responsibility for them. It is, of course, natural for something like this to arise from the membership, but one must then have the sense of responsibility not to allow such a thing to be distorted. And this is now evident in the most striking way in the February issue of *Tat*, where it is stated: “I do not wish to dwell here on the fact that Steiner had some of his esoteric lectures—for example, those on the Gospels—edited based on shorthand notes taken by his students, without assuming responsibility for them or continuing to take care of them (as he expressly assures on the title page). »

[ 11 ] These things were not published because I needed them, but because the Anthroposophical Society needed them; but at the same time they demand that the Anthroposophical Society develop a certain sense of responsibility, so that what is necessary for its sake—not for mine—does not always rebound upon me, because this would prevent me from representing the anthroposophical cause as such to the world in the appropriate manner. It is absolutely necessary that this be clearly recognized; otherwise, what the Anthroposophical Society is will truly, in the broadest sense, hinder the actual spread of the anthroposophical cause. Naturally, since we are now facing very serious situations, I will have to become much stricter in these matters than has been the case so far, which was merely out of a certain goodwill toward the membership. But, moreover, whatever needs to be said in this area must be said unequivocally. And in this context, in particular, I would like to emphasize once again that it is by no means sufficient—as has very often been the case when opposition to us arose here and there—to merely refute such opposition, as I already said here the day before yesterday. Such refutations—which, admittedly, one must sometimes make out of a certain necessity—are of no use at all; they really serve no purpose, because in this day and age, when dealing with certain categories or groups of people active in intellectual or other spheres of life, we are not dealing with people who care about a refutation or a defense—people for whom a defense would matter in any way—but rather with people who have no interest whatsoever in spreading the truth, people whose very aim is to spread falsehoods.

[ 12 ] It is therefore necessary to point out certain matters that are very closely connected with a movement that is, after all, thoroughly spiritual—as the anthroposophical movement certainly is. One cannot ignore certain events, because they keep recurring. You see, I recently received a letter in which someone wrote to me that he had approached the well-known Max Dessoir—the very same Max Dessoir who is, after all, amply characterized among anthroposophists with regard to his moral and intellectual qualities. Now, the person in question wrote to me that he had had a conversation with this Max Dessoir. Of course, a person like Dessoir cannot be converted through a conversation; one might as well save oneself the trouble. For one thing, he doesn’t want to, and for another, he is too stupid to understand anything about anthroposophy. So there is absolutely no point in continuing to discuss anything with such an individual.

[ 13 ] During the conversation, it also came to light that Max Dessoir was planning to write a very scathing piece against me soon, and the person in question had agreed to read through the piece first and correct the errors so that Max Dessoir would, if possible, not make any mistakes! Well, it is hard to believe that such things are actually done among us—often by prominent figures among us. And what is the consequence? If one criticizes such a matter, and it comes to the attention of the person in question? He might then say: If we don’t do such things, it will be said that anthroposophy does not engage with people from the scientific community. Yes, my dear friends, we must not think that way. One must not immediately generalize in the abstract; rather, the point is that we are dealing with a specific, concrete individual—Max Dessoir, characterized by his moral and intellectual incompetence—and so we cannot possibly do Max Dessoir the honor of taking him seriously as a scientist; consequently, out of a certain inner spiritual integrity, we cannot engage in a discussion with him. These matters must indeed be grasped and truly carried out and thought through in detail; otherwise, we will indeed find ourselves in a situation where opposing writings can be corrected by our members so that these opposing writings have the greatest possible impact and contain no “errors,” since those have already been corrected by our members. It is indeed absolutely necessary to discuss these matters, for we are at a critical juncture in the anthroposophical movement. Much is being done in such a way that one might say things are coming about that, from our perspective, undermine the cause—perhaps sometimes, as in this case, entirely out of the best of intentions; but even the best of intentions can lead to disaster if they are not permeated by serious—once again, I must use this word—reflection imbued with a sense of the world. This is something on which so much depends in the present state of our anthroposophical movement.

[ 14 ] You see, today it’s not just a matter of mere defense. But don’t go saying that I have anything against defending it—of course that must be done—but what matters today is actually characterizing the movements that exist as such. With a person like Frohnmeyer, we are not dealing with a mere opponent and attacker of anthroposophy. What is far more important is how he does this and what sense of truth prevails within him. It is far more important to realize that this Pastor Frohnmeyer has emerged from a very broad mass of people who are exactly the same. He is simply a bit freer than this mass; he presents this type of people—this group of people, which is a very large one—to the world as such. One cannot hope today that those who speak from such a mindset will somehow be converted. That is utter nonsense; they do not want to be converted. We do them the greatest favor not by confronting them with the truth, but with nonsense, for then they can better assert their rights. So it is not a matter of merely defending oneself against such people. Besides, that leads one into an endless cycle of argument and counterargument. What matters is to characterize the spiritual soil from which this thinking springs and what that means for the overall stagnation and degeneration of our present spiritual life. Things must absolutely be raised to this general, broad, worldly perspective, for one can easily get stuck in a cycle of bickering and counter-bickering if one merely defends oneself. But that is not what matters to us; what matters to us is a comprehensive characterization of those intellectual endeavors that must be thoroughly overcome today. Only in this way can we deal with the Frohnmeyers, the Gogartens, the Bruhns, the Leeses, and so on. After all, it is not at all that important that someone involved in such a movement actually has the time to sit down and write a book; almost anyone who has learned anything can do that today. What really matters is the spiritual foundation from which these ideas are presented to the world. One must be perfectly clear that people like Frohnmeyer simply cannot judge anthroposophy any differently than they do. One should completely set aside the personal aspect here. For me, it is never a matter of the personal. I never wish to defend myself in any way or to attack a Frohnmeyer or a Bruhns or a Heinzelmann—or whatever their names may be—but rather I wish to characterize the spiritual current from which these people spring. Personally, these people may be honorable men in today’s sense of the word—they are all honorable men, after all; I need only recall Shakespeare’s drama—but that is not the point at all. I do not wish to attribute anything to these people personally. It does not even come down to Father Kully, for example, who is, after all, merely the product of a certain current within the Catholic Church.

[ 15 ] So these are the things that absolutely must be taken into account today, given the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. This is what we must focus on under all circumstances. We must keep a spiritual eye on what is present everywhere as a decadent spiritual movement, and what must be identified. For we must be clear about the fact that the state of the world today is such that a very large number of people simply possess the innate capacity to grasp spiritual science on their own and to make everything that comes from spiritual science the purpose of their lives. Above all, if you could observe and examine the youth of today as they grow up, you would have to conclude: within this youth, the predispositions and abilities are certainly present that make spiritual science appear to them as something self-evident. But on the other hand, what is peculiar is that there are still enough forces at work that can suppress what is actually striving to come to the surface of existence, just as we see in political life as well.

[ 16 ] Do you believe, for example, that there aren’t numerous individuals in the defeated or victorious countries who, if they could somehow become influential today, might do something sensible? Certainly, there are many such people, but they are not given a chance because those who caused the misfortune—those tied to all the old, degenerate worldviews and philosophies of life—are repeatedly thrust back into the spotlight with an iron fist. As long as one fails to realize that it is entirely impossible to accomplish anything with people who come from the old spiritual currents—even if they are members of today’s radical parties—and as long as one continues to negotiate with all those who have grown up, mentally stunted, within the old spiritual structures, one will make no progress. We truly need to nurture new forces, and the very thing that holds the reins tightly is holding these new forces back.

[ 17 ] But this is also true of intellectual life in general. We really must draw a clear line between those who are striving to make their way in the world—such as our youth today—and those who have taken up positions in academic chairs and the like and who bestow the stamp of approval through examinations. That is what constitutes a terrible pressure. It must be recognized that with what has crept in and taken over the exams and university chairs, one can by no means arrive at an enlightened view of what is absolutely necessary today. The pessimism that claims, for example, that the necessary forces are lacking, is completely unjustified. Let something come along—anything at all—that makes it possible to break free from this degeneration. Does it really help us if we continue to offer such wonderful university courses here? Certainly, we can inspire individual young people with them. That has certainly happened and will continue to happen in many ways. But these young people remain enthusiastic only for a while; then they become completely absorbed by their surroundings, by exams, and by philistine culture, because they have to earn a living, because they simply cannot cope, and because, naturally, the development of a truly future-oriented striving and creativity is being suppressed. These things must be seen through, and we must work toward overcoming them. We cannot do this if, today—at this serious juncture in the development of both humanity and, in particular, our anthroposophical movement—we refuse to acknowledge that these things exist. And something like this issue of *Tat* is quite characteristic.

[ 18 ] You see, one should pay a little attention to how these ideas, which arise here within the realm of spiritual science, are conceived out of the broader reality. After all, a much broader line of reasoning could be developed for everything—if it were not first necessary to outline the main points. In my book *On the Mysteries of the Soul*, I pointed out this ability of Dessoir’s: Dessoir recounts quite naively—as a very beautiful example of his very special mental disposition—in the scandalous book he wrote, which has received a great deal of recognition around the world, how it can happen to him that, when he is giving a lecture and feels as though he is living right in the midst of his thoughts, he suddenly can’t go on. Well, I cited this as something particularly characteristic of a mode of thinking of this sort—one that simply thinks and thinks and then can go no further. Yes, well! I found that extraordinarily characteristic. [Gap in the transcript.] There are simply preconditions for not regarding him as a serious scholar, and, isn’t that right, we are dealing today with a world from which something like *Tat* springs.

[ 19 ] The editor of *Tat* is the Jena publisher Eugen Diederichs. I met him once at a gathering that Diederichs had organized for Jena students, where Max Scheler was the main speaker during the discussion. Some time earlier, Diederichs had written to me saying that he wanted to publish a book of mine. It was 1902 or 1903. The book he wanted, *Christianity as a Mystical Fact*, had already been published. He immediately recoiled at the word “theosophy.” Then the next day he wanted to speak with me. This conversation was otherwise about a publishing matter, but nothing came of it, because, of course, nothing could come of it with Diederichs... [gap in the transcript]. He said that the mystical writings—both those of Plotinus and the writings of other mystics—should be cultivated much more, for they make a very special impression on the general well-being of human beings. It is as if one were drinking sweet wine or something similar, which then flows so soulfully through the human organism. — And one really could not help but think that the man sitting there with a slightly paunchy belly, while digesting mysticism, was simply patting that paunchy belly with his flat hands!

[ 20 ] Later, that so-called mystic founded the journal *Tat*, and this second issue from 1921 contains nothing but articles about anthroposophy, starting with one that was actually written by a person who is said to be employed by certain organizations specifically to combat anthroposophy. What he writes is a jumble of sheer insolence and nonsense: I.W. Hauer, “Anthroposophy as a Path to the Spirit.” — The second article is a refutation of this first one by Walter Johannes Stein, “Anthroposophy as Monism and as Theosophy,” because Diederichs wants to show that he is objective, as he claims. So, naturally, he also invites the supporters to contribute; but this is what makes this issue particularly clever, because the fact that the supporters are included means that readers are immediately convinced that Diederichs is an objective man who gives both opponents and supporters a voice. The difference is that among the articles by supporters, there is indeed one that is quite well written, by a man named Wil Salewski, titled “The Goetheanum in Dornach near Basel and the Anthroposophical University Courses in the Fall of 1920.” Certainly, there are such individual good articles in there, but what has been written by opponents in this very issue is characterized by utterly grandiose stupidity, by a complete failure to understand what anthroposophy is actually intended to achieve, what it means, and so on.

[ 21 ] Quite tragicomic—funny, I’d say—is the essay that publisher Eugen Diederichs then contributes, titled: “On the Anthroposophical Special Issue.” Allow me to read this drivel to you: “This issue is an attempt at a fruitful dialogue—by religious men who stand above all denominationalism—with the anthroposophical movement and its leader, Dr. Rudolf Steiner. How such an attempt turns out depends on the personalities one finds to collaborate on it. I must confess that, despite all my efforts, I have not quite succeeded in attracting Steiner’s disciples to contribute more substantially.”

[ 22 ] I wish they hadn't taken the bait at all, so that Diederichs wouldn't be able to fill his “Tat” magazine with whatever is currently coming out of our circle.

[ 23 ] “One might say that it is perhaps due to their lack of a relationship to in Mennicke’s sense, but as an editor I feel a duty to be completely impartial and can only state the fact. I hope, however, that at some later date an anthroposophist of the stature of Pastor Rittelmeyer will seriously compare his own experience of Christ with the essays by Michel, Gogarten, and Mennicke.

[ 24 ] “As a private individual, I can only admit that I have not yet succeeded in adopting a positive stance toward anthroposophy.”

[ 25 ] It just doesn't seem to taste like sweet wine and go down so easily!

[ 26 ] “I personally fully share Mennicke’s view that anthroposophy is the culmination of materialism and also of rationalism, and therefore, in the final analysis, does not represent a new structure. This does not rule out the possibility that it may be a transitional phase toward a new structure and that it therefore embodies all sorts of values, just like any form of eclecticism that builds upon the values of the past. Anthroposophy does not seem to me to stem from the ‘immediate’...” — the “immediate,” in this case, probably stems mostly from what seems to be an imbalance in stomach acid — “and therefore does not appear to be creative either — despite all the talk of intuition, creativity, and Goethean vision. I know the Theosophists will dismiss this assertion as the height of incomprehension, but so be it; it is spoken from my own perspective on the mysterious forces of the subconscious.”

[ 27 ] I just told you about this “attitude”! “So this is how I see it from this personal perspective (which is by no means meant to be an attack on anthroposophy, but merely a statement of my beliefs).”

[ 28 ] Well, isn't that nice? Because now those who are smart enough can say: He isn't attacking anthroposophy at all. — It’s actually quite irrelevant whether he attacks it. So he says: “This is how I see it… I see in it a danger to the spiritual foundation of the Germany to come, and I consider it an urgent necessity that not only the readership of *Tat*, but above all the new generation, engage intellectually with Rudolf Steiner and the movement that emanates from him. For it is all too tempting today to seek refuge in a safe tower amid the chaos of the new era.”

[ 29 ] Governments have sometimes sought refuge in “safe towers” during times of revolution and unrest; there is much that could be said about this! But now the editor concludes: “My colleague Ernst Michel, well known to the readers of this journal for his essays and books on Goethe, has in this issue of *Anthroposophie* presented a perspective rooted in the Catholic conception of God and the world.”

[ 30 ] Well, I ask you to listen to this a little more closely, because you will notice something that I have already described to you from various sources, and you will soon see that Catholicism, in a seemingly rejuvenated form—having become a sort of “Catholo-Dadaism”—is also creeping into Eugen Diederichs’s *Tat*. “His essay serves as the prelude to a special issue of the Young Catholic Movement, to be published in April and following this issue.”

[ 31 ] So, that’s what I mean when I say “Catholic-Dadaist movement.” I’m not saying this without reason, because I’ll be telling you a bit more about Ernst Michel’s article “Anthroposophy and Christianity” in a moment, and I’ll have the opportunity then to introduce you to a representative of religious Dadaism.

[ 32 ] “It gives me particular satisfaction to use the Catholic supplement to offer the predominantly Protestant readership of *Tat* the opportunity to measure their Protestant individualism against the Catholic spirit of community. I hope that, through all these intellectual exchanges, the fundamental idea of *Tat* will receive renewed support: strengthening the sense of responsibility toward one’s own development and, thereby, toward the nation as a whole.”

[ 33 ] These are the words of Mr. Eugen Diederichs. So here we are talking about a Young Catholic movement, which was launched by Ernst Michel’s essay, “Anthroposophy and Christianity.” I have repeatedly pointed this out—and in my last two reflections I have emphasized with great vigor—the very threat that this particular perspective poses to modern spiritual life. But this essay by Ernst Michel in *Die Tat*, “Anthroposophy and Christianity,” is in fact, through and through, religious Dadaism. The oldest offshoots of Catholic, Roman Catholic Christianity are presented to readers there in bombastic language. One can indeed make some extraordinarily interesting discoveries about this religious Dadaism. For example, Ernst Michel identifies a fundamental truth of Christianity: “It is a fundamental truth of Christianity that human beings—burdened with original sin against God, hereditarily removed from the state of sanctification in their very nature—cannot transcend themselves by their own power: that they are incapable of ascending to a higher stage of humanity from within themselves and through their own faculties; that the breakthroughs from one state to another, toward the primordial state, are genuine acts of God’s creation upon the willing creature.”

[ 34 ] So many words, so many phrases! — One could go through every sentence and find the most childish professions of faith in a “Katechismus catholicus.” The only interesting thing is that Ernst Michel says it is not up to an individual to determine an ultimate spiritual truth. You’ve just heard it: in these matters, it all comes down to “breakthroughs”—that is, it “breaks through.” A person receives this through grace, and then it breaks through. One must surrender to this. A person must not strive on their own toward any kind of supreme truth: “There is no spiritual development; there is only unfolding and breakthrough.”

[ 35 ] But it’s really quite charming how Ernst Michel, from his most primitive Dadaist catechism standpoint, says: “Yes, dogmas—that’s a different matter; you have to believe in them—they’re truths!” — “In dogma, however, it is not man or a community that conceptually formulates its fundamental religious experiences (as ‘man’s address to God’), but God, the head of the Church, who speaks as the Holy Spirit directly and immediately through the visible Church...”

[ 36 ] So the Fathers of the Councils, when they are gathered together, or even the Pope speaking ex cathedra—that’s not a human being, is it! But to make matters worse, the Dadaist of religion even invokes St. Paul, who is also said to have stated that one must not seek ultimate truths as an individual: “Here is the passage where we can quote St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians without fear of Gnostic interpretation: ‘What we speak is God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom that God ordained before all time for our glory, which none of the rulers of this world has recognized… But God has revealed it to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. Among human beings—who among them knows the innermost thoughts of a person except the spirit of that person, which is within him? In the same way, no one has ever fathomed the innermost thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Yet we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what has been given to us by God>...”—and so on.

[ 37 ] Well, you see, if one cites this saying of Paul to describe the nature of anthroposophy, then all of that may be true. But if one first forbids people from coming to the truth through the spirit in any way, and then cites these words, one must be a religious Dadaist. The same applies to the description of the Christ experience and so on. Of course, such ideas don’t sink in with people like that. They might sink in with secular minds, but what anthroposophy has to say about Christ simply doesn’t sink in with people like that. That is why what is said here about the Christ problem in connection with anthroposophy is utter nonsense. Well, it is Ernst Michel himself who speaks out here about the need to have a religious relationship with language, and it was precisely from this religious relationship he has with language that the “bright clusters” emerged, which I quoted to you earlier. Isn’t that a distinctive style of language?

[ 38 ] In contrast, that article by the Dadaist on religious matters indulges in a particular tirade against my style. But that is precisely what is most characteristic: that such clumsy, slimy fingers cannot come anywhere near what is truly necessary to portray spiritual truths. A certain discomfort in style is necessary here. It is necessary to rise above the kind of Dadaist bombast that Mr. Ernst Michel displays. One can certainly understand that, for Mr. Ernst Michel, my mysteries mean nothing. He understands absolutely nothing about them. He says, for example: “The mystery certainly does not lie in the naked supernatural: whoever seeks it there is just as much a materialist as the one who seeks it in matter. And one has not created a mystery by dressing up spectral ideas or magical wonders in conceptual garb and having them act on stage according to the ‘reality’ formula. Rather: the secret lies in the creative union of nature and spirit into an ineffable form...”

[ 39 ] Well, imagine that—the “unspeakable form”—and then being told: “in the unity of matter and form, of force and direction,” in the “shaped form that develops with life”—that’s a Goethe quote, of course! Now here comes a sentence—you really have to have a Dadaist-religious relationship with language to even endure something like this and not view such things as mere drivel that, when you have to put them on your tongue, simply gives rise to drivel or even something stronger—: “Language is the mystery,” yes, that’s how it’s written there; that’s a sentence: “Language is the mystery, the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, is the mystery...” and “the cross... is the mystery.” You see, it’s quite understandable that what exists as anthroposophical literature is by no means suited to such a style of language, even though, of course, in the transcribed lectures—which I have not corrected—some things might be phrased differently. But that doesn’t prevent one from pointing out just how outrageous it is when, through Diederich’s “sense of responsibility,” such material is presented to the general public, thereby forcing one to grapple with it and to characterize it with a bit more nuance. It is indeed strange when such a Dadaist of religion claims that a translation of inner reality into the sound and rhythm of the linguistic element cannot be found in my work. He then cites two figures—Nietzsche and Hölderlin—as examples of those in whom such a translation has taken place. This is very characteristic, for such a scoundrel of intellectual life has absolutely no sense that, when one has to portray difficult intellectual material, style is at the same time a means by which one must place oneself in the very life situation that can prevent—when the style becomes such as it is in Hölderlin and Nietzsche—the tragic outcome that came to light in Hölderlin and Nietzsche. The utter, shameless thoughtlessness of this contemporary clique is particularly evident in such instances; it has neither any sense of the tragedy of Hölderlin and Nietzsche, nor of the necessities of an objective style required to express intellectual truths and intellectual facts. It is necessary today to point out that we are now in a position to confront such Diederichs-style scoundrels, and this must be done in a forceful manner. One must see from which sewers, from which Dadaism, that which today presents itself as anthroposophical opposition—cloaked in the mantle of objectivity—draws its spiritual nourishment.

[ 40 ] These things cannot be expressed any other way than this at this grave moment, for the opinion must not arise—even among anthroposophists—that such “objectivity” is anything other than a cunning ploy to utterly destroy that which anthroposophy is and what lives within it. People like Ernst Michel, with his religious Dadaism, and Eugen Diederichs, with his “mysticism of the gut,” naturally do not have the slightest inkling of this. But this is precisely what one must know and what must be taken into account. Today it is necessary to speak in serious terms and not to engage with what presents itself to the world in this manner. It must be said—and must be presented to the world in every form—that it is precisely through what presents itself as spiritual endeavors of this kind that humanity is being driven more and more into degeneration, into the swamp; and that it is necessary for anthroposophy to remain steadfast in work that is pure and that has no communion with such swamp flowers.

[ 41 ] I am not in the least interested if anything laudatory appears anywhere from such a source, for I attach no importance to either praise or criticism coming from a side that is incapable—because the will is incapable, not the intellect—of grasping what anthroposophy aims for the benefit of humanity. This religious Dadaism, of course, cannot help but result in statements such as: “The power through which the human being, on the foundation of faith, rises to the mystery, is not primarily knowledge, but rather the love that follows vision and leads back more deeply into vision.”

[ 42 ] But this means nothing other than the spiritual lust that such people have in mind, and which is not served by that which comes to light in pure spiritual creation, where there must be no place for these religious-sexual Dadaisms transposed into the spiritual-soul realm, which, even if they appear under all manner of guises, are nothing more than the shameless indulgence of psychological lust—just as so much of what is cloaked in religious garb is nothing more than the shameless indulgence of psychological lust.

[ 43 ] In contrast, we must be clear, time and again, that what lives in our time is that which can unfold only if it overcomes all such resistance—that which leads to a genuine embrace of spiritual life, which is creatively active in material life. We must constantly remind ourselves that we need to nurture these human capacities that exist in the present, that we must devote ourselves to this task with every fiber of our being, and that no degree of seriousness is strong enough to describe the devoted energy that must be expended to move forward on this path. No compromises may be made here. One must do one’s duty. Of course, wherever anthroposophy is to be heard, one must make it heard; one must do one’s duty. But one must not, under any circumstances, succumb to any illusions. For it is necessary to work uncompromisingly from the essence of the matter itself. Each of us has the obligation to work, as much as we can, toward the healing of the anthroposophical movement itself, so that it may emerge from any sense of being an outsider, from any narrow-mindedness, and from any spiritually indulgent mysticism, and so that it may truly penetrate to a free, worldly grasp of the mysteries of existence. For only when the mysteries of existence are grasped in this way can we also work toward the goals of practical life—goals that must, after all, be achieved if they are not to become stumbling blocks on humanity’s path of further development. Yet it is precisely in this latter area that we are misunderstood in every possible way. What lengths are being gone to in order to distort these things in the most shameless manner! In the well-known *Berliner Tageblatt*, an article is fabricated about all sorts of sewer-like rubbish that passes itself off in Berlin as fortune-telling and prophecy of the most foolish kind, and right in the middle of it, reference is made to anthroposophy and to me. This article is then sent out into the world. It appears in English as well as Swiss newspapers. Through fabricated articles, efforts are being made in the most infamous, shameless way to destroy the anthroposophical worldview. This is what must be seen through, and one cannot get by merely with some refutations; rather, one must characterize the people themselves. Of course, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to get through this if one were to characterize the very soil from which all this nonsense springs and hold up its own nature to it as a mirror. But that is precisely what is necessary and is becoming increasingly so. We cannot limit ourselves merely to presenting an anthroposophical dogma on the one hand and defending it on the other when it is attacked; rather, we need to engage with everything in the world today that is contributing to the dumbing down and degeneration of humanity. And there is a great, great deal of it. This is what we must, so to speak, tell ourselves every morning, and what is truly being expressed here without fanaticism. For I have not, in fact, always spoken about these things in this way, and I rarely speak—and in the past rarely spoke—about these things, only more often now because your attention truly must be drawn to such nonsense, which flows from the very decadence of our time—such as this article fabricated in Berlin, which is now making the rounds around the world, just as other things are making the rounds around the world—and one would truly have an enormous amount of work to do if one wanted to refute all these things. One could truly spend twenty-four hours working on refuting this disgraceful piece. Then the Frohnmeyers come along and say that what they wrote has never been refuted. Dr. Boos refuted it; he wrote to the editorial office in question, but they did not publish the refutation, so that Frohnmeyer subsequently removed from the paper the part where the pastor in question—who was there and witnessed the incident—was accused of lying; but the rebuttal simply was not published. And then, I believe, there was also a correspondence in which there was no mention whatsoever that this rebuttal had been received and not published. One would really have a great deal of work to do if one wanted to refute all these things. It is typical of Frohnmeyer and Heinzelmann to take the easy way out—whenever they want to say something that does not correspond at all to reality—by claiming that the relevant information was borrowed from here or there and that they simply believed it to be true. Anyone who writes has an obligation to investigate these matters and to examine their sources.

[ 44 ] You cannot deal with these people—who develop their views out of sheer malice and, to a large extent, out of sheer ignorance—if you merely try to refute them. The point, however, is to truly shed light on the intellectual underpinnings that can be found everywhere.

[Gap in the transcript; the closing remarks follow:]

[ 45 ] It is in the interest of the matter—and not for personal reasons—that I say I have given countless lectures in Stuttgart since April 1919, which contain the most important economic facts and truths, as well as many characteristics of contemporary intellectual currents that should have been exploited. The point is certainly that important material is available. — It is “locked away.” These materials are printed, sent to the members of the Threefold Order circles and to the Threefold Order associations, and read aloud there in small groups. What was originally intended to be “worldly” has once again been turned into something sectarian. It pains one, in the interest of the cause, that these matters are not taken up but are treated in this way.

[ 46 ] Essentially, it is a wasted effort to devote oneself to something like this—which is truly drawn from the vast expanse!—if it is not taken up, not developed further, if no work is done in this sense.

[ 47 ] But that is precisely what is necessary, and what we need most of all today!

[ 48 ] We can’t just read these things aloud in small circles in a sectarian manner; rather, they are definitely topics that can be developed further. Everywhere there are seeds for further work! And why would one develop such material if it is then simply left lying around as printed material, with no one really taking it seriously? But that is the point: if we continue working on it, we can truly pursue the specific points that have been highlighted. That is what is necessary—to pursue these matters further in our work; after all, these are seeds that are given here on earth. Truly active work means this: lifting our movement out of the realm of sectarianism, whereas if we simply take things as they are and carry them back into sectarianism, we cannot make any progress. The content of the teachings provided by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is not such that it lends itself in any way to a sectarian movement; rather, it is precisely such that it can be presented as something capable of providing impulses for a global impact.

[ 49 ] But for that to happen, it is essential that everyone contribute their strength. Today we are faced with the need to put things into practice. We will not make progress unless this is taken seriously, unless people truly understand how the true spirit can also work its way into true practice.

[ 50 ] But then something must be done that does not bury these things, but rather embraces them and demonstrates their continuing influence in a living sense.

[ 51 ] That is what I also wanted to say in closing: No one—truly no one—needs to feel offended by these things. But at a time when what I recently quoted here is possible—namely, that through newspaper columns, efforts are being made against this anthroposophical spiritual science and against what it has accomplished, to the point that it is fading away—there are enough spiritual sparks; it is now necessary that the real, physical spark of fire soon descend upon this hill in Dornach—in a time when such things can be driven to the surface by the malice lurking beneath, in this time, serious words are absolutely necessary.

[ 52 ] That is why I asked you once again today to come here. Please do not hold it against me that I have taken this opportunity to speak quite seriously! I simply had to bring this to your hearts, to your minds, and to your spirits before this journey!