The Rudolf Steiner Archive

9. Second Address on the Dornach Crisis

[ 1 ] My dear friends, I would have liked to give a lecture today as well that, in principle, went beyond current events. I hope that this will once again be fully possible with tomorrow’s lecture, which is scheduled to begin at 7:00 a.m. Today, however, it seems necessary to me—in light of the reading of the document I had to carry out yesterday, in light of the heartfelt letter from the members that Mr. Bauer has just delivered to me, and in light of a document handed to me by another party—to say a few words of my own, now that the events expressed in these documents have taken place. In doing so, I do indeed wish to address the specific case, but only insofar as it can reveal to us all sorts of things that are necessary to know regarding the relationship between the teaching and the spiritual movement of which we speak, and what is currently unfolding among and around us as individual facts. After all, one can sometimes discern something of general significance even in the discussion of individual facts and, in particular, draw meaningful conclusions from them.

[ 2 ] I’d like to start from the premise—and I’ll put this more or less aphoristically—that yesterday I read you a document that was signed by two members and that refers to a third, long-standing member.

[ 3 ] Now—and I don’t believe this is an indiscretion—a member of our society, a physician, has expressed in a letter—which Mr. Bauer showed me a quarter of an hour ago—a perfectly correct view, which, as I can safely say, was my own view not only after but already during my reading of the document read aloud yesterday: that we are not dealing with anything logical, but with a matter that must be considered, above all, from the standpoint of pathology.

[ 4 ] Of course, this may well be one of the many conditions we must set on this occasion. But this condition must not be made without an important caveat—I am merely expressing my opinion today, which is not intended to be binding on anyone—namely, the caveat: Can we really tolerate the existence of our society and our entire movement being constantly endangered by all manner of pathological phenomena? Can we really tolerate pathologists as destroyers of our Spiritual Science life? Insofar as we can feel compassion for them—yes. But if we were to tolerate them without properly confronting the pathological, we would, through these pathologists, continually endanger that which must be most precious and most important to us. From this, of course, follows the necessity to clearly recognize that, while we are indeed dealing with pathologists, we must nevertheless acknowledge as necessary whatever must happen so that our cause can take its course unimpeded. Even if one regards certain things as pathological, one must nevertheless deal with them appropriately when they concern the real realities of life. How one views this in relation to individuals is an entirely different question.

[ 5 ] My dear friends, when it comes to a spiritual movement such as ours—as you have seen from various instances that we have had to discuss over time—you will time and again find—and this experience is inevitable—that personal vanities and personal interests creep into the purely objective pursuit of our goals and into the assertion of those purely objective goals. This need not even be expressed as a rebuke, as a stern rebuke, for we are, after all, all human beings; but it can be said, and I am expressing it today as my own opinion, which is not binding on anyone. One can regard it as a far lesser evil when someone calmly admits that in certain matters he is subject to this or that vanity, that he currently has no particular interest in casting off this vanity—because that might be connected to his upbringing and so on—than when one wants to be absolutely perfect at any given moment. Thus, the greatest evil may well appear to us to be when someone, at every opportunity, wants to believe in his own perfection in some way; wants to believe that he is already doing this or that entirely selflessly, and the like.

[ 6 ] The great temptation in any spiritual movement such as ours is, in particular, a strong element of vanity, which stems from the fact that such movements must—I would say—anticipate great things that can only gradually come to fruition and take root, and that not everyone can immediately rise to the necessary expansion of their interests toward the factual and the objective. It is understandable that, out of personal vanity, one or the other, upon hearing of incarnations, immediately asserts a very personal interest in what their previous incarnations might have been. Although looking to history is by far the worst approach, it is nevertheless the one most frequently taken out of personal vanity. History, the Old and New Testaments—these, after all, constitute—instead of the inner, spiritual paths of meditation—such a rich source of information regarding reincarnations for the satisfaction of personal vanity! For, at first glance, this is really nothing else. And it is good to know that, at first, seeking one’s own incarnations in history or in the Bible is nothing other than personal vanity.

[ 7 ] It is understandable that these vanities come into play. But the trouble begins when one fails to recognize these vanities as such, when one does not calmly examine the underlying, ambitious motives, but instead drapes all these things in a cloak of mystery, allowing them to dissolve into obscurity, into a mystical fog.

[ 8 ] Truly, my dear friends, a spiritual movement must view certain things—which are considered valid outside of that movement with some justification—from the standpoint of a much higher morality. But one must never lose sight of the fact that quite a few things that seem to us to be a higher morality are not a higher morality at all, but merely a substitute for inner instincts and drives. From the various discussions we have already had, it may be clear to you that someone can have very, very human instincts and drives, but then allow these very human instincts and drives to flow into all sorts of occult trappings—perhaps accompanied by all sorts of logical arguments—because through such self-deception one seeks to reassure oneself that such drives and instincts exist. It would be much better to admit them to oneself and to use the occult knowledge one has acquired to understand these things.

[ 9 ] I read Dr. Goesch’s document to you. You followed along and heard what was discussed yesterday. The document contains all sorts of things—I only intend to express my personal opinion with what I say today, which is not binding on anyone—but this document also states: “I have come to the end of what I wish to say at this time. I have not yet been able to give the form I had envisioned to this knowledge, which I acquired under the guidance of the Keeper of the Seal of the Society for Theosophical Art and Culture (...)”

[ 10 ] We know that the keeper of the seal is Miss Sprengel and that Dr. Goesch wrote the letter. I believe that a Frenchman would be right, after reading this letter, to apply a proverb long in use in France—even though “keeper of the seal” is in the masculine form here: “Cherchez la femme.” And I even believe that by using the proverb “Cherchez la femme”—rather than rephrasing it in the masculine form—one would understand much of what is discussed in this letter better than one otherwise would.

[ 11 ] Well, I must nevertheless comment on certain points in this letter from my personal perspective. For this letter implies the following. It states: One cannot form a mental image of the situation in which so-called E.S. sessions could still be held within our society. - I did read that passage to you. It points out that, because all the “crimes” described in the document have occurred, no further E.S. sessions can be held.

[ 12 ] My dear friends, we must view such matters in the proper light and not shy away from examining them more closely. Isn’t it true that our E.S. sessions have been put on hold since the outbreak of the war, and anyone who sees things as they should be seen—and could see them that way if they wanted to—knows, of course, that this has nothing to do with anything other than the current events of the war. The fact is that these sessions are no longer being held for the simple reason that it is necessary to uphold the purpose of our society.

[ 13 ] And so there can really only be two possibilities today. Either one upholds the spirit of society, in which case one must, of course—whether in a country that is hostile to another or in a neutral country—refrain from holding any meetings that are not public. Just consider what a goldmine this would be for those who want to fabricate insinuations, and consider what might happen if, so to speak, secret meetings were held behind closed doors. It is therefore necessary not to do this, and also for the members to exercise a little personal self-sacrifice by forgoing these meetings on their part. It is therefore—and I’d like to use this trivial expression—as plain as day that we cannot now negotiate behind closed doors in the presence of members from different nations. Not that anything improper could happen behind closed doors. For our sake, of course, it could happen every day. But you know how many hostile forces we face out there. These must also be taken into account, for we must not endanger our movement by committing acts of stupidity and folly. That is why we must already practice this self-denial and refrain from holding meetings behind closed doors. You know that in these times there is a disease associated with the name “spionitis,” and this would truly open the floodgates to everything connected with it.

[ 14 ] The second possibility—and this would certainly not work—would be to address the members of the various nations separately. Again, this would not be in keeping with the spirit of our society.

[ 15 ] From this you can see that this measure had to be taken because of the war and that it will be lifted when the war ends—as, indeed, everyone could have realized for themselves.

[ 16 ] Now, one can associate other ideas with this measure. One cannot simply assume that people on the outside are so decent that they expect only decent behavior from us. Nor can we expect them to take an interest in us and observe what we are doing. After all, they have no way of knowing whether we might be doing something they would consider wrong. That, too, was the basis for such a measure. It is not possible to count on decent assumptions in the outside world when it comes to such matters, but one should be able to count on them within our own society.

[ 17 ] Now, however—not only in this letter, but in all the events that led up to it—a certain group, whose aspirations were expressed in this letter, a statement has been recurring for months—voiced here and there—that the fact that no E.S. sessions are currently being held is not related to the war, but rather to the fact that society has taken on a form that makes it impossible for such sessions to take place at all. For, it is argued, after such “crimes,” one cannot assume that there is still any trust in such sessions. - This means nothing less than that we must truly expect certain measures in our society to be judged in a way that can no longer be called decent. Nor can it be excused by claiming that one was mistaken; rather, it is an indecent interpretation, a genuine slander. From a legal standpoint, it is no different from slander, and it is all the more alarming in that such things are not only cloaked in all sorts of mystical guises but are also whispered from person to person. The way such things are said is often far more disastrous than one might think, although I do not wish to adopt the letter-writer’s line of reasoning that such whispering, which passes from ear to ear, is tantamount to the use of black magic. That is not what I mean, my dear friends. For when one whispers something in someone’s ear, it may well be a matter of perfectly natural phenomena; it does not necessarily imply the presence of black magic.

[ 18 ] My dear friends, there has been much talk in this very document—and I emphasize this again and again: I am expressing my opinion, which is not binding on anyone—there has been much talk that I have exerted unjustified influence here and there. I do not wish to address the contradiction that, on the one hand, friendly conversations and handshakes are portrayed as tools of black magic, while on the other hand, it is criticized that I do not seek to develop a much closer relationship with the members. So, on the one hand, it’s said that I don’t do enough for the members and keep to myself; on the other hand, it’s claimed that I use every conversation, every handshake, to influence the members in an improper way. One should understand how something like this comes about. It may be, for example, that someone has a wish; let’s say he wishes that he had been the Mother of God in a previous incarnation. I’m just recounting this; I’m not making it up. Let’s take this case as an example. If the person in question were to come and hint at something like this, and someone were to say to him, “Yes, yes, I’ve found that in my occult research as well”—then he would most likely—as I said, I don’t mean anything personal by this, but it’s an example—then he would not view this as undue influence. If he were told what he wishes to hear, he would be far from viewing it as undue influence. Now, it is true that conceit and vanity do not so often reach the point where one focuses specifically on this previous incarnation; but other incarnations do come up more frequently. And here we must address a matter of principle.

[ 19 ] You see, given the current state of human development, the freedom of souls must truly be safeguarded in the most meticulous manner; in a meticulous way that people with a mindset such as that of the author of this document cannot, in essence, form particularly sound concepts about. For the author of this document would at times have found it pleasant to have been influenced in a way that corresponded to his wishes, and he wished that there had been much more discussion with him. Now add the second half to the first, and what emerges is that one might have discussed every trivial matter and even exchanged handshakes. So, at the same time, what he desired on the one hand would have happened, and on the other hand, the immense crime he cited would have occurred. But, as I said, people usually have no mental image of that meticulous way of preserving the freedom of souls that must prevail in a movement such as ours. The freedom of souls must be preserved in the most intense manner.

[ 20 ] Let’s assume the simple case that someone has a slight incarnation-related vanity—a relatively minor one—and comes to us with it. If one were to agree with him, he would naturally stop complaining about being influenced. But suppose one were to tell them: “Don’t be so foolish—there’s nothing to this incarnation!”—then, if one takes the matter very strictly, that would already constitute, if not a strong one, then at least a weak, unauthorized intrusion into their soul. Consider the matter very clearly and distinctly. The one who comes and says that he regards this or that as his previous incarnation—whether out of vanity or whatever else led him to this assumption—has arrived at this opinion on his own; it was his own soul that led him to it. After all, it is the path of his own soul that he has taken, and it is fundamental to the character of our movement that each person be guided further, at most, from the point at which his soul has arrived—but not that his soul be broken at a specific moment. So if, at such a moment, one simply cuts the matter short by saying, “Don’t be so foolish; that’s nonsense”—then that is not the right response. One must not speak to him in this way, for that would be an unwarranted influence; he would have no choice but to place trust in a personal sense, and that is not the kind of trust that should be placed in him. We will see shortly that we must speak of a completely different kind of trust. Rather, one should respond to him by saying: Look, the fact is that your soul has arrived at this or that thought. Try to put this thought into practice; try to live as if it were true. See if you can do what you ought to be able to do, or see if what ought to happen actually happens, as if it were truly the case. —- With such a response, he will quite logically have to come to an understanding of how things really are. This is a true realization of the freedom of the individual: not to cut off anything—no matter how erroneous a path a soul may have followed up to this point. Thus, the non-interference with souls must go much deeper; that is what matters.

[ 21 ] Not even someone who, if he sticks to the facts, shares the views of the author of this document will be able to claim that anyone in our society has been particularly favored by my own allocation of incarnations. Please take what I have just said very seriously: It is not a matter of forming crude mental images about influence and non-influence, but rather of forming mental images that are the most difficult to follow in this day and age if one always wishes to respect the free dignity of others.

[ 22 ] I am aware that, within our society, respect for the soul of others has always been cultivated—indeed, to such an extent that one can say, I have adopted the habit of speaking—in situations where probably everyone else would speak much, much more affirmatively or negatively—in a way that preserves the freedom of the other person’s soul, and of saying only what enables the person in question to form their own judgment about the situation, not to hear my authority, but to set aside my authority by simply offering advice to consider this or that. That is what I have always consciously cultivated.

[ 23 ] My dear friends, certainly, not even the most curious misinterpretations that occur have yet come to light in this document. One must get to the bottom of these. Believe me, it has happened more than once that someone showed up at a lecture series and claimed it was Dr. Steiner’s express wish that he be present at that lecture series. This has happened often. Often, when one looked into such a claim, one would find that the person in question had told me he would be attending that lecture series, and I had told him that I was very pleased—because it truly gives me great joy to see members again here or there. In many cases, however, the person’s attitude would often change by the very next day, to the point where they would say: “The Doctor specifically wishes that I attend this lecture series.”

[ 24 ] Here is one of those chapters that are so very peculiar. It was the greatest wish of many of our friends that someone would tell them what to do, but I have always tried to conduct myself in such a way that the members would realize that, when it comes to the entire external organization of their lives—every step they take—it would never occur to me to offer anyone personal advice; that I am far from wanting to influence anyone in any way—for example, as to whether they should attend this or that lecture series. So from my point of view, I can say: The desire that has struck me most—and against which I have to fight the hardest—is that, in most cases, members want to be personally influenced even in the smallest details, and I never want that; I must always reject it. It is simply necessary that within a community such as ours is meant to be, such things be rejected.

[ 25 ] There is another point connected to all of this that, in principle, is worth mentioning. You see, anyone who observes the way I try to work will be able to see that I strive to let the matter take its course. And this brings me to what I call the question of trust. I would really like to ask the members to give it some serious thought: Have I ever—whether toward an individual or the group as a whole—done anything to demand personal trust in the conventional sense, or to justify it in any way? Try to think about this, and try to form a judgment based on the way I present things.

[ 26 ] Let’s take a case close to home. You were kind enough to attend the lecture I gave the day before yesterday on certain mathematical and geometric concepts. From a certain perspective within Spiritual Science, I had to tell you: Matter is nothing; matter is actually, as we understand it, a hole in space; it is precisely where matter is that there is nothing. — But I do not want anyone to believe me on trust alone. I am truly far from wanting anyone to accept this teaching simply on the basis of trust in me; rather, I am trying to show how modern science—and those who are at the forefront of modern science—arrive at the same insights as Spiritual Science. That is to say, I am trying—regardless of how I personally discovered these things, and regardless of the fact that I am telling you about them—to show that they also have an objective basis in the world and that this basis is also evident in the results of scientific research.

[ 27 ] Why am I doing this? So that you won’t need to rely on personal trust—but can do without it—and can see how I’m working to ensure that the matter speaks for itself, no matter how difficult it may be.

[ 28 ] I’m sorry that I have to describe the issue of trust in this way. I would have preferred it if you had realized on your own that I am working toward a situation where you don’t need to place personal trust in me. The only kind of trust that could come into play would be the kind where you can say to yourselves: He’s really making an effort not to just present us with insights he once gained on a whim, but is trying to bring everything together so that matters can be judged on their own merits, independent of his personality. - I do not mean to say that “gathering everything together” can always succeed—first, because there simply isn’t enough time, and second, because everything must inevitably remain imperfect. But the method does tend toward ensuring that it is not a matter of personal trust, but rather that this is completely eliminated. This is how we must understand the so-called “question of trust” in a spiritual movement. For that is what matters to me, though I also wish to express only my personal opinion on this today.

[ 29 ] However, there is also a certain perspective that makes everything relative, because, after all, the general principle applies that everything should be subject to justified criticism. Certainly, everyone should be able to offer justified criticism of everything. But the fact remains that one must also take the matter of criticism with a grain of salt. For consider that the volume of our work is determined by time, so that we cannot carry it out in any way we please, as one person or another might imagine. If you just consider that, then you must admit to yourself that some things here are truly not conceived in the spirit of real life. I would—and I can say this openly, and I’ve hinted at it many times—not speak out about certain things if I hadn’t lived and worked in this environment for decades and come to understand it through a long life.

[ 30 ] For example, I would not have spoken about *Faust* if I had not been able to immerse myself in *Faust* over the course of decades. Now, if someone were to come to a person who has devoted decades to this endeavor and try to argue with him about these matters—even though that person hasn’t devoted nearly as much time to it but has only dabbled in it slightly—just imagine what a waste of time that would be for the one who has studied the subject intensively. Surely this cannot really be expected of me—or of anyone, for that matter. Someone once wrote a letter to the poet Hamerling—it was on his 50th birthday—that left Hamerling quite speechless. The letter bore the heading: “Dear Old Man!”—Well, I am indeed over fifty, but I think you will concede that I have a task that demands my time, and you will understand that I have no need to discuss with people matters that I had already dealt with at a time when these people were still in diapers. It may—in the abstract—be right to engage in a discussion; but it is usually the most fruitless thing when it concerns matters such as those set forth in this document. That must be said. For it is quite a different thing when an old man speaks on the subject than when a “newcomer to the world” does. These, after all, are real facts of life.

[ 31 ] And then, my dear friends, just think for a moment about how terribly contradictory this entire document is. You don’t have to think the way I do, but I’d still like to tell you what I think. There is this sentence: “I have come to realize that in your work within our spiritual movement, alongside your activities dedicated to the good,” and so on. — It would never occur to me to say this sentence; but it is written here, and following it is a long list of undertakings that have been carried out. I must admit that everything listed there has been carried out rather imperfectly, and I have repeatedly emphasized that, for example, the Johannesbau is only the beginning of what is to be done. And yet, can one not even entertain the slightest thought that someone might have to limit themselves in their tasks? Can one not imagine that, with such tasks, one would not also have the time to cultivate all the possible relationships envisioned in this document? One really approaches these matters too lightly if one believes that one could fulfill all that this document demands of such a communal life, even if everything listed here were to come to pass. One would really have to—I say this reluctantly, and I expressly ask that you understand that I say it reluctantly—demand of the letter’s author that he allow one the opportunity to structure the year in two distinct ways. One must surely be granted the right to organize one’s activities as one sees fit. After all, this does not interfere with what the other person wants or is capable of doing. That is precisely what I strive for so intensely—that everyone do what they want, that no one be required to do anything other than what they want. But one must also grant me the right to limit myself to what I recognize as my task. After all, it is mostly people who do not want to think about concrete tasks, who do not want to develop the will to undertake concrete tasks, who are more concerned with criticizing other things that already exist. ^{1This obviously refers to Heinrich Goesch, who was not actively involved in any practical work and who, as members reported, had refused to participate in the construction of the first Goetheanum.}

[ 32 ] But that is not what is fruitful in life, my dear friends. Anyone who does not agree with a society that already exists can, of course, remain outside of that society, and can do whatever he agrees with. But it is infinitely easier to fit into a society and criticize from within than to do something oneself. One can find many things in life to be bad; but that does not determine what someone is capable of accomplishing. The fact that one knows—that this or that should happen, and that this or that person is doing this or that poorly—does not determine anything; what does matter, however, is that one strives to actually carry out what one is capable of and what one says. And it is not decisive, either, that not everyone accomplishes what I want. They may refrain from doing it or do it, but then their freedom is not impaired by me, but rather by what they believe they are capable of doing according to their abilities; they need only develop the will to do what is commensurate with their abilities.

[ 33 ] When our society was in its infancy, I thought it could serve as a model for this principle I just mentioned; I believed that specifically in regard to the latter. For that is the great shortcoming of our time: people always want an awful lot but never acquire any real skill. That is, of course, understandable. You see, anyone who has acquired knowledge and skills in a particular area of life and works with them knows that one can do terribly little, whether in this or that respect. One knows best that one can do little when one can do something and has had to master that something out of necessity. One is most confident in one’s abilities when one actually can do nothing and has not yet tested one’s abilities at all. That is why, in our time, we are confronted less by facts than by programs. The age is full of programs; they’re just swarming all around us. People are rich in programs. It is infinitely easy to write down, in general abstractions, what one wants regarding socialism, theosophy, human coexistence, the women’s issue, and so on. It is easy to set forth something in programs that can be infinitely witty and correct. But the person who has truly done something positive—even if only within the very smallest circle—has done more than the person who sent the most beautiful programs out into the world.

[ 34 ] My dear friends, what must be recognized is that what matters is that something be done. It would be best to keep one’s programs more or less locked away in the innermost recesses of one’s heart and use them only as a guiding principle for one’s own life. A movement such as ours is, of course, very easy to misunderstand. I already pointed out yesterday how it must and will be misunderstood, and how we need to be mindful of this misunderstanding when dealing with people outside the movement, who truly do not hold back—not only with their criticism (for that would actually be a good thing), but also with slander and false claims.

[ 35 ] It is precisely in this area that the most significant progress has been made over the years. It is precisely in the realm of slander and denigration that much has been done, without the necessary steps being taken to truly counter these things. But it would be necessary for what constitutes the most intimate characteristics of precisely such a spiritual movement to gradually take hold within our society itself.

[ 36 ] Now, one of the things I consistently advocate—both in lectures and elsewhere—and which I repeatedly point out, because it must be my duty, is that what I can be to another person can only be determined by the spiritual essence of our movement, and that this spiritual essence—purely spiritual, of course—which must prevail between us, must not be misunderstood. I really cannot discuss this matter in connection with our case without addressing these issues. I am terribly sorry about all of this, because one is always tempted to spare people for as long as possible. But the cause must take precedence over the individuals. There is simply no other way.

[ 37 ] Now, anyone capable of objective judgment will truly be able to see the connection between what I have said earlier about a free assessment of the free soul and the way in which I relate to the individual members. I always strive to put into practice what follows from our spiritual movement—what seems to me, in a sense, necessary in order to shape all personal relationships so that they are properly integrated into the life of our spiritual movement—and here I must say: I allow everyone in our society to work in such a way that their work is entirely different from my own.

[ 38 ] Some may find Mr. Goesch’s view quite good and regard it as something very gratifying that someone should make an effort to foster social and personal cohesion, and I myself believe that it would even be good if there were someone who would foster personal cohesion and personal relationships, so that the society is not merely a society in name only. But I must set limits for myself in this society. Nevertheless, I see that I am still the one who knows by far the greatest number of members personally. There will be many people who know fewer members than I do. However, I have absolutely no objection to a great deal being done to truly foster the personal connections that play such a major role in this document. It’s just that, as I said, I must set limits for myself, for the reasons I have sufficiently explained.

[ 39 ] That is why it really does sound like a very strange misunderstanding of what is happening when one hears judgments such as those expressed once again in this document: that the best I have to offer thereby becomes merely something shadowy, a mere image. - It seems, then, even from this statement, that this community founded on Spiritual Science—as I must understand it—is viewed as something too abstract, as something that—I would say—should have a much more personal character; I say only: should have a much more personal character—so as not to use another word. I have often stated that this personal character cannot exist; it simply cannot be. I have expressed this myself to individual members. I would most like to see the personal element eliminated to such an extent that, as far as I am concerned, I could always speak from behind a screen, so that nothing at all from personal relationships with the members could influence what is the main thing: the dissemination of the teaching and its integration into life.

[ 40 ] I'm sorry I have to say things like this, but how can we understand each other if we don't say things like this?

[ 41 ] Now the following has happened, and I would like to pick up on that. You see, there was a person to whom I, of course, always fulfilled my obligations as they relate to our spiritual movement—that is, I did my duty with regard to the spiritual movement, while naturally setting aside personal matters—and yet this person felt it necessary some time ago to write me a letter that begins as follows. I will not read the entire letter, but only a passage from it that can be said to be, in a sense, the seed of what is now a fact. The letter arrived on December 25, 1914—that is, on Christmas Day of last year. I will now read the characteristic passage. It reads as follows and is quoted from one of the Mystery Plays: “It has now been seven years since you, Doctor, appeared before my inner eye and said to me: ‘I am the one you have been waiting for all your life; I am the one to whom the forces of destiny have destined you.’” And the letter continues: “For neither the teaching nor the teacher alone could revive my soul; only the human being—the human being capable of greater love than others, so that he could also make up for greater lack of love—could do that.”

[ 42 ] Here you have essentially demanded something that cannot and must not be given on a personal level. Less emphasis is placed on the teacher and the teaching; rather, it is the individual who is called upon. I must say, it is simply necessary that we not play hide-and-seek when it comes to these matters.

[ 43 ] At the end of Dr. Goesch’s document, it is stated that he acquired this knowledge under the guidance of the Keeper of the Seal of the Society for Theosophical Art and Culture. This Keeper of the Seal is precisely the individual who wrote the sentence that was read aloud, which shows that matters such as those described in this letter have indeed been accumulating within this individual for a long time. I do not wish to describe with any adjective the insinuations—which are particularly strong in the letter that arrived at Dr. Steiner’s the day before yesterday; these are genuine insinuations that I will not read aloud, simply because one naturally spares people as long as they allow themselves to be spared. But I must say that it is, after all, possible for such things to occur in our society.

[ 44 ] Do not think, my dear friends, that I was in any way blind to the fact that, I might say, split into two branches. I want to speak first of all about the one branch that extends outward from our society. Perhaps it is better to speak of this one branch first. Among the various highly defamatory things that have been written in the slanderous pamphlets against our movement—and mainly against me—one repeatedly finds the accusation that there are so many in our society who run after men, who are hysterical women. I am not stating a fact here, but rather something that appears in these defamatory writings—many of which originate from this corner and are largely fabricated—with which we—namely, I—have been slandered in recent times.

[ 45 ] This current case is by no means an isolated one. The things that are manifesting themselves in their present form should be viewed as symptomatic, not taken personally. What I mean is that someone seeking to draw closer to our movement should not go about it in a way that leads them to write: “It has now been seven years, Doctor—” and so on. I do not wish to go into great detail on such matters, but one will be able to understand what is meant. Such matters cannot be judged solely on the basis of an individual case; rather, the individual case must be viewed as a symptom indicating that the teaching was not taken entirely impersonally, and that there were some who were also on the path of placing less emphasis on the teaching and the teacher than on the person. That was also one of the more incidental reasons why my faithful colleague, who had stood by my side for so many years, and I got married last Christmas. At the time, we really weren’t inclined—I’ll admit this openly—to cloak the matter in an air of mystery. We took the position—primarily for ourselves—that, first, such personal matters are nobody’s business, and, second—and this applies to the relationship between the two of us—that it had truly become necessary not to allow, so to speak, the misunderstanding to arise that things might be taken more personally than they were intended. ^{2The somewhat unclear second half of this sentence reads as follows according to the stenographic transcript, but may have been recorded inaccurately or incompletely.} And so, back then, the phrase you will understand was often spoken between us: that she—Dr. Steiner—by marrying me, had become the “cleaner” for certain things that had accumulated in some people’s minds. It is something intended to ensure that matters are less likely to be interpreted in a personal light than was previously the case.

[ 46 ] In general—and please do not misunderstand what I mean here—in a society such as this one, the point is not to emancipate oneself from everything possible in the world, but rather to carry the world forward from a specific point of view in terms of beliefs and customs. And so it can only be beneficial, wherever possible, to present the matter very clearly to the outside world—to present it truly clearly—and to prevent this or that way of thinking from arising.

[ 47 ] Thus, Dr. Steiner was also inclined, following a letter she received from the party described as the true “driving force” behind the matter, to write that this registration at the civil registry office was truly not such a terribly significant matter, given that they had worked together for so many years on all the things that are most important in life. The result was that the following reply was received: “But that registration at the civil registry office triggered the catastrophe for me—one that I had, mind you, been dreading for years, not in terms of its course, but in terms of its nature and gravity.” - I believe it suffices to point out that there is a certain connection between the hiring of a “cleaning lady” and what we are now experiencing, and that, precisely, seems to me to provide the most complete proof of just how necessary the hiring of this cleaning lady was.

[ 48 ] There is no harm, my dear friends, in taking things as they are and not attributing more to them than is actually there; but it is always harmful to link any particular occult mission to the slightest trifle—or, for that matter, to the most magnificent aspect of life—and so we prefer to cultivate for ourselves the image of the cleaning lady, which corresponds much more closely to reality than putting something particularly grandiose out into the world. We just thought it would never be necessary to say so outright.

[ 49 ] It is truly my personal opinion, my dear friends, that when someone within our spiritual movement seeks something so personal in matters that are self-evident, this points—in a very sad sense—to the influence of certain instincts in our society, which cannot be otherwise than that we simply acknowledge them and view them in their truth, without any occult veneer. That is also the best way to legitimately move beyond these instincts. The only way to do this is to view them in their truth. But among us, an extraordinary amount has been done precisely in the direction of surrounding them with such an occult aura.

[ 50 ] But why, my dear friends, should we allow the purely objective interest we ought to have in our spiritual movement to be clouded by introducing vanity into everything? Why on earth should we do that? Anyone who thinks a great deal about his historical incarnations simply does not have the right interest in our cause; he lacks precisely the interest he ought to have, and the difference between him and an ordinary egoist is that the ordinary egoist does not go so far as to identify with any historical incarnation, but satisfies his personal vanity through something else.

[ 51 ] It is certainly true that it is actually even wiser for someone to show off with their clothes and money than with their incarnations; showing off with clothes or money is absolutely the lesser evil than showing off with incarnations. These are things we should take seriously and engrave deeply, deeply into our souls. For through these things, much harm has been wrought over the years, and they are so intimately connected with what I must generally call “personal vanity.”

[ 52 ] My dear friends, when personal vanity plays a major role, one can be misunderstood in the most unbelievable ways. That Keeper of the Seal—he recounts it himself in a letter—once came to me and explained that he would apply the standards that had long been within him to everything that approached him from the outside world. —To which I replied: Why shouldn’t you be able to be part of our spiritual movement because of that? Of course you can apply your own standards.—By that I meant nothing other than that our teaching has nothing to fear when one applies one’s own standards to it. One should even apply them. From my point of view, I find nothing wrong with his wanting to apply his own standards. But from the way he presents the matter, it is clear that he meant it this way: Actually, everything is already within me; whatever spiritual insight can be given to me, I have already seen in visions; so all of that is already within me. — Then the person in question asked—I don’t know why such a question was asked, since it is a contradiction in terms—but nevertheless, she asked whether she could and should become a student despite this. - Well, one can only say that the fact remained that she still wanted to approach us, and so we could not prevent her from doing so. But in such a claim—that “everything is already within me,” and “I must deign to cooperate in this movement, but I will apply my own standards”—there actually lies the vanity that seeks something other than the teaching. She doesn’t need to seek the teaching—she already has it within her. It is, in fact, vanity—of which people are so incredibly unaware—that plays such an infinitely large role in a movement like this.

[ 53 ] This person, then, truly assumes nothing less than that the things that have been taught originated with her. This is actually somewhat difficult to understand. There must have been some reason for this, likely stemming from something in the letter Dr. Steiner once wrote in reply to the Keeper of the Seal in question. And so it came to pass that this mysterious source of our esoteric movement was pointed out even more explicitly. My dear friends, we really cannot continue to keep this a secret for the sake of the individual; rather, we must address it. In the reply that the Keeper of the Seal gave to Dr. Steiner, it states: “And just as a sick person seeks out a doctor, I asked the doctor for a consultation three years ago. On that occasion—and increasingly often thereafter—I had to utter a sad confession: I wondered whether I could truly follow the teaching, for I could not comprehend anything concerning myself or what was happening to me. I must omit here what led me to make this statement; I do not know how much you know about my development and life story.” This is said because I once had to listen to a conversation that touched on this subject. — “I did not get a chance to speak of my distress; the doctor made it clear that he did not want to hear anything about it.” - “I didn’t want to hear anything about it, but I did give an answer. One cannot reject such things merely by pointing out that one doesn’t want to hear about them.” - “The following summer, however, we were given *The Guardian of the Threshold*. In it was the conversation between Strader and Theodora, which reflected in the most delicate way what was troubling me. Perhaps the Doctor didn’t ‘mean’ anything of the sort—though ‘mean’ is placed in quotation marks—but it is a fact nonetheless. Perhaps it was an attempt at healing.” The passage cited in the Mystery Drama states that Strader owes everything to Theodora.

[ 54 ] Well, my dear friends, when things like this are written—especially in a style that, despite its bombast, does not make the meaning any clearer, yet is apparently meant to be solemn—then one really cannot say that such matters should be regarded as personal affairs. I have, in truth, considered plenty of things to be personal matters and made no mention of them; but what has been mentioned is intimately connected with the entire nature and essence of our movement; nothing else has been mentioned. And if someone does not want such things to be mentioned, then he should not write them. For if such attitudes prevail, they will undermine what I strive to achieve with every word and with everything I have been striving to do for many years.

[ 55 ] You must be aware of my views on the role I wish to play among you if we are to continue working together. If we are to continue working together, we must do so as we have done up to now. We must find a way to create a form for our spiritual movement that is appropriate to the development of the people of our time. But this cannot happen if all sorts of personal matters are substituted for what is to be spiritually accomplished and understood. I am truly astonished that, in these difficult times—when our focus should be on the development of a large portion of humanity—someone could have so little interest in current events that he brings his most personal interests into our society in such a way. This truly means closing oneself off from the very essence of our time, when one knows nothing else to do in this era but to bring about an entire catastrophe by believing one is entitled to live under the delusion that something has turned out differently than one had dreamed. In this way, the most deeply personal is brought into our society. But the personal must not be introduced, neither in this form nor in any other. Those in our movement who are primarily interested in their own dear selves will, in any case, find their place to a much lesser extent. When one wraps oneself in a mystical cloud, in whatever form, one also has the urge to wrap those close to one in a mystical cloud. For it would indeed be an anomaly if one were capable of anything and yet those surrounding one were not also something special. Naturally, one then has the urge to expand those circles. But when, in this way, purely personal interest—that sense of personal vanity, as has so often been the case—takes the place of objective observation and the pursuit of what should be our spiritual movement, then this causes the most terrible damage that can befall our society.

[ 56 ] One might have thought, my dear friends, that if the Johannesbau were to be built here, this project would also present our members with a challenge that might occupy their minds and distract them from the vain follies of life. One could truly have given in to the belief that the construction would direct their thoughts toward something better. But as you know, that, too, has not come to pass in the way we had hoped. Nevertheless: the work must continue. And as I thank you all most sincerely for the sentiments you expressed in the documents conveyed to me by our friend Bauer, as well as for the sentiments expressed by other members, I hope that ways and means can be found to, on the one hand, deal with what is hindering real progress in our movement, and on the other hand, to also give some thought to what needs to be done so that our movement is no longer unduly hampered by external obstacles.

[ 57 ] Criticism, my dear friends, will do us no harm. People can criticize us objectively as much as they like; it does no harm. For, first of all, it will always be possible to respond to the criticism with what needs to be said, and second, time will be on our side. Let people still regard us as fools today—be it because of our boiler house or the Johannesbau. Those who will no longer regard us as fools will follow in due course. We can wait and see. That is how it must be with all things that are new.

[ 58 ] It is quite another matter when slanderous or untrue claims are made. Then one is faced with the necessity of constantly setting the record straight regarding such slander—if one does not simply want to ignore it—whereupon the slanderers respond in turn. This can even lead to lawsuits. But one really must go through with all of this when it affects one personally, even if it feels as though one is washing one’s hands in black water.

[ 59 ] If we could truly cultivate this mindset—but as an active mindset—to strengthen our efforts in these two directions, then we would be able to accomplish many things that have not yet been done.

[ 60 ] Of course, none of this is meant to be a personal accusation against anyone in particular; but I would like to say that one thing applies to one person, and another to another. One simply has to speak in general terms. But there is, after all, a fact underlying what has been hinted at. And you can see it for yourselves—and so that you might see it, I have been compelled to present you with some factual evidence that shows how personally things are taken that should be taken only intellectually.

[ 61 ] And truly, my dear friends, sometimes there is no other way—please don’t take it the wrong way when I say this—when someone comes with their complaints, even if they say that they already know everything they have ever received or will ever receive in the movement, there is really nothing else to do at first but to give the person in question a fatherly, friendly admonition, a fatherly, friendly comfort, and to treat him like a child. And if one was then naive enough to believe that this had helped, only to see that these megalomaniacal things come out afterward, then … [gap in the transcript] great harm within our society.

[ 62 ] What the Keeper of the Seal put forward was really never anything other than a request to forgive what he said with a smile, just as one forgives a child. Please do not hold it against me that I have said what has simply become necessary. But the seriousness of our movement demands that pathological tendencies not become the destroyers of our movement.

[ 63 ] Therefore, one cannot always take the position of simply accepting this pathological condition as such; rather, if this pathological condition manifests outwardly as megalomania, then one must also call it megalomania. There is no other option. This is not meant as a criticism of the person, but rather of what is reprehensible in that person. After all, we do not want to cloak the matter in occultism, but rather to take the facts as they are. We should train ourselves specifically to do this, and then, without looking through a fog, we will see them in their truth.

[ 64 ] For my sake, go ahead and say that what I’m about to say is motivated by vanity. I won’t let that bother me, because I’m already doomed to call a spade a spade. After all, I have already seen—not just once, but many times—that students were smarter than their teachers and gave them a terrible dressing-down for promising them all sorts of things and failing to deliver, so it’s no wonder that this happens in our society as well.

[ 65 ] So, my dear friends, I have shared with you my very humble opinion on a few matters—an opinion that is not meant to be binding on anyone. I ask that you receive it as I always wish my words to be received, and that you see if it might and perhaps make better progress with our movement if there truly becomes a general effort to call great things great and small things small, rather than transforming every arbitrary personal vanity into a mystical glory.

[ 66 ] It is certainly a very great temptation, if one does not fully grasp the seriousness of our movement, to at least feign it by adorning all manner of life’s petty vanities with this seriousness. But that simply cannot be. After all, this sentence means more than it appears to. But these are the things I did not want to say—yet had to say.

[ 67 ] Anyone who were to read the documents that I cannot present within our movement would not think to say that I have improperly quoted passages from private letters: In this particular case, it was necessary to do so because these matters are connected to the very foundations of our work.