Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300b
23 January 1923, Stuttgart
Forty-Fourth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: I would like to share some of my thoughts about my visit to the school, specifically, about the walls. Now that everything here is so new, it is more apparent than before that it is not good for a school to merely have a somewhat lost and not particularly good picture hanging here and there. It is significant that our school does not make a particularly impressive artistic impression.
Of course, we cannot completely fulfill the ideal at this stage, but it seems to me that it would be good to at least have that ideal before us so that we could move toward it, at least in our thoughts, and that in the end we would do something in that direction. I would ask you not to understand what I have to say the way many things have been understood. For instance, when I said that this or that is a difference between eating meat or vegetables and people immediately began to promote vegetarianism as a result.
Accept it as an ideal. Out of our pedagogy itself, what should be the artistic form in our classrooms? We could perhaps extend this from what we find in the schoolrooms to what we find near the schoolrooms on the walls.
There is no doubt that we need some pictures to decorate the schoolrooms. I say this not because I think we need to do this tomorrow morning, but because our guiding principle needs to be what is needed by our pedagogy.
First, we have the lower grades. There, we need a more physical presentation of what we give the children pictorially. That can gradually move into the more artistic, on the one hand, and to more practical activities in life, on the other. Today, I only want to mention some of the main things that we can deepen in the course of time. It is important that where the subjects themselves play the main role in artistic decoration, we have no mechanically created or barren illustrations, but that things be artistically formed. These artistic creations should not be such that they emphasize special opinions or special styles, but more in the direction of what seems to genuinely human.
If we look at the first grade, the main thing would be to decorate the walls with pictures from fairy tales, and when possible, to have them in color. I need to emphasize that if it is not possible to do everything in color, we will need to use some black-and-white reproductions. It is better to have a technically good reproduction than to have some poorly done copy of something. In the first grade we need to have pictures of fairy tales, and in the second, of legends. That is something we need to strictly maintain.
You can imagine the continuous and proper effect that will have upon the children’s feelings. The only thing is that we cannot just take the pictures from picture books. They should be artistically done. It would be beneficial to set this as a task, not in some one-sided painting style, but such that everything has a general human feeling to it.
When we come to the third grade, we must take into account the state of the soul. What we hang on the walls should be what is normally called “still life” pictures of plants and of flowers. Of course, these should not be normal still lifes, but genuine representations of what is living, but not yet feeling. If we bring the children so far that they live into them with their souls, that will be good. We should save representations of the feeling of animals for the next grade because then the child’s soul begins to relate to a portrayal of feeling. Only from that time on do children have a sense that they have feeling in themselves, even though that feeling may be quite dull. Pictures of animals that the children saw earlier in children’s books have an effect such that the child cannot differentiate whether it is a picture of a real cow or a cow made of wood. Before about the age of nine or ten, children cannot differentiate in an inner living way between the picture of a real cow and a cow made of wood. However, at about that age, this capacity to differentiate begins.
In the fifth grade, when the children are ten or eleven years old, what is important is to choose pictures that show groups of people of differing ages, for instance, dancing groups, or, say, a street where people meet one another, so that you can say something to the children about it. You need groups of people so you can talk with the children about what occurs between those people.
We now come to the sixth grade. There, we should have individual human beings. You could have pictures of heads or of the whole person, for example, a person standing in nature, where nature comes to that person’s aid. You could then draw the children’s attention to what a sunny landscape is, or to one in the rain, but there should be a person in it such that the individual person is important. Perhaps a picture of a small lake where someone is rowing.
We have now come to the point where the material itself is less important and where the pictures should move more into the artistic. Here, we need to begin with the most artistic things. We must, of course, recall that if you cannot obtain good copies, then we should have black-and-white pictures. For the age of the children in the seventh grade, it would be good to have Raphael and Leonardo, things that can also remain in the eighth grade. You could divide these between the classes in both grades. What is important is that the children have these pictures in front of them. You should not believe that the proper thing to do is to choose the pictures so that they go in parallel to what is being taught. It is actually quite important that the children have the pictures before they are spoken of in art class. You should speak occasionally about the pictures, but, in general, the child’s eyes should simply be occupied with the artistic aspect of the pictures. Children should first receive only a pure sense impression and know that we consider these pictures particularly beautiful. They have already been properly prepared since they knew that previously the pictures hanging on the walls were primarily important because of their content.
In the following classes, what is important is that you tactfully connect what is artistic with the practicalities of life, so that the children have both perspectives continually in front of themselves. Thus, in the ninth grade, you might have pictures from Giotto or similar things, and in the same class, pictures of other things, more technical, for instance, a meadow or a willow tree, a pine forest, and so forth, but not done artistically, rather, technically. Purely as examples, in the way that you might draw a plan. You could put those on one wall and hang other things on the back wall, for instance, paintings by Giotto. You could also have a star chart in the ninth grade where the various constellations are connected with some figure, with stylized figures of the heavens, as used to be done in star charts.
In the tenth grade, where you are dealing with fifteen and sixteen year olds, you should have pictures by Holbein and Dürer on the artistic side, and on the technical-scientific side, you could have—other things would be possible—a drawing of everything in the sea, all the animals, and so forth. That would have to be drawn appropriately so that it was intellectually instructive, but also had an artistic effect upon the children.
Holbein and Dürer would remain for the eleventh grade, with perhaps the addition of Rembrandt. That would also continue in the following grades. You might also include some older paintings. At that age instruction can go in parallel. Thus, for the eleventh and twelfth grades, Holbein, Rembrandt, and Dürer.
On the technical side in the eleventh grade, you should hang something like a cross-section of the Earth or geological cross-sections or perhaps elevation charts and similar things. Only in the twelfth grade would you have physiological pictures, anatomic charts in addition to Holbein, Dürer, Rembrandt.
That is what we need as an ideal. Things look terrible now, but if you have an ideal before you, at least under some circumstances, you can work in that direction, even if it takes a century. It is better to have a good woodcut than much of what is hanging now. This is what I wanted to say to you about pedagogy. It is certainly necessary that we attend to an exceptionally good treatment of art in our pedagogy, since that definitely belongs to the total picture of the anthroposophical treatment of human progress.
We can say that until the sixteenth century, there was not a sharp contrast between an intellectual and an artistic comprehension of the world. You should remember something that is no longer considered; the Scholastics created their books with a certain architectural art, very consciously, apart from the illuminations. Until the tenth century, there was absolutely no real difference between art and knowledge. Now, children in even the earliest grades are poisoned with purely intellectual material. There is an effect here in our school of something we cannot yet do differently: when teachers use reference books, not only by giving them to the children, but also for their own preparation, the intellectual tendency of such references enters the teacher. The teacher thus becomes a distorted picture of intellectualism.
You could ask, then, how should teachers prepare themselves? When the teacher wants to teach something to the children, he or she learns the material from modern presentations. When I see where teachers get their material for preparation, I would like to put another book alongside the one the teacher is using, a book that is perhaps a century older than the teacher’s. It is not possible to use only books that are centuries old, but it would certainly help in many areas to use books that are a hundred years old along with more modern books on the same subject. Now, if people are teachers, they know what someone like Goethe or some other exemplary person wrote about one work of art or another, or about something in nature. The problem is that no one looks at what people two or three generations ago, at Goethe’s time, wrote about art, but these, along with more modern works, are certainly important. Even today, when we have so many outstanding things, you can gain something by using books that are a century or so old that treat subjects similar to the subjects of more modern works. That is very important. I have often mentioned that, for example, editions of Greek and Latin from the first half of the nineteenth century are like gold in contrast to the brass printed today. The grammar texts that are thirty or forty years old are much better than the modern presentations.
I think we need to take into account that our pedagogy must everywhere counter with a thoroughly artistic activity the rule of intellectualism present throughout modern thinking. We should avoid allowing modern systematic books to affect our teaching. The systematic presentation in modern books is narrow-minded and inartistic. People are ashamed to speak of anything artistic. Modern academics are ashamed to develop their own artistic style or to artistically divide things into chapters. We need to take these things into account in our own preparations.
I would like to take this opportunity, which has arisen from a number of circumstances, to ask you all the following question. During a meeting last night, I again had the feeling that you think preparing is very difficult. Someone said that Waldorf teachers normally sleep only from 5:30 until 7:30 in the morning. Everyone needs to recognize that is much too little. People need to understand that a really enormous amount of time is used to prepare for school. From that, it seems that preparation is difficult. I would like to ask in that regard if it is true that for one reason or another you can go to sleep only at 5:30. I would also like to know if the difficulty lies in the preparation, if it is really so difficult and requires so much time. Of course, that is subjective; nevertheless, I would like to pose this question now, at the beginning of our discussions, and ask you to tell me about it so we can talk about this today or at our next meeting.
Some teachers report about it.
Dr. Steiner: Are there any specific questions about preparation?
A teacher: I usually need a long time. I used Carus for teaching about the skeleton.
Dr. Steiner: The bones of the human being have not changed. You used a book that is a hundred years old, but it is important that you use the easiest sources. This is a case where much help could have been given. The teacher of one class could help the teacher of the following class.
An upper-grades teacher: I do not actually prepare for a specific class. Instead, I read a book about the whole subject I will be teaching. Then, I read an anthroposophical book connected with it, for example, The Riddles of Philosophy, for background on the development of consciousness within the period. I read something that brings me into a mood of that time. For the specific class period, I look for something, perhaps even a small detail, from which I can form the instruction.
Dr. Steiner: That is a very good method, to begin with something you are strongly interested in yourself that brings your soul into movement, so that you make some small discovery. In that way, you will get an idea during the class. You will notice that while you are with the children, things come to you more easily than when you sit and brood by yourself. That will not happen in history and geography until you have taught for a few years. It is particularly important when you are beginning a new period that you really try to form a comprehensive picture of what occurs during the entire period, possibly only in broad outlines, so that you know what is important in that period.
The same teacher later gave Dr. Steiner some additional information when he was visiting the teacher’s class. Dr. Steiner told the teacher that while using that method he actually thought of too many things. He needed to be careful not to overload the students with what he was interested in at the moment.
A teacher: In Latin grammar, I have the feeling it could be organized according to thinking, feeling, and willing, but it falls apart when I do it.
Dr. Steiner: To orient yourself, it would be a good idea, when you have three weeks free, to simply take one author, for instance, Livius, and select some sentences, then study the sentence structure empirically. Someone should do that.
I would like you to pay more attention to developing a certain feeling regarding the Socratic method. I would like you to try to develop a feeling so that you differentiate between what the children can simply repeat and what you should ask them. It is more exciting for the children when you tell them something than when you ask them something they cannot answer. You should not believe you can get the children to say something they cannot know. You should not overdo the Socratic method because you will tire the children too much. You need to develop a feeling for what you can ask, and what you need to say. You need to develop a certain tactfulness. I would now like to hear questions about what is currently going on.
A teacher asks about the school administration. Many things within the administration need to be done by everyone.
Dr. Steiner: This is an awkward problem, but I have given it a great deal of thought. This is so difficult and we can accomplish our intentions only when we carry it out with the general support of the entire faculty, or at least the vast majority of the faculty. On the other hand, the way it is accepted necessarily affects the way it is organized.
First of all, I would ask you to consider what should be included in this new area of organization. There are a large number of operations the person in the school house needs to do. We need to exclude these things since they are connected with the person in the house. Concerning everything in the administration that represents the school to the outside, I would recommend that a small group of three or four people from the faculty take up that work in the future. This group can only work in an alternating fashion, so that they work one after another as individuals, and they should meet with one another only in those cases where a common decision is valuable. In order not to violate our republican constitution, it should be a group. I would ask you to speak your thoughts about this freely and openly, even though you might think what you have to say may contradict this in the broadest sense. I would still ask you to say what you think.
A teacher: There are some things we all know only Y. can do, and other things for which other people are better suited.
Dr. Steiner: I thought that such a small group would always represent the faculty since members would alternate, particularly for limited tasks. This group could do what you just said from case to case, namely, designate one person as capable of one task or another. Nevertheless, there will still be differences of opinion.
A teacher: I think regulating the situation would be a help. It could be very useful for the school.
Dr. Steiner: We could think still further. We would form such a group and the entire faculty would declare itself in agreement when the group decides some member of the faculty should be designated for a particular task. That is what should happen. Preparation for faculty meetings and setting the agenda could also be part of the duties of the head of the administration, but that would make the job rather difficult. It is possible that preparation for the faculty meeting could be one of the tasks of the committee member who has the task of administering the school at the time. It is important to do this in complete harmony with the whole faculty.
A committee of seven teachers had formed concerned with questions of the Anthroposophical Society.
Dr. Steiner: Of course, I now need to ask what the faculty thinks of this committee that formed itself. It is important to find a way of reaching a final resolution of this problem. That committee seems very active, and we could make an assumption that through its efforts to reorganize the Anthroposophical Society, it wanted to prepare itself for administering the school. Of course, if that committee has the complete trust of the faculty, the question can be easily answered.
A teacher proposes expanding the committee.
Dr. Steiner: I only thought that if a group of people was already working with this question, it would be best if that group continued its work because it would save time.
A teacher makes a remark.
Dr. Steiner: You are mixing up two questions. I only wanted to ask who is in that group because I know such a group exists. Apparently that group has worked with these questions and—I must emphasize from the outset that we must do the whole thing harmoniously—the first question I wanted to ask is whether that group has the complete trust of the faculty, so that it can make proposals for a final form. It would be difficult for us to begin from zero today. It would be better, since I will probably be here again soon, if we could answer the question of whether that or an extended group has the full trust of the faculty, so that the group could prepare a proposal for a final resolution of the question for the next meeting. That is the question we need to answer today. I would like to hear what you have to say about this question of trust.
A teacher: This makes an impression that there are first- and second- class Waldorf teachers, but perhaps that feeling is based upon a false assumption.
Dr. Steiner: The fact that a group has formed is their business. Since, however, it has worked with these questions, we could, in the event there is trust in that group, think we could trust them with working out such a proposal. It is more complicated to consider this question in the faculty as a whole than it would be to have a group that has the trust of the faculty consider it. Some teachers agree.
A teacher: I have an awkward feeling about the formation of that group. The people who formed the group are the same ones who are so distracting for the administration.
A teacher: I have noticed that certain groups get together, and when you go by, you hear parts of important conversations. I became uncomfortable with that, and I went to a colleague and said that it was creating cliques. I was quite fearful that the faculty was dividing into those who were more or less active.
Dr. Steiner: That is certainly a problem. The Waldorf School can prosper only if the faculty is in harmony. It is not possible for everyone to find everyone else sympathetic, but that is a personal question and does not belong in the faculty. To the extent that the faculty represents the entire Waldorf School, the prosperity of this school depends upon the inner harmony of the faculty. There is a major difference in whether someone says to someone outside, “You are getting on my nerves,” and when that is said here in the faculty meeting. Here in our meetings and in the administration of the Waldorf School there are only teachers from the Waldorf School, and the difficulties arise due solely to the more democratic constitution of the school. Of course, difficulties do arise. I am certainly against using the terms “first- and second-class” here in the faculty. That would certainly be the beginning of very bad things if something like a first- and second-class of faculty and faculty cliques played a role in our discussions. These are things we must strictly keep out.
Basically, when such a group forms, we need to accept the fact that the group exists and not use it as an occasion to say bad things about it. If there were reason to do that, it would be the start of difficult times in the faculty. As long as the group has formed and exists as such, I would like to again ask to what extent we need to take that group into account. It is perhaps not at all necessary to say anything about that. The question has been posed because it has received an official duty and that group should work on proposals. Barring some misdeed, I do not see that it should have any significance whether it is that group or a completely different small group. The only thing that is important is the usefulness of the group, since the proposal will be presented to the whole faculty and discussed. The only question is one of trust, that is, whether you consider that group capable of making the proposals. When such remarks are made, it is difficult to see that there is even the slightest movement toward forming a faculty. That is something that must not happen. Here we must have only harmony.
A teacher: I have complete trust in the group, but I did want to bring out that there may be colleagues who do not.
Dr. Steiner: When I use the expression, “getting on my nerves,” I mean that one person makes another person nervous. The subject of the group’s work would be how to organize the administration. Thus, you would make them nervous.
A teacher: I do not distrust the group.
Another teacher: I do not feel there is a faculty within the faculty. I think all of my colleagues could agree to this group.
Dr. Steiner: Some things have been said that were not taken back, so we can assume we cannot do this in the way it was originally intended. I could just as well think that according to the impulses out of which the school and the faculty arose, I could create such a group. I am not doing this because suspicions have arisen. I would like to wait until things have become clearer. Some antagonisms are apparent.
The committee that works upon these questions needs to study such things in order to make proposals for the administration. I think six people would be enough.
Dr. Steiner has the faculty vote by secret ballot for a preparatory committee of six members.
Dr. Steiner: I would like to have the committee propose people who can do things.
A teacher asks about an educational conference in England.
Dr. Steiner: There is a possibility of another conference in England. I need to try to put these two things together. Perhaps we could agree to it in principle.
A teacher: The English people want to know if you would agree to inviting Waldorf teachers who can speak English.
Dr. Steiner: Of course, they can do that.
Vierundvierzigste Konferenz
In den folgenden Monaten bis Ende April war Rudolf Steiner hauptsächlich zwischen Dornach und Stuttgart unterwegs. Dadurch gab es während dieser Zeit relativ regelmäßige Besuche in der Schule. Die Aktivitäten der Dreigliederungsbewegung waren am Abklingen, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft im Zustand der Lähmung.
Rudolf Steiner kam am 22. Januar aus Dornach in Stuttgart an und hatte am Nachmittag eine Sitzung mit dem bereits genannten Siebenerkreis (siehe 43. Konferenz), dem Ausschuss aus Mitgliedern der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, der zunächst aus sieben Lehrern der Waldorfschule bestand. Ernst Uehli hatte sich nach seinem Rücktritt als Zentralvorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft wieder aus dem von ihm ins Leben gerufenen Siebenerkreis zurückgezogen. An seiner statt kam Herbert Hahn dazu. Nach dem Zweigabend fanden in der Nacht Gespräche mit dem sogenannten Dreißigerkreis statt, einem Gremium von dreißig Mitgliedern, das in Gesellschaftsfragen zwischen Mitgliedschaft und Vorstand vermitteln sollte. Es ging darum, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft zu konsolidieren; die Brandkatastrophe sei doch Ausdruck dafür, dass die Gesellschaft den aus Anthroposophie geborenen Initiativen nicht den Rückhalt und Schutz geboten habe, der nötig gewesen wäre.
Am nächsten Tag war Konferenz, abends Mitgliedervortrag; Thema war die Gesellschaft als Mutter der Tochterunternehmungen: Die Töchter dürften die Mutter nicht vergessen.
Themen [44. und 45. Konferenz]: Grundlegendes zum Wandschmuck. Ausführliche Beratungen über Unterrichtsvorbereitungen. Neugestaltung der Schulverwaltung. Einsetzung eines Verwaltungsrates.
Bemerkungen: Der Schulneubau war bezogen worden, was Anlass gab, sich über den Wandschmuck zu unterhalten. Die Verwaltungsaufgaben waren noch immer in Stockmeyers Händen. Mit dem Wachstum der Schule waren die Verwaltungsaufgaben nicht mehr von einem allein zu stemmen. Auch hatte sich unterschwellig Unmut über Stockmeyers Wirken angesammelt.
Rudolf Steiner taktierte vorsichtig und empfahl dem anerkannten Siebenerkreis, einen personellen Vorschlag zu machen für einen zu bildenden Verwaltungsrat. Der Vorschlag wurde gemacht und man wollte ihn annehmen, als Stockmeyer eine Ergänzung durch den Kollegen Max Wolffhügel vorschlug. Dies wurde von Steiner als Misstrauensvotum aufgefasst. Er forderte in einer langen, harten Verhandlung die Kollegen auf, ehrlich und offen darzulegen, wem sie vertrauen und wie sie die Verwaltung gestalten wollten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich möchte einiges sagen in Bezug auf die Dinge, die mir jetzt durch die Seele gezogen sind bei diesem Besuch in der Schule, und zwar mit Bezug auf die Wände. Nicht wahr, jetzt, wo alles in der neuen Umhüllung erscheint, ist es noch auffälliger als früher, dass es bei einer Schule nicht gut angeht, dass da und dort ein verlorenes und nicht gerade ausgezeichnetes Bildchen hängt. Es wäre schon notwendig, dass auch in dieser Beziehung unsere Schule nicht gerade einen hervorragend unkünstlerischen Eindruck machen würde_
Nun ist es selbstverständlich, dass in diesem Stadium nicht Ideale erfüllt werden können, aber wenigstens scheint es mir gut zu sein, wenn wir Ideale so vor uns haben, dass wir uns in der Richtung nach ihnen bewegen können, wenigstens mit unserem Denken, sodass zuletzt irgendetwas nach dieser Richtung herauskommen könnte. Ich meine, dass Sie das, was ich sage, nicht wiederum so auffassen sollen, wie manchmal solche Dinge aufgefasst werden, wenn man zum Beispiel genötigt ist zu sagen: Das und dies ist der Unterschied zwischen Fleisch- und Pflanzennahrung, so ziehen die Leute gleich die Konsequenz des Agitierens.
Nehmen Sie es also als die Hinstellung eines Ideales: Wie eigentlich aus unserer Pädagogik selbst heraus die künstlerische Ausgestaltung der Schulzimmer sein sollte. Es würde sich dann so zu erweitern haben, dass vielleicht auch dasjenige, was wir im Schulzimmer finden, in der Nähe des Schulzimmers auf den Wänden in ähnlicher Art zu finden wäre.
Eine gewisse Ausgestaltung durch Bildwerke ist in den Schulzimmern schon zweifellos notwendig. Nicht weil ich denke, dass wir das morgen einführen sollen, sondern damit wir eine Orientierung haben sollen, wie das im Sinne unserer Pädagogik sich ausnimmt, möchte ich dasjenige, was sich mir ergeben hat, mitteilen.
Wir haben die unteren Klassen; bei denen würde es sich tatsächlich mehr handeln müssen um das Stoffliche desjenigen, was bildhaft den Kindern geboten wird, während man allmählich zum Künstlerischen auf der einen Seite wie zu den mehr praktischen Angelegenheiten des Lebens übergehen kann. Ich werde nur die Hauptsachen heute nennen, und es kann sich im Laufe der Zeit die Sache wesentlich vertiefen. Es wird sich darum handeln, dass auch da, wo das Stoffliche die Hauptrolle zu spielen hat [in Bezug auf die künstlerische Ausgestaltung], dass auch da selbstverständlich nicht irgendeine philiströse Illustration da sein darf, sondern dass die Dinge künstlerisch gestaltet sein müssen, und zwar nicht einseitig künstlerisch gestaltet, sondern schon so, dass man nicht irgendwelche künstlerische Spezialmeinungen und Spezialstile zur Durchführung, bringt, sondern dasjenige, was mehr allgemein menschlich erscheint.
Wenn wir die 1. Klasse nehmen, so würde es sich darum handeln, dass wir unsere Wände schmücken mit Märchendarstellungen, welche, wenn es geht, farbig gehalten sind. Nun muss ich betonen, wenn es nicht geht, für die ganze Durchführung der Sache Farbiges zu haben, so muss manches dann in farblosen Reproduktionen hängen. Besser ist es, eine Reproduktion zu haben, die gut ist, die in der Technik, in der sie gehalten ist, gut ist, als irgendeine schlechte Kopie von den Dingen, die ich meine. In der 1. Klasse würde es sich um Märchendarstellungen handeln, in der 2. Klasse um Legendendarstellungen. Das müsste streng eingehalten werden.
Sie können sich denken, dass dadurch in einer bestimmten Weise fortdauernd auf das kindliche Gemüt der richtige Impuls ausgeübt werden kann. Nur dürfen die Dinge nicht der Bildschmuck der Bilderbücher sein, sondern sie müssen künstlerisch durchgeführt werden. Da würde es sich lohnen, sich Aufgaben zu stellen, aber nicht in einer einseitigen Malmanier, sondern so, dass die Dinge allgemein menschlich sind.
Wenn wir in die 3. Klasse kommen, dann müssen wir dem Seelenzustand dadurch Rechnung tragen, dass man dasjenige an den Wänden hat, was man [im philiströsen Leben] Stillleben nennt, Pflanzendarstellungen, [Blumendarstellungen]; natürlich nicht die gewöhnlichen Stillleben, sondern wirklich Darstellungen des Lebendigen, aber noch nicht des Empfindenden. Es ist gut, wenn man das Kind nun so weit bringt, als es eigentlich mit der Seele mitkann, und die Darstellungen des Empfindenden, des Tierischen, die müsste man für die nächste Klasse, [die 4. Klasse], aufbewahren, weil da die Seele des Kindes anfängt, nun schon die Darstellung auf das Empfinden zu beziehen. Das Kind hat erst von dieser Zeit an ein Gefühl davon, dass es selbst Empfindung hat, wenn das Gefühl auch noch dumpf ist. Tierische Darstellungen, die früher auf das Kind in Kinderbüchern wirken, die wirken so, dass das Kind nicht unterscheidet, ob in der bildhaften Darstellung eine wirkliche Kuh wiedergegeben ist oder eine aus Holz gemachte Kuh. Es gibt für das Kind so ungefähr vor dem Lebensalter zwischen neun und zehn Jahren keine Möglichkeit zu unterscheiden, wirklich lebensvoll innerlich zu unterscheiden zwischen der Darstellung einer wirklichen und einer aus Holz gemachten Kuh; aber in diesem Lebensalter tritt das Unterscheidungsvermögen ein.
In der 5. Klasse, wo wir die Kinder zwischen zehn und elf Jahren haben, da würde es sich darum handeln, Darstellungen zu wählen, die Menschengruppen der verschiedenen Lebensalter darstellen: Reigentänze, Sonstiges, sagen wir eine Straße, wo sich Menschen begegnen, wo man anknüpfend mit den Kindern sprechen kann; Menschengruppierungen, wo man über die Tatsachen, die sich zwischen Menschen abspielen, mit den Kindern reden kann.
Dann kommen wir in die 6. Klasse; da soll eintreten der einzelne Mensch. Da kann man schon Köpfe, ganze Menschen als auch einzelne Menschen, zum Beispiel den Menschen in der Natur und dergleichen darstellen, wobei einem die Natur zu Hilfe kommen kann, indem man die Kinder schon aufmerksam machen kann darauf, was eine sonnenbeschienene Landschaft und was eine Regenlandschaft ist, aber den Menschen darin, und so, dass es auf den einzelnen Menschen ankommt; ein kleiner See, wo einer rudert zum Beispiel.
Da sind wir an der Grenze angelangt, wo es aufhört, auf das Stoffliche anzukommen, wo bereits begonnen werden soll, mit dem Bildschmuck einzutreten ins Künstlerische. Da soll man beginnen mit dem Allerkünstlerischsten! Natürlich kommt da in Betracht, dass man, wenn man keine [guten] Kopien haben kann, [dann eben] Schwarz-Weiß-Darstellungen haben muss. Es ist gut, wenn man für dieses Lebensalter in der 7, Klasse Raffael und Leonardo hat, was auch bleiben kann für die nächste, [die] 8. Klasse. Das kann man auf die beiden Klassen verteilen. Da soll es darauf ankommen, dass die Kinder diese Bilder vor sich haben. Man muss bei dieser Ausschmückung nicht glauben, dass es recht wäre, den 'Wandschmuck so zu gestalten, dass er parallel gehen würde dem Lehrplan, sondern es ist sogar von großer Bedeutung, dass die Kinder die Bilder früher vor sich haben, als im Kunstunterricht davon gesprochen wird. Vorher sollte gelegentlich einmal über die Bilder gesprochen werden. Im Ganzen sollen sich die Augen des Kindes mit dem Künstlerischen [dieser Bilder] beschäftigen; [das Kind soll] zunächst nur einen rein sensuellen Eindruck empfangen und wissen, dass man diese Bilder für etwas [ganz besonders] Schönes hält. Sie sind schon in der richtigen Weise vorbereitet dadurch, dass man in Bezug auf die Ausschmückung zuerst auf das Stoffliche den Hauptwert gelegt hat.
Nun, bei den nächstfolgenden Klassen kommt es darauf an, dass man das Künstlerische zusammenbringt in einer taktvollen Weise mit dem Praktischen des Lebens, sodass das Kind die beiden Seiten fortwährend vor sich hat, sodass man in der 9. Klasse auf der einen Seite künstlerische Bilder von Giotto oder Ähnliches hat, aber auch in derselben Klasse Situationsbilder, ganz technisch, eine Wiese, eine Hutweide, einen Laubwald, [einen Nadelwald.), aber [jetzt] nicht künstlerisch, sondern technisch, reine Musterbeispiele, wie man Situationspläne macht; die würden an einer Wand hängen, und die hintere Wand könnte zum Beispiel Giottos haben. Ebenso gut könnte in der 9. Klasse eine Himmelskarte sein, wo man die einzelnen Sternbilder zusammenfasst mit starken Figuren, mit stilisierten Himmelsfiguren, [so, wie es früher auf Himmelskarten vorhanden war].
In der 10. Klasse, wo man es mit Fünfzehn- bis Sechzehnjährigen zu tun hat, würde es sich darum handeln, nun etwa Holbein und Dürer nach der künstlerischen Seite zu haben, und nach der technisch-wissenschaftlichen Seite [zum Beispiel] — es kann auch anderes sein —, sagen wir: Das Innere des Meeres, all die Tiere, die im Inneren des Meeres sind, das müsste in entsprechender Weise gemalt erscheinen, zugleich instruktiv in intellektueller Beziehung, und auch müsste es so sein, dass es künstlerisch auf das Kind wirkt.
Dann bliebe für die 11. Klasse Holbein und Dürer weiter, vielleicht auch Rembrandt Das würde für die folgenden Klassen immer sein; man kann aber auch Ältere dazwischen mischen. 1)a ist das Alter, wo das dem Unterricht parallel gehen kann. Für die 11. und 12. Klasse also Holbein, Rembrandt, Dürer.
In der 11. Klasse, da sollte man nach der technischen Seite an die Wand hängen so etwas wie Erddurchschnitte, geologische Durchschnitte und entsprechend künstlerisch ausgeführte Höhenkarten und Ähnliches. Erst in der 12. Klasse würden an der Wand zu hängen haben Physiologica, Anatomisches neben Holbein, Dürer, Rembrandt.
Das würde dasjenige sein, was eigentlich hineingehört, was eben als das Ideal hineingehört. Jetzt sieht es gräulich aus, aber wenn man solch ein Ideal vor sich hat, kann man sich unter Umständen doch, wenn es auch erst nach einem Jahrhundert erfüllbar ist, in der einen oder anderen Weise darnach richten. Es ist besser, ein richtiges Bild im Holzschnitt zu haben als manches von dem, was [jetzt] darin hängt. Das sind die Dinge, die ich Ihnen als ein Kapitel der Pädagogik vorlegen möchte. Es ist schon durchaus notwendig, dass wir unser Augenmerk darauf richten, dass das Künstlerische besonders gut behandelt wird in unserer Pädagogik, denn es gehört das eigentlich ins Gesamtbild des anthroposophischen Behandelns des Menschheitsfortschrittes hinein.
Sehen Sie, man muss sich sagen: Im Grunde genommen bis zum eigentlichen 16. Jahrhundert war jener scharfe Unterschied von intellektuellem Erfassen und künstlerischem Erfassen der Welt auf keinem Gebiet vorhanden. Denken Sie sich doch — was man heute nicht beachtet —, selbst die Scholastik hat die ganze Disposition ihrer Bücher mit einer gewissen architektonischen Kunst besorgt in bewusster Weise, abgesehen von den Initialen, aber bis zum 10_ Jahrhundert war eine strenge Trennung zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft überhaupt noch nicht vorhanden. Jetzt sind schon die Kinder in den frühesten Schulklassen damit vergiftet, [dass man] ihnen ein bloß Intellektualistisches vermittelt. Bei uns wirkt etwas, was noch nicht anders gemacht werden kann, dass, wenn sich unsere Lehrer der Handbücher bedienen, nicht nur, indem sie sie den Kindern in die Hand geben, sondern indem sie sich selbst nach Handbüchern vorbereiten, da geht das ganze Intellektualistische dieser Handbücher in den Lehrer hinüber. Er wird ein Abbild des Intellektualismus.
Man kann sagen: Woher soll sich der Lehrer vorbereiten? Wenn er irgendetwas den Kindern bringt, so summiert er sich den Stoff aus den gegenwärtigen Darstellungen auf. Manchmal hat man das Gefühl, wenn man sieht, wo der Lehrer seine Präparationen herhat, man möchte neben das Buch, aus dem der Lehrer sich vorbereitet hat, eines legen, das ein Jahrhundert älter ist als dasjenige, das er benützt. Es ist nicht möglich, zum Vorbereiten bloß jahrhundertalte Bücher zu verwenden, aber neben dem heutigen Buch eines, das aus demselben Fach ist und ein Jahrhundert älter, das würde nützlich sein auf allen Gebieten. Man kennt heute gut, selbstverständlich, wenn man Lehrer ist, was etwa Goethe oder einige andere hervorragende Gipfel der Kulturentwicklung über dieses oder jenes Kunstwerk oder [über etwas] in der Natur geschrieben haben. Aber die zweite und dritte Generation von Menschen, die zur Goethezeit aus einem Kunstgebiet geschrieben haben, die nimmt man sich nicht vor. Aber auch diese sind neben den heutigen literarischen Mitteln durchaus wichtig. Sie können selbst bis in solche heute so wunderbar entwickelten Dinge noch etwas gewinnen, wenn Sie parallele Bücher, die ein Jahrhundert alt sind, die in einer verwandten Weise etwas Ähnliches behandeln, daneben benützen. Das ist schon tatsächlich außerordentlich wichtig. Es ist ja von mir öfter betont worden, dass zum Beispiel die griechischen und lateinischen Ausgaben aus der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts Gold sind gegenüber dem Messing, das heute verzapft wird. Die Grammatiken, die dreißig oder vierzig Jahre alt sind, sind wesentlich besser als die heutigen in der Anordnung und im Ganzen, was man aufnimmt.
So meine ich, dass wir überall darauf Rücksicht nehmen, dass diesem Vorherrschen des Intellektualismus in unserem ganzen Zeitdenken entgegengehalten wird in unserer Pädagogik ein durch und durch von Kunst durchtränktes Wirken; dass wir es vermeiden, die heutigen systematischen Bücher irgendwie hineinwirken zu lassen in unsere eigene Darstellung. Die heutigen systematischen Bücher sind philiströs und unkünstlerisch. Die Leute schämen sich, irgendetwas künstlerisch anzusprechen. Der heutige Gelehrte schämt sich, einen künstlerischen Stil zu entwickeln oder [in der] Kapiteleinteilung künstlerisch vorzugehen. Das sind Dinge, die wir in unserer Präparation auch berücksichtigen müssen.
Ich möchte bei dieser Gelegenheit, veranlasst durch verschiedene Umstände, einmal an die Freunde hier eine Frage stellen, das ist die folgende. Ich habe heute Nacht bei einer Sitzung doch wiederum das Gefühl gehabt, dass die Vorstellung besteht, das Präparieren würde außerordentlich schwer. Es hat jemand gesagt, die Waldorflehrer schlafen gewöhnlich nur von halb sechs bis halb acht Uhr morgens. Jeder Mensch muss einsehen, dass das viel zu wenig ist. Da muss man denken, dass eine wirklich unermesslich große Zeit auf das Präparieren für die Schule daraufgeht. Aus dem ist zu schließen, dass das Präparieren schwer wird. Ich würde die Frage stellen in diesem Zusammenhang, wie es damit steht, damit nach der einen oder anderen Richtung die Möglichkeit geboren würde, schon um halb fünf schlafen zu gehen. Ich möchte also hören, ob die Schwierigkeit besteht, in Bezug auf das Präparieren nach dieser Richtung hin, Lob es wirklich so schwer ist und so viel Zeit verlangt]. Natürlich ist das subjektiv. Aber trotz alledem würde ich gerne diese Frage stellen am Beginn unserer Verhandlungen und bitten, sich zu äußern, damit wir über diese Sache heute oder das nächste Mal sprechen können.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN zur Vorbereitung des Unterrichts: Früher dauerte es bei mir sehr lange, jetzt geht es besser.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nun, sind konkrete Fragen in Bezug auf das Vorbereiten?
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: ich brauche meist sehr lange Zeit. Für die Knochenlehre in der 8. Klasse habe ich Carus benützt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Knochen des Menschen sind dieselben geblieben. Da haben Sie schon ein Buch benützt, das hundert Jahre älter ist, [aber] es handelt sich darum, dass man an die leichtesten Quellen herankommt. Da könnte viel Hilfe geschehen. Es kommt doch vor, dass der vorhergehende Lehrer für eine Klasse dein nachfolgenden helfen könnte.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: ich bereite mich nicht eigentlich auf die einzelne Stunde vor, sondern ich lese ein Buch über das Gesamtgebiet der Periode, über die ich unterrichte. Dann lese ich ein anthroposophisches Buch, was damit zusammenhängt, zum Beispiel die «Rätsel der Philosophie» als Hintergrund der Bewusstseinsentwicklung der betreffenden Zeit. Ich lese das, was mich in diese Zeitstimmung hineinträgt. Für den einzelnen Tag suche ich ein wenn auch noch so kleines Aperti7u zu finden. Dann weiß ich: Von diesem Apers:u [aus] lässt sich eine Stunde gestalten. Handbücher brauche ich nur für Biografisches.
RUDOLF STEINER: Dies ist eine außerordentlich gute Methode, von irgendetwas auszugehen, das einen selbst interessiert, das einen seelisch dadurch in Bewegung bringt, dass so eine Entdeckung entsteht. Dadurch erreicht man das, dass einem während des Unterrichts etwas einfällt. Sie werden bemerken, dass Ihnen, während Sie unter den Kindern sind, leichter etwas einfällt, als wenn Sie allein brüten. In der Geschichte und Geografie zunächst nicht, solange man nicht ein paar Jahre unterrichtet hat. Was aber besonders wichtig ist, das ist das, dass man eigentlich versuchen sollte, sich, wenn eine Epoche für irgendetwas beginnt, doch, wenn auch in noch so großen Linien, über das, was in der ganzen Epoche vorkommt, in zusammenfassender Weise Vorstellungen zu machen, sodass man weiß, was in der ganzen Epoche behandelt wird.
Rudolf Steiner gab Erich Schwebsch bald darauf bei einem Besuch im Unterricht noch eine Ergänzung dazu. Er sagte: Es fällt Ihnen bei dieser Methode der Vorbereitung nun zu viel ein im Unterricht. Sie müssen darauf achten, dass Sie die Schüler nicht mit dem überschütten, was Sie selbst im Augenblick interessiert.
MARIA RÖSCHL: In der lateinischen Grammatik habe ich das Gefühl, dass man sie aufbauen könnte nach Denken, Fühlen, Wollen. Aber es zerfällt mir der Stoff.
RUDOLF STEINER: Da wäre es gut, wenn Sie einmal zur eigenen Orientierung, wenn drei Wochen Ferien sind, einfach einen Autor nehmen würden, den Livius, würden sich Sätze nehmen und die Struktur des lateinischen Satzes dann empirisch studieren. Das müsste jemand machen.
Ich möchte, dass Sie darauf achten, einen gewissen Takt zu entwickeln in Bezug auf die immer mehr beliebte. sokratische Methode. Ich möchte, dass Sie versuchen würden, den Takt zu entwickeln, (zu unterscheiden zwischen] dem, was man von sich aus den Kindern einfach sagen muss, und dem, was man von ihnen erfragen kann, weil es anregender ist für Kinder, wenn man im Moment ihnen etwas sagt, als wenn man sie fragt in einem Moment, wo sie einem keine Antwort geben könnten. Man darf nicht glauben, herauskitzeln zu können aus den Kindern, was sie nicht wissen können. [Man darf die sokratische Methode nicht zu stark übertreiben.] [Dadurch] ermüdet man die Kinder [zu stark]. Man muss sich ein Gefühl aneignen, was man fragen kann und was man sagen muss. Da muss sich ein Taktgefühl entwickeln.
Dann würde ich bitten, dass sich Fragen anschließen in Bezug auf das Laufende.
KARL STOCKMEYER stellt die Frage nach der Schulverwaltung. Es müssten viele Dinge der Verwaltung von allen mitgetragen werden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Das ist ein penibles Kapitel. Ich habe viel über dieses penible Kapitel nachgedacht. Aus dem Grunde ist es schwierig, weil wirklich nur durchführbar ist, was hier gemeint ist, wenn es im Einklange mit den Willensmeinungen eigentlich des ganzen Kollegiums oder doch der überwiegenden Majorität des Kollegiums inauguriert wird. Auf der anderen Seite wiederum ist natürlich das so, dass der Modus, wie das organisiert werden soll, sehr stark wirkt auf die Art, wie es aufgenommen wird.
Zuallererst bitte ich Sie, dabei zu berücksichtigen, was in dieses neu zu organisierende Gebiet der Verwaltung einzubeziehen ist. Denn es sind eine ganze Menge laufender Geschäfte, die einfach derjenige ausführen muss, der im Schulhause ist. Diese müssen davon ausgenommen werden, die daran gebunden sind, dass der Betreffende im Hause ist. Für alles das, was diejenige Verwaltung betrifft, die zu gleicher Zeit Repräsentation der Schule nach außen ist, da würde sich empfehlen, in der Zukunft an die Stelle von einem zu setzen ein kleines Kollegium V011 drei bis vier Persönlichkeiten. Dieses Kollegium wird nicht anders wirken können als alternierend, sodass die, trotzdem es jeweils einer ist, sich hintereinander abwechseln und nur in Bezug auf wichtige Sachen oder für solche Sachen, die man wert hält einer gemeinsamen Behandlung, man sich mit den anderen verständigt. Um ein solches Kollegium—damit nicht die republikanische Verfassung durchbrochen wird — würde es sich schon handeln. Ich bitte sich jetzt zu äußern, frank und frei, was Sie darüber meinen, jeder, der etwas zu sagen hat. Selbst wenn jemand etwas zu sagen hat, von dem er glaubt, dass es im weitesten Umfang missfallen könnte, bitte ich, auch diese Sache vorzubringen.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Es gibt gewisse Dinge, von denen man weiß, dass sie nur Herr Stockmeyer machen kann, und dass gewisse Dinge da sind, die andere besser machen könnten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich meinte, wenn ein Kollegium da ist, so wird eine beständige Repräsentanz dadurch da sein, dass sich die Mitglieder des Kollegiums alternieren für Aufgaben, die begrenzt werden. Das, was Sie jetzt gesagt haben, kann von Fall zu Fall gemacht werden, dass derjenige von diesem kleinen Kollegium designiert wird, den der eine oder andere für befähigt hält. Immerhin Meinungsverschiedenheiten wird es geben.
KARL STOCKMEYER: Ich würde in einer solchen Regelung eine Hilfe finden. Es könnte dadurch der Schule sehr genützt werden.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es kann noch weiter gedacht werden. Dass sich ein solches Kollegium bildet, und dass sich das ganze Kollegium einverstanden erklärt, dass, wenn dieses Kollegium findet, dass irgendein Mitglied des Lehrerkollegiums für eine Angelegenheit designiert werden sollte, dass dies auch geschehen sollte.
Es kann auch die Vorbereitung der Konferenz zu den Agenden des betreffenden Leiters der Verwaltung in der betreffenden Zeit gehören. Es wird die Aufgabe dadurch eine ziemlich schwierige. Es kann die Vorbereitung der Konferenz durchaus in die Aufgaben desjenigen hineingehören, der für die betreffende Zeit die Aufgabe hat, aus dem kleinen Kollegium heraus die Führung der Schule innezuhaben. Es handelt sich darum, dass diese Sache in voller Harmonie mit dem gesamten Kollegium gemacht wird.
Es hatte sich ein Komitee von sieben Lehrern für gewisse Fragen der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft gebildet. Es bestand aus Caroline von Heydebrand, Maria Röschl, Herbert Hahn, Walter Johannes Stein, Eugen Kolisko, Erich Schwebsch, Karl Schubert.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nun würde ich natürlich fragen müssen, was das Kollegium sagt zu diesem Komitee, das sozusagen aus sich selbst heraus sich gebildet hat.
Zweitens würde es sich darum handeln, dass wir zu dem Modus kommen, wie diese Sache endgültig geregelt werden könnte. — Dieses Komitee scheint ein sehr regsames zu sein, denn man könnte die Hypothese aufstellen, dass es durch seine Bemühungen für die [Neuorganisation der] Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sich hat vorbereiten wollen für die [Verwaltung der] Schule. Denn natürlich, wenn dieses Komitee das volle Vertrauen des Lehrerkollegiums hat, dann würden wir die Sache leicht leisten.
PAUL BAUMANN: Von mir aus habe ich nichts gegen dieses Komitee einzuwenden. Ich habe es nicht als eine Clique aufgefasst.
ROBERT KILLIAN schlägt vor, das Komitee um Max Wolffhügel zu erweitern.
RUDOLF STEINER Ich hatte nur gemeint, wenn sich schon ein Kreis von Menschen mit dieser Frage befasst hat, so ist es am besten, wenn dieser Kreis die Arbeit fortsetzt, weil es Zeit erspart.
[Auf eine Bemerkung.] Sie verwechseln zwei Fragen. Ich wollte zuerst einfach fragen, weil mir bekannt war, dass ein solcher Kreis existiert, welcher dieser Kreis ist. Dieser Kreis hat sich mit diesen Fragen anscheinend beschäftigt, und da ja von vorneherein betont werden muss, dass die Sache aus der vollen Harmonie kommen muss, so wollte ich als Primärfrage die gestellt haben, ob dieser Kreis das Vertrauen des Kollegiums genießt, dass er in dieser Angelegenheit Vorschläge macht für die definitive Gestaltung. Wir können uns besprechen, welche die definitive Gestaltung sein sollte. Es würde uns heute schwer werden, geradezu aus einem Urkeim heraus die Sache zu holen. Es würde besser sein, wenn die Sache so sein könnte — da ich vermutlich bald wiederum werde da sein müssen —, wenn wir heute die Frage beantworten: Hat dieser oder ein erweiterter Kreis das Vertrauen des gesamten Kollegiums so weit, dass er für die eigentliche Regelung für eine nächste Konferenz Vorschläge machen könnte? Das ist das, was wir heute beantworten müssen. Da bitte ich einfach um Wortmeldungen bezüglich dieser Vertrauensfrage.
ROBERT KILLIAI9: Es macht den Eindruck, als ob sich Waldorflehrer erster und zweiter Verantwortlichkeit gebildet hätten. Es beruht vielleicht dieses Gefühl auf falscher Voraussetzung.
RUDOLF STEINER: Dass ein Kreis sich bildet, das ist seine Sache_ Weil er sich beschäftigt hat mit den Fragen, könnte man, falls das Vertrauen zu diesem Kreis besteht, meinen, dass man ihn mit der Ausarbeitung dieser Sache betraut. Im Kollegium diese Frage zu behandeln, ist komplizierter, als sie von einem Kreis behandeln zu lassen, der das Vertrauen des Kollegiums hat.
Einige Lehrer stimmen dem zu.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: Ich habe ein peinliches Gefühl über diese Kreisbildung. Gerade die Menschen, welche den Kreis gebildet haben, sind die, welchen Stockmeyer auf die Nerven gegangen ist.
HANS RUTZ: Ich habe beobachtet, es standen gewisse Gruppen beisammen, und ging man vorbei, hörte man schwerwiegende Worte, sodass es mir ganz unheimlich geworden ist, und ich zu Killian gesagt habe, da ist eine Cliquenbildung. Ich habe direkt Angst gehabt, es scheidet sich das Kollegium in Gesinnungstüchtige und weniger Gesinnungstüchtige.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist eine solche Sache. Gedeihen kann die Waldorfschule nur dann, wenn das Kollegium harmoniert in sich. Es ist nicht möglich, dass jeder jedem ganz gleich sympathisch ist. Aber das ist seine Privatsache. Das ist etwas, was nicht ins Kollegium hinein-gehört. Aber insofern das Kollegium repräsentiert den Gesamtstatus der Waldorfschule, hängt das Gedeihen der Waldorfschule von der inneren Harmonie im Kollegium ab. Es ist ein großer Unterschied, ob irgendjemand jemandem draußen sagt, «das geht mir auf die Nerven», oder wenn das Wort hier in der Konferenz fällt. Hier in der Konferenz und in der ganzen Verwaltung der Waldorfschule gibt es nur Lehrer der Waldorfschule, und die Schwierigkeiten tauchen nur auf wegen der üblichen demokratischen Verfassung der Schule. Aber natürlich treten Schwierigkeiten auf. Ich wende mich gegen das Vorhandensein [des Unterschieds], wenn im Kollegium das Wort gebraucht wird: erste und zweite Verantwortlichkeit. Es würde das der Anfang von schlimmen Dingen sein können, wenn in unsere Verhandlungen so etwas hineinspielt wie erste und zweite Verantwortlichkeit, Kollegium und Kollegen-Cliquenbildung. Diese Dinge sind etwas, was streng ausgeschlossen sein muss.
Im Grunde genommen müsste das so sein, wenn sich irgendein Kreis bildet, dass man die Tatsache dieses Kreises nimmt und keine Veranlassung hat, über ihn böse Dinge zu sagen. Denn hat man dazu Veranlassung, dann beginnen schlimme Zeiten im Lehrerkollegium. Solange der Kreis sich gebildet hat und als solcher da war, möchte ich einmal fragen, inwiefern es bemerkt zu werden braucht, dass dieser Kreis sich gebildet hat. Es wäre vielleicht gar nicht nötig gewesen, es zu bemerken. Jetzt liegt die [Sache so], dass man die Frage stellt aus dem Grunde, weil er einen offiziellen Auftrag bekommt, weil sich dieser Kreis mit Vorschlägen beschäftigen soll. Ich kann nicht einsehen, falls nicht darin eine Missetat ist, warum es von Bedeutung sein sollte, dass dieser Kreis es ist oder ein ganz anderer kleinerer. Es kommt ja auf gar nichts weiter an als [auf] eine reine Zweckmäßigkeitsfrage, und behandelt wird das, was als Vorschlag vorgelegt wird, [dann] doch im Kollegium. Es handelt sich nur [darum], die Vertrauensfrage zu stellen, oh man den Kreis für befähigt hält, Vorschläge zu machen. Wenn solche Worte fallen, da würde man nicht sagen, dass auch nur im Winzigsten ein Lehrerkollegium im Bilden begriffen ist. Das darf nicht sein. Hier muss lautere Harmonie herrschen. Ja, jetzt!
KARL STOCKMEYER: Ich habe das volle Vertrauen zu dem Kreis, aber ich wollte zum Ausdruck bringen, es sind Kollegen da, die es vielleicht nicht haben.
RUDOLF STEINER: Wenn ich den Ausdruck «auf die Nerven gehen» nehme, dann würde das bedeuten, dass einem Herr Stockmeyer auf die Nerven geht. Dieser Kreis würde sich damit beschäftigen, wie die Verwaltung zu ordnen ist. So gehen Sie auch sich auf die Nerven.
ROBERT KILLIAN: Ich habe kein Misstrauen gegen einen aus dem Kreis.
CHRISTOPH Boy: Ich habe nicht das Empfinden, dass ein Kollegium im Kollegium besteht. Ich glaube, dass alle Kollegen mit diesem Kreis einverstanden sein können.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es sind gewisse Dinge ausgesprochen worden, die nicht zurückgenommen worden sind. Und so könnte man annehmen, dass die Sache doch nicht geht, wenn man es in der Weise macht, wie es ursprünglich gemeint war. Ebenso gut könnte ich meinen, nach den Impulsen, nach denen die Schule und ihr Lehrkörper entstanden ist, dass in einer solchen Frage ich einen solchen Kreis aufstellen könnte. Ich tue es aus dem Grunde nicht, weil gewisse Soupçons bemerkbar geworden sind. Ich möchte warten mit solchen Dingen, bis sich die Dinge geklärt haben. Es erscheinen solche Antagonismen.
Das Komitee, das diese Fragen ausarbeitet, muss diese Dinge studieren, [um Vorschläge für die Verwaltung zu machen], und da würde ich meinen, dass sechs Köpfe genügen.
RUDOLF STEINER lässt durch Zettelwahl ein solches vorbereitendes Komitee von sechs Mitgliedern wählen: Caroline von Heydebrand, Maria Röschl, Eugen Kolisko, Herbert Hahn> Erich Schwebsch, Walter Johannes Stein.
RUDOLF STEINER: Dann möchte ich bitten, dass das Komitee Persönlichkeiten vorschlägt, die dann die Sache erledigen.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND fragt wegen einer Erziehungstagung in England.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es steht in Aussicht, dass außerdem [noch] eine andere Veranstaltung in England stattfinden soll_ Ich müsste versuchen, die zwei Dinge zusammenzulegen. Vielleicht kann man dem im Prinzip zustimmen.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND [vermutlich]: Die Engländer wollen wissen, ob es Herrn Doktor recht wäre, wenn Waldorflehrer eingeladen werden, die Englisch sprechen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Gewiss, das können sie machen.
Forty-fourth Conference
In the months that followed until the end of April, Rudolf Steiner traveled mainly between Dornach and Stuttgart. As a result, he visited the school relatively regularly during this period. The activities of the Threefold Movement were winding down, and the Anthroposophical Society was in a state of paralysis.
Rudolf Steiner arrived in Stuttgart from Dornach on January 22 and had a meeting in the afternoon with the aforementioned Circle of Seven (see 43rd Conference), the committee of members of the Anthroposophical Society, which initially consisted of seven teachers from the Waldorf School. Ernst Uehli had withdrawn from the Circle of Seven, which he had founded, after resigning as a member of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society. Herbert Hahn joined in his place. After the branch meeting, discussions took place during the night with the so-called Circle of Thirty, a committee of thirty members whose task was to mediate between the membership and the Executive Council on matters concerning the Society. The aim was to consolidate the Anthroposophical Society; the fire disaster was seen as an expression of the fact that the Society had not provided the necessary support and protection for the initiatives born of anthroposophy.
The next day there was a conference, followed by a members' lecture in the evening; The topic was the Society as the mother of its subsidiaries: the subsidiaries should not forget their mother.
Topics [44th and 45th conferences]: Fundamentals of wall decorations. Detailed discussions about lesson preparation. Reorganization of school administration. Establishment of a board of directors.
Comments: The new school building had been occupied, which gave rise to discussions about wall decorations. The administrative tasks were still in Stockmeyer's hands. With the growth of the school, the administrative tasks could no longer be handled by one person alone. There was also a subtle accumulation of discontent about Stockmeyer's work.
Rudolf Steiner proceeded cautiously and recommended that the recognized circle of seven make a personnel proposal for a board of directors to be formed. The proposal was made and was about to be accepted when Stockmeyer suggested an addition by his colleague Max Wolffhügel. Steiner interpreted this as a vote of no confidence. In a long and difficult negotiation, he called on his colleagues to state honestly and openly whom they trusted and how they wanted to organize the administration.
RUDOLF STEINER: I would like to say a few words about the things that have been on my mind during this visit to the school, specifically with regard to the walls. Now that everything has been given a new coat of paint, it is even more noticeable than before that it is not appropriate for a school to have a few random and not particularly outstanding pictures hanging here and there. It would be necessary for our school not to make a particularly unartistic impression in this regard either.
Now, it goes without saying that ideals cannot be fulfilled at this stage, but at least it seems good to me if we have ideals in front of us so that we can move in that direction, at least with our thinking, so that something could ultimately come out of it. I don't want you to take what I'm saying in the way that such things are sometimes taken, when, for example, one is compelled to say: this is the difference between meat and plant-based food, and people immediately draw the conclusion that one is trying to agitate them.
So take it as the presentation of an ideal: how the artistic design of classrooms should actually be based on our pedagogy itself. It would then have to be expanded so that perhaps what we find in the classroom could also be found in a similar way on the walls near the classroom.
A certain amount of decoration with pictures is undoubtedly necessary in classrooms. Not because I think we should introduce this tomorrow, but so that we have an orientation as to how this looks in terms of our pedagogy, I would like to share what I have come up with.
We have the lower grades; in these, the focus should indeed be more on the material content of what is presented to the children in pictures, while gradually moving on to the artistic on the one hand and the more practical matters of life on the other. I will only mention the main points today, and the matter can be explored in greater depth over time. The point is that even where the material plays the main role [in terms of artistic design], there should of course be no philistine illustrations, but rather things should be designed artistically, and not in a one-sided artistic way, but in such a way that no special artistic opinions or styles are imposed, but rather what appears to be more generally human.
If we take the first grade, for example, we would decorate our walls with fairy tale illustrations, which, if possible, would be in color. Now I must emphasize that if it is not possible to have color for the entire implementation of the project, then some of the illustrations will have to be colorless reproductions. It is better to have a reproduction that is good, that is good in terms of the technique used to produce it, than some poor copy of the things I mean. In the first grade, these would be fairy tale illustrations, in the second grade, legends. This should be strictly adhered to.
You can imagine that this would allow the right impulse to be exerted on the child's mind in a certain way. However, the things should not be the decorative illustrations of picture books, but must be artistically executed. It would be worthwhile to set tasks, but not in a one-sided painting style, but in such a way that the things are generally human.
When we come to the third grade, we must take the state of the soul into account by having on the walls what [in philistine life] is called still life, depictions of plants, [depictions of flowers]; not, of course, ordinary still-lifes, but truly depictions of the living, but not yet of the sentient. It is good to bring the child as far as it can actually go with its soul, and the depictions of sentient beings, of animals, should be saved for the next grade, [the fourth grade], because that is when the child's soul begins to relate the depiction to feeling. It is only from this age onwards that the child has a feeling that it itself has feelings, even if this feeling is still vague. Depictions of animals that previously appeared in children's books have the effect that the child does not distinguish whether the pictorial representation shows a real cow or a cow made of wood. Until around the age of nine or ten, children are unable to distinguish between the depiction of a real cow and one made of wood in a truly meaningful way; but at this age, the ability to distinguish begins to develop.
In the 5th grade, where we have children between the ages of ten and eleven, it would be a matter of choosing representations that depict groups of people of different ages: circle dances, other things, let's say a street where people meet, where you can talk to the children; groups of people where you can talk to the children about the things that happen between people.
Then we come to the 6th grade; this is where the individual human being should come in. Here, one can already depict heads, whole people as well as individual people, for example, people in nature and the like, whereby nature can come to one's aid by drawing the children's attention to what a sunlit landscape and what a rainy landscape is, but with people in it, and in such a way that it depends on the individual person; a small lake where someone is rowing, for example.
Here we have reached the boundary where the material ceases to be important and where we should begin to enter the artistic realm with pictorial decoration. Here we should begin with the most artistic! Of course, if we cannot have [good] copies, we must [then] have black-and-white representations. It is good to have Raphael and Leonardo for this age group in 7th grade, which can also remain for the next, 8th grade. This can be divided between the two grades. The important thing is that the children have these pictures in front of them. With this decoration, one should not believe that it would be right to design the wall decorations in such a way that they run parallel to the curriculum; rather, it is even of great importance that the children have the pictures in front of them earlier than they are discussed in art class. Beforehand, the pictures should be discussed occasionally. Overall, the child's eyes should focus on the artistic aspects [of these pictures]; [the child should] initially receive only a purely sensual impression and know that these pictures are considered to be something [very special] and beautiful. They are already prepared in the right way by the fact that, in terms of decoration, the main emphasis has been placed on the material aspect.
Now, in the following classes, it is important to bring together the artistic and the practical aspects of life in a tactful manner, so that the child has both sides constantly in front of them, so that in the 9th grade, on the one hand, they have artistic pictures by Giotto or similar, but also in the same class, situational pictures, entirely technical, a meadow, a pasture, a deciduous forest, [a coniferous forest), but [now] not artistically, but technically, pure examples of how to make situational plans; which would hang on one wall, and the back wall could have Giotto's, for example. Equally well, in the 9th grade there could be a sky map where the individual constellations are summarized with strong figures, with stylized celestial figures, [as was previously the case on sky maps].
In the 10th grade, where you are dealing with fifteen- to sixteen-year-olds, it would be a matter of having Holbein and Dürer on the artistic side, and on the technical-scientific side [for example] — it could also be something else —, let's say: the interior of the sea, all the animals that live in the sea, would have to be painted in an appropriate manner, at the same time instructive in an intellectual sense, and it would also have to be such that it has an artistic effect on the child.
Then Holbein and Dürer would remain for the 11th grade, perhaps also Rembrandt. That would always be the case for the following grades; but older artists can also be mixed in. 1)a is the age where this can run parallel to the lessons. So for the 11th and 12th grades, Holbein, Rembrandt, Dürer.
In the 11th grade, after the technical side, one should hang something like earth cross-sections, geological cross-sections, and correspondingly artistically executed elevation maps and the like on the wall. Only in the 12th grade would Physiologica and Anatomical be hung on the wall alongside Holbein, Dürer, and Rembrandt.
That would be what actually belongs there, what belongs there as the ideal. Now it looks gray, but when you have such an ideal in front of you, you can, under certain circumstances, even if it can only be fulfilled after a century, orient yourself toward it in one way or another. It is better to have a correct image in woodcut than some of what hangs there [now]. These are the things I would like to present to you as a chapter of pedagogy. It is absolutely necessary that we focus our attention on ensuring that the arts are treated particularly well in our pedagogy, because this actually belongs to the overall picture of the anthroposophical approach to human progress.
You see, we must say to ourselves: basically, until the 16th century, there was no sharp distinction between intellectual and artistic understanding of the world in any field. Just think — something that is not taken into account today — even scholasticism consciously arranged the entire layout of its books with a certain architectural artistry, apart from the initials, but until the 10th century there was no strict separation between art and science at all. Now even children in the earliest school grades are poisoned by [the fact that] they are taught a purely intellectualistic approach. In our case, something that cannot yet be done differently has an effect: when our teachers use textbooks, not only by giving them to the children, but by preparing themselves according to the textbooks, the entire intellectualism of these textbooks is transferred to the teacher. He becomes a reflection of intellectualism.
One might ask: Where should the teacher prepare? When he teaches the children anything, he sums up the material from the current presentations. Sometimes, when you see where the teacher gets his preparations from, you feel like placing a book next to the one the teacher has used to prepare, one that is a century older than the one he is using. It is not possible to use only century-old books for preparation, but placing a book from the same subject area that is a century older next to today's book would be useful in all fields. Today, of course, if you are a teacher, you are well aware of what Goethe or some other outstanding luminaries of cultural development have written about this or that work of art or [about something] in nature. But the second and third generations of people who wrote about a field of art during Goethe's time are not taken into consideration. Yet these are also very important alongside today's literary resources. You can still gain something even from such wonderfully developed things today if you use parallel books that are a century old and deal with something similar in a related way. That is indeed extremely important. I have often emphasized that, for example, the Greek and Latin editions from the first half of the 19th century are gold compared to the brass that is being churned out today. Grammars that are thirty or forty years old are much better than today's in terms of their structure and overall content.
So I believe that we should take care everywhere to counteract the predominance of intellectualism in our entire conception of time with an approach to education that is thoroughly imbued with art; that we should avoid allowing today's systematic books to influence our own presentation in any way. Today's systematic books are philistine and inartistic. People are ashamed to address anything artistically. Today's scholars are ashamed to develop an artistic style or to take an artistic approach to the division of chapters. These are things we must also take into account in our preparation.
I would like to take this opportunity, prompted by various circumstances, to ask my friends here a question, which is as follows. At a meeting tonight, I once again had the feeling that there is a perception that preparation is extremely difficult. Someone said that Waldorf teachers usually only sleep from half past five to half past seven in the morning. Everyone must realize that this is far too little. One has to think that an immeasurably large amount of time is spent on preparation for school. From this, one can conclude that preparation is difficult. In this context, I would like to ask how things stand in this regard, so that in one direction or another, the possibility of going to sleep at half past four might arise. So I would like to hear whether there is a difficulty in relation to preparation in this direction, whether it is really so difficult and requires so much time. Of course, this is subjective. But despite all this, I would like to ask this question at the beginning of our discussions and ask for comments so that we can talk about this matter today or next time.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN on preparing for lessons: It used to take me a very long time, but now it's easier.
RUDOLF STEINER: Well, are there any specific questions regarding preparation?
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND: I usually need a very long time. I used Carus for the study of bones in the 8th grade.
RUDOLF STEINER: Human bones have remained the same. You have already used a book that is a hundred years older, [but] the point is to have access to the easiest sources. That could be a great help. It does happen that the previous teacher for a class could help your successor.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: I don't actually prepare for individual lessons, but I read a book about the entire period I am teaching. Then I read an anthroposophical book related to it, for example, “The Riddles of Philosophy” as background to the development of consciousness during the period in question. I read whatever transports me into the spirit of that time. For each individual day, I try to find an aperitif, however small. Then I know that I can use this aperitif to structure a lesson. I only need manuals for biographical information.
RUDOLF STEINER: This is an exceptionally good method, starting from something that interests you, that moves you emotionally, that leads to such a discovery. This enables you to come up with ideas during class. You will notice that it is easier to come up with ideas when you are among the children than when you are brooding alone. Not in history and geography at first, not until you have been teaching for a few years. But what is particularly important is that when a new epoch begins, you should try to form a summary idea of what will happen throughout the entire epoch, even if only in broad terms, so that you know what will be covered during the entire epoch.
Rudolf Steiner soon added to this during a visit to Erich Schwebsch's class. He said: “With this method of preparation, you now have too much to think about in class. You must be careful not to overwhelm the students with what interests you at the moment.”
MARIA RÖSCHL: In Latin grammar, I feel that it could be structured according to thinking, feeling, and willing. But the material falls apart for me.
RUDOLF STEINER: It would be good if, for your own orientation, during the three-week vacation, you simply took an author, Livy, for example, and studied the structure of Latin sentences empirically. Someone would have to do that.
I would like you to take care to develop a certain rhythm in relation to the increasingly popular Socratic method. Socratic method. I would like you to try to develop a sense of rhythm, [to distinguish between] what you simply have to tell the children and what you can ask them, because it is more stimulating for children when you tell them something at the moment than when you ask them a question at a moment when they cannot give you an answer. You mustn't think you can tease out of children what they cannot know. [You mustn't overdo the Socratic method.] [This] tires the children [too much]. You have to develop a feel for what you can ask and what you have to say. You have to develop a sense of tact.
Then I would ask that questions follow with regard to current affairs.
KARL STOCKMEYER asks about school administration. Many administrative matters would have to be supported by everyone.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is a delicate matter. I have thought a lot about this delicate matter. It is difficult because what is meant here can only really be implemented if it is inaugurated in accordance with the will of the entire faculty, or at least the overwhelming majority of the faculty. On the other hand, of course, the way in which this is organized has a very strong effect on the way it is received.
First of all, I ask you to consider what should be included in this newly organized area of administration. There are a lot of ongoing tasks that simply have to be carried out by someone who is in the school building. Those that are dependent on the person concerned being in the building must be excluded. For everything that concerns the administration, which at the same time represents the school to the outside world, it would be advisable in the future to replace one person with a small committee of three to four individuals. This committee will have to work on an alternating basis, so that although there is only one representative at a time, they take turns and only consult with the others on important matters or matters that are considered worthy of joint consideration. This would be a collegium of sorts, so as not to violate the republican constitution. I now ask everyone who has something to say to express their opinion frankly and freely. Even if someone has something to say that they believe could cause widespread displeasure, I ask them to bring it up anyway.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: There are certain things that we know only Mr. Stockmeyer can do, and there are certain things that others could do better.
RUDOLF STEINER: I meant that if there is a collegium, there will be consistent representation because the members of the collegium will alternate for tasks that are limited. What you have just said can be done on a case-by-case basis, so that the person designated by this small collegium is the one whom one or the other considers capable. After all, there will always be differences of opinion.
KARL STOCKMEYER: I would find such an arrangement helpful. It could be of great benefit to the school.
RUDOLF STEINER: It can be taken even further. That such a collegium is formed, and that the entire collegium agrees that if this collegium finds that any member of the teaching staff should be designated for a matter, then this should also happen.
The preparation of the conference may also be included in the agenda of the relevant head of administration at the relevant time. This makes the task quite difficult. The preparation of the conference may well be part of the tasks of the person who, for the relevant period, has the task of leading the school from within the small faculty. The point is that this matter should be done in full harmony with the entire faculty.
A committee of seven teachers had been formed to deal with certain issues of the Anthroposophical Society. It consisted of Caroline von Heydebrand, Maria Röschl, Herbert Hahn, Walter Johannes Stein, Eugen Kolisko, Erich Schwebsch, and Karl Schubert.
RUDOLF STEINER: Now, of course, I would have to ask what the faculty says about this committee, which has formed, so to speak, of its own accord.
Secondly, it would be a matter of coming to a decision on how this matter could be finally settled. — This committee seems to be very active, because one could hypothesize that through its efforts for the [reorganization of] the Anthroposophical Society, it wanted to prepare itself for the [administration of] the school. Because, of course, if this committee has the full confidence of the teaching staff, then we would easily accomplish the task.
PAUL BAUMANN: I have no objection to this committee. I did not perceive it as a clique.
ROBERT KILLIAN proposes to expand the committee to include Max Wolffhügel.
RUDOLF STEINER I only meant that if a group of people has already dealt with this question, it would be best if this group continued the work, because it saves time.
[In response to a comment.] You are confusing two questions. I simply wanted to ask, because I knew that such a circle existed, which circle it was. This circle has apparently dealt with these questions, and since it must be emphasized from the outset that the matter must come from complete harmony, I wanted to ask as a primary question whether this circle enjoys the confidence of the collegium to make proposals for the definitive design in this matter. We can discuss what the definitive design should be. It would be difficult for us today to extract the matter from a primordial seed. It would be better if the matter could be such—since I will probably have to be there again soon—that we answer the question today: Does this or an expanded circle have the confidence of the entire faculty to such an extent that it could make proposals for the actual arrangements for the next conference? That is what we must answer today. I would simply ask for comments on this question of trust.
ROBERT KILLIAI9: It seems as if Waldorf teachers have formed themselves into two groups of primary and secondary responsibility. Perhaps this feeling is based on a false assumption.
RUDOLF STEINER: It is up to the circle to form itself. Because it has dealt with the issues, one could think, if there is trust in this circle, that it could be entrusted with working out this matter. Dealing with this question in the faculty is more complicated than having it dealt with by a circle that has the trust of the faculty.
Some teachers agree with this.
MAX WOLFFHÜGEL: I feel uncomfortable about this circle being formed. The very people who formed the circle are the ones who got on Stockmeyer's nerves.
HANS RUTZ: I observed that certain groups were standing together, and when you walked past, you heard serious words, so that I felt very uneasy and said to Killian that a clique was forming. I was directly afraid that the faculty would be divided into those who were like-minded and those who were less like-minded.
RUDOLF STEINER: That's how it is. The Waldorf school can only thrive if the faculty is in harmony with itself. It's not possible for everyone to like everyone else equally. But that is a private matter. It is something that does not belong in the staff. But insofar as the staff represents the overall status of the Waldorf school, the flourishing of the Waldorf school depends on the inner harmony within the staff. There is a big difference between someone saying to someone outside, “That gets on my nerves,” and that word being used here in the conference. Here in the conference and in the entire administration of the Waldorf school, there are only teachers from the Waldorf school, and the difficulties only arise because of the usual democratic constitution of the school. But of course difficulties arise. I object to the existence [of the difference] when the words “first and second responsibility” are used in the faculty. It could be the beginning of bad things if something like first and second responsibility, faculty and clique formation among colleagues, plays into our negotiations. These things are something that must be strictly excluded.
Basically, when any circle forms, one should accept the fact of this circle and have no reason to say bad things about it. Because if one has reason to do so, then bad times begin in the teaching staff. As long as the circle has formed and existed as such, I would like to ask to what extent it needs to be noticed that this circle has formed. Perhaps it would not have been necessary to notice it at all. Now the [situation is] that the question is being asked because he is being given an official assignment, because this circle is supposed to deal with proposals. I cannot see why it should matter whether it is this circle or a completely different, smaller one, unless there is some wrongdoing involved. It is nothing more than a question of expediency, and what is presented as a proposal will [then] be dealt with by the teaching staff. It is only a matter of asking the question of trust, whether one considers the group capable of making proposals. When such words are spoken, one would not say that even in the slightest a teaching staff is in the process of forming. That must not be the case. There must be sincere harmony here. Yes, now!
KARL STOCKMEYER: I have complete confidence in the group, but I wanted to express that there are colleagues who may not have it.
RUDOLF STEINER: If I use the expression “get on your nerves,” that would mean that Mr. Stockmeyer gets on your nerves. This circle would deal with how to organize the administration. So you also get on each other's nerves.
ROBERT KILLIAN: I have no mistrust of anyone in the circle.
CHRISTOPH Boy: I don't feel that there is a collegium within the collegium. I believe that all colleagues can agree with this circle.
RUDOLF STEINER: Certain things have been said that have not been taken back. And so one might assume that it won't work if we do it the way it was originally intended. I might just as well think, based on the impulses that gave rise to the school and its teaching staff, that I could set up such a circle for such a question. I am not doing so because certain suspicions have become apparent. I would like to wait with such things until the situation has been clarified. Such antagonisms appear.
The committee working on these issues must study these matters [in order to make proposals to the administration], and I would think that six heads would suffice.
RUDOLF STEINER has such a preparatory committee of six members elected by ballot: Caroline von Heydebrand, Maria Röschl, Eugen Kolisko, Herbert Hahn, Erich Schwebsch, Walter Johannes Stein.
RUDOLF STEINER: Then I would ask the committee to propose individuals who will then take care of the matter.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND asks about an education conference in England.
RUDOLF STEINER: There are plans for another event to take place in England as well. I would have to try to combine the two things. Perhaps we can agree to this in principle.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND [presumably]: The English want to know whether the Doctor would agree to Waldorf teachers who speak English being invited.
RUDOLF STEINER: Certainly, they can do that.