Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner
GA 300c
19 June 1924, Stuttgart
Sixty-Eighth Meeting
Dr. Steiner: Unfortunately, I could not visit the classes, but you could tell me about them. I have not finished the curriculum for the ancient languages yet.
A teacher asks whether there will be levels of grammar in the foreignlanguages classes like those in German.
Dr. Steiner: Well, this is the situation. What I gave was according to the needs of the respective ages of the children. What they need is that you give them the nuances of the state of their souls at their age. Children learn how to enliven such nuances most easily through their mother tongue. It is best to make a connection with other languages after they have learned things in their mother tongue, for instance, to show how differently other languages express the same mood of soul. You can certainly make comparisons like that.
You should not begin teaching them grammar before the age of nine or ten. Develop your language teaching during the earlier stages purely from speaking and from the feeling for what is spoken, so that the child learns to speak from feeling. At that age, which is, of course, not completely fixed but lies between the age of nine and ten, you should begin with grammar. Working with the grammar of a language is connected with the development of the I. Of course, it is not as though you should somehow ask how you can develop the I through grammar. Grammar will do that by itself. It is not necessary to have specific teaching examples in that regard. You should not begin grammar earlier, but instead, attempt to develop grammar out of the substance of the language.
A teacher: You said that in eighth grade we should begin to give them the basics of meter and poetics, and then in the eleventh grade, the aesthetics of the language. What did you mean?
Dr. Steiner: Metrics is the theory of the structure of verses, the theory of how a verse is constructed. Poetics is the various forms of poetry, the types of lyric, epic, and dramatic poetry. That is what metrics and poetics are. You can then go on to metaphor and figures of speech. Always give the children some examples.
The children have a rather large vocabulary, German, French, and English, which you can use as a basis for comparing the different languages. Teaching the aesthetics of a language means that you draw their attention to such things as whether a language is rich in the o and u vowels or in the i and e vowels. You can then try to give them the feeling of how much more musical is a language that has many o and u sounds than one that has e and i sounds. You can try to give them a feeling for how the aesthetic beauty of a language decreases when the possibility of inwardly transforming words in various cases is lost and when endings disappear. Thus, the structure of the language is part of its aesthetics, whether it is flexible or more lyrical and musical, whether it can express complicated interjections, and so forth. That is different from actual metrics and poetics. The aesthetics of a language is concerned with the actual beauty of the language.
Sanskrit is very rich in a’s. U and o make a language musical. E and i make it discordant. The German language is discordant. Sanskrit is somewhat monotonic due to the predominance of a, but lies between the musical and flexible. It has a strong tendency to be musically flexible, that is, not to be unmusical in its plastic forms. That is how a works. It stands in the middle. It is particularly characteristic to find a vowel next to an a in Sanskrit. It is very characteristic, for example, to hear an Indian say, “Peace, peace, peace,” since an a comes first and then there is a soft hint, almost a shameful hint, of the I. That is because they say, “Shanti, shanti.” I is the most egotistical vowel. It is as though the Indian immediately becomes red in the face from shame when he says i.
A teacher: The Finnish language also has many a’s.
Dr. Steiner: That is true, but you should also consider how long a language has been at the stage of this particular peculiarity. There is something hardened in the a of the Finnish language, which, of course, relates to its tendency toward consonants. It is a kind of hardening that begins to become sympathetic. All these things are based upon a subtle aesthetic feeling for the language, but such subtle feelings are no longer natural for people today. If an Englishman spoke the ending syllable of English words the way a German- or a French-speaking person does, that would be a hardening for the English person. English-speaking people have begun to drop the end syllables because they are moving out of the language. What is a hardening for one can be something quite natural for the other.
A teacher asks another question about metaphors and figures of speech.
Dr. Steiner: Metaphors correspond to the imagination, figures of speech, to inspiration. First you have what is absolutely unpoetic and characterizes the greatest portion, 99 percent, of all poetry. You then have one percent remaining. Of that one percent, there are poets who, when they want to go beyond the physical plane, need to strew pictures and figures of speech over the inadequacies of normal prose. How could you express, “Oh, water lily, you blooming swan; Oh swan, you swimming lily!” That is a metaphor. What is expressed is neither a water lily, nor a swan; it floats between them. It cannot be expressed in prose, and the same holds for figures of speech. However, it is possible to adequately express the supersensible without using a picture or a figure of speech, as Goethe was sometimes able to do. In such cases, he did not use a picture, and there you find the intuitive. You stand directly in the thing. That is so with Goethe and also sometimes with Martin Greif. They actually achieve what we could objectively call lyric. Shakespeare also achieves it sometimes with the lyric poetry he mixed into his drama.
In the pedagogical course given by Dr. Steiner in Ilkley in August 1923, he characterized four languages in the eleventh lecture without naming them. A teacher asks which languages he meant.
Dr. Steiner: The first language is English, which people speak as though the listener were listening from a distance, from a ship floating on the waves of the sea, struggling against the wind, struggling against the movement and spray of the sea, that is. The second language, which has a purely musical effect when heard, is Italian. The third, which affects the intellect, which comes through reasoning and is expressed through its logical forms, is French. The fourth, which sculpts its words, is German.
A teacher: What is the basis of French meter?
Dr. Steiner: As hard as this may be to believe, the basis of French meter is a sense of systematic division, of mathematics in language. That is unconscious. In French meter, everything is counted according to reason, just as everything in French thinking in general is done according to reason. That is, of course, somewhat veiled since it is not emphasized. Here, reason becomes rhetoric, not intellect. Rhetoric is audible reasoning.
A teacher asks which texts they should use for foreign languages.
Dr. Steiner: We have already spoken a great deal about the twelfth grade, and I gave you some suggestions, for example, MacKenzie. In the preceding grades, it would depend a little upon what the teacher has already read and what the teacher likes, and for that reason, I gave only the qualities. For the tenth grade, you should certainly consider older and more recent lyric poetry.
A teacher says that he began with lyrics from Milton’s time.
Dr. Steiner: You should do it in the following way. In the tenth grade, read the lyric poetry from Shakespeare’s time and then give a short review in the twelfth grade. We cannot completely ignore lyric poetry from Shakespeare’s time because it gives a curiously deep indication of the period of European development when the Germanic languages were much more similar to one another than they are only a few centuries later. English lyric poetry is still unbelievably German. If you read Shakespeare’s lyrics, you will see they are not at all un-German. We can show that in the twelfth grade, so that a feeling will arise that is very important for humanity in general.
Thus, for the tenth grade, Robert Burns, some things out of the period of Thomas Percy. Some things from the Sea School, for example, Coleridge, and then Shelley and Keats. You will, of course, need to be selective, but do what you prefer, since you will then do it better. You could also present some particular points of view. There is, however, one thing in these lyrics that you will find throughout almost all English lyric poetry, namely, that where it is good it has a sentimental element. Sometimes that is very beautiful, but there is certainly a sentimental element throughout.
Something else is that when the English way of thinking becomes poetic, it is not at all appropriate for representing humor. English then becomes trivial and has no humor in a higher sense. There is not even a word for it. How could you say “humor” in English? The way Falstaff is handled would not represent humor today. We would, of course, say there is much humor in it, but we would not refer to the way the whole thing is presented as humor itself. What is apparent to us is how precise the characterizations are. We perceive what is human, but in Shakespeare’s time it was not perceived in that way. The well-roundedness and exactness of characterizations was unimportant for people in earlier times. What was important then was that the humors be good for presentation on the stage. People thought much more as actors at that time.
Today, we can no longer call Falstaff humorous. By the word humor, we mean someone who dissolves in a kind of fog, that is, someone not so well defined in regard to his temperament. Humor is the kind of temperament someone has. The four temperaments are humors. Today, you can no longer say that someone has a melancholic humor. Thus, someone whom you cannot really quite grasp, who dissolves in the fog of their temperaments, has humor.
In drama, you should show that the development of the English people resulted in the height of English drama being reached by Shakespeare, and that since then nothing else has reached the same height. It is, of course, interesting, but you should draw the students’ attention to how development proceeds only in the twelfth grade. You can mention how in Middle Europe, the German Reformation kept its basic religious character through the great importance of church lyric. In France, the Reformation does not have a religious character; it has a social character, and this can be shown in the poetry. In England, it has a political/moral character, something we can see in Shakespeare. That is connected with the fact that for a long time the English did not have an idealistic philosophy, so they lived it out in poetry. That gives their poetry a sentimental tendency. That is what made the rise of Darwinism possible.
A teacher: We still need to group the three fifth-grade classes for Latin and Greek.
Dr. Steiner: The question is whether Mr. X. will take over that instruction.
A teacher asks about religious instruction in the Waldorf School and in the Christian Community.
Dr. Steiner: One thing we need to consider is that the Christian Community also gives religious instruction to the children. There are continuing questions. First, how is the independent religious instruction in the Waldorf School connected with the religious instruction of the Christian Community, and, second, how are the school’s Sunday services related to the Christian Community Sunday services? I would like to hear your feelings about these things. I would also like to say beforehand that we cannot object in principle to the children participating in both the Waldorf School religious instruction and the Christian Community instruction and also attending both services. Our only possible objection might be that it might be too much. You should speak about it, though, as we should not decide something dogmatically.
The situation is this: We have seen how the Christian Community has grown out of the anthroposophical movement. There cannot be any discrepancy within the content of the two. The question concerning religious instruction is that if the Christian Community were to request to instruct the children who belonged to the Christian Community, we would have to give them the same rights as other confessions. The children who do not belong to the Christian Community will, in the majority, have the independent religious instruction. Thus, we will have just one more religion class. But why should we allow an extra religion class for the Christian Community other than the independent religious instruction? I do not actually see how we can decide this question in principle, since we cannot put ourselves in the position of advising someone not to participate in our religious instruction. To do that would be incorrect.
Take, for instance, the situation of a Catholic father saying that he wants to send his boy to the Catholic religious instruction as well as to the independent religious instruction. We could certainly not say anything against that if it was possible to schedule things that way. We cannot decide it, the Christian Community must decide it for themselves.
[,em>There is a break in the transcript here, and the following is not completely clear.]
It should not be possible for a child to make comparisons and conclude that the religious instruction given by the Waldorf teacher is not as good. The school exists within the framework of anthroposophy, so if a child makes such a comparison of which teacher is better, it should be obvious that due to the nature of the subject, the Waldorf teacher is better.
A teacher asks about the selection of a new religion teacher.
Dr. Steiner: This situation could someday cause us very large problems, greater than all previous ones. As you know, it was very difficult to find religion teachers. The teachers here are more concerned with their own specific subjects, and there is a certain prerequisite for teaching religion. It might occur that we will need to find a religion teacher for the school within the Christian Community. I would try to avoid that as long as possible, but it may someday be necessary. I do not see why we should be so exclusive. We can leave it up to the parents and children whether they want to participate here and there; however, I think it would be good if they participated in both, so that there would be a harmonious discussion of the material by the religion teacher here and the religion teacher there.
You should also not forget that the priests of the Christian Community are also anthroposophists, and they have made great strides in a very short time. The priests are not the same as they were, they have made enormous progress in their inner development. They have undergone an exemplary development in the life of their souls during the short time the Christian Community has existed. Not everyone, of course, but it is true in general, and they are a great blessing in all areas. There was a youth group meeting in Breslau, and two theologians worked with them. That had a very good effect. Young Wistinghausen is a blessing for the youth there.
A teacher: What should we do with the newly enrolled students? They have already been confirmed by the Christian Community. Should they immediately go to the Youth Service?
Dr. Steiner: That would not be good, as they would not begin the Youth Services with an Easter service. It is extremely important that they begin the Youth Services at Easter. You should make it clear to them that they should attend the Youth Services somewhat later. You could allow them to attend as observers, but not for a whole year. Those children should attend the Youth Services beginning at Easter when they have completed the eighth grade. The Youth Service has its entire orientation toward Easter.
A teacher: What should we do with those who have gone through the Protestant confirmation or Catholic First Communion?
Dr. Steiner: The main problem is that these children have been confirmed or have taken First Communion, and now they are taking independent religious instruction. By doing that, they lose the entire meaning of confirmation or First Communion; they negate it and strike it out of their lives. Once they have been confirmed or have taken First Communion, they cannot simply take independent religious instruction. Being confirmed means to be an active member of a Protestant church, so they cannot participate in the independent religious instruction because that negates the confirmation. That is even more true with First Communion. Our task is to indicate to the children in a kind way that they need to first live into their new life, so that it will not be so bad if they do not participate in the Youth Service until next Easter. You need to prepare them for renouncing their faith and direct them to something quite different. These are things we should take quite seriously. At worst, these seven will have participated too early, but not too late if they come only at Easter. We should perhaps consider this if a dissident is there.
A teacher asks a question.
Dr. Steiner: I do not understand at all why someone who was confirmed by Priest K. should not go through the Sunday services for a year, since he had not been confirmed before. In his case, our only question is whether he should go to the Sunday services for a year.
If you look at the inner meaning of our Youth Service and that of the Christian Community, you will see they are compatible. The inner meaning of our Youth Service is to place a person into the human community, not into a specific religious community, whereas the Christian Community’s is to place the person into a specific religious community. It is, therefore, completely compatible for someone to attend the Christian Community Youth Service after attending our youth services; that is not a contradiction. The other way around, for someone who is confirmed before attending our Youth Service, is not compatible. However, the first way is compatible. Parents from the Christian Community have asked me about this. First, the children should go to the youth services here, and then go through confirmation in the Christian Community. If a child attends the Christian Community youth services, we should not object. It is compatible because we do not place the children into the Christian Community. I did not say they must be confirmed into the Christian Community, rather, they may. Our Youth Service does not replace that of the Christian Community because it does not lead to membership in the Christian Community. If children have been confirmed in the Christian Community, they will need to wait here until next Easter.
A religion teacher says the older students do not like to go to the services for the younger ones. They think they are too old for that.
Dr. Steiner: They completely misunderstand the service. They have a Protestant understanding of ritual, which means a rejection of it. It is possible to attend the service throughout your entire life. Their understanding is based upon the perspective that these teachings are preparations, not a ritual. We need to overcome that Protestant understanding.
A teacher asks how to handle students who only audit the classes.
Dr. Steiner: That is a question we can decide quite objectively, but then there can be no differing opinions. The instruction we give in the Waldorf School assumes a certain methodology. We present the material according to that methodology, and we cannot take other circumstances into account. Those who audit the Waldorf School need to assume that they will be treated according to that methodology. We cannot answer this question with a subjective opinion. You cannot modify the methodology by saying you will ask one student and not another, since you would no longer treat the students according to the Waldorf methodology. As long as he is in the class, you have to treat him like the others.
I do not understand why his report is not different from the others. If someone attends all the classes, I do not see why he is an auditor. His report should clearly state that he took only some classes. That should be summarized somewhere. At the end of the report, you should state that the student did not receive remarks about all subjects because, as an auditor, he did not attend all classes. The reports are uniformly written, and it should, therefore, be evident that the student was an auditor unless we have cause to view him differently. We spoke about this when we discussed how the reports were becoming more bland and that we should stop that. If you do not write them with enough care, they no longer have any real meaning. I do not see why that should be any different now. If we give an auditor a report—to the extent that we can give such a report—we should do it according to the principles of the Waldorf School or not at all. That is really self-evident.
The only question could be whether he should automatically receive a report, or only if he requests it. That is not a major question and has no further consequences. Certainly, you could give him a report regardless of whether he asks for it or not, and he might tear it up, or you could ask him and if he does not want it you simply save yourself the work of writing the report; that is really not so important. If he is to audit, then he must be an auditor in the Waldorf School. To treat him differently would not correspond to teaching in the Waldorf School. His extended leaves from school are a different question.
There is further discussion about S.T. Some letters to his mother are read aloud.
Dr. Steiner: I recently discussed this whole matter very clearly and said that when he was enrolled I assumed he would be treated according to his very specific nature. I continue to assume that, otherwise I would have advised him not to come to the Waldorf School. At that time, I said it was absolutely necessary for him to live with one of the Waldorf School teachers. I also said he does not tend to progress in individual subjects in a straightforward fashion, but we have not gotten past that problem. We appear to have characterized him, but that is really not much more than just giving grades. He has not been treated as I intended he should be treated. In a certain sense, the way T. has been treated is a kind of rejection of me by the faculty. That is something that is actually not possible to correct. These letters are simply a justification of his report. I do not agree with the report nor with your justification of it. You have not taken his particular situation into account. He is difficult to handle, but you also have no real desire to work with him as an individual. I need to say that in an extreme way as otherwise you will not understand me clearly. You could have said everything in his report differently. Now there is nothing to do other than to send this letter. What else can we do? I think, however, that we can learn a great deal from this report because most of what is in it is said in a devious way. He is also now living in R.’s boarding house. You have done nothing I wanted. Some of the students are living with teachers.
I do not think we can achieve more by rewriting the letters. What we should have achieved should have been done throughout the year. What is important is to be more careful in carrying out the intentions. Otherwise, we should not have accepted him.
A teacher: Should we advise an eleventh-grade student who wants to study music to no longer attend school?
Dr. Steiner: As a school, we can really not say anything when a student no longer wants to attend. We do not have compulsory attendance. However, as the Waldorf School, we can certainly not advise such a young student that he should no longer attend. That is something we cannot do. We need to take the viewpoint that he should continue and finish. That is the advice we can give. If it is necessary for the boy not to complete the Waldorf School in order to become a musician, then we will lose him, and his mother will not be able to keep him, either. If he is to become a good musician, we cannot advise him not to continue in school.
A teacher asks about a child in the third grade who has difficulties concentrating and cannot make the connections necessary to write short essays.
Dr. Steiner: Have the child repeat a series of experiences forward and then backward. For instance, a tree: root, trunk, branch, leaf, flower, fruit. And now backward: fruit, flower, leaf, branch, trunk, root. Or you could also do a person: head, chest, stomach, leg, foot. Then, foot, leg, stomach, chest, head. Try to give him some reminders also.
A teacher: How often should we have parent evenings?
Dr. Steiner: When possible, parent meetings should be monthly.
Achtundsechzigste Konferenz
RUDOLF STEINER: Leider konnte ich die Klassen nicht besuchen, aber Sie werden es ja zum Teil ersetzen. Den Lehrplan für alte Sprachen habe ich noch nicht fertig.
Es wird gefragt, ob es in den fremden Sprachen ebenso Stufen des grammatischen Unterrichts gibt wie im Deutschen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nicht wahr, die Sache ist ja diese. Das, was ich da angegeben habe, ist angegeben nach den Anforderungen des betreffenden Alters. Es gehört einfach in dieses Lebensalter hinein, dass man diese besondere Nuance der Seelenverfassung in diesem Lebensalter an das Kind heranträgt. An der Muttersprache lernt das Kind am allerleichtesten, diese Nuancen in sich rege machen. Dagegen wird man höchstens gut tun, in demselben Lebensalter, nachdem es in der Muttersprache die Dinge gelernt hat, in den anderen Sprachen daran anzuknüpfen. Etwa zu zeigen, inwiefern in anderen Sprachen da, wenn solche Seelenstimmungen ausgedrückt werden, Abweichungen existieren. Durchaus auf Vergleiche kann man sich einlassen.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH stellt diesbezüglich eine Frage.
RUDOLF STEINER: Nicht wahr, man beginnt mit dem grammatischen Unterricht überhaupt nicht [vor dem neunten, zehnten Jahr]. Man entwickelt den Sprachunterricht auf den früheren Stufen rein aus dem Sprechen und dem Fühlen des Sprechens heraus, sodass das Kind lernt, aus dem Gefühl heraus zu sprechen. Auf dieser Stufe, die ja natürlich nicht eine ganz eindeutige ist, zwischen dem neunten und zehnten Lebensjahr es ist nicht ein. einzelner Punkt, [sondern] sehr variabel —, auf dieser Stufe beginnt man mit Grammatik. Und das Behandeln der Sprache in Bezug auf Grammatik [steht] in Beziehung zur Ich-Entwicklung. Die grammatikmäßige Beschäftigung mit der Sprache hat Beziehung zur Ich-Entwicklung. Nicht als ob man irgendwie fragen sollte: Wie entwickelt man das Ich aus der Grammatik? —, sondern das tut die Grammatik schon selber. Es ist nicht notwendig, da besondere Lehrproben zu geben. Man beginnt eben das Grammatische nicht früher, sondern versucht, [die] Grammatik 'durchaus] aus der Substanz der Sprache heraus zu [entwickeln].
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: lm 8. Schuljahr sind die Rudimente der Metrik und Poetik zu geben, dann in der 11, Ästhetik [der Sprache]. Wie ist das zu verstehen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Metrik behandelt die Lehre vom Bau des Verses, die Lehre vorn Bau der Strophe; die Poetik die Arten der Dichtungsformen, die Arten der Lyrik, Arten der Epik, Arten der Dramatik. Das ist Metrik und Poetik. Dann geht man über zur Tropen- und Figurenlehre. Das [immer] an Beispielen zeigen, sodass die Kinder viele Beispiele von Metaphern und so weiter haben.
Die Ästhetik der Sprache würde darinnen bestehen, dass man zum Beispiel die Kinder aufmerksam macht — die Kinder haben ja dann einen ziemlich großen Sprachschatz; Deutsch, Französisch, Englisch kann man benützen als Unterlage; man kann die verschiedenen Sprachen zur Vergleichung heranziehen —, die Ästhetik der Sprache beruht darauf, dass man [die Kinder] aufmerksam macht: Ist die Sprache reich an den Vokalen U und O, [oder] ist sie mehr reich an den Vokalen I und E; dass man versucht, an den Sachen ein Gefühl hervorzurufen, wie viel musikalisch reicher eine Sprache ist, die viel O und U hat, als die, welche viel E und I hat. Man versucht, ein Gefühl hervorzurufen davon, wie die ästhetische Schönheit der Sprache abnimmt, wenn die Möglichkeit der inneren Umwandlung der Wörter zu verschiedenen Fällen aufhört, [wenn die Endungen verschwinden]. Also der Bau der Sprache kommt in der Ästhetik zur Sprache, ob sie plastisch oder lyrisch-musikalisch ist, ob sie die Möglichkeit hat, stark in komplizierten Interjektionen zu sprechen und so weiter. Das ist schon verschieden von Metrik und Poetik. Die Ästhetik geht auf die eigentliche Schönheit der Sprache.
Das Sanskrit ist vorzugsweise reich an A. [U und O] macht musikalisch; E und 1 detoniert. [Die] deutsche Sprache ist detonierend. Das Sanskrit hat etwas Monotones durch Überwiegen des A, aber etwas, was mitten drinnen liegt zwischen Musikalischem und Plastischem. Sie hat sehr stark die Eigentümlichkeit, im Musikalischen plastisch zu werden, und im plastischen Gestalten nicht unmusikalisch zu werden. Das ist das A, das mitten drinnen steht. Wenn das Sanskrit neben A andere Vokale hat, so sind diese so besonders charakteristisch. Es ist charakteristisch, wenn [zum Beispiel] der Inder sein dreifaches «Friede, Friede, Friede» ertönen lässt. Zuerst das A, dann das leise Hindeuten, wie schamvolle Hindeuten auf das Ich. Das liegt darin, wenn er dieses «Shanti, Shanti, Shanti» ausspricht. I ist der stärkste egoistische Vokal. Es ist so, als ob man verschämt rot würde beim L
HERBERT HAHN [vermutlich]: [Die] finnische Sprache hat auch viele A.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ja, nicht wahr, da kommt [das] in Betracht, wie lange eine Sprache auf der betreffenden Stufe bleibt mit diesen Eigentümlichkeiten. Die finnische Sprache hat doch etwas Verhärtetes in dem A. Das hängt natürlich mit ihrem Konsonantismus zusammen. [Bestimmte Vokalreihen.] Das ist auch eine Verhärtung, aber [eine] Verhärtung, die anfängt, sympathisch zu werden. [Aber zugleich} beruhen diese Dinge auf feinen [ästhetischen] Empfindungen [gegenüber der Sprache], die [einfach] heute für die Menschen nicht mehr naturgemäß sind. Würde der Engländer die Endsilben seiner Worte so aussprechen wie der Deutsche oder Franzose, so würde das für ihn Verhärtung sein. Er geht über zum Vernachlässigen der Endsilben, weil er überhaupt aus dem Sprachlichen herausgeht. Was für den einen Verhärtung ist, kann für den anderen etwas sein, was ihm durchaus natürlich ist.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN fragt wegen Tropen und Figuren.
RUDOLF STE1NER: Tropen [entsprechen dem] Imaginativen, [Figuren dem Inspirativen]. Sie haben zunächst das absolut Unpoetische, was auszeichnet den größten Teil, 99 Prozent der Poesie. Dann bleibt ein Prozent. Von diesem einen Prozent sind die Dichter, wenn sie über den physischen Plan hinwegführen wollen, genötigt, über die Adäquatheit der gewöhnlichen Prosasprache das über den Dingen Schwebende der Bilder- und Figurensprache auszustreuen. Wie soll man ausdrücken: «O Wasserrose, du blühender Schwan, o Schwan, du schwimmende Rose.» [Das ist ein Tropus.] Was [da] ausgedrückt wird, [ist nicht Wasserrose, nicht Schwan, es] schwebt zwischen beiden. Das kann man nicht in Prosa ausdrücken. So ist es auch mit den Figuren.
Aber es gibt doch auch die Möglichkeit, adäquat das Übersinnliche auszudrücken, ohne Bild oder Figur, wie es Goethe manchmal gelungen ist. Dann braucht er kein Bild. Da haben Sie das Intuitive. Sie stehen unmittelbar in der Sache darinnen. Das ist bei Goethe so, manchmal auch bei Martin Greif, wo wirklich das realisiert ist, was man «objektive Lyrik» nennen könnte. Auch Shakespeare ist es manchmal in der in seine Dramatik eingestreuten Lyrik durchaus gelungen.
Rudolf Steiner hatte im pädagogischen Kurs in Ilkley, «Gegenwärtiges Geistesleben und Erziehung», August 1923, im 11. Vortrag vier Sprachen charakterisiert, ohne deren Namen zu nennen. ERICH SCHWEßSCH fragt nun, welche Sprachen er damals gemeint habe.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die erste Sprache, wo gesprochen wird, wie wenn man dem Sprechenden von Weitem zuhört, der auf einem Schiff auf den Meereswellen fährt und gegen den Wind, gegen das Plätschern und Brausen des Meeres ankämpft, das ist das Englische. Die zweite Sprache, die beim Anhören rein musikalisch wirkt, ist das Italienische. Die dritte, die aus dem Verstand heraus, aus dem Intellektuellen, in logischen Formen wirkt, ist das Französische. Und die vierte, die die Worte aus dem Plastischen heraus bildet, ist das Deutsche.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: Was liegt der französischen Metrik zugrunde?
RUDOLF STE1NER: Der französischen Metrik liegt zugrunde, so wenig man das gewöhnlich glaubt, der Sinn für systematische Einteilungen, [für] Mathematik des Sprachlichen. In der französischen Metrik ist unbewusst alles verstandesmäßig abgezählt, wie überhaupt im französischen Denken alles verstandesmäßig abgezählt wird. Übertönt ist es nur dadurch, dass es rhetorisch abgetönt ist. [Der Verstand wird hier Rhetorik, nicht Intellekt.] Es ist hörbarer Verstand, das ist Rhetorik.
Es wird gefragt nach der Auswahl der Lektüre für die Fremdsprachen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Über die 12. Klasse haben wir viel gesprochen. Ich habe Ihnen Proben gegeben, [zum Beispiel] Mackenzie. [In den] vorhergehenden Klassen wird es ein wenig davon abhängen, in was der Lehrer eingelesen ist, was er gern mag. Deshalb habe ich die Qualitäten angegeben. Für die 10. Klasse könnte ja eben in Betracht kommen ältere und neuere Lyrik vor allen Dingen.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH sagt, er sei ausgegangen von der Lyrik der Milton-Zeit, Burns.
RUDOLF STEINER: Sie müssen es so machen: in der 10. Klasse die Lyrik aus Shakespeares Zeit zurücklegen [und sie] in der 12. Klasse [mit] einer kurzen Charakteristik nachholen. Die Lyrik der Shakespeare'schen Zeit dürfen wir nicht ganz unberücksichtigt las-sen, weil sie merkwürdig tief hereinweist in eine Zeit der europäischen Entwicklung, in der tatsächlich die germanischen Sprachen einander noch viel ähnlicher sind als wenige Jahrhunderte später. Die englische Lyrik ist da noch so unglaublich deutsch; Shakespeare[s] [Lyrik], wenn Sie ihn lesen, ist ja gar nicht so undeutseh. Das könnten wir in der 12. Klasse nachtragen, damit diese Empfindung entsteht, die für die allgemeine Menschheit sehr wichtig ist.
[Also 10. Klasse: Robert Bums, einiges aus der Zeit von Thomas Percy, [einiges aus der Seeschule, zum Beispiel Coleridge; dann] Shelley, Keats. Man muss natürlich auswählen, aber nach dem, was Sie selber gern behandeln; [denn dann] behandeln Sie es auch besser. Bestimmte Gesichtspunkte könnte man schon geben. Da ist aber bei der Lyrik dieses, dass man bei der englischen Lyrik durchweg fast [da], wo sie gut wird, ein sentimentales Element hat, nicht wahr, [dass sie] da, wo sie gut wird, ein sentimentales Element hat; manchmal ein sehr schönes, aber [doch] durchweg ein sentimentales Element.
Und dann, dass die englische Denkweise, wenn sie [dichterisch] wird, durchaus sich nicht für Humor eignet. Da wird das Englische trivial. Es gibt [da] keinen Humor im höheren Sinne. Es gibt ja kein Wort sogar dafür. Wie soll man Humor im Englischen sagen? Die Behandlungsweise von Falstaff würden wir heute nicht als Humor bezeichnen. Wir würden zwar sagen, da ist viel Humor drinnen, aber wir würden doch nicht die ganze Art darzustellen als Humor bezeichnen. Uns fällt die Treffsicherheit der Charakteristik auf. Das wurde zur Shakespeare-Zeit nicht empfunden. Diese Geschlossenheit, diese Treffsicherheit der Charakteristik, das war den Leuten früher ganz einerlei. Den Leuten früher kam es darauf an, dass es gute Bühnengestalten waren, dass sie sich gut hinstellten auf die Bühne. Viel schauspielerischer gedacht war es früher.
Man kann Falstaff heute nicht mehr einen «humour» nennen. Mit dem Wort «humour» bezeichnet man jemanden, der sich in Nebel auflöst, oder vielmehr einen Menschen, der sich in das Unbestimmte, also den Nebel seines Temperamentes auflöst. «Humour» ist die Art des Temperaments, das einer hat. Die vier Temperamente sind die Humore. Heute können Sie doch nicht sagen, jemand habe einen melancholischen «humour». Also eine Gestalt, die man nicht mehr recht fassen kann, die sich im Nebel des Temperamentes auflöst, das ist ein «humour». Aber das, was wir als Humor heute bezeichnen, gibt es in der englischen Lyrik nicht. Es gibt keine Sprache, die in der [Dichtung], soweit [sie] lyrisch wird, so stark sentimental wird.
Für die Dramatik müsste man zeigen, [wie die Volksentwicklung bedingt], dass die Höhe der englischen Dramatik mit Shakespeare abgeschlossen ist und sich nachher nicht zu etwas Gleich-Hohem erhebt. Interessant ist natürlich — das aber erst in der 12. Klasse —, interessant ist es natürlich, aufmerksam darauf zu machen, wie die Entwicklung geht, dass also innerhalb Mitteleuropas die Reformation, die eigentliche Reformation, einen religiösen Grundcharakter beibehält, wobei man dann im Deutschen auf die große Bedeutung der Kirchenlyrik hinweisen kann. Im Französischen nimmt die ganze Reformation nicht eigentlich religiösen Charakter an, sondern einen gesellschaftlich-sozialen; das wäre aber an der Poesie nachzuweisen.
In England einen politisch-moralischen, was an Shakespeare so stark hervortritt. Das hängt damit zusammen, dass lange Zeit [hindurch] die Engländer gar keine [idealistische] Philosophie haben. Sie leben das aus in der Dichtung. Aber das gibt der Dichtung einen notwendig sentimentalen Zug. [Das macht auch das Auftreten des Darwinismus möglich.]
KARL STOCKMEYER: [Es ist noch zu besetzen der] Lateinunterricht [für die Schüler aus den drei] 5, Klassen [zusammen].
RUDOLF STEINER: Da würde es sich darum handeln, ob Dr. Gaben diesen Unterricht machen könnte. Klasse 9: Der Kunstunterricht ist noch unbesetzt, Französisch Klasse 5c ist frei: (Killian wird es machen]. Klasse 9: Frage offenlassen.
Es wird nach dem Religionsun_terricht in der Waldorfschule und in der Christengemeinschaft gefragt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es kommt eines in Betracht. Nicht wahr, die Christengemeinschaft gibt auch für Kinder Religionsunterricht. Nun kommen fortwährend Fragen: 1, Wie ist der freie Religionsunterricht in der Waldorfschule vereinbar mit dem Religionsunterricht der Christengemeinschaft? und 2. Wie ist die Sonntagshandlung [in der Schule] vereinbar mit der Sonntagshandlung der Christengemeinschaft? — Ich möchte ihre Empfindungen darüber hören. Ich möchte aber vorher sagen, dass [nichts Prinzipielles dagegen einzuwenden ist, wenn die Kinder sonst auskommen], dass sie sowohl am Religionsunterricht der Waldorfschule als an dem der Christengemeinschaft teilnehmen und beiden Handlungen beiwohnen. [Was hindern könnte], könnte höchstens der einzige Punkt der Gesundheit sein, dass es zu viel wäre. Aber sprechen Sie sich darüber aus. Es kommt nicht darauf an, dass wir irgendetwas dogmatisch entscheiden. Die Ansicht von Fräulein Spörri trat heute an mich heran; sie sagte, was sie jetzt gesagt habe, wäre die Ansicht von Dr. Schubert. [?]
Die Sache ist diese. Wir haben die Christengemeinschaft herauswachsen sehen aus der anthroposophischen Bewegung. Eine Diskrepanz zwischen beiden in inhaltlicher Beziehung kann es eigentlich nicht geben. Nun ist die Frage des Religionsunterrichtes insofern eine prinzipielle, als wir sagen müssen, wenn die Christengemeinschaft den Anspruch erhebt, die Kinder, die zur Christengemeinschaft zählen, zu unterrichten, so müssen wir ihr dasselbe Recht geben wie den anderen Konfessionen. Nun werden wir in wohl immer die Mehrzahl der Kinder im freien Religionsunterricht haben, die nicht zur Christengemeinschaft zählen. Dann würden wir also einen Religionsunterricht mehr haben. Aber warum sollen wir es darauf ankommen lassen, außer dem freien Religionsunterricht auch noch den Religionsunterricht der Christengemeinschaft extra zu haben? Sodass ich eigentlich nicht sehe, wie die Sache von uns prinzipiell entschieden werden könnte. Denn wir können uns nicht auf den Standpunkt stellen, dass wir irgendjemandem abraten, an unserem Religionsunterricht teilzunehmen. Wir würden ja auch etwas Falsches tun.
Nehmen Sie theoretisch den Fall an, ein katholischer [Vater] sagte, ich will meinen Jungen in den katholischen Religionsunterricht schicken, aber auch in den freien Religionsunterricht. Dann könnten wir nichts dagegen sagen, wenn es stundenplanmäßig möglich ist. Wir können nicht entscheiden; [entscheiden muss sich die Christengemeinschaft]. Ich hielte es aber auch für falsch, wenn die Christengemeinschaft [das verlangte?]. Das darf es nicht gehen in der Waldorfschule, [dass das Kind durch Vergleichung zu dem Resultat käme, der Unterricht beim Waldorflehrer sei nicht so gut], denn [die Schule] ist innerlich eine anthroposophische Gründung. Daher ist es so, dass, wenn ein Kind vergleichen würde, welcher Lehrer besser ist, wenn das schon vorläge, so würde es doch selbstverständlich durch die Natur der Sache darauf kommen, dass der Waldorflehrer besser ist.
HERBERT HAHN [vermutlich] zur Wahl neuer Religionslehren.
RUDOLF STEIFER: Sehen Sie, diese Tatsache könnte uns eines Tages größere Schwierigkeiten machen als alle bisher. Sie wissen, wie wir [Blut geschwitzt] haben, Religionslehrer zu finden.. Erinnern Sie sich, dass ich sogar den alten Arenson gebeten habe. Da sind die unmöglichsten Dinge vorgekommen. Die Lehrer hier haben zu tun mit ihren Gegenständen, und es gehören leben] bestimmte Voraussetzungen zum Religionsunterricht. Man könnte schon mal in die Lage kommen, bei der Christengemeinschaft einen Religionslehrer zu suchen für die Schule. Ich würde das so lange als möglich nicht tun, aber es könnte doch notwendig werden, Ich sehe also gar nicht ein, warum man so exklusiv sein sollte. Man kann das den Eltern und Kindern überlassen, ob sie hier und drüben teilnehmen. Am schönsten würde ich finden, wenn dann, wenn sie an beiden teilnehmen, von dem Religionslehrer hier und dem Religionslehrer dort die Stoffe besprochen werden, sodass Einklang da ist.
Sie müssen auch das nicht außer Acht lassen: Die [Priester der] Christengemeinschaft gehören als solche dennoch zu den Anthroposophen, die in kürzester Zeit die größten Fortschritte gemacht haben. Die Priester sind nicht dieselben, die sie waren; die haben an innerer Entwicklung ungeheure Fortschritte gemacht. Die Priester haben eine vorbildliche Entwicklung in ihrem ganzen Seelenleben durchgemacht [in der kurzen Zeit], seit die Sache besteht. Nicht alle natürlich, aber im Großen und Ganzen doch, und auf allen Gebieten wirken sie segensreich. In Breslau haben sie eine Jugendversammlung gehabt, da haben zwei von den Theologen gearbeitet. Das wirkte außerordentlich gut. Der junge Wistinghausen ist ein Segen für die Jugend dort. Ich glaube, man greift dort nicht ein.
ERNST UEHLI: [Wie soll man sich bei] Neueingetretenen [verhalten]? Die Kinder sind sehen [in der Christengemeinschaft] konfirmiert. Sollen die Kinder [gleich] in die Jugendfeier kommen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Ja, aber das geht nicht gut. Dann würde für sie ja die Jugendfeier nicht bei einem Osterfest beginnen. Und das ist doch von eminenter Wichtigkeit, dass die Jugendfeier bei einem Osterfest beginnt. Das soll man ihnen nur klarmachen, dass sie die Jugendfeier etwas später bekommen. [Sie] als Zuschauer teilnehmen [Lassen], das könnte man noch, aber nicht ein ganzes Jahr vorher. Die Jugendfeier sollte sein [das] Ostern, wenn die Kinder die 8. Klasse absolvieren. Aber, nicht wahr, die ganze Jugendfeier ist doch auf Ostern hinorientiert. [...] [Das Folgende ist lückenhaft in der Mitschrift.]
[Jemand fragt wohl: Wie soll es mit denen gehandhabt werden, die schon evangelisch konfirmiert oder gefirmt sind?]
RUDOLF STEINER: Zunächst handelt es sich prinzipiell um Folgendes. Diese Kinder sind konfirmiert oder gefirmt. Jetzt nehmen sie teil am freien Religionsunterricht. Damit fällt der ganze Sinn der Konfirmation und Firmung weg. Sie negieren ihn, streichen ihn aus aus ihrem Leben. Wenn man konfirmiert oder gefirmt ist, kann man nicht am freien Religionsunterricht teilnehmen. Konfirmiert sein heißt, tätiges Mitglied [in] der evangelischen Kirche sein. Dann kann man nicht am freien Religionsunterricht teilnehmen, 'denn damit] streicht man seine Konfirmation. Bei der Firmung ist es erst recht so. Man hätte die Aufgabe, [in einer zarten Weise die Kinder darauf hinzuweisen, dass sie sich erst in das Neue einleben müssen]. Dann ist es [auch] gar nicht so schlimm, wenn sie erst nächste Ostern an der Jugend-feier teilnehmen sollten. Man muss sie doch erst vorbereiten auf das «Abtrünnigwerden» und [sie] hinwenden auf ganz etwas anderes, Diese Dinge sollte man sehr ernst nehmen. Diese sieben könnten höchstens zu früh, aber nicht zu spät teilnehmen, [wenn sie erst Ostern teilnehmen]. Wir könnten es höchstens diskutieren, wenn ein Dissident da ist.
Es wird wohl eine Frage gestellt.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich sehe ganz und gar nicht ein, wie jemand, der bei dem Priester Kurras konfirmiert ist, wie der nicht dazu erzogen werden soll, ein Jahr noch die Sonntagshandlung durchzumachen, da er sie ja früher gar nicht durchgemacht hat. Bei ihm kann es doch nur die Frage sein, dass er ein Jahr die Sonntagshandlung mitmacht.
Wenn Sie den inneren Sinn nehmen unserer Jugendfeier und der Jugendfeier der Christengemeinschaft, so sind sie vereinbar. Der innere Sinn unserer Jugendfeier ist, dass der Mensch ganz allgemein in die Menschheit hineingestellt wird, nicht in eine bestimmte Religionsgemeinschaft. Die Christengemeinschaft aber stellt in eine be-stimmte Religionsgemeinschaft hinein. Also innerlich ist es durch-aus vereinbar. Wenn sie es nachträglich tut, ist es kein Widerspruch. Es ist nur nicht das andere vereinbar. Wenn sie dort früher konfirmiert würden, bevor sie bei uns die Jugendfeier durchgemacht haben, so wäre das ein Widerspruch. Aber so nicht. Ich bin von der Christengemeinschaft gefragt worden, von Eltern gefragt worden. Zuerst hier die Jugendfeier, dann von der Christengemeinschaft nachher eine Art von Konfirmation, Wenn ein Kind hier die Jugendfeier durchgemacht hat, brauchen wir keinen Anstoß daran zu nehmen. Es ist vereinbar, weil wir ja die Kinder nicht in die Christengemeinschaft hereinstellen. Ich habe nicht gesagt, sie müssen noch in der Christengemeinschaft konfirmiert werden, sondern, sie können. Unsere Jugendfeier ersetzt nicht die Jugendfeier der Christengemeinschaft, weil sie nicht in die Christengemeinschaft einführt. Wenn sie in der Christengemeinschaft konfirmiert sind, müssen sie hier warten bis zum nächsten Ostern.
Ein Religionslehrer sagt wohl, die älteren Schüler würden nicht mehr so gerne die Handlung für die Kleineren mitmachen. Sie meinen, sie seien nun zu alt dafür.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist das eine ganz falsche Auffassung des Kultus. [Es ist die evangelische Auffassung des Kultus), das heißt die Ablehnung des Kultus. Die Wiederholung des Kultus ist möglich durch das ganze Leben hindurch. [Es] ist die Auffassung, [alles] als Lehre, als Vorbereitung aufzufassen, nicht als Kultus. Diese evangelische Auffassung müssen wir uns abgewöhnen.
HERBERT HAHN fragt wegen der Helfer: Bisher [waren das] Frau Molt, Fräulein Röhrle, Fräulein v. Heydebrand.
RUDOLF STEINER: Frau Leinhas, wollten Sie das nicht machen?
Es wird gefragt, wie man die Schüler behandeln soll, die am Unterricht nur als Hospitanten teilnehmen.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es ist das eine der Schulfragen, wo man [ganz] objektiv entscheiden kann, und dann kann es keine verschiedenen Meinungen geben. Wir erteilen [hier] den Waldorfschul-Unterricht, der eine gewisse Methodik und Didaktik. voraussetzt. Nach dieser Methodik und Didaktik wird vorgetragen; es kann nicht nach äußeren Umständen vorgegangen werden. Wenn einer in der Waldorf-schule hospitiert, hat er vorauszusetzen, dass er nach dieser Methodik und Didaktik behandelt wird. Die Frage lässt sich nicht nach der subjektiven Meinung beantworten. Sie können diese Methodik und Didaktik nicht modifizieren dadurch, dass Sie sagen, den einen frage ich, den anderen nicht. Dadurch würden Sie ihn nicht mehr nach Waldorfschul-Methodik und -Didaktik behandeln. Solange er in der Klasse sitzt, haben Sie ihn wie die anderen zu behandeln.
Ich verstehe nicht, wie die Zeugnisse sich nicht unterscheiden soll-ten. Wenn ein Hospitant alle Fächer mitnimmt, sehe ich nicht ein, warum er Hospitant ist. Also ist es aus dem Zeugnis von vorneherein sichtbar, weil er nur ein Zeugnis über wenige Fächer hat. Das müsste an irgendeiner Stelle zusammengefasst werden. Es müsste stehen zum Schluss des Zeugnisses, dass der Zeugniserwerber nicht ein Zeugnis aus allen Fächern bekommt, weil er als Hospitant nicht alle Fächer besucht hat. Die Zeugnisse sind ja einheitlich gestaltet. Also gellt es doch aus dem Zeugnis hervor, dass einer Hospitant ist, solange wir nicht finden, dass man aus irgendwelchen Gründen von dieser Charakteristik absieht. [Davon haben wir ja gesprochen], wenn die Charakteristik so gemacht wird, dass sie sich [immer mehr] banalisiert, dann würden wir sie abstellen. Dann hat sie keinen Zweck mehr, wenn nicht genügend Sorgfalt darauf verwandt wird. Nun sehe ich nicht ein, warum das anders behandelt werden sollte. Wenn wir einem Hospitanten ein Zeugnis geben, solange sie [so] gegeben werden, können wir ihn nur nach dem Prinzip der Waldorfschule behandeln, wenn wir ihn überhaupt behandeln. Es ist einfach ganz selbstverständlich.
Die einzige Frage könnte die sein, ob er ein Zeugnis bekommt unter allen Umständen, oder nur wenn er es verlangt. Es ist keine prinzipielle Frage. Das ist von keiner so weittragenden Bedeutung. Denn, nicht wahr, schließlich, ob man ihm unter allen Umständen ein Zeugnis gibt und er es zerreißt, oder ob man ihn fragt und sich das Schreiben erspart, das ist nicht wichtig. Er muss so hospitieren, dass er in der Waldorfschule hospitiert. Man muss sich bewusst sein, dass man den nicht fragt. Ihn anders zu behandeln, würde nicht entsprechen dem Unterricht der Waldorfschule. Eine andere Frage ist die Urlaubserteilung. In dem Falle handelt es sich um einen Hospitanten, der schon älter war.
Es wird noch einmal über den Schüler A. V. gesprochen. HERBERT HAHN liest die Briefe an die Mutter vor: Ernst Lehrs, Hermann von Baravalle, Herbert Hahn.
RUDOLF STEINER: Ich habe mich ja schon neulich ausgesprochen über die ganze Frage, habe sehr deutlich gesagt, dass ich beim Aufnehmen vorausgesetzt habe, dass der Junge eben seiner Individualität nach behandelt werde, eben ganz seiner Individualität nach. Nun, ich setzte es voraus, sonst hätte ich lieber, was ich damals in der Hand hatte, abgeraten, den Jungen in die Waldorfschule zu geben. Ich sagte damals, dass es unbedingt notwendig sei, dass er bei einem Lehrer der Waldorfschule untergebracht würde. Dann sagte ich, dass er nicht veranlagt ist, in pedantischer Weise Fortschritte [in den einzelnen Fächern zu machen]. Über diese Schwierigkeit sind wir nicht hinweggekommen. Wir haben zwar scheinbar charakterisiert, aber es ist doch nicht viel anders als schematisch Noten geben. Der Fall ist nicht so behandelt worden, wie ich gemeint habe, dass er behandelt werden sollte. In gewissem Sinne bin ich in der Behandlung des A. V. vorn Lehrerkollegium desavouiert worden. Das ist auch nicht zu korrigieren eigentlich. Die Briefe sind eine Rechtfertigung des Zeugnisses. Ich kann nicht einverstanden sein mit dem Zeugnis, und also auch nicht mit einer Rechtfertigung des Zeugnisses. Es ist auf den individuellen Fall keine Rücksicht genommen worden. Er ist ja schwer zu behandeln, aber es ist nicht der nötige Wille zum Individualisieren da. Ich muss es radikal sagen, sonst wird es nicht genügend klar aufgefasst. Man kann alles das, was in dem Zeugnis steht, auch anders sagen. Es bleibt natürlich nichts anderes übrig, als dass Sie diesen Brief abschicken, denn was kann man denn anders machen. Aber ich meine, nicht wahr, es ist wirklich ein Zeugnis, aus dem man nicht einmal viel entnehmen kann, weil das meiste, was darin steht, gewunden ist. Und er wohnt heute in der Pension Rüthling. Es ist also gar nicht das erfüllt, was ich gewünscht habe. [...] [Weiteres darüber.] Es wohnen doch gewisse Schüler bei gewissen Lehrern.
Ich glaube nicht, dass viel dabei herauskommt, wenn die Briefe umgeschrieben werden. Was herauskommen sollte, hätte während des Jahres geschehen können. Es kommt doch darauf an, dass mehr-Sorgfalt darauf verwandt wird, die Intentionen hier durchzuführen. Sonst hätte man den jungen A. V. nicht aufnehmen sollen. [Er wird bei Lehrs wohnen.]
ERNST LEHRS: [Soll man einem Schüler], H. L., [in der 11. Klasse], der Musik studieren will, raten, die Schule nicht weiter zu besuchen?
RUDOLF STEINER: Wir sind eine Schule, die nichts dagegen einwenden kann, auch wenn die Schüler ausbleiben. Wir haben keinen Zwang. Wir als Waldorfschule können doch nicht bei einem so jungen Schüler, den wir hier haben, raten, er solle die Waldorfschule nicht durchmachen. Das können wir nicht. [Wir können sagen]: Wir müssen uns auf den Standpunkt stellen, er solle sie durchmachen. Damit ist schon gegeben, was wir raten können. Hat dagegen der Junge nötig, die Waldorfschule nicht zu absolvieren, um Musiker zu werden, so wird er [uns] durchgehen, wird auch die Mutter ihn nicht halten können. Wir können nicht raten, wenn er ein tüchtiger Musiker werden will, so braucht er die Schule nicht durchzumachen.
HERBERT HAHN über S. B.: Herr B. will den Buben nach Hamburg geben.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND über F. U.: F. U. ist so zart. Die Kleine wird durch die Eurythmie viel gewinnen.
Über die Aufnahme eines weiteren Kindes.
RUDOLF STEINER: Es hat keinen Sinn, wenn wir sie aufnehmen. [...] [Wohl über ein weiteres Kind.]
HANS RUTZ fragt wegen eines Kindes in der 3. Klasse, das sich schlecht konzentrieren kann, bei kleinen Aufsätzchen keine Zusammenhänge finden kann.
RUDOLF STEINER: [Das Kind] vorstellen und sagen lassen [solche] Reihen von Erlebnissen hin und zurück: Baum: Wurzel, Stamm, Zweig, Blatt, Blüte, Frucht. Jetzt zurückgehen: Frucht, Blüte, Blatt, [Zweig, Stamm], Wurzel. [Oder]: Mensch: Kopf, Brust, [Bauch], Bein, [Fuß]; [FA], Bein, [Bauch], Brust, Kopf. Dann [auch) versuchen, einige Ermahnungen zu geben.
Jemand fragt wohl wegen der Elternabende.
RUDOLF STEINER: Die Elternabende müssten [eigentlich] jeden Monat sein.
Hermann von Baravalle soll einen Vortrag vor Geografielehrern halten.
RUDOLF STEINER: Machen werden sie nicht viel aus diesen Ideen.
Schüler können durch Lehrer vermittelte Nachhilfestunden geben. Die Essener können einen Vortrag bekommen die Vervielfältigungen des ersten pädagogischen Kurses?. Hospitations- und Vertretungsfragen.
Sixty-eighth Conference
RUDOLF STEINER: Unfortunately, I was unable to visit the classes, but you will make up for it in part. I have not yet finished the curriculum for ancient languages.
The question is asked whether there are levels of grammar instruction in foreign languages as there are in German.
RUDOLF STEINER: No, the thing is this. What I have indicated there is indicated according to the requirements of the age in question. It is simply part of this age of life that this particular nuance of the soul's disposition is brought to the child at this age of life. The child learns most easily to activate these nuances in itself in its mother tongue. On the other hand, it is best to build on what they have learned in their mother tongue at the same age when teaching them other languages. For example, to show them the differences that exist in other languages when expressing such moods of the soul. Comparisons are certainly acceptable.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH asks a question in this regard.
RUDOLF STEINER: That's right, you don't start teaching grammar at all [before the age of nine or ten]. Language teaching at the earlier stages is developed purely from speaking and feeling the language, so that the child learns to speak from feeling. At this stage, which is of course not entirely clear-cut, between the ages of nine and ten, it is not a single point, but very variable — at this stage, one begins with grammar. And the treatment of language in relation to grammar is related to ego development. single point, [but] very variable — at this stage, one begins with grammar. And dealing with language in relation to grammar [is] related to ego development. The grammatical study of language is related to ego development. It is not as if one should somehow ask: How does one develop the ego from grammar? — grammar does that itself. It is not necessary to give special lessons on this. One does not begin with grammar earlier, but tries to develop grammar entirely from the substance of language.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: In the 8th school year, the rudiments of metrics and poetics are to be taught, then in the 11th, aesthetics [of language]. How is this to be understood?
RUDOLF STEINER: Metrics deals with the study of the structure of verse, the study of the structure of the stanza; poetics deals with the types of poetic forms, the types of lyric poetry, types of epic poetry, types of drama. That is metrics and poetics. Then one moves on to the study of tropes and figures of speech. This should [always] be illustrated with examples, so that the children have many examples of metaphors and so on.
The aesthetics of language would consist, for example, in making children aware — children then have a fairly large vocabulary; German, French, and English can be used as a basis; the different languages can be used for comparison — the aesthetics of language is based on making [children] aware: Is the language rich in the vowels U and O, [or] is it richer in the vowels I and E; that one tries to evoke a feeling in the children of how much more musically rich a language is that has a lot of O and U than one that has a lot of E and I. One tries to evoke a feeling of how the aesthetic beauty of language diminishes when the possibility of internal transformation of words into different cases ceases [when the endings disappear]. So the structure of language comes into play in aesthetics, whether it is plastic or lyrical-musical, whether it has the possibility of speaking strongly in complicated interjections, and so on. This is different from metrics and poetics. Aesthetics focuses on the actual beauty of language.
Sanskrit is particularly rich in A. [U and O] make it musical; E and 1 detonate. [The] German language is detonating. Sanskrit has something monotonous about it due to the predominance of A, but something that lies somewhere between musical and plastic. It has a very strong tendency to become plastic in the musical and not to become unmusical in the plastic. That is the A that stands in the middle. When Sanskrit has other vowels besides A, they are particularly characteristic. It is characteristic when [for example] the Indian utters his triple “peace, peace, peace.” First the A, then the quiet hint, like a bashful hint at the ego. That is what lies within when he utters this “Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.” I is the strongest egoistic vowel. It is as if one were to blush bashfully at the L.
HERBERT HAHN [presumably]: [The] Finnish language also has many A's.
RUDOLF STEINER: Yes, isn't it true that [this] comes into consideration, how long a language remains at the relevant stage with these peculiarities. The Finnish language has something hardened in the A. That is of course related to its consonantism. [Certain vowel series.] That is also a hardening, but [a] hardening that is beginning to become appealing. [But at the same time] these things are based on subtle [aesthetic] sensibilities [towards language] that are [simply] no longer natural for people today. If the Englishman were to pronounce the final syllables of his words like the German or Frenchman, it would be hardening for him. He goes on to neglect the final syllables because he leaves the linguistic realm altogether. What is hardening for one person may be something that is completely natural for another.
WALTER JOHANNES STEIN asks about tropes and figures.
RUDOLF STEINER: Tropes [correspond to] the imaginative, [figures to the inspirational]. At first, they have the absolutely unpoetic, which characterizes the greater part, 99 percent of poetry. Then there remains one percent. Of this one percent, poets, if they want to transcend the physical plane, are compelled to scatter the imagery and figurative language that hovers above things, using the adequacy of ordinary prose language. How should one express: "O water lily, you blooming swan, O swan, you swimming rose. " [That is a trope.] What is expressed [there] [is not a water lily, not a swan, it] hovers between the two. That cannot be expressed in prose. It is the same with figures.
But there is also the possibility of adequately expressing the supernatural without images or figures, as Goethe sometimes succeeded in doing. Then he doesn't need an image. There you have the intuitive. You are directly involved in the matter. This is the case with Goethe, and sometimes also with Martin Greif, where what could be called “objective poetry” is truly realized. Shakespeare also sometimes succeeded in this in the poetry scattered throughout his dramas.
In the 11th lecture of his educational course in Ilkley, “Contemporary Spiritual Life and Education,” August 1923, Rudolf Steiner characterized four languages without naming them. ERICH SCHWEßSCH now asks which languages he meant at that time.
RUDOLF STEINER: The first language, where one speaks as if listening to the speaker from afar, sailing on a ship on the waves of the sea and fighting against the wind, against the splashing and roaring of the sea, is English. The second language, which sounds purely musical when you listen to it, is Italian. The third, which works from the mind, from the intellectual, in logical forms, is French. And the fourth, which forms words from the plastic, is German.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH: What is the basis of French meter?
RUDOLF STEINER: French metrics are based, as little as one usually believes, on a sense of systematic divisions, [for] mathematics of language. In French metrics, everything is unconsciously counted in an intellectual way, just as everything in French thinking is counted in an intellectual way. It is only drowned out by the fact that it is toned down rhetorically. [Here, the intellect becomes rhetoric, not intellect.] It is audible intellect, that is rhetoric.
The question is asked about the selection of reading material for foreign languages.
RUDOLF STEINER: We have talked a lot about the 12th grade. I have given you examples, [for example] Mackenzie. [In the] previous grades, it will depend a little on what the teacher is familiar with, what he likes. That is why I have specified the qualities. For the 10th grade, older and newer poetry could be considered above all.
ERICH SCHWEBSCH says he started with the poetry of Milton's time, Burns.
RUDOLF STEINER: You must do it this way: in the 10th grade, set aside the poetry from Shakespeare's time [and] make up for it in the 12th grade [with] a brief description. We must not completely ignore the poetry of Shakespeare's time, because it provides a remarkably deep insight into a period of European development in which the Germanic languages were actually much more similar to each other than they were a few centuries later. English poetry is still so incredibly Germanic; Shakespeare's poetry, when you read it, is not so difficult to understand. We could add this in 12th grade so that this feeling, which is very important for humanity in general, can develop.
[So 10th grade: Robert Burns, some from the time of Thomas Percy, [some from the Sea School, for example Coleridge; then] Shelley, Keats. Of course, you have to choose, but according to what you yourself like to teach; [because then] you will teach it better. Certain points of view could already be given. But with poetry, there is this: in English poetry, almost [there], where it is good, there is a sentimental element, isn't there, [that] where it is good, there is a sentimental element; sometimes a very beautiful one, but [still] consistently a sentimental element.
And then, when the English way of thinking becomes [poetic], it is not at all suited to humor. That's where English becomes trivial. There is no humor in the higher sense. There isn't even a word for it. How would you say humor in English? We wouldn't describe the treatment of Falstaff as humor today. We would say there is a lot of humor in it, but we would not describe the whole character as humorous. We are struck by the accuracy of the characterization. This was not perceived in Shakespeare's time. This coherence, this accuracy of characterization, was of no concern to people in the past. People in the past cared that they were good stage characters, that they looked good on stage. In the past, it was much more theatrical.
Today, Falstaff can no longer be called “humorous.” The word ‘humor’ is used to describe someone who dissolves into fog, or rather a person who dissolves into the indefinite, that is, the fog of their temperament. “Humor” is the type of temperament that a person has. The four temperaments are the humors. Today, you can't say that someone has a melancholic “humor.” So a character that you can no longer quite grasp, that dissolves into the fog of temperament, that is “humor.” But what we call humor today does not exist in English poetry. There is no language that becomes so strongly sentimental in [poetry], insofar as [it] becomes lyrical.
For drama, one would have to show [how the development of the people] determined that the height of English drama was reached with Shakespeare and did not rise to anything of equal height thereafter. It is interesting, of course — but only in 12th grade — it is interesting, of course, to draw attention to how the development proceeds, that is, that within Central Europe the Reformation, the actual Reformation, retains a fundamentally religious character, whereby one can then point to the great significance of church poetry in German. In French, the entire Reformation does not actually take on a religious character, but rather a social one; but this can be demonstrated in poetry.
In England, it takes on a political and moral character, which is so prominent in Shakespeare. This is related to the fact that for a long time, the English had no [idealistic] philosophy. They live this out in poetry. But this gives poetry a necessarily sentimental character. [This also makes the emergence of Darwinism possible.]
KARL STOCKMEYER: [There is still a vacancy for] Latin lessons [for the pupils from the three] 5th classes [together].
RUDOLF STEINER: The question would be whether Dr. Gaben could teach these lessons. Class 9: The art class is still vacant, French class 5c is free: (Killian will do it]. Class 9: Leave the question open.
There is a question about religious education in Waldorf schools and in the Christian Community.
RUDOLF STEINER: One thing comes to mind. Isn't it true that the Christian Community also offers religious education for children? Now questions arise continuously: 1. How is free religious education in the Waldorf school compatible with religious education in the Christian Community? and 2. How is the Sunday service [in the school] compatible with the Sunday service of the Christian Community? — I would like to hear your thoughts on this. But first I would like to say that [there is nothing in principle to object to, if the children can cope with it], that they participate in both the religious education of the Waldorf school and that of the Christian Community and attend both services. [The only thing that could prevent this] would be health reasons, if it were too much for them. But discuss it among yourselves. It is not important that we decide anything dogmatically. Miss Spörri approached me today and said that what she had just said was Dr. Schubert's opinion. [?]
The situation is this. We have seen the Christian Community grow out of the anthroposophical movement. There can really be no discrepancy between the two in terms of content. Now the question of religious instruction is a matter of principle insofar as we must say that if the Christian Community claims the right to teach the children who belong to the Christian Community, we must give it the same right as other denominations. Now, we will probably always have the majority of children in free religious education who do not belong to the Christian Community. So we would have one more religious education class. But why should we risk to have Christian Community religious education in addition to free religious education? So I don't really see how we could decide on this matter in principle. Because we cannot take the position of advising anyone not to participate in our religious education. We would be doing something wrong.
Let's assume, theoretically, that a Catholic [father] said, I want to send my son to Catholic religious education, but also to free religious education. Then we couldn't say anything against it, if it's possible in terms of the timetable. We cannot decide; [the Christian community must decide]. However, I would also consider it wrong if the Christian community [demanded this]. This must not happen in Waldorf schools, [that the child would come to the conclusion, through comparison, that the lessons with the Waldorf teacher are not as good], because [the school] is an anthroposophical foundation at its core. Therefore, if a child were to compare which teacher is better, if that were already the case, it would naturally come to the conclusion that the Waldorf teacher is better.
HERBERT HAHN [presumably] on the choice of new religious teachers.
RUDOLF STEIFER: You see, this fact could one day cause us greater difficulties than any we have had so far. You know how hard we have worked to find religion teachers. Remember that I even asked old Arenson. The most impossible things have happened. The teachers here are busy with their subjects, and certain prerequisites are necessary for religious education. One could find oneself in the position of having to look for a religious education teacher for the school in the Christian community. I would avoid doing that for as long as possible, but it might become necessary. So I don't see why we should be so exclusive. We can leave it up to the parents and children to decide whether they want to participate here or there. I think it would be best if, when they participate in both, the religious education teacher here and the religious education teacher there discuss the material so that there is harmony.
You must not ignore the fact that the [priests of the] Christian Community are, as such, among the anthroposophists who have made the greatest progress in the shortest time. The priests are not the same as they were; they have made tremendous progress in their inner development. The priests have undergone exemplary development in their entire soul life [in the short time] since the matter has existed. Not all of them, of course, but on the whole, and they have a beneficial effect in all areas. In Breslau, they had a youth meeting, where two of the theologians worked. That had an extraordinarily good effect. The young Wistinghausen is a blessing for the youth there. I believe that no intervention is necessary there.
ERNST UEHLI: [How should one behave] towards newcomers? The children have been confirmed [in the Christian Community]. Should the children [immediately] come to the youth celebration?
RUDOLF STEINER: Yes, but that won't work. Then the youth celebration would not begin at Easter for them. And it is of paramount importance that the youth celebration begins at Easter. You should just make it clear to them that they will have the youth celebration a little later. [They] could participate as spectators, but not a whole year in advance. The youth celebration should be at Easter, when the children complete the 8th grade. But, isn't it true that the whole youth celebration is oriented towards Easter? [...] [The following is incomplete in the transcript.]
[Someone asks: How should those who have already been confirmed in the Protestant Church be dealt with?]
RUDOLF STEINER: First of all, the principle is as follows. These children have been confirmed. Now they are participating in free religious instruction. This negates the whole meaning of confirmation. They are negating it, removing it from their lives. If you have been confirmed, you cannot participate in free religious instruction. Being confirmed means being an active member in the Protestant Church. Then you cannot participate in free religious education, because that would mean canceling your confirmation. This is even more true for confirmation. The task would be to gently point out to the children that they first have to settle into the new situation. Then it is not so bad if they have to wait until next Easter to participate in the youth celebration. First, you have to prepare them for “becoming renegades” and turn them toward something completely different. These things should be taken very seriously. At most, these seven could participate too early, but not too late [if they participate at Easter]. We could discuss it at most if there is a dissident there.
A question is probably being asked.
RUDOLF STEINER: I don't see how someone who was confirmed by Pastor Kurras should not be required to attend Sunday services for a year, since he did not attend them before. For him, the only question can be whether he will attend Sunday services for a year.
If you take the inner meaning of our youth celebration and the youth celebration of the Christian Community, they are compatible. The inner meaning of our youth celebration is that the human being is placed into humanity in general, not into a specific religious community. The Christian Community, however, places them in a specific religious community. So, internally, it is entirely compatible. If they do it afterwards, it is not a contradiction. It is just that the other is not compatible. If they were confirmed there earlier, before they had undergone the youth celebration with us, that would be a contradiction. But not in this case. I have been asked by the Christian Community, by parents. First the youth celebration here, then a kind of confirmation from the Christian Community afterwards. If a child has undergone the youth celebration here, we need not take offense. It is compatible because we do not place the children in the Christian Community. I did not say that they must be confirmed in the Christian Community, but that they can be. Our youth celebration does not replace the Christian Community's youth celebration because it does not introduce them to the Christian Community. If they are confirmed in the Christian Community, they must wait here until next Easter.
A religion teacher says that the older students are no longer so keen to take part in the ceremony for the younger ones. They think they are now too old for it.
RUDOLF STEINER: That is a completely wrong understanding of the ritual. [It is the Protestant understanding of the ritual], that is, the rejection of the ritual. The ritual can be repeated throughout one's entire life. [It] is the view that [everything] should be understood as teaching, as preparation, not as ritual. We must break ourselves of this Protestant view.
HERBERT HAHN asks about the helpers: Until now [these were] Mrs. Molt, Miss Röhrle, Miss v. Heydebrand.
RUDOLF STEINER: Mrs. Leinhas, didn't you want to do that?
The question is asked how to treat students who only participate in lessons as observers.
RUDOLF STEINER: This is one of the school issues where one can decide [completely] objectively, and then there can be no differing opinions. We teach [here] the Waldorf school curriculum, which requires a certain methodology and didactics. Teaching is based on this methodology and didactics; it cannot be based on external circumstances. If someone is observing at a Waldorf school, they must assume that they will be treated according to this methodology and didactics. The question cannot be answered based on subjective opinion. You cannot modify this methodology and didactics by saying that you will ask one person but not another. By doing so, you would no longer be treating them according to Waldorf school methodology and didactics. As long as they are sitting in the class, you must treat them like the others.
I don't understand how the report cards should not differ. If a guest student takes all subjects, I don't see why he is a guest student. So it is obvious from the report card from the outset because he only has a report card for a few subjects. This would have to be summarized somewhere. It would have to be stated at the end of the report card that the student does not receive a report card for all subjects because, as a guest student, he has not attended all subjects. The report cards are designed to be uniform. So it is clear from the report card that someone is a guest student, unless we decide for some reason to disregard this characteristic. [We have discussed this], if the characteristic is made in such a way that it becomes [increasingly] trivialized, then we would discontinue it. It would then serve no purpose if sufficient care is not taken. Now I don't see why this should be treated differently. If we give a guest student a report card, as long as they are given [in this way], we can only treat them according to the principles of the Waldorf school, if we treat them at all. It's just a matter of course.
The only question could be whether they receive a report card under all circumstances, or only if they request it. It is not a question of principle. It is not of such far-reaching significance. After all, whether you give them a report card under all circumstances and they tear it up, or whether you ask them and save yourself the trouble of writing it, is not important. He must observe in such a way that he observes at the Waldorf school. One must be aware that one does not ask him. To treat him differently would not be in accordance with the teaching of the Waldorf school. Another question is the granting of leave. In this case, it concerns an observer who was already older.
The student A. V. is discussed once again. HERBERT HAHN reads the letters to the mother: Ernst Lehrs, Hermann von Baravalle, Herbert Hahn.
RUDOLF STEINER: I already expressed my opinion on the whole question the other day, saying very clearly that when I accepted him, I assumed that the boy would be treated according to his individuality, entirely according to his individuality. Well, I assumed this would be the case, otherwise I would have advised against sending the boy to the Waldorf School, given what I knew at the time. I said then that it was absolutely necessary for him to be placed with a teacher at the Waldorf School. Then I said that he was not predisposed to make pedantic progress [in the individual subjects]. We have not been able to overcome this difficulty. We may have characterized it, but it is not much different from giving schematic grades. The case was not handled as I thought it should have been. In a sense, I was disavowed by the teaching staff in the handling of A. V. That cannot really be corrected either. The letters are a justification of the report card. I cannot agree with the report card, and therefore also not with a justification of the report card. No consideration has been given to the individual case. It is difficult to deal with, but there is not the necessary will to individualize. I have to say it radically, otherwise it will not be understood clearly enough. Everything that is written in the report card can also be said differently. Of course, there is no other option but for you to send this letter, because what else can be done? But I think, don't you agree, that it is really a report card from which one cannot even glean much, because most of what is written in it is convoluted. And he is now staying at the Rüthling guesthouse. So what I wanted has not been achieved at all. [...] [More on this.] Certain students stay with certain teachers.
I don't think much will come of rewriting the letters. What should have come of it could have happened during the year. What matters is that more care is taken to carry out the intentions here. Otherwise, the young A. V. should not have been accepted. [He will live with Lehrs.]
ERNST LEHRS: [Should one advise a student], H. L., [in 11th grade], who wants to study music, not to continue attending school?
RUDOLF STEINER: We are a school that has no objection, even if students do not attend. We do not use coercion. As a Waldorf school, we cannot advise such a young student that he should not attend Waldorf school. We cannot do that. [We can say]: We must take the position that he should go through it. That is already what we can advise. If, on the other hand, the boy needs to leave the Waldorf school in order to become a musician, he will leave [us], and even his mother will not be able to keep him. We cannot advise that if he wants to become a skilled musician, he does not need to go through school.
HERBERT HAHN on S. B.: Mr. B. wants to send the boy to Hamburg.
CAROLINE VON HEYDEBRAND on F. U.: F. U. is so delicate. The little girl will gain a lot from eurythmy.
About admitting another child.
RUDOLF STEINER: There is no point in admitting her. [...] [Probably about another child.]
HANS RUTZ asks about a child in the 3rd grade who has difficulty concentrating and cannot find connections in short essays.
RUDOLF STEINER: Introduce [the child] and let them describe [such] series of experiences back and forth: Tree: root, trunk, branch, leaf, flower, fruit. Now go back: fruit, blossom, leaf, [branch, trunk], root. [Or]: human being: head, chest, [belly], leg, [foot]; [FA], leg, [belly], chest, head. Then [also] try to give some admonitions.
Someone is probably asking about parents' evenings.
RUDOLF STEINER: Parents' evenings should [actually] be held every month.
Hermann von Baravalle is to give a lecture to geography teachers.
RUDOLF STEINER: They won't make much of these ideas.
Students can give private lessons arranged by teachers. The Esseners can get a lecture on the reproductions of the first pedagogical course? Questions about observation and substitution.