Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300b
15 March 1922, Stuttgart
Thirtieth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: Today, we have come together to discuss the results of the official school inspection. From what you told me over the telephone, I have formed a picture. Before I take any position, though, I think it would be a good idea to hear what each of you who participated in the inspection has to report, so that we all have a complete picture. I have repeatedly said that I am willing to meet with the man, but that has not occurred as yet.
We need to discuss all this to attain a perspective from which we can ward off any blows that may come from the public. It is unnecessary, and it would be fruitless, to make objections to the officials. If such things could be successful, we would not need a Waldorf School. The reason the Waldorf School exists is because the official bureaucracy does not understand our methods and our direction.
Let us go through the classes, then each of you can say what occurred in your class.
The teachers report about the inspection in each of the classes. The inspector had asked only very superficial questions..
Dr. Steiner: A boy in Zurich told me that he does not want to go to the school any more because the teaching through illustrative material was too dumb. When I gave the course in Berlin, I spoke about learning to read.1 Such things are very current and should be put into the Threefold newspaper and be used. For instance, how children learn to read, or the fact that our children—this is something I say everywhere—thank God, learn to read only at the age of eight or nine. We need to put such things right under people’s noses. They are certainly more important than some essay about a convention in Honolulu. We should also criticize the practice of failing children. We should mention that, too.
A teacher: He wanted to have quick answers in arithmetic.
Dr. Steiner: If children cannot do arithmetic quickly, their body is still slow.
A teacher: My perception is that what we teach children about grammar is something still foreign to them. Do we have to do that in the second grade?
Dr. Steiner: It depends upon how you do it. You do not always need to teach them the terminology, nouns and verbs, but use them only for yourself to form an objective polarity. A child of seven and a half can certainly differentiate between an activity and a thing. You do not need to emphasize the terminology. You could begin with stories and make the difference between a thing and an activity clear. That is something a child at that age can grasp. They should be able to grasp the difference between running or jumping and a human being or something of that sort. We do not need to follow the form of a pedantic grammar. In particular, with children in the lower grades, you should completely avoid using definitions.
There are further reports.
Dr. Steiner: (Laughingly, to a teacher who was happy about a positive remark made by the school inspector) Yes, you will certainly need to improve there.
The subject teachers report also.
Dr. Steiner: He will come to handwork class only with some old lady.
It is clear that this sort of inspection is an example of something that could never lead to an understanding of what actually happens in a school. When you think of the goodwill this man could have brought to understand at least a little about the Waldorf School, you will see that he had none whatsoever. He simply tried to determine to what extent the children meet the requirements of a regular school. He would need to know that he could learn something about what is actually going on only if he asks himself questions. He would have needed to ask himself how to question the children about what he wanted to know. His primary task should have been to find out from the children what they have learned, and the children would have needed to provide him with the possibility of asking the proper questions.
No one can learn very much if they simply ask the teachers questions, listen to the answers, but lack a firm foundation for forming a judgment about them. I make no assumption about that. There are a large number of psychological reasons why children answer their own teacher well or not. You need only recall how it is at the university for people who do their major examinations with the same professor they had for their seminars. It is easy for them. For the students who have not worked with the same professor, it is more difficult. Those who know the professor have an easy time. Having simply heard the professor’s lectures is not sufficient, since you could not discover his method of asking questions.
It is quite important to make the public aware of the things we consciously had to forego. We should use the space available to us in the “Threefold Social Organism” to present such things to the public. The different anthroposophical organizations here should work together, otherwise everything will dissipate. Everything is already falling apart, becoming unglued. We must work together. We need to publish articles, but of course, we should not obviously direct them at this particular point. That would be quite false. Nevertheless, the official inspection of the school could play a role. We should publish an article presenting, from various perspectives, how important it is for a child to learn to read only around the age of eight or nine. We could give examples like Goethe, who could not read and write until the age of nine, or Helmholtz, who learned to read and write only much later. We could, in contrast, give examples of people who learned to read and write at the age of four or five, then became complete idiots.
This is what we must do. If we do this properly, so that when we see ourselves in danger, and people everywhere are talking about these things, then we will have an effect. Then people could also not say that our intent is aimed at a very limited group. In this way, we can bring many of the weird judgments of the present into line. The actions of a person like the school inspector are simply an extract of the general perspective. If you turn to the entire civilized world using someone like that as an example, what you do will be good. The school inspection shows us what should not be done. Now we can turn to the world and try to make clear what should have been done.
A teacher: I have written an article for “Die Drei.”
Dr. Steiner: Make it short and sweet, don’t write ten pages about it. There is nothing to prevent something that appears in “Die Drei” from also appearing in “The Threefold.”
We’ve already talked about these things. A careful presentation of the impossibility of determining what a school is like by using such inspection methods could be one topic for discussion. Then we would have to defend against all the objections to teaching according to historical periods. When the inspector made his judgment, he said something very characteristic of our times, namely, that life requires people to do arithmetic quickly, and, therefore, we should teach that to the children.
Nearly everything you have said today offers wonderful examples of the way things should not be and how we can improve them. For instance, flunking children. The fact that he referred to the children as bright and dumb in front of the children is absolutely impossible.
He will probably also do what bad teachers always do. He will ask questions that require an exact answer and ignore everything else. He will have no sense of the way children express things. It is really very nice to receive a response from the children in their own way. It would be interesting to know what part of the poem he misunderstood.
You reported his remark that our method of teaching foreign language leads to a mechanical understanding.
These are the things we need to put out in public: Learning to read and write at a not-to-early age; a defense of teaching foreign language at an early age; flunking children; the manner of asking children questions; and, assuming that children will answer in exactly the way you expect them to. We should also mention superficial questions, senseless questions.
This is all connected to modern culture. These methods are decades old, and modern people have developed a spirituality, an attitude within their souls, that shows how they were mistreated as children. Today, only those who are more or less healthy, who have a counterforce within them, can hold up against that. The physical and psychological condition of modern people is often quite sad. That comes from such incorrect forming of questions. You can even see that in the physical body, that is, whether the forces of the soul have become incoherent. Many people take leave of their senses later. Many who still have their senses notice through their heart or lungs that they were mistreated by such things.
We need to be clear that if we did things to satisfy the education authorities, we would have to close. We could then simply put the children in any other school. They see the Waldorf School as an attack.
It is not so important to develop the letters the way they historically developed, since they developed differently in different regions. What is important is a renewal of the artistic path of work. We do not need to use historical forms. We must make that point very clear. From such events, we should learn what we must make clear.
A teacher: I asked the children in my seventh-grade class why they went along and behaved so well. They replied that they did not want to get me into trouble.
Dr. Steiner: That is wonderful behavior on the part of the children.
We should make notes of all of this so we can publicize it. There is so much interesting material that we could fill our publications with it. External activities and specific questions. We need to see that people pay more attention to us and learn more about our way of thinking if we want the Waldorf School movement to spread.
During the course I gave in Berlin, there was something that could also have been published. (Speaking to Dr. von Heydebrand) You remember you had said some things and then someone with an education background said that you had overemphasized the dark side. We should have stepped in then. We should have shown that you were not too extreme, that, in reality, things are very much worse. Experimental pedagogy is reasonable only in its basic ideas, but regarding other things, it is quite unreasonable. It is something only for professors who have to do as many experiments as possible.
The situation in Berlin was impossible. A discussion of barely an hour. There was sufficient time for many people to say really dumb things, but not enough time to defend yourself. In such cases, it would be better not even to speak. We should not leave our people out on a limb. It would be best not to give such presentations. We cannot allow only our opponents to be heard. The situation there was the best possible for those who want to hurt anthroposophy.
Our outside activities are, of course, connected with the outside, but they also belong here in the faculty.
A teacher asks whether they should start teaching Greek and Latin at the same time.
Dr. Steiner: The best, the ideal, would be to begin Greek earlier and then begin Latin after two years. However, that is difficult to do in practice. Then, we would have to drop something else for Greek, and that would be difficult. Our plans are designed to correspond to the individual and to development, so that doesn’t work out. Latin is required for external reasons. It is helpful to do things the way I described in my lecture in Berlin in order to slowly understand the language.
I based the entire development of language upon an imagination, but K. spoke of inspiration and intuition. People today have no sensibility for exact listening, and we need to take such things into account. The things I discussed need to be felt. That is something that can be taught through Greek. Latin is not as important because it does not teach feeling in the same way as Greek.
A teacher: How can we determine which children should attend that class?
Dr. Steiner: As long as we are only a single school, we cannot do much. Only when there are more schools could we make a decision of that sort according to their characteristics, that is, when we can influence the further course of the child’s life. That we have thirty percent who participate in this class is still too few to justify changing our plans for them. We need everything we have.
A teacher requests help with students in the upper grades, N.G. and F.S.
Dr. Steiner: With such difficult cases as N.G., we can approach him with understanding if he still has some belief in a person who can be completely objective about the life he has experienced. He grew up as an extremely lively little spirit from the very beginning. He gave many insightful answers. Now he is growing up with a mother who is the personification of a lie. She is one of those people who falls down with a heart attack, but on the soft carpet, not next to it. She is completely untrue. She is a woman who always wanted to bring Anthroposophy to her husband, a very superficial and trivial person. The children knew about this at an early age. This is one of the comedies in life that have such a tragic effect upon children that they lose all trust in life.
Now, the boy knows all this. He needs only the fulfillment he so much desires. He needs to be able to believe in a person. That is an opportunity he should have, namely to have people in his surroundings who are interested in telling the truth about even the most mundane of things.
A teacher: He says that he smells anthroposophy everywhere.
Dr. Steiner: In such cases, you can help him form a sound judgment if you take everything into account. The beliefs of such boys as N.G. are based upon the idea that everyone lies, but that can be cured. It could be difficult for him because he knows he was forced into the Waldorf School. For that reason, he now asks what is right. That is one thing.
Now that he is here in the Waldorf School, he must be able to find something that he can believe in anthroposophy. This is a truly Herculean task. It would have been quite normal for him to attend a school where life approached him from outside. The worst thing for such a boy is to place him in the Waldorf School. A child does not have to be in the Waldorf School. A school that pleases the school board could be a good school in which to spend your time from the age of six until fourteen. The Waldorf School is not necessarily the right school for everyone, but one day, there he was.
I am not sure it is pedagogically proper that F.S. is here. In 1908 I held a course about the Apocalypse. He occupied himself by digging deep holes in the garden soil. If you came close to him, he stood up and kicked you in the stomach. He never gave an answer. Once, an older lady wanted to do something nice for him, but he took some sand and threw it in her eyes. He broke nearly all of the coffee cups. He called himself “you” because people told him, “You did it.” If he is still behaving the same way, but at a higher level, then things have not improved. Now he would call himself, “I,” but for a different reason.
Somehow, we will have to come to grips with F.S. and N.G. Someone who has never been involved with his situation and in whom he can trust, will need to take over N.G. In the case of “you,” only someone who impresses him can help. He never knew his father very well. He needs someone who would impress him. (Speaking to a teacher) Can’t you do that? You have impressed many people. You certainly gave X.Y. the idea that you are impressive.
While I was in Berlin, someone approached me and told me about this boy. From that, I had an impression that the real reason for these things lies in his living conditions. We should try to avoid having anyone lodge there. X. does not like the Waldorf School. I promised the woman to ask you if he could live with one of you. He posed some questions concerning Schopenhauer, and that is quite positive. He also greets me very warmly.
A teacher asks about a child with curvature of the spine.
Dr. Steiner: He should be in the remedial class for a time. Let him do only what he wants, and discover what he does not want to do.
A language teacher complains about difficulties in the 7b English class.
Dr. Steiner: That is not at all surprising when you consider how their class teacher keeps them under control. That certainly calls forth a comparison. He knows what he wants. If she did not have him, but someone else instead, then (speaking to the language teacher) it would be much easier for you. You have a rather uncertain nature, and your own thoughts sit within the form of the children’s thoughts. These are things that would not occur to such an extent if you had a colleague more like yourself. The class teacher impresses the entire class because he is so much a part of things. You will have to break your terrible, vaguely lyrical, sentimental attitude when you go into the class.
The language teacher says something about boxing children’s ears.
Dr. Steiner: If you give them a slap, you should do it the way Dr. Schubert does.
Dr. Schubert: Did somebody complain?
Dr. Steiner: No, you are always slapping them.
Dr. Schubert: When did I do that?
Dr. Steiner: Well, I mean astral slapping. There are physical slaps and astral slaps. It doesn’t matter which one you give, but you cannot slap a child sentimentally.
The class reflects our thoughts. You need to be firmer in your own thoughts. If I were in your class, I would do the same. I would certainly behave terribly. I wouldn’t understand what is happening. I wouldn’t know what you want. You must be firmer in your thinking. The battle of a whole class against the teacher is not actually real, it is not something you can touch. We can talk about individual children, but not about a whole class. Look at the things Baravalle has written. Keep them until Whitsun. We cannot hold some lyrical discourses about a class. You seem to me today to be like one of those books from Husserl. Break your habit of thinking like that. It is a picture of your own inner nature.
We have to strongly integrate the art of teaching with the subject, but at the same time selflessly integrate it with the subject. Those are not common characteristics.
The 7a class has become quite good, and you can work well with them. The effectiveness of teaching depends upon the overall impression the teacher makes upon the children and not upon some small misdeeds or acts against authority. It is easy for a teacher to become laughable through some piece of clothing, but that will recede after a time. Perhaps you have a hole in your boot, but that is not very important. You cannot change those things. What is important is the humanity of the teacher.
The context of the following is unclear.
Dr. Steiner: They had the audience in their control. In the Vienna hall, Bruckner’s Fourth Symphony was presented in 1887. I attended a concert by Schalk. That was the first performance of Bruckner’s symphony.
A question is asked about four students in the 7a class.
Dr. Steiner: Will the children go into an apprenticeship? They are all nearly the same type. I would hope that things would become better if, with these children, you were to introduce a reading of a speech by Buddha objectively and formally, with all the repetitions, and then had them memorize short passages. You could also use The Bhagavad Gita. You could do that with the whole class. Go through it with the whole class and have those children copy it, then do it a second time and they should be able to present it. You should particularly aim at those children. This could also be done in teaching history and language. You could do that every day.
A teacher asks about a girl whose parents do not want her to participate in eurythmy.
Dr. Steiner: Convince the parents. She should not interrupt the eurythmy lessons.
A teacher asks about P.R., a student with a crippled hand.
Dr. Steiner: We should think about what profession we should direct him toward. He is not very dexterous with that hand. He writes poorly. He should become something like a bookkeeper, or some other job where that is not important. He certainly cannot become an actor. The best would be if we could bring such children so far along that they could then participate in the normal morning instruction, and then have some continuation of their education following elementary school. We need to try to bring him along so that he overcomes his self-consciousness and participates in handwork. He should certainly learn bookkeeping. We need to find a teacher for him.
A teacher: The elementary schools here have more periods of handwork.
Dr. Steiner: So much handwork is unnecessary.
A teacher: R.L. in the fourth grade is not coming to school.
Dr. Steiner: We cannot force the children if parents don’t want it.
We need to work practically with the things you mentioned today. There is no doubt that we have to take over a greater responsibility toward extending the movement so that the movement is not torn apart by some small thing one day. The whole world is looking at the Waldorf School, the whole civilized world. We must do a number of things well in the school that the movement is not doing very well in other areas. The main thing is that everyone in Stuttgart work together, that all the different groups connected with the movement, that is, really connected, find some way of working with one another.
When you are active in the anthroposophical movement on a broader scale, you will find that elsewhere people do not know how to relate to Stuttgart and what is happening here. It is important that the Waldorf School movement keep its promises. In particular, even though we may fail in other areas, the cultural areas need to be particularly strong in the world. The Waldorf School and its faculty need to always be careful to spread an understanding of themselves. Lectures like those given by Schwebsch, Stein, and Heydebrand are particularly effective. Answers to specific questions are often misunderstood.
The Waldorf teachers should not slide into that mistaken behavior so common today, that is, to write articles like the one X. wrote about the article from S.G. We will slowly die if we engage in normal journalism and a non-objective treatment of our work. It, the lecture from S.G., was certainly unbelievable, wasn’t it? I like S.G. quite a lot, but he needs to gradually learn what is important. For now, he is simply in his baby shoes. It makes our movement laughable. It is a hymn sung out of tune with the worst journalistic attitude. I would prefer to have said that when X. was here. It is a sad day, a very sad experience. We must remain above all that. There is not one uplifting thought in the entire article aside from those dealing with declamation and recitation. If we do such things that show so little goodwill to remain with the subject, if such habits enter our work, we will soon have a complete demise.
Concerning the education conference.
Dr. Steiner: It should be in a broader context that would enable us to work not from compromises, but toward the real perspective of our pedagogy. We do not want to do what was done at previous conferences and simply talk about things. We should discuss things in such a way that people genuinely understand them. We must create a feeling that our people already know what others want to say. Our people should not simply stand there while someone else says something we do not know. We must know which of the questions could arise in the conference. We cannot allow people to say we are poking our noses into everything, but when experts come along, you can see how little we know. We need to arrange things so that someone cannot come along and say something and there not be enough time for us to reply.
That must not happen. It was a real problem in Berlin since people went away thinking that we spoke about Einstein, but knew nothing about him. Aside from that, the discussion leader thought that idiot was right. The others who put on the symposium also thought the same thing. In any event, it happened—something that had a detrimental effect upon the whole scientific mood from the very beginning. The first problem was that Rittelmeyer came along and said we had done poorly. Such things simply must not happen. If that were to happen here with pedagogy, it would be terrible. The listeners should perceive that our work and each speaker is of a high level.
We have put enormous effort into setting something up. The conferences have had an enormous success, but no one lets the results of the conferences be truly effective. If we could only find a way to let what we accomplish have a practical effect. What you have to say does not actually affect people. Afterward, no one actually knows what you have to say. Our work needs to be used more. We need to affect opinions. However, I am convinced that this thing with X. will be forgotten. For example, we have long had the problem that we have an economic movement, but we cannot get any economists to speak about it. The economic perspective is important. Leinhas’s lecture was good, and people will not forget it. The same is true for Dr. Unger’s essay about valuation. That is the beginning of something we should further develop in economics. Now, however, we must talk about the existence of three pillars that should in some way be comprehensive.
Everywhere I went in my long series of lectures, I mentioned the lectures given by you, Dr. von Heydebrand, and Leinhas. I spoke of them everywhere. We must create opinion. Our work must speak to people. Pedagogy needs an opinion connected with the substance of our movement. We can ignore negative opinions. We must do what is good.
That is something that is painful for me, but I want you to know it because the Waldorf School has developed that good spirit. This does not need to be said to the Waldorf School itself. The Waldorf School has a great task because there is no leadership in other areas. The school is moving along well, but it has a responsibility to take up some things that have an even larger responsibility associated with them. When something negative occurs now, with the increasing number of followers, then it is a negative event that is actually gigantic. That would, of course, not happen with the Waldorf School. Such things can tear a spiritual or cultural movement apart. For that reason, those working in the Waldorf School need to be the primary support for the whole movement. That is how things are today. The Waldorf School has a broad basis because it has kept all its promises. It can, therefore, be the primary support for the entire anthroposophical movement. We need such a support today. Your responsibility is quickly growing. That is something each of you needs to take to heart. We haven’t the least reason to be happy when the number of followers increases. We should be aware that every increase in interest is also an increase in our own responsibility.
A teacher asks about a pedagogical conference in Kaiserslautern.
Dr. Steiner: We have already decided against the proposal for Bremen. I looked at the big picture. We cannot accomplish much by systematically discussing pedagogy before there is any possibility of seeing some movement in regard to pedagogical questions in modern times. The seventy or so people who would come there would come only out of politeness. They would not know what is needed. We would first have to tell them that something is happening in the world. We would first have to hold a cultural and historical lecture on pedagogy. That would be necessary. Giving a three-day course for people whom you cannot help any further would mean too much wasted strength.
We saw that here. The teachers were the least interested. They all said they could not attend. I am uncertain if that has gotten better, but what else could happen?
We must awaken people’s awareness of what needs to be done. I’m afraid people believe we should begin the threefold. I think that if two or three of you want to give a lecture there on the return trip from Holland, that would be good. People need to be aware. God, there was a conference in Stuttgart and then one in Berlin. Now things need to be made more well known, otherwise we will be running to every village giving lectures. It is enough when we do that in some of the central areas. It is not efficient if we are running everywhere. We must improve the efficiency of our work.
A teacher: Is there something concrete we could do in Berlin?
Dr. Steiner: Quite a lot. We could discuss a large number of questions there and essentially nowhere else in the world today, but theology is too strong there. There were a large number of questions that could be treated nowhere else in the world. We need to make the lectures more well known. The question is, how? Steffen printed the “Christmas Conference” in Das Goetheanum in such a way that I would almost prefer to print his report than my lectures. He did a wonderful job there.
When such dry reports are published, the kind people are used to seeing in academic journals, then people have difficulty getting through them. Not just my own lectures, but also those of others, were written in an indescribably pedantic way. In that case, I can only say there is not much goodwill behind them. R. could do it better. When he gives a lecture, it is really very good, but when he writes something, it would drive you up the walls. Here, we see no goodwill. Such things wash the ground away from under our feet.
Dreissigste Konferenz
Die Dreigliederungsbewegung hatte ihren Zenit bereits überschritten. Durch Geldprobleme des «Kommenden Tages» wurde am 16. März 1922 die Aktienmehrheit der Waldorf-Astoria gegen Emil Molts Empfehlung an die «Süddeutsche Diskonto-Gesellschaft» verkauft.
Molt hatte angesichts der drohenden Finanzlage ein ihm befreundetes Bankenkonsortium bereitgefunden, die Aktien zu übernehmen. Der neue Generaldirektor des «Kommenden Tages», Emil Leinhas, befolgte diesen Rat nicht. Die Süddeutsche konnte mit diesen Aktien nicht umgehen und verkaufte weiter. Emil Molts Zigarettenfabrik stand vor dem Ruin. Hiermit waren auch die Hoffnungen auf eine wirkungsvolle wirtschaftliche Praxis im Sinne der Dreigliederung gegenstandslos geworden. Rudolf Steiner beschloss eine Programmbegrenzung des «Kommenden Tages» (abgedruckt in: Emil Leinhas: Aus der Arbeit mit Rudolf Steiner, Bern 1950, S. 228).
Nichts in der am Vortag stattfindenden Konferenz deutete auf diese Dramatik hin. Am 18. März reiste Steiner nach Dornach zurück.
Themen: Ergebnisse des Besuchs des Schulrates. Wenn Unterrichtsstile zu weit auseinandergehen, kommt es zu Schwierigkeiten zwischen Klassen- und Fachlehrern.
Bemerkungen: Rudolf Steiner empfahl, publizistisch gegen die vom Schulrat angegebenen Mängel vorzugehen. Vor allem solle verteidigt werden: das nicht zu frühe Lesenlernen, der frühe Fremdsprachenunterricht, das Nicht-Sitzenbleiben und der Epochenunterricht. Die Art der Fragestellung des Schulrates gegenüber den Kindern solle kritisiert werden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir sind heute besonders beisammen, um die Ergebnisse der Schulinspektion vonseiten der hohen Behörden zu besprechen. Ich habe ja ein Bild bekommen aus dem, was mir Stockmeyer - man kann nicht unnötig Terminologie durchs Telefon entfalten — [berichtet hat]. Bevor wir aber zu einer Stellungnahme kommen, würde es gut sein, wenn ich auch dasjenige hören könnte, was die einzelnen Freunde zu berichten haben, die ja an dieser Inspektion teilgenommen haben, damit ein Bild davon [entsteht]. Ich habe mich wiederholt bereit erklärt, mit dem Herrn zu sprechen, aber er hat es bis heute nicht dazu kommen lassen.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Er will Handarbeitsunterricht sehen.
RUDOLF STEINER: [Wir müssen dies besprechen, um] Gesichtspunkte [zu] haben, damit wir vor der Öffentlichkeit die Sache parieren können. Denn es ist unnötig und würde auch erfolglos sein, vor Behörden Einwendungen zu machen. Wenn die Erfolg haben könnten, so brauchten wir keine Waldorfschule. Die Waldorfschule ist deshalb da, weil die Behörden [unsere] Methode und den Weg nicht verstehen.
Fangen wir klassenweise an. Dann werden uns die Freunde sagen, was klassenweise vorgekommen ist.
Es wird aus den einzelnen Klassen über die Prüfung berichtet.
CLARA DÜBERG, Klasse 1a, berichtet über die Prüfung.
MARIA UHLAND, Klasse 2a: Er hat sehr äußerlich gefragt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ein Junge in Zürich sagte, er würde nicht mehr in die Schule gehen, weil es ihm zu dumm sei, solchen Anschauungsunterricht mitzumachen.
ROBERT KILLIAN berichtet aus Klasse 2b: Er hat lesen lassen.
RUDOLF STEINER: In Berlin habe ich mich beim [Hochschulkurs über das] Lesenlernen ausgesprochen. Solche Dinge, die aktuell sind, müssten in die Dreigliederungszeitung kommen, und der nötige Gebrauch müsste davon gemacht werden. Über das Lesenlernen der Kinder. Und dass diese Kinder - ich habe es überall angeführt -, dass Gott sei Dank unsere Kinder erst im achten oder neunten Jahr lesen lernen. Solche Dinge müssen wir den Leuten vor die Nase reiben. Das ist wichtiger als ein Aufsatz über den Weltkongress von Honolulu. - Dann muss man auch ankreiden das Sitzenbleiben. Das muss man erwähnen.
Jemand bemerkt: Beim Rechnen wollte er schnell die Antwort haben. RuDoLr STEINER: Wenn das Kind nicht einmal fix rechnen kann, ist der Leib noch schwer.
ROBERT KILLIAN [vermutlich]: Ich empfinde, das, was wir den Kindern an Grammatischem bringen, ist ihnen noch fremd. Muss das in der 2. Klasse herangebracht werden?
RUDOLF STEINER: Es handelt sich darum, wie man es macht. Man braucht unter Umständen den Kindern nicht die Terminologie, [Dingwort, Tätigkeitswort], heranzubringen, sondern nur selbst ausgehen von einem solchen sachlichen Gegensatz.
ROBERT KILLIAN: Vielleicht war es falsch, dass ich vom gedruckten Märchenbuch ausging.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ein solches Kind von siebeneinhalb Jahren wird unterscheiden können zwischen Tätigkeit und Ding. Diesen Unterschied kann es machen. Es braucht sich nicht zu handeln um die Terminologie, sondern [man kann] ausgehen von Erzählungen und den Unterschied klarmachen zwischen Ding und Tätigkeit. Das kann das Kind in diesem Alter fassen. Es muss den Unterschied fassen können zwischen laufen und springen und zwischen Mensch oder so etwas. Das muss es fassen können. Man braucht es nicht in der Form der pedantischen Grammatik zu machen. Namentlich soll man mit den Kindern [in den unteren Klassen] die Form der Definition ganz vermeiden.
Es wird weiter über die Inspektionsbesuche in den Klassen 3 bis 7 berichtet. Die Lehrer haben die Prüfung, besonders in den unteren Klassen, als schulmäßig und philiströs empfunden. Zum Teil hat Wössner mitgeprüft, der war netter. Caroline von Heydebrand sagt, er habe sehr einfach gefragt und langsam entwickelt.
RUDOLF STEINER [lachend, zu Hermann von Baravalle, der sehr erfreut war über eine Anerkennung des Schulrates]: [Ja], Sie werden sich wohl noch sehr verbessern müssen.
Es wird über die 8. Klasse von den Fachlehrern berichtet: Erich Schwebsch, Eugen Kolisko, Karl Stockmeyer.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn er gelobt hat, scheint er ebenso blödsinnig zu sein, als wenn er getadelt hat.
EDITH RÖHRLE: Er hat viel in Eurythmie gesehen. Es hat ihm gut gefallen.
JULIE LÄMMERT über das Singen: Es scheint ihm Freude gemacht zu haben.
RUDOLF STEINER: Zum Handarbeitsunterricht wird er erst kommen mit einer Obertante.
Klar ist es, dass eine solche Inspektion das Muster desjenigen ist, was niemals dazu führen kann zu erkennen, was irgendwo [an einer Schule] los ist. Denn wenn Sie ein wenig versuchen sich klarzumachen, was hatte der Mann für einen guten Willen mitgebracht, etwa die Art der Waldorfschule [wenigstens] kennenzulernen, so werden Sie sehen, gar keinen. Er hat bloß versucht zu untersuchen, inwieweit die Kinder den Anforderungen einer gewöhnlichen Schüle entsprechen. Man muss sich klar sein darüber, dass man nur dann etwas herausbringen könnte über dasjenige, was los ist, wenn man auch selbst fragt. Aber er muss erst die Form der Frage, die er stellen muss, aus den Kindern herauskriegen. Er muss vor allen Dingen aus den Kindern erst herausbringen, was sie gelernt haben. Die Kinder müssen ihm selbst erst die Möglichkeit geben, Fragen zu stellen.
Es ist natürlich, dass man auch nicht viel kennenlernen kann, wenn man bloß die Lehrer der Klasse abfragen lässt und zuhört, wenn man nicht die Möglichkeit hat, das sehr gut zu beurteilen. Das setze ich nicht voraus. Denn da liegen eine ganze Menge psychologischer Untergründe vor, aus denen die Kinder gut oder schlecht antworten, dem eigenen Lehrer gegenüber. Vor allem braucht man sich bloß zu erinnern, dass selbst an Hochschulen diejenigen, die bei demselben Professor Rigorosum machen, bei dem sie ihr Seminar gemacht haben, die haben es leicht. Dagegen Studenten, die nicht bei demselben Professor gearbeitet haben, die haben es schwer. Derjenige, der den Professor kennt, der macht es leicht. Das bloße Zuhören macht es nicht aus, aber [man] kann nach der Methode nicht fragen, nach welcher er fragt.
Es ist durchaus wichtig, dass immer wiederum die Dinge, auf die wir [bewusst] verzichten müssen, vor der Öffentlichkeit den Leuten zum Bewusstsein gebracht werden. Daher sollte schon der Raum, den wir haben in der «Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus», benützt werden, um diese Dinge vor die Welt zu bringen. Wir müssen die verschiedenen anthroposophischen Behörden hier ineinander arbeiten, sonst geht alles auseinander. Es geht schon alles auseinander, aus dem Leim. Wir müssen ineinander arbeiten. Und so würde eigentlich, [so müssten Artikel erscheinen] - selbstverständlich ohne dass es so aufgetragen wird, dass es bemerkt wird; dass es [nicht] so genommen wird, als ob es an diese Adresse gerichtet würde; das wäre ganz falsch. Aber die Schulinspektion müsste eine Rolle spielen. Es müssten Artikel erschienen sein von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus, dass es einfach eine große Bedeutung hat für das Kind, wenn es erst zwischen dem achten und neunten Jahr wirklich lesen lernt. Es werden [da] Beispiele aufgeführt, wie Goethe [vor dem neunten Jahr] nicht lesen und schreiben konnte, wie Helmholtz viel später lesen und schreiben lernte. Dagegen [wird] angeführt, wie Leute, die schließlich [Trottel] geworden sind, wie die mit vier, fünf Jahren lesen und schreiben gekonnt haben.
Das sind Dinge, die verarbeitet werden [müssen]. Wenn das richtig gebracht wird, wenn man sich der Gefahr ausgesetzt sieht, das wird überall gesprochen, [dann] macht das seinen Lauf, zieht seine Kreise. Und man kann nicht sagen, dass dadurch etwa auf ein so eingeschränktes Publikum gerechnet würde. Es ist so, dass man dadurch manches krumme Urteil der Gegenwart zurechtrücken würde. Was ein Eisele tut, ist ein Extrakt der allgemeinen Anschauung. Wenn man sich an die ganze zivilisierte Welt wendet unter Anführung dessen, was so ein solcher Eisele tut, dann tut man etwas Günstiges. [Man sieht an der Inspektion von Eisele, wie die Sachen nicht sein sollen.]
Nun wendet man sich [an die Welt] und versucht klarzumachen, wie das sein sollte.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: Ich habe einen Artikel geschrieben für die «Drew.
RUDOLF STEINER: Kurz hindeuten und prägnant hindeuten, wiederholt, [und nicht gleich zehn Seiten darüber schreiben].
Es handelt sich nicht darum, dass etwas, was in der «Drei» erscheint, nicht in der «Dreigliederung» erscheinen kann.
EUGEN KOLISKO: Es könnte im kleinen Teil erscheinen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es sind jetzt diese Dinge in der Besprechung hervorgetreten:
Schonende Darlegung dessen, wie man nicht darauf kommen kann, was eine solche Schule für einen Inhalt hat, [wenn man eine solche Prüfungsmethode anwendet]. Das muss man an einem Thema erörtern.
Dann vor allen Dingen müsste in Schutz genommen werden gegen die Einwände der Epochenunterricht.
Dann ist es ja außerordentlich charakteristisch, wenn der Mann das Urteil fällt: Das Leben erfordert, dass man schnell rechnen kann, [also muss man Schnellrechnen lernen].
Es ist fast alles, was Sie heute erzählt haben, ein glänzendes Beispiel für die Dinge, wie sie nicht sein dürfen, wie sie gerade ausge bessert werden müssen.
Namentlich auch das Sitzenbleiben.
[Dann] dasjenige, was schon hervorgehoben worden ist, dass er die Kinder schwache und starke Kinder nennt, [vor den Kindern], das sind absolute Unmöglichkeiten.
Dann wird er wahrscheinlich dasjenige tun, was schlechte Pädagogen immer tun. Er wird Fragen stellen, [die eine ganz bestimmte Antwort erwarten, wird jede andere ausschlagen] und wird keinen Sinn haben für die Kinderart. Es ist außerordentlich nett, wenn man von einem Kind eine Antwort auf eigene Art bekommt. — Für die eigene Psychologie wäre es interessant, welche Stelle er falsch verstanden hat in dem Gedicht.
Dann wurde gesagt, dass er über den fremdsprachlichen Unterricht gesagt hätte, er führe zum Mechanismus.
Diese Dinge sind Sachen, die neuerdings vor die Welt hingestellt werden müssen:
das nicht zu frühe Lesen- und Schreibenlernen,
die Verteidigung des fremdsprachlichen Unterrichts von möglichst früh an,
das Sitzenbleiben,
die Art der Fragestellung und das Voraussetzen, dass die Kinder genauso antworten sollen, wie er es gedacht hat. Dieses ganz äußerliche Fragen, dieses sinnlose Fragen sollte auch gezeichnet werden.
Unser gegenwärtiger Kulturinhalt steht damit durchaus im Zusammenhang. Diese Art ist jahrzehntealt, und die Menschen der Gegenwart entwickeln eine Geistigkeit, eine Seelenverfassung, die zeigt, dass sie als Kinder [damit] malträtiert worden sind. [Nur] die mehr oder weniger Gesunden, [die Gegenkräfte haben], sind heute so, dass sie noch standhalten. [Der Zustand unserer gegenwärtigen Kulturmenschen in physischer und psychischer Beziehung ist vielfach traurig. Das sind Resultate solcher falschen Fragestellung.] Man merkt das bis in die physische Organisation hinein, ob die Seelenkräfte inkohärent geworden sind. [Mancher hat seine fünf Sinne später durcheinandergebracht]; mancher, der seine fünf Sinne beisammen hat, merkt es an seinem Herzen oder an seiner Lunge, dass er mit solchen Dingen malträtiert worden ist.
Man muss sich klar sein darüber: Wenn man die Zufriedenheit der Schulbehörden erzielen würde, dann würde man schließen müssen. Da könnte man die Kinder in eine gewöhnliche Schule schicken.
KARL STOCKMEYER: In Boys Klasse hat er eine Zeile nicht verstanden.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Ich hatte den Eindruck, er meint, dass wir Spiele machen mit den Kindern und zu hoch [?].
RUDOLF STEINER: Eine solche Stunde wird ganz unmöglich sein für solche Eiseles. Sie haben Radau gemacht und haben Eile gehabt.
Jemand anders dazwischen: Wahrscheinlich hat er sich so benommen, dass die Kinder stille waren. Er schien wie ein Eiszapfen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist nicht der Fall, dass Kinder auf Trivialitäten eingehen. Wir haben erfahren von einer Russin, dass eine ältere Dame gesagt hat: Ich will eine Großmutter sein. - Das Kind hat gesagt: Du glaubst, man braucht bloß eine alte Frau zu sein, um eine Großmutter zu sein.
Sie betrachten die Waldorfschule als eine Attacke.
Es kommt nicht darauf an, die Buchstabenform so zu entwickeln, wie es historisch ist, [denn das ist in verschiedenen Gebieten verschieden], sondern dass dieser ganze Duktus des Weges [aus dem Künstlerischen heraus] erneuert wird. Man braucht nicht historische Formen zu bringen. Dieser Punkt müsste klargestellt werden. Man muss lernen an diesen Dingen, was klargestellt werden muss.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: Ich habe die Kinder [in meiner 7. Klasse] gefragt, weshalb sie so musterhaft mitgegangen sind. Sie haben gesagt: Wir wollten Sie nicht hereinlegen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das ist ein musterhaftes Betragen der Kinder.
Diese Dinge möchte ich, dass wir sie uns notieren, dass wir aus dem Aktuellen heraus publizistisch wirken. Es würde so viel Stoff geben, der interessant wäre, um unsere Zeitschriften zu füllen. Tätigkeit nach außen und bestimmte Fragen. Wir müssen sehen, dass man auch immer mehr achten lernt die Denkweise, die hier herrscht, wenn wir daran denken wollen, dass die Waldorfschulbewegung sich vergrößert.
Und nun gab es in Berlin [beim Hochschulkurs] einen Moment, der auch wiederum Anregung geben könnte zu entsprechendem Richtigstellen in der Publizistik. [Zu Caroline von Heydebrand:] Nicht wahr, Sie haben diese Dinge entwickelt, und dann ist einer gekommen aus schulmeisterlichen Untergründen und hat gesagt, einzelne Schattenseiten wären übertrieben gewesen. Da muss man wiederum eingreifen; man mus zeigen, dass es nicht übertrieben war, dass es in Wirklichkeit viel schlimmer ist. Die experimentelle Pädagogik ist nur in Bezug auf einige Grundgedanken vernünftig, und in Bezug auf die anderen ist sie unvernünftig. [Sonst ist sie eine Sache für] Privatdozenten, [die] Versuche machen müssen, und möglichst viele Versuche. Solche Flächlinge! Die Regie [in Berlin] war unmöglich.
ERNST UEHLI: Es ist versucht worden, eine andere Regie einzuführen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Der hatte drei Vorträge und eine Mittagspause. Weit und breit bekam man auch nichts. Eine Aussprache von kaum einer Stunde! Es war wohl Gelegenheit gegeben, dass mancher etwas außerordentlich Dummes sagte, aber es war nicht Gelegenheit gegeben, dass man die Sache verteidigt. Überhaupt macht man [in solchem Falle] keine Aussprache. Es sollen unsere Leute nicht ins Hintertreffen kommen. Keine Aussprache machen ist das Gescheiteste. Es dürfen nicht bloß die Gegner zum Worte kommen. Das war in musterhafter Weise eingerichtet, dass wenn man die Anthroposophie schädigen will, dass man es kann.
Tätigkeit nach außen bezieht sich nach außen, gehört aber auch ins Kollegium.
MARIA RÖSCHL fragt, ob Griechisch und Lateinisch von vornherein gleichzeitig sein soll.
RUDOLF STEINER: Richtig wäre es, ideal richtig wäre es, Griechisch früher zu machen, und dann nach zwei Jahren erst mit dem Lateinischen anzufangen; [aber es ist] praktisch schwer durchführbar. Man müsste [eigentlich für die Griechen] etwas anderes fortlassen. Das ist etwas, was widerstrebt. Unser Lehrplan ist so eingerichtet, dass er auf die Individualität abgestimmt ist, auf die Entwicklung, und es kommt das nicht heraus. So kommt es nicht heraus. [Das Latein] muss aus den äußeren Verhältnissen heraus gebracht werden. Es ist eine große Hilfe, um so die Sprache nach und nach zu verstehen, wie ich es gerade im Vortrage [in Berlin] erklärt habe.
Ich habe die ganze Sprachentwicklung begründet auf eine Imagination. Dagegen hat der Beckh von Inspiration und Intuition geredet. Nachher bekomme ich einen Brief, dass man in der Sprache nur von Imagination reden kann: Die Leute, haben [heute] keine Gewissenhaftigkeit mehr für genaues Zuhören. Solche Dinge sind sehr notwendig zu berücksichtigen. Diese Dinge, die ich auseinandergesetzt habe, die müssten nach und nach gefühlt werden. Die können sehr gut heranerzogen werden, wenn man Griechisch treibt. Das Lateinische ist nicht so notwendig, weil es nicht die entsprechenden Gefühle bringt, wie das Griechische.
Ein Sprachlehrer [?]: Wie findet man die Auslese, dass die Menschen, welche die Richtigen sind, gerade auch zu diesem Unterricht kommen?
RUDOLF Steiner: Da ist man natürlich, solange wir bloß vereinzelte Schulen sind, nicht fähig, etwas zu tun. Erst dann, wenn [die Schulen] ausgebreitet wären, dann würde man die Auslese selbst vollziehen können, nach den Charaktereigenschaften, wenn man Einfluss hätte auf den weiteren Lebenslauf des Kindes. Da ist ja 30 Prozent, die [an diesem Unterricht jetzt teilnehmen], noch zu wenig, als dass wir uns im Lehrplan danach richten könnten. Alles, was wir haben, ist notwendig.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH bittet um Rat wegen zweier Schüler in den Oberklassen, H. L. und F.: H.L. zweifelt an allem.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist bei einem solchen schwierigen Jungen [wie H. L.] nur möglich, [ihm] gründlich mit Verständnis entgegenzukommen, wenn er noch einen Rest des Glaubens sich bewahren kann zu jemand, der völlig unbefangen sein kann mit dem Lebensgebiet, aus dem der Junge seine Erfahrungen geschöpft hat. Der Junge ist aufgewachsen als ein außerordentlich reger kleiner Geist, schon vom frühesten Bubenalter an. Er hat sehr geistreiche Antworten gegeben. Nun wächst er heran bei einer Mutter, welche die organisierte Verlogenheit ist. Eine von den Personen, die Herzkrämpfe kriegen und umfallen, aber auf den Teppich fallen und nicht daneben. Die organisierte Unwahrhaftigkeit. Eine Frau, die ihren Mann, der ein Flächling ist, ein ganz furchtbar trivialer Mensch, fortwährend an die Anthroposophie heranbringen wollte. [...] [Weiteres darüber.] Diese Dinge wussten die Kinder früh. Eine Komödie des Lebens, eine solche, die in der tragischsten Weise auf die Kinder wirken musste, sodass sie alles Vertrauen zu dem Leben verlieren mussten. [..] [Weitere Einzelheiten dazu.]
Nun, das alles weiß der Junge. Der braucht also lediglich die Erfüllung dessen, wonach er lechzt. Er muss glauben können an einen Menschen. Er müsste nur die Möglichkeit haben, Menschen in seiner Umgebung zu haben, die darauf angelegt sind, auch nur in den alltäglichen Dingen die Wahrheit zu sagen. Es ist auch nicht anders möglich. Die Mutter lacht über den Vater, der Vater über die Mutter.
Man müsste schweigen, um nicht die schlimmsten Begriffe über die Eltern beizubringen. [...] [Über weitere Kinder der Familie L.]
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Er sagt: Ich wittere überall Anthroposophie.
RUDOLF STEINER: In einem solchen Falle hilft zu einem gesunden Urteil, wenn man die Dinge allseitig berücksichtigt. Solch ein Bursche wie H. L., der ist darauf angewiesen, dass er von seinem Glauben, dass alle Leute lügen, kuriert wird. Das kann er schwer werden, weil er weiß, dass seine Mutter einen Prozess führt und er hineingepresst worden ist in die Waldorfschule. Es bildet sich die Meinung heraus, wer hat eigentlich recht? Dieses ist das eine.
Nicht wahr, manchmal war es notwendig, Stellung zu nehmen, weil die Aufdringlichkeit der Mutter grenzenlos grässlich war. Dann ist es nicht möglich, in solchen Dingen die Objektivität zu wahren.
Er ist darauf angewiesen, wenn er in die Waldorfschule kommt, in der Anthroposophie eine Möglichkeit zu finden, an etwas glauben zu können. Es ist fast eine Herkulesarbeit. Für den Jungen wäre es etwas Normales gewesen, in eine Schule zu kommen, wo das Leben ganz von außen herangetreten wäre. Es war das Falscheste, was man tun konnte, just einen solchen Jungen in die Waldorfschule hineinzubringen. Es ist nicht notwendig, dass man in die Waldorfschule kommt, dass man die Dinge ausbildet. Es kann eine gute Schule sein, dass man die Zeit vom sechsten bis vierzehnten Jahre unter solchen Dingen zubringen muss, die dem [Schulrat] Eisele gefallen. Für alle Menschen sind doch nicht Waldorfschulen hergerichtet worden. Er saß eines Tages da.
Ich weiß nicht, ob es pädagogisch [richtig] ist, dass der F. da ist. 1908 habe ich einen Kurs gehalten über die Apokalypse. Er beschäftigte sich damit, dass er im Garten tiefe Löcher in die Erde hineinbohrte. Dann, wenn man in seine Nähe kam, trat er einen, hob das Bein auf und stieß es einem in den Bauch. Geantwortet hat er niemals. Die alte Frau von Sivers wollte ihm eine Freude machen, er nahm den Sand und schmiss ihn ihr in die Augen. Zerbrochen hat er fast alle Kaffeetassen. Er nannte sich «Dir», weil man ihm sagte, das gehört dir. [...] [Weiteres dazu.] Wenn er sich hier auf einer höheren Ebene so benimmt, so ist es nicht besser. «Ich»; damals war es nur ein anderer Kasus. [...] [Zwischenbemerkungen zu einem anderen Kind.] Da ist etwas Pathologisches der Fall. [Klasse 3b.]
Man muss mit dem F. — H. L. fertig werden. Den H. L. muss jemand [übernehmen], der nie etwas [mit seiner Situation] zu tun gehabt hat, dass er einen solchen findet, [zu dem er] Vertrauen fasst. Beim «Dir» ist nur dadurch zu kurieren, dass ihm jemand [imponiert]. [...] [Über die Mutter.] Er hat seinen Vater nicht viel kennengelernt. Er braucht nur jemand, der ihm [zuerst einmal] imponiert. [Zu einem Lehrer:] Können Sie das nicht? Sie haben schon manchem imponiert. Das hat auf P. G. gewirkt, dass er die Meinung bekommen hat, Sie können ihm imponieren.
In Berlin trat jemand an mich heran und erzählte mir von diesem Jungen. Aus diesem konnte ich entnehmen, dass eigentlich eine Hauptschuld von den Dingen, die mit angeführt worden sind, an dem Ebersbach[-Quartier] liegt. Man sollte vermeiden, dass jemand [dort] untergebracht wird. Er soll die Waldorfschule nicht mögen. Ich habe der Frau versprochen, hier [dem Kollegium] ans Herz zu legen, ob er nicht bei einem Lehrer untergebracht werden könnte. Er hat Probleme aus Schopenhauer gebracht, und das ist etwas ganz Gutes. Er hat mich sehr freundschaftlich begrüßt.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE fragt wegen eines Kindes mit verkrümmtem Rückgrat, A. W.
RUDOLF Steiner: [Er soll eine Zeit lang] in die Hilfsklasse; [man muss ihn] ausschließlich dasjenige machen lassen, was er gern will, und zuschauen lassen, wo er nicht will.
VIOLETTA PLINcKE klagt über Schwierigkeiten im Englischen in der 7b.
RUDOLF STEINER: Diese Sache ist nicht verwunderbar, [wenn man bedenkt], wie Baravalle [der Klassenlehrer] die Klasse am Bändel hat. Das wird den Vergleich herausfordern. Der Baravalle weiß, was er will. Wenn sie den nicht hätten, sondern jemand anderen, so hätten Sie [wohl zu Violetta Plincke] es leichter. [Es ist bei Ihnen] ein gewisses unbestimmtes Wesen, es sitzen in den [Gedanken]formen der Kinder darinnen Ihre eigenen Gedanken. Das würde natürlich nicht in diesem Maße hervortreten, wenn Sie eine Kollegin hätten, wie Sie selbst sind. Baravalle, der imponiert der ganzen Klasse, weil er selbst bei der Sache ist. Dieses schrecklich unbestimmt Lyrische, dieses Sentimentale, muss man sich abgewöhnen, wenn man in die Klasse hineingeht.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE sagt wohl etwas von Ohrfeigen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn Sie schon Ohrfeigen geben, so müssen Sie es so machen wie Dr. Schubert.
KARL SCHUBERT: Hat sich jemand beklagt?
RUDOLF STEINER: Nein. Sie geben doch immer Ohrfeigen.
KARL SCHUBERT: Wann habe ich denn das getan?
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich meine astrale Ohrfeigen. [Man gibt physische und astrale Ohrfeigen. Es ist eigentlich gleich, welche man gibt. Aber Ohrfeigen darf man nicht sentimental geben. Die Klasse ist ein Spiegelbild unserer Gedanken.]
[Zu Violetta Plincke:] Sie müssen selbst bestimmter in Ihren Gedanken werden. Wenn ich in Ihrer Klasse darinnen wäre, würde ich es genauso machen. Ich würde ganz entschieden unartig sein, [wenn ich darinnen wäre]. Ich kenne mich nicht aus. Ich weiß noch nicht, was Sie wollen. Sagen Sie lieber, was es ist. Man muss bestimmter denken. [Der Kampf einer ganzen Klasse gegen einen Lehrer ist nichts Wirkliches.] Es ist nichts Greifbares. [Über einzelne Kinder kann man sprechen, aber nicht über eine ganze Klasse.] Drei Dinge: Studieren Sie die Broschüre [von Baravalle], [...] [Lücke in der Mitschrift]; behalten Sie sie bis Pfingsten. Man kann nicht eine lyrische Abhandlung über eine Klasse halten. Heute kommen Sie mir vor wie ein Buch von [Husserl]. [Gewöhnen Sie sich ab, so zu denken wie ein Buch von Husserl.] Das ist eine gegebene Wesensinnenschau. Selbstloses Verwobensein.
[Das ist die Kunst von Baravalle: Stark verwoben sein mit seinem Gegenstand und selbstlos verwoben sein mit seinem Gegenstand. Eigenschaften, die nicht sehr häufig sind.]
Die 7a ist eine anständige Klasse geworden, [da] kann man gut [arbeiten]. [Die Fruchtbarkeit des Unterrichts hängt ab von der Totalität des Eindrucks, den die Lehrer auf die Kinder machen, nicht von kleinen Ungehörigkeiten oder Autoritätswidrigkeiten. Sehr leicht kann der Lehrer durch eine Äußerlichkeit in der Kleidung oder sonst wie lächerlich wirken, aber das gibt sich auch wieder.] Man hat einmal einen zerrissenen Stiefel, man darf nicht so viel darauf geben. Das sind Imponderabilien. Von der Menschlichkeit des Lehrers hängt das allermeiste ab.
Der Zusammenhang zur folgenden Notiz ist unklar.
Sie haben den Saal beherrscht. Im Wiener Saal wurde die 4. Symphonie von Bruckner aufgeführt, 1887. Ich war dabei bei der Aufführung von Schalk. Das war die erste Aufführung der Bruckner’schen Symphonie.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND fragt wegen vier Schülern in der 7a.
RUDOLF STEINER: Werden die Kinder in die Lehre kommen? [Sie sind alle] fast derselbe Typus. Es wäre zu hoffen, dass [es besser wird], wenn man bei diesen Kindern als eine Lektüre einführen würde Buddha-Reden, sachlich und formal, mit allen Wiederholungen, [und sie] kleine Stücke auswendig lernen [ließe]. [Oder auch Bhagavad Gita.] Man kann es mit der ganzen Klasse machen. Man nimmt mit der ganzen Klasse so etwas und versucht dann, indem man diese Kinder erst veranlasst, sie sollen das abschreiben, und das zweite Mal gibt man auf, sie sollen es vorbringen können. Diese Kinder nimmt man [dabei] besonders aufs Korn. Man könnte es einfügen in den Geschichtsunterricht und Sprachunterricht. Das kann man auch jeden Tag machen.
Frage wegen E. H., einer Schülerin, deren Eltern nicht wollen, dass sie Eurythmie macht.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Eltern überzeugen. [Sie soll die Eurythmie nicht unterbrechen.]
Es wird gefragt wegen P. R., eines Schülers mit einer gelähmten Hand.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir sollen nachdenken, was für einem Beruf man ihn zuführen soll. Er kann die Hand nur ungeschickt gebrauchen. Er schreibt schlecht. Er müsste so etwas wie Buchhalter werden. So einen Beruf [wählen], wo es nicht darauf ankommt. Schauspieler kann er nicht werden. Es wäre das Wünschenswerteste, wenn wir es selbst zustande brächten, dass wir solche Kinder so weit brächten, dass sie in den Vormittagsunterricht allgemeiner Art hineinwüchsen und einen Fortbildungsunterricht haben würden, anschließend an die Volksschule. Es müsste aus einem solchen Kreis kommen ein Buchhalter. Man muss versuchen, ihn so weit bringen zu können, dass er sich überwindet und doch mitarbeitet in der Handarbeit. [Er sollte bei uns Buchhaltung lernen. Wir müssten für ihn einen Lehrer suchen für Buchhaltung.]
W. H. soll überall mitarbeiten, [auch Handarbeit].
HEDWIG HAUCK: Die Volksshulklassen haben hier mehr Handarbeitsstunden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die vielen Stunden im Handarbeitsunterricht sind ein Unsinn. Die Turnfrage ist noch nicht reif.
JOHANNES GEYER: Der L. [in der 4. Klasse] kommt nicht in die Schule.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir haben kein Mittel, die Kinder zu zwingen, wenn die Eltern nicht wollen.
Zum Musikunterricht:
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Leute muss man auswählen.
PAUL BAUMANN: Sie [eine Frau Bold] kann nicht improvisieren. Ich kann sie von unserem Gesichtspunkt aus nicht empfehlen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist schade, aber da kann man nichts machen. Wir müssen solche Dinge, wie sie heute vorgebracht wurden und zutage getreten sind, stark versuchen zu verarbeiten und sie praktisch zu machen. Denn es ist ganz zweifellos, dass wir gegenüber der Ausbreitung der Bewegung auf der einen Seite eine immer größere Verpflichtung übernehmen, nicht eines Tages die Sache durch dieses oder jenes abreißen zu lassen. Die ganze Welt schaut auf die Waldorfschule, die ganze zivilisierte Welt. Es ist sehr notwendig, dass wir manches gutmachen [auf dem Gebiet der Schule], was auf anderen Gebieten [der Bewegung] nicht so gut ist. Die Hauptsache ist, dass auch wirklich in Stuttgart zusammengearbeitet wird. Dass alle die verschiedenen Kreise, die mit der Gesamtbewegung zusammenhängen, dass die wirklich auch zusammenhängen, dass sie die Möglichkeit finden, miteinander zu arbeiten.
Wenn man immer mehr hinauskommt in die anthroposophische Bewegung, so findet man immer, dass draußen in der Welt das Bewusstsein vorhanden ist, wir wissen nicht, wie wir uns zu stellen haben zu Stuttgart, was da eigentlich geschieht. Es wird viel daran liegen, dass eben wirklich die Waldorfschulbewegung das hält, was sie halten muss. Besonders, wenn wir auf anderen Gebieten versagen werden, müssen die geistigen Gebiete ganz besonders stark sich vor die Welt hinstellen. Eine Waldorfschule ist etwas, was auch immer mehr sorgen muss, auch aus der Lehrerschaft heraus, Verständnis für sich selbst zu verbreiten. Solche Vorträge, wie Schwebsch und Stein gehalten haben und Heydebrand, die sind schon außerordentlich wirksam. Die Behandlung der konkreten Fragen wird stark missverstanden.
Dann dürfen gerade von den Waldorflehrern [nicht ein]geführt werden die Unarten, die in der heutigen Bewegung der Zivilisation [bestehen], dass also jemand einen solchen unmöglichen Artikel schreibt wie [Treichler] über die Deklamation von Gümbel-Seiling. Wir bauen nach und nach ab, wenn wir die Usancen des gewöhnlichen Journalismus, das unsachliche Vorgehen in unseren Kreisen einführen. Es ist natürlich unmöglich, nicht wahr, gegenüber [Seiling]. [Gemeint ist dessen Rezitation.] Ich habe Seiling sehr gern. Er muss sich bemühen, nach und nach zu lernen, worauf es ankommt. Er steckt in den ersten elementaren Kinderschuhen. - Es macht die Bewegung lächerlich, es ist ein Hymnus gesungen im schlechtesten Sinn, mit der schlechtesten Journalistentendenz. Ich hätte es lieber gesagt, wenn er da gewesen wäre. Das ist eine traurige Erfahrung, die man macht, eine wirklich sehr traurige Erfahrung. Es muss das Niveau gehalten werden. Es ist auch in diesem ganzen Artikel kein einziger Gedanke, der erheblich ist, außer der Geschichte vom Deklamieren und Rezitieren, und sie [ist] philiströs hineingekleidet [worden]. Wenn solche Dinge gemacht werden, die so wenig guten Willen zeigen, bei der Sache zu sein - ich habe es für ihn zu sagen und nicht für andere -, wenn solche Sitten einreißen, dann haben wir sehr bald auch auf diesem Gebiet abgebaut.
Über eine Erziehungstagung.
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie hatten eine längere Zeit in Aussicht genommen. Es muss erst so etwas sich in einen großen Zusammenhang hineinstellen, der auch ermöglicht, nicht auf einen Kompromiss hin, sondern auf das richtige Durchbringen unserer pädagogischen Gesichtspunkte [hinzuarbeiten], wenn man nicht, wie es bei jetzigen Kongressen geschieht, wesenlos herumreden [will], sondern wenn etwas in die Leute hineinkommen [soll]. Es müsste die Stimmung hervorgerufen werden, dass unsere Leute ch schon wissen, was die anderen zu sagen haben. Dass unsere Leute nicht dastehen vor den anderen und ihnen etwas gesagt werden kann, was sie nicht wissen. Dazu ist notwendig, dass man genau und gründlich die Fragen beherrscht, [ die auf dem Programm stehen. Es darf nicht gesagt werden: Die stecken die Nase in alles hinein, aber wenn die Fachleute kommen, dann zeigt sich, wie wenig los ist.]- Die Regie muss so sein, dass nicht einer kommen kann, wie der gegen Heydebrand, und dann ist nicht Zeit, dass man ihm antwortet. Wenn die Fachleute kommen, hört man, wie es ist. Solch ein Urteil haben die Leute.
Das darf nicht aufkommen. So ist es in Berlin eine Unmöglichkeit gewesen, dass die Leute weggegangen sind mit der Stimmung, nun ja, die reden über Einstein und keiner versteht etwas über Einstein. Ganz abgesehen davon, wie die Sache war, einem solchen Blödling gab das Podium recht, auch die, welche die Veranstalter waren, gaben dem Grelling recht. Es war jedenfalls etwas Unerhörtes vorgekommen, was von Anfang an auf die wissenschaftliche Auffassung beeinträchtigend gewirkt hat. Das Erste, womit Rittelmeyer gekommen ist, war, dass er gesagt hat, wir haben schlecht abgeschnitten. Solche Dinge dürfen nicht vorkommen. Wenn es hier auf dem Gebiet der Pädagogik geschieht, so wäre es etwas Furchtbares. Es muss das Urteil bei den Hörern herauskommen, dass da etwas Fachtüchtiges wirkt. Bei jedem Redner muss das sein.
KARL STOCKMEYER über die Pläne zur Erziehungstagung.
RUDOLF STEINER: Bis jetzt geschieht dies, dass große Anstrengungen gemacht werden, dass wir etwas zustande bringen. Die Kongresse haben einen durchschlagenden Erfolg, aber es lässt sich niemand dazu bringen, diese Kongresse zur Auswirkung kommen zu lassen. Wenn man doch dafür sorgen würde, dass sich das irgendwie auswirkt, was geleistet wird. Was Sie zu sagen haben, ist gar nicht an die Menschen herangerückt worden. Es weiß niemand nichts davon von dem, was Sie die Zeit [über] zu sagen hatten. Es muss dann aber auch intensiver unsere Arbeit ausgenützt werden. [Es müssen Urteile geprägt werden.] Ich denke darüber, dass, wie ich dazumal sagte, Urteile geprägt werden, [die sich mit der Substanz der Bewegung befassen], dass in unserem Kreis irgendjemand denkt über einen Kongress, denkt überhaupt über die Dinge, die nun geschehen, dass sie aufgefasst werden. Ich bin überzeugt davon: Ich sage, die Geschichte von Treichler - es wird wieder vergessen werden. Wir haben zum Beispiel seit längerer Zeit diese Misere, das wir eine wirtschaftliche Bewegung eingegliedert haben, [und dass] die Wirtschafter nicht zum Reden zu veranlassen sind. Bei der Regie ist der wirtschaftliche Teil [wichtig]. Der Vortrag von Leinhas war gut, dann kam der Vortrag von Krüger, der nichts zu tun hatte mit dem [Kommenden] «Tag». Dann kam der unglückselige Vortrag von Walter Kühne. Das müsste man nicht vergessen. Ebenso der Aufsatz über Kalkulation von Dr. Unger, das ist der Anfang von etwas, was im Wirtschaftlichen ausgearbeitet werden muss. Jetzt müsste man darüber reden, dass da einmal drei Spalten sind, die zu etwas Umfassendem führen müssen.
Ich habe überall durch die ganze lange Vortragsreihe, die ich gehalten habe, ich habe überall Leinhas bekannt gemacht und Ihren Vortrag [zu Caroline von Heydebrand] überall erwähnt, überall darüber gesprochen. Es müssen Urteile geprägt werden. Es muss durchgehen etwas durch die Sache. Das hat die Pädagogik notwendig. Urteile, die sich mit der Substanz der Bewegung befassen. Die negativen Urteile können vergessen werden. Man müsste das entgegengesetzte Gute tun.
Das ist etwas, was ich mit schmerzlicher Empfindung Ihnen ans Herz lege, weil die Waldorfschule diesen guten Geist ausgebildet hat. Der Waldorfschule selbst müsste es nicht gesagt werden. Der Waldorfschule fällt eine große Aufgabe zu, weil auf anderen Gebieten eben nicht die Vormarschierer da sind. Der Schulbetrieb geht ganz gut. Aber die Waldorfschule hat die Verpflichtung, in einer gewissen Weise das mit zu übernehmen, dass jetzt eine viel größere Verantwortung vorliegt. Aber wenn jetzt gegenüber der immer größer werdenden Anhängerschaft eine Blamage kommt - das würde nicht auf dem Gebiet der Waldorfschule sein -, dann ist es eine Blamage, die riesig ist. Es gibt jetzt schon Dinge, die geeignet sind, eine geistige Bewegung umzureißen. Deshalb müssen diejenigen, [die in der Waldorfschule arbeiten], die müssen mit die Stütze sein für die ganze Bewegung. So stehen wir heute. Die Waldorfschule, die sich auf eine breite Basis stellen kann, weil sie im Wesentlichen doch alles das [gehalten] hat, [was sie versprochen hat], die kann also eine Stütze sein für die ganze anthroposophische Bewegung. Eine solche Stütze brauchen wir heute. Die Verantwortung wächst sehr stark. Das ist etwas, was ich jedem Einzelnen ans Herz legen möchte. Wir haben nicht die geringste Veranlassung, uns zu freuen, wenn sich die Zahl der Anhänger vermehrt. Wir müssen über jede Vergrößerung des Interesses eigentlich uns klar werden, dass eine Riesenverpflichtung auf uns wächst.
ROBERT KILLIAN fragt wegen einer pädagogischen Veranstaltung in Kaiserslautern.
RUDOLFF STEINER: Wir haben in Bremen die Sache abgelehnt. Wir haben die großen Fragen erst erörtert; es geschieht nicht sehr viel, wenn man eine systematische Pädagogik bespricht, bevor man nicht die Möglichkeit gegeben hat, überhaupt einmal über die pädagogischen Fragen der Gegenwart einen Impuls zu bekommen. Die siebzig Persönlichkeiten [dort] werden solche sein, die aus Höflichkeit kommen werden. Sie werden nicht wissen, was man will. Man muss ihnen erst sagen, dass etwas los ist in der Welt. Man muss einen kulturhistorisch-pädagogischen Vortrag halten. Das ist nicht unnötig. Drei Tage dort einen Kurs veranstalten bei Leuten, wo man doch nichts anderes geben kann, [das] ist zu viel KraftzersplitterungSchwedes müsste selbst so urteilen.
Wir haben es hier gesehen. Am wenigsten waren zu haben die Lehrer. Alle erklärten, sie könnten nicht. Ich weiß nicht, ob das schon besser geworden sein sollte. Was soll denn sonst geschehen? Darum handelt sich auch.
Es ist ein Bewusstsein hervorzurufen, was geschehen muss. Ich fürchte, dass die Leute den Glauben haben, dass man die Dreigliederung einführen muss. Ich glaube, wenn zwei oder drei auf der Rückreise von Holland Lust haben, dort Vorträge zu halten, dann wäre es gut. Man sollte ein Bewusstsein haben. - Ja, Gott, es war in Stuttgart ein Kongress, in Berlin war ein Kurs. Nun müssen die Dinge verbreitet werden. Sonst müsste man ins letzte Dorf hinauslaufen und vortragen. Es ist genug, wenn man in gewissen Zentren die Sache vorbringt. Es ist nicht tunlich, dass man überall hinläuft. [Es müsste mehr getan werden für die Ökonomie unserer Arbeit.]
EUGEN KOLISKO: Was kann man konkret machen für Berlin?
RUDOLFF STEINER: Sehr viel! Es sind doch immerhin eine Fülle von Fragen erörtert worden, wie sonst gegenwärtig nirgends in der Welt. Es hatte einen zu stark theologischen Charakter. Es sind eine Fülle von Fragen da gewesen, die sonst nirgends in der Welt verhandelt werden. Man muss die Vorträge [jetzt] auch verbreiten. Es handelt sich darum, wie. Steffen hat jetzt im «Goetheanum» den Weihnachtskurs abgedruckt, sodass ich seine Wiedergabe [beinahe] lieber abdrucken will als meine Vorträge. Es ist eine [glänzende], ausgezeichnete Art, die Dinge zu behandeln.
Wenn solche Berichte erscheinen, wie manche erschienen sind, [die] einfach, wie man es gewohnt ist in gelehrten Zeitschriften, trockene Berichte sind, durch die man sich schwer durchwindet - nicht bloß [über Vorträge] von mir, sondern auch über andere, unbeschreiblich schulmeisterlich geschrieben -, da kann man nur sagen, es steckt kein guter Wille dahinter. Heyer kann es besser. Wenn er selbst Vorträge hält, so sind sie ganz gut. Wenn er aber schreibt, schreibt er so, dass es zum Auf-die-Wand-Hinaufkriechen ist. Hier liegt kein guter Wille vor. Die Dinge graben uns den Boden weg.
Thirtieth conference
The threefold movement had already passed its zenith. Due to financial problems at the Kommender Tag newspaper, the majority of shares in Waldorf-Astoria were sold to the Süddeutsche Diskonto-Gesellschaft on March 16, 1922, against Emil Molt's recommendation.
In view of the impending financial situation, Molt had found a consortium of banks with which he was acquainted to take over the shares. The new general director of the Kommender Tag, Emil Leinhas, did not follow this advice. The Süddeutsche was unable to deal with these shares and continued to sell them. Emil Molt's cigarette factory was facing ruin. This also dashed any hopes of effective economic practice in line with the threefold social order. Rudolf Steiner decided to limit the program of the Kommender Tag (printed in: Emil Leinhas: Aus der Arbeit mit Rudolf Steiner, Bern 1950, p. 228).
Nothing at the conference the day before hinted at this drama. On March 18, Steiner returned to Dornach.
Topics: Results of the school board's visit. When teaching styles diverge too widely, difficulties arise between class teachers and subject teachers.
Comments: Rudolf Steiner recommended taking action in the press against the shortcomings identified by the school inspector. Above all, the following should be defended: not learning to read too early, early foreign language teaching, not repeating a year, and block teaching. The way in which the school inspector questioned the children should be criticized.
RUDOLF STEINER: We are gathered here today to discuss the results of the school inspection by the higher authorities. I have received a picture of what Stockmeyer [reported] to me — one cannot unnecessarily elaborate on terminology over the phone . But before we come to a statement, it would be good if I could also hear what the individual friends who took part in this inspection have to report, so that a picture of it can emerge. I have repeatedly agreed to speak to the gentleman, but he has not yet done so.
KARL STOCKMEYER: He wants to see handicraft lessons.
RUDOLF STEINER: [We need to discuss this in order to] have points of view so that we can parry the matter in public. For it is unnecessary and would also be unsuccessful to raise objections before the authorities. If they could be successful, we would not need a Waldorf school. The Waldorf school exists because the authorities do not understand [our] method and approach.
Let's start with the classes. Then our friends will tell us what happened in each class.
The individual classes will report on the examination.
CLARA DÜBERG, Class 1a, reports on the examination.
MARIA UHLAND, Class 2a: He asked very superficial questions.
RUDOLF STEINER: A boy in Zurich said he would no longer go to school because he found it too stupid to take part in such visual lessons.
ROBERT KILLIAN reports from class 2b: He had them read.
RUDOLF STEINER: In Berlin, I spoke at the [university course on] learning to read. Such things, which are topical, should be included in the Dreigliederungszeitung, and the necessary use should be made of them. About children learning to read. And that these children – I have mentioned it everywhere – that thank God our children only learn to read in the eighth or ninth year. We have to rub such things in people's faces. That is more important than an essay about the World Congress in Honolulu. – Then we also have to criticize repeating a year. That has to be mentioned.
Someone remarks: When doing arithmetic, he wanted to have the answer quickly. RuDoLr STEINER: If the child can't even do simple arithmetic, the body is still heavy.
ROBERT KILLIAN [presumably]: I feel that what we teach children in terms of grammar is still foreign to them. Does this have to be taught in the second grade?
RUDOLF STEINER: It's a question of how you do it. Under certain circumstances, you don't need to teach the children the terminology [noun, verb], but only start from such a factual contrast yourself.
ROBERT KILLIAN: Perhaps it was wrong of me to start from the printed fairy tale book.
RUDOLF STEINER: A child of seven and a half years will be able to distinguish between activity and thing. They can make this distinction. It is not necessary to use terminology, but [one can] start from stories and make clear the difference between thing and activity. A child of this age can grasp this. They must be able to grasp the difference between running and jumping and between human beings and such things. They must be able to grasp this. There is no need to do this in the form of pedantic grammar. In particular, one should avoid the form of definition altogether with children [in the lower grades].
The report continues with the inspection visits to grades 3 to 7. The teachers found the exam, especially in the lower grades, to be school-like and philistine. Wössner, who was nicer, participated in some of the exams. Caroline von Heydebrand says that he asked very simple questions and developed them slowly.
RUDOLF STEINER [laughing, to Hermann von Baravalle, who was very pleased about the school inspector's praise]: [Yes], you will probably have to improve a lot more.
The subject teachers report on the 8th grade: Erich Schwebsch, Eugen Kolisko, Karl Stockmeyer.
RUDOLF STEINER: When he praised, he seemed just as stupid as when he reprimanded.
EDITH RÖHRLE: He saw a lot in eurythmy. He liked it very much.
JULIE LÄMMERT about singing: He seems to have enjoyed it.
RUDOLF STEINER: He will only come to handicrafts lessons with a senior teacher.
It is clear that such an inspection is a model of what can never lead to recognizing what is going on somewhere [at a school]. Because if you try to understand a little what good will the man had brought with him, for example, to get to know the Waldorf school [at least], you will see none at all. He merely tried to examine the extent to which the children meet the requirements of a normal school. It must be clear that you can only find out what is going on if you ask questions yourself. But first he has to get the children to tell him what kind of questions he should ask. Above all, he must first find out from the children what they have learned. The children must first give him the opportunity to ask questions.
It is natural that you cannot learn much if you just ask the teachers in the class and listen, if you do not have the opportunity to assess it very well. I do not assume that. There are a whole lot of psychological factors that influence whether children answer well or poorly when faced with their own teacher. Above all, one need only remember that even at universities, those who take their oral exams with the same professor who taught their seminar have an easy time of it. On the other hand, students who did not work with the same professor have a difficult time. Those who know the professor find it easy. Simply listening is not enough, but [one] cannot ask about the method he is asking about.
It is very important that the things we [consciously] have to do without are always brought to the attention of the public. Therefore, the space we have in the “threefold social organism” should be used to bring these things to the world's attention. We must work together with the various anthroposophical authorities here, otherwise everything will fall apart. Everything is already falling apart, falling out of joint. We must work together. And so, in fact, [articles should appear] — without, of course, being presented in such a way that it is noticed; that it is [not] taken as if it were addressed to this address; that would be completely wrong. But school inspection would have to play a role. Articles would have to appear from a wide variety of perspectives, stating that it is simply of great importance for the child if they only really learn to read between the ages of eight and nine. Examples are given of how Goethe could not read or write [before the age of nine], how Helmholtz learned to read and write much later. On the other hand, examples are given of people who ultimately became [idiots], who could read and write at the age of four or five.
These are things that [need to] be processed. If this is done correctly, if people see themselves exposed to the danger, if it is talked about everywhere, [then] it will run its course and spread. And one cannot say that this would only reach a limited audience. The fact is that it would correct some of the distorted judgments of the present. What Eisele does is an extract of the general view. If you address the whole civilized world, citing what someone like Eisele does, then you are doing something beneficial. [You can see from Eisele's inspection how things should not be.]
Now we turn [to the world] and try to make clear how things should be.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN: I have written an article for the “Drew.”
RUDOLF STEINER: Point it out briefly and concisely, repeatedly, [and don't write ten pages about it right away].
It is not a question of something appearing in “Drei” not being able to appear in “Dreigliederung.”
EUGEN KOLISKO: It could appear in the small section.
RUDOLF STEINER: The following points have now emerged in the discussion:
A gentle explanation of how it is impossible to understand what such a school has to offer [if one uses such an examination method]. This must be discussed in relation to a specific topic.
Then, above all, the objections to period teaching would have to be defended against.
Then it is extremely characteristic when the man makes the judgment: Life requires that one be able to calculate quickly, [so one must learn to calculate quickly].
Almost everything you have said today is a shining example of things that should not be, things that need to be corrected immediately.
Namely, repeating a year.
[Then] what has already been emphasized, that he calls the children weak and strong children [in front of the children], is absolutely impossible.
Then he will probably do what bad teachers always do. He will ask questions [that expect a very specific answer, rejecting any other] and will have no sense of children's nature. It is extremely nice when you get an answer from a child in their own way. — For one's own psychology, it would be interesting to know which part of the poem he misunderstood.
Then it was said that he had said that foreign language teaching leads to mechanization.
These are things that need to be brought to the world's attention these days:
not learning to read and write too early,
the defense of foreign language teaching from as early an age as possible,
repeating a year,
the way questions are asked and the assumption that children should answer exactly as he intended. This very superficial questioning, this meaningless questioning, should also be noted.
Our current cultural content is definitely related to this. This approach is decades old, and people today are developing a mentality, a state of mind, that shows that they were mistreated as children. [Only] those who are more or less healthy, [who have counterforces], are still able to withstand it today. [The physical and psychological condition of our contemporary civilized people is often sad. These are the results of such false questioning.] One can see this even in the physical organization, whether the soul forces have become incoherent. [Some have later confused their five senses]; some who have their five senses intact notice in their heart or lungs that they have been mistreated with such things.
One must be clear about this: if one were to achieve the satisfaction of the school authorities, one would have to close. Then one could send the children to a normal school.
KARL STOCKMEYER: In Boy's class, he didn't understand one line.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I had the impression that he thinks we play games with the children and are too high [?].
RUDOLF STEINER: Such a lesson will be completely impossible for such Eiseles. They made a racket and were in a hurry.
Someone else interjects: He probably behaved in such a way that the children were quiet. He seemed like an icicle.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is not the case that children respond to trivialities. We heard from a Russian woman that an elderly lady said, “I want to be a grandmother.” The child said, “You think you just have to be an old woman to be a grandmother.”
They regard the Waldorf school as an attack.
It is not important to develop the shape of the letters as they are historically [because this varies in different areas], but rather that the whole style of the path [from the artistic] is renewed. There is no need to use historical forms. This point needs to be clarified. We must learn from these things what needs to be clarified.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I asked the children [in my 7th grade class] why they had behaved so exemplary. They said: We didn't want to deceive you.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is exemplary behavior on the part of the children.
I would like us to take note of these things so that we can publish articles based on current events. There would be so much interesting material to fill our magazines. External activities and specific questions. We must ensure that we learn to pay more and more attention to the way of thinking that prevails here if we want to remember that the Waldorf school movement is growing.
And now there was a moment in Berlin [at the university course] that could also provide inspiration for appropriate corrections in journalism. [To Caroline von Heydebrand:] Isn't that right, you developed these things, and then someone came along with a schoolmasterly attitude and said that certain negative aspects had been exaggerated. One must intervene again; one must show that it was not exaggerated, that in reality it is much worse. Experimental pedagogy is only reasonable in relation to some basic ideas, and in relation to others it is unreasonable. [Otherwise, it is a matter for] private lecturers [who] have to conduct experiments, and as many experiments as possible. Such shallow people! The direction [in Berlin] was impossible.
ERNST UEHLI: An attempt was made to introduce a different direction.
RUDOLF STEINER: It had three lectures and a lunch break. Nothing else was available anywhere. A discussion lasting barely an hour! There was certainly an opportunity for some people to say something extremely stupid, but there was no opportunity to defend the matter. In any case, [in such cases] there should be no discussion. Our people should not be left behind. Not holding a debate is the wisest course of action. It should not be only the opponents who have their say. It was arranged in an exemplary manner so that if one wanted to damage anthroposophy, one could do so.
External activities relate to the outside world, but also belong within the college.
MARIA RÖSCHL asks whether Greek and Latin should be taught simultaneously from the outset.
RUDOLF STEINER: It would be right, ideally right, to teach Greek earlier and then start with Latin after two years; [but it is] difficult to implement in practice. One would have to omit something else [actually for the Greeks]. That is something that is difficult to accept. Our curriculum is designed to be tailored to individuality, to development, and that does not come out. That is not how it works. [Latin] must be brought out of external circumstances. It is a great help to understand the language gradually, as I have just explained in my lecture [in Berlin].
I have based the entire development of language on imagination. Beckh, on the other hand, spoke of inspiration and intuition. Afterwards, I receive a letter saying that one can only speak of imagination in language: people [today] no longer have the conscientiousness to listen carefully. Such things are very necessary to take into account. These things, which I have discussed, must be felt little by little. They can be brought up very well when one studies Greek. Latin is not so necessary because it does not bring about the corresponding feelings as Greek does.
A language teacher [?]: How do you select the right people to come to this class?
RUDOLF Steiner: As long as we are only a few isolated schools, we are of course unable to do anything. Only when [the schools] are widespread would it be possible to select students ourselves, according to their character traits, if we had influence over the child's future life. There are 30 percent who [are currently participating in these lessons], which is still too few for us to be able to base the curriculum on it. Everything we have is necessary.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH asks for advice regarding two students in the upper classes, H. L. and F.: H. L. doubts everything.
RUDOLF STEINER: With such a difficult boy [as H. L.], it is only possible to approach [him] thoroughly with understanding if he can still retain a remnant of faith in someone who can be completely unbiased with regard to the area of life from which the boy has drawn his experiences. The boy grew up as an extraordinarily lively little spirit, even from his earliest childhood. He gave very witty answers. Now he is growing up with a mother who is organized dishonesty. One of those people who get heart attacks and fall down, but fall on the carpet and not next to it. Organized untruthfulness. A woman who constantly wanted to introduce her husband, who is a shallow, terribly trivial person, to anthroposophy. [...] [More on this.] The children knew these things early on. A comedy of life, one that had to affect the children in the most tragic way, so that they had to lose all trust in life. [..] [More details on this.]
Well, the boy knows all this. So all he needs is the fulfillment of what he craves. He needs to be able to believe in a person. He just needs to have the opportunity to have people around him who are committed to telling the truth, even in everyday matters. There is no other way. The mother laughs at the father, the father at the mother.
One would have to remain silent in order not to teach the worst ideas about parents. [...] [About other children in the L. family.]
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: He says: I sense anthroposophy everywhere.
RUDOLF STEINER: In such a case, it helps to make a sound judgment if you consider all sides of the issue. A boy like H. L. needs to be cured of his belief that everyone lies. That can be difficult because he knows that his mother is involved in a lawsuit and he has been forced into the Waldorf school. The question arises: who is actually right? That is one thing.
Isn't it true that sometimes it was necessary to take a stand because the mother's intrusiveness was unbearably awful? Then it is not possible to remain objective in such matters.
When he comes to the Waldorf school, he needs to find a way to believe in something in anthroposophy. It is almost a Herculean task. For the boy, it would have been normal to go to a school where life would have approached him entirely from the outside. It was the worst thing one could have done to send such a boy to a Waldorf school. It is not necessary to go to a Waldorf school to learn things. It can be a good school to spend the time from the age of six to fourteen doing things that please [school inspector] Eisele. Waldorf schools have not been set up for everyone. One day he sat there.
I don't know if it is pedagogically [correct] for F. to be there. In 1908, I gave a course on the Apocalypse. He occupied himself by digging deep holes in the ground in the garden. Then, when you came near him, he kicked you, lifted his leg, and thrust it into your stomach. He never answered. The old woman from Sivers wanted to make him happy, but he took the sand and threw it in her eyes. He broke almost all the coffee cups. He called himself " you" because he was told that it belonged to him. [...] [More on this.] When he behaves like this at a higher level, it is no better. “I”; back then it was just a different case. [...] [Interjections about another child.] There is something pathological going on here. [Class 3b.]
We have to deal with F. — H. L. H. L. needs someone [to take over] who has never had anything [to do with his situation], so that he can find someone [in whom he] can place his trust. The only way to cure “Dir” is for someone to [impress] him. [...] [About the mother.] He didn't know his father very well. He just needs someone who impresses him [at first]. [To a teacher:] Can't you do that? You have already impressed many people. That had an effect on P. G., who came to believe that you could impress him.
In Berlin, someone approached me and told me about this boy. From what they said, I gathered that the Ebersbach [neighborhood] is actually mainly to blame for the things that have been mentioned. One should avoid placing anyone [there]. He is said to dislike the Waldorf school. I promised the woman that I would [the faculty] to see if he could be placed with a teacher. He has brought problems from Schopenhauer, and that is a very good thing. He greeted me very warmly.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE asks about a child with a curved spine, A. W.
RUDOLF Steiner: [He should attend] the remedial class for a while; [he should be allowed] to do only what he wants to do and observe what he does not want to do.
VIOLETTA PLINcKE complains about difficulties in English in 7b.
RUDOLF STEINER: This is not surprising, [considering] how Baravalle [the class teacher] has the class on a leash. That will invite comparison. Baravalle knows what he wants. If you didn't have him, but someone else, you would have it easier [probably referring to Violetta Plincke]. [It is with you] a certain indefinite nature, your own thoughts are present in the children's [thought] forms. Of course, this would not be so apparent if you had a colleague who was like yourself. Baravalle impresses the whole class because he is focused on the task at hand. You have to break yourself of this terribly vague lyricism, this sentimentality, when you enter the classroom.
VIOLETTA PLINCKE says something about slapping.
RUDOLF STEINER: If you are going to slap, you must do it like Dr. Schubert.
KARL SCHUBERT: Has anyone complained?
RUDOLF STEINER: No. You always slap people.
KARL SCHUBERT: When did I do that?
RUDOLF STEINER: I mean astral slaps. [There are physical and astral slaps. It doesn't really matter which one you give. But you mustn't give slaps sentimentally. The class is a reflection of our thoughts.]
[To Violetta Plincke:] You need to be more decisive in your thoughts. If I were in your class, I would do exactly the same thing. I would be very naughty [if I were there]. I don't know my way around. I don't know what you want yet. You'd better tell me what it is. You have to think more decisively. [The struggle of an entire class against a teacher is not real.] It is not tangible. [You can talk about individual children, but not about an entire class.] Three things: Study the brochure [by Baravalle], [...] [gap in the transcript]; keep it until Pentecost. You can't give a lyrical treatise on a class. Today you seem to me like a book by [Husserl]. [Get out of the habit of thinking like a book by Husserl.] That is a given insight into the essence of being. Selfless interweaving.
[That is the art of Baravalle: to be strongly interwoven with his subject and to be selflessly interwoven with his subject. Qualities that are not very common.]
The 7a has become a decent class, [where] one can work well. [The fruitfulness of teaching depends on the totality of the impression that teachers make on children, not on minor improprieties or violations of authority. It is very easy for a teacher to appear ridiculous because of something superficial in their clothing or otherwise, but that will pass.] If you have a torn boot, you shouldn't make too much of it. These are imponderables. Most things depend on the humanity of the teacher.
The connection to the following note is unclear.
They dominated the hall. Bruckner's 4th Symphony was performed in the Vienna Hall in 1887. I was there at the performance of Schalk. That was the first performance of Bruckner's symphony.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND asks about four students in class 7a.
RUDOLF STEINER: Will the children be apprenticed? [They are all] almost the same type. It is to be hoped that [things will improve] if these children are introduced to the Buddha's discourses as reading material, factual and formal, with all the repetitions, [and they] are made to learn small pieces by heart. [Or even the Bhagavad Gita.] You can do it with the whole class. You take something like this with the whole class and then try, first by getting these children to copy it down, and the second time by asking them to recite it. You focus particularly on these children [in the process]. You could incorporate it into history and language lessons. You can also do it every day.
Question about E. H., a student whose parents do not want her to do eurythmy.
RUDOLF STEINER: Convince the parents. [She should not interrupt eurythmy.]
A question is asked about P. R., a student with a paralyzed hand.
RUDOLF STEINER: We should think about what kind of profession he should be guided toward. He can only use his hand clumsily. He writes poorly. He would have to become something like an accountant. [Choose] a profession where it doesn't matter. He cannot become an actor. It would be most desirable if we ourselves could bring such children to the point where they could grow into general morning classes and have further training after elementary school. An accountant would have to come from such a circle. We must try to get him to overcome his difficulties and participate in handicrafts. [He should learn bookkeeping with us. We would have to find a teacher for him to teach bookkeeping.]
W. H. should participate in everything, [including handicrafts].
HEDWIG HAUCK: The elementary school classes here have more manual labor lessons.
RUDOLF STEINER: The many hours of manual labor lessons are nonsense. The question of gymnastics is not yet ripe.
JOHANNES GEYER: L. [in the 4th grade] does not come to school.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have no means of forcing the children if their parents do not want them to come.
Regarding music lessons:
RUDOLF STEINER: We have to select the people.
PAUL BAUMANN: She [a Mrs. Bold] cannot improvise. From our point of view, I cannot recommend her.
RUDOLF STEINER: It's a pity, but there's nothing we can do about it. We must try hard to process the things that have been brought up and revealed today and put them into practice. For there is no doubt that, on the one hand, we are taking on an ever greater obligation with regard to the spread of the movement, so that one day it will not be torn down by this or that. The whole world is looking at the Waldorf school, the whole civilized world. It is very necessary that we make up for some things [in the field of education] that are not so good in other areas [of the movement]. The main thing is that there is real cooperation in Stuttgart. That all the different circles connected with the movement as a whole are truly connected, that they find opportunities to work together.
The more you get involved in the anthroposophical movement, the more you find that there is awareness out there in the world that we don't know how to position ourselves in relation to Stuttgart, what is actually happening there. Much will depend on the Waldorf school movement really holding on to what it needs to hold on to. Especially if we fail in other areas, the spiritual areas must present themselves to the world with particular strength. A Waldorf school is something that must increasingly strive, also on the part of the teaching staff, to spread understanding of itself. Lectures such as those given by Schwebsch, Stein, and Heydebrand are already extremely effective. The treatment of concrete questions is greatly misunderstood.
Then Waldorf teachers in particular must not introduce the bad habits that exist in today's civilization, such as someone writing such an impossible article as [Treichler] did about Gümbel-Seiling's declamation. We are gradually undermining ourselves if we introduce the practices of ordinary journalism and the unobjective approach into our circles. It is of course impossible, isn't it, to do that to [Seiling]. [This refers to his recitation.] I like Seiling very much. He must strive to learn gradually what is important. He is still in his early stages. It makes the movement look ridiculous; it is a hymn sung in the worst sense, with the worst journalistic tendencies. I would have preferred to say it if he had been there. It is a sad experience, a truly very sad experience. The standard must be maintained. There is not a single significant thought in the whole article, except for the story of declamations and recitations, and it [has] been dressed up in a philistine manner. When things like this are done, which show so little goodwill in getting to the heart of the matter – I say this for him and not for others – when such customs become established, then we will very soon have deteriorated in this area too.
About an education conference.
RUDOLF STEINER: You had envisaged a longer period of time. First, something like this must be placed in a larger context that makes it possible to work toward the correct implementation of our educational principles, rather than toward a compromise, if we do not want to talk around the issue in a meaningless way, as happens at current conferences, but rather want something to sink in with people. The mood should be created that our people already know what the others have to say. That our people are not standing in front of the others and can be told something they do not know. To achieve this, it is necessary to have a precise and thorough grasp of the issues [that are on the agenda. It must not be said: They stick their noses into everything, but when the experts come, it becomes clear how little is going on.]- The direction must be such that no one can come in, like the one against Heydebrand, and then there is no time to answer him. When the experts come, you hear how it is. That is the judgment of the people.
That must not happen. In Berlin, it was impossible for people to leave with the feeling that, well, they are talking about Einstein and no one understands anything about Einstein. Quite apart from how things actually were, such a fool was proven right by the podium, and even the organizers agreed with Grelling. In any case, something unheard of had happened, which had a negative effect on the scientific view from the very beginning. The first thing Rittelmeyer said was that we had done poorly. Things like that must not happen. If it happens here in the field of education, it would be terrible. The audience must come to the conclusion that there is something professional at work here. This must be the case with every speaker.
KARL STOCKMEYER on the plans for the education conference.
RUDOLF STEINER: Up to now, great efforts have been made to achieve something. The conferences are a resounding success, but no one can be persuaded to let these conferences have an impact. If only someone would ensure that what is being achieved has some kind of effect. What you have to say has not been brought to the attention of the people. No one knows anything about what you had to say at the time. But then our work must also be used more intensively. [Judgments must be formed.] I think that, as I said at the time, judgments are being formed [that deal with the substance of the movement], that someone in our circle is thinking about a congress, thinking about the things that are happening now, that they are being understood. I am convinced of this: I say that the story of Treichler will be forgotten again. For example, we have had this problem for a long time that we have incorporated an economic movement, [and that] the economists cannot be persuaded to speak. The economic part is [important] in the direction. Leinhas' lecture was good, then came Krüger's lecture, which had nothing to do with the [upcoming] “Day.” Then came Walter Kühne's unfortunate presentation. That should not be forgotten. Likewise, Dr. Unger's essay on calculation is the beginning of something that needs to be worked out in economic terms. Now we need to talk about the fact that there are three columns that must lead to something comprehensive.
Throughout the entire long series of lectures I gave, I introduced Leinhas everywhere and mentioned your lecture [on Caroline von Heydebrand] everywhere, talked about it everywhere. Judgments must be formed. Something must run through the whole thing. Pedagogy needs this. Judgments that deal with the substance of the movement. The negative judgments can be forgotten. One would have to do the opposite good.
This is something I urge you to do with a painful feeling, because the Waldorf school has cultivated this good spirit. The Waldorf school itself does not need to be told this. The Waldorf school has a great task to fulfill, because there are no pioneers in other areas. The school is running quite well. But the Waldorf school has an obligation to take on a much greater responsibility in a certain way. But if an embarrassment now occurs in relation to the ever-growing following – which would not be in the realm of the Waldorf school – then it would be a huge embarrassment. There are already things that are capable of overturning a spiritual movement. That is why those [who work in Waldorf schools] must be the pillars of support for the entire movement. That is where we stand today. The Waldorf school, which can stand on a broad foundation because it has essentially kept all [its promises], can therefore be a pillar of support for the entire anthroposophical movement. We need such support today. The responsibility is growing very strongly. This is something I would like to urge each and every one of you to take to heart. We have not the slightest reason to rejoice when the number of followers increases. With every increase in interest, we must realize that a huge obligation is growing upon us.
ROBERT KILLIAN asks about an educational event in Kaiserslautern.
RUDOLFF STEINER: We rejected the idea in Bremen. We have only discussed the big questions; not much happens when you discuss systematic education before you have given people the opportunity to get an impulse about the educational issues of the present. The seventy personalities [there] will be those who come out of politeness. They will not know what you want. You first have to tell them that something is going on in the world. You have to give a lecture on cultural history and pedagogy. That is not unnecessary. Organizing a three-day course there for people when you have nothing else to offer is too much of a waste of energy. Schwedes himself would have to judge that.
We saw it here. The teachers were the least willing. They all said they couldn't do it. I don't know if that should have improved yet. What else can be done? That is also the issue.
We need to raise awareness of what needs to be done. I fear that people believe that the threefold social order must be introduced. I think it would be good if two or three people on their way back from Holland felt like giving lectures there. People should be aware. Yes, God, there was a congress in Stuttgart and a course in Berlin. Now these things need to be disseminated. Otherwise, one would have to go out to the last village and give lectures. It is enough to present the matter in certain centers. It is not feasible to go everywhere. [More needs to be done for the economy of our work.]
EUGEN KOLISKO: What can be done specifically for Berlin?
RUDOLF STEINER: A great deal! After all, a wealth of questions have been discussed here that are not being discussed anywhere else in the world at present. It had too strong a theological character. There have been a wealth of questions that are not being discussed anywhere else in the world. The lectures must [now] also be disseminated. The question is how. Steffen has now printed the Christmas course in the Goetheanum, so that I [almost] prefer to print his account rather than my lectures. It is a [brilliant], excellent way of dealing with things.
When reports like some of those that have appeared are published, which are simply dry reports, as is customary in scholarly journals, and which are difficult to wade through – not only [about lectures] by me, but also about others, written in an indescribably pedantic style – one can only say that there is no good will behind them. Heyer can do better. When he gives lectures himself, they are quite good. But when he writes, he writes in such a way that it is like climbing a wall. There is no good will here. Things are pulling the rug out from under us.