The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Sixth Lecture

[ 1 ] Since this is our last class today, we’ll be focusing on adding a few supplements and expansions to what we’ve already covered, and you’ll just have to accept this as if some of these points were being brought up at the very end, sort of like items in a clearance sale.

[ 2 ] First and foremost, I would like to point out that one must always bear in mind that the speaker is in a fundamentally different situation than someone who communicates something in writing to a reader. The speaker must take into account that he is not addressing a reader, but rather a listener. The listener is not in a position, if he has not understood something, to go back and reread the sentence. The reader, on the other hand, is able to do so, and this must be taken into account. This can be achieved by making an effort in the speech to repeat certain points that are considered particularly important—indeed, indispensable—for the listener to follow the entire presentation. Of course, one must ensure that such repetitions are presented with variations—that is, that particularly important points are expressed in different ways—and that, thanks to this variety of phrasing, the listener—provided he is quick to grasp the meaning—is not bored. One must therefore ensure that, in a sense, the different ways of expressing the same idea possess a certain artistic character.

[ 3 ] The artistic aspect of speech is, in general, something that must certainly be taken into account—and perhaps all the more so the more one is dealing with something that must take into consideration logic, life experience, and other faculties of understanding. Perhaps the more one must appeal to understanding by rigorously straining the mind, the more one must adopt an artistic approach in speech—through repetition, composition, and many other elements that will be discussed today. One need only consider that the artistic is, in fact, a means of understanding. Repetitions, for example, have the effect of providing a kind of relief for the listener. When the listener hears repetitions in different phrasings, they are given the opportunity, so to speak, not to cling rigidly to one phrasing or another, but rather to what lies in between. This frees them in their comprehension, and they then experience this sense of liberation—which contributes extraordinarily to understanding.

[ 4 ] But other means of artistic structure—and not only that, but also of artistic execution—should be employed. Take, for example, the fact that the speaker, from time to time, while seeking the appropriate phrasing, poses questions, so that he is, in effect, addressing his audience with a question in the midst of his usual discussion. What does it actually mean to address one’s listeners with a question? Indeed, questions that the listener hears primarily affect the listener’s inhalation. After all, while listening, the listener moves in a rhythm of inhalation-exhalation, inhalation-exhalation. This is not merely significant for speaking; it is certainly significant for listening as well. If a speaker now poses a question, then the exhalation can, so to speak, remain unoccupied. It is the inhalation that shifts its focus to listening when a question is heard. This does not contradict the fact that the speaker might pose his question precisely when the listener is exhaling. For listening does not occur only directly but also obliquely, so that the actual hearing of a word or a sentence—which falls during an exhalation when it is a question—is in fact perceived and taken in all the more fully during the subsequent inhalation. In short, the act of inhaling itself has something essential to do with listening to what is presented in the form of a question. But because inhalation is engaged by the posing of a question, the entire process of listening becomes internalized. It takes place, so to speak, deeper within the soul than when one is simply listening to a discussion.

[ 5 ] When listening to a discussion, one actually always tends not to engage with either the inhalation or the exhalation. The discussion is meant to go as little depth as possible, but also not to engage the senses too much.

[ 6 ] Discussing logical matters through spoken language is, in general, a tricky business. Therefore, anyone who wishes to speak in such a way that they rely solely on logical conclusions will thereby have a surefire way of lulling their listeners to sleep. For this logical reasoning has the disadvantage of diverting the mind away from the sense of hearing—one does not listen properly to the logic—and, on the other hand, it does not properly regulate breathing, nor does it set it in varied rhythms. Breathing actually remains at its most neutral when one listens to logical discussions; that is why one falls asleep while doing so. It is an entirely organic process. Logical discussions aim to be impersonal; but this comes back to haunt them.

[ 7 ] Therefore, if one wishes to develop as a speaker, one must take care—while remaining logical—not to speak solely in logical formulas, but rather in figures of speech. And the question is precisely one of these figures of speech. Another figure of speech involves occasionally saying the opposite of what one—in an extreme case—actually intends to say, even though the listener naturally knows very well that they are to understand the opposite, by phrasing the sentence in such a way that one is permitted to say the opposite. So if, let’s say, someone were simply to discuss the matter and say in a conversational tone, “Kully is stupid”—that might not be a very good turn of phrase under certain circumstances. On the other hand, it could be a good turn of phrase if someone were to say, “I don’t believe there’s anyone sitting here who thinks Kully is smart!” — You have uttered a sentence whose opposite is the truth. But of course, you have also taken steps to ensure that you are allowed to say the opposite rather than the statement itself. Proceeding in this manner—and doing so with genuine feeling—will be particularly helpful in making your speech come alive.

[ 8 ] I just said: It can really help the speech get off to a good start. — That’s a metaphor. The philistine might say that a speech doesn’t have legs. But a speech does, in fact, have legs! One need only recall, for example, that Goethe, in his old age, when he sometimes had to speak despite his fatigue, liked to walk around the room while speaking. A speech is, after all, an expression of the whole person—so it does have legs! And to surprise the listener with something they may not have noticed before, but which they are compelled to grasp despite their habits—that, in turn, is extraordinarily important for the speech.

[ 9 ] Part of the emotional logic of speech is that one should not always speak in the same “tone.” Speaking in the same tone the whole time—as you know—tends to lull people to sleep. For every rise in pitch is actually a very subtle jolt, so that the listener is inwardly stirred by each rise in pitch. Every lowering of the pitch relative to its previous level is, in effect, a gentle sense of powerlessness, so that the listener is compelled to fight against it. By modulating one’s speech, one thus encourages the listener to participate, and this is extraordinarily important for the speaker.

[ 10 ] It is also particularly important, however, to occasionally appeal to the listener’s ear, so to speak. If the listener is too absorbed in his own thoughts, he sometimes loses track of certain passages in the speech. He begins to think to himself. It is a great misfortune for the speaker when the listeners begin to think to themselves. Then they miss something, start listening again after a while, and simply can’t keep up. Therefore, one must occasionally capture the listeners’ attention, and this is achieved by using unusual sentence structures and word orders in one’s phrasing. The question itself already presents a different arrangement of subject and predicate than one is accustomed to, but one should also vary word order in a wide variety of ways. One should ensure that some sentences are spoken with the verb at the beginning of the sentence, or that a sentence begins with some other part of speech that one is not accustomed to seeing at the beginning. When something unusual comes up, the listener pays attention again—and what’s noteworthy is that they don’t just pay attention to that sentence, but also to the very next one. And when dealing with particularly attentive listeners, they’ll even pay attention to the sentence after that if you mix up the structure of your speech a bit. As a speaker, you must definitely take this underlying pattern into account. In fact, the best way to learn these things is to pay attention, while listening, to how truly good speakers use such techniques. It is precisely these techniques that essentially give a speech its vividness.

[ 11 ] In this regard—in terms of form—one could learn a great deal from the Jesuits when it comes to public speaking. They are very well trained. First, they make good use of speech composition by building toward climaxes and creating a sense of flow, but above all, they make use of imagery. And I must again and again point to an excellent Jesuit sermon that I once had the opportunity to hear in Vienna, where someone took me to the Jesuit Church, and one of the most famous Jesuit fathers was preaching at that very moment. He preached on the Easter confession, and I would like to share the essential part of his sermon with you here. He said: Dear Christians! There are those who have strayed from God and claim that Easter confession was instituted by the Pope, the Roman Pope. It therefore does not come from God, but from the Roman Pope. Dear Christians, anyone who believes this might learn something if I tell them the following: Imagine, my dear Christians, that there is a cannon standing here. A gunner is standing at the cannon. The gunner has the fuse in his hand. The cannon is loaded. Behind him stands the officer, giving the orders. When the officer commands, “Fire!”—the gunner pulls the fuse. The cannon fires. Will even one of you now say: “This gunner, who obeyed his superior’s order—did he invent gunpowder?” None of you, dear Christians, will say that! You see, the Roman Pope was just such a gunner, waiting for orders from above until he commanded the Easter confession. Therefore, no one will say—any more than they would say that the gunner invented gunpowder—that the Roman Pope invented the Easter confession, which he only has carried out on command from above. All of the listeners were utterly convinced!

[ 12 ] Of course, the man was aware of the situation and the state of people’s minds, but that is, after all, something that has already been identified in this discussion as an indispensable prerequisite for effective speaking. He said something that, as a metaphor, actually falls outside the train of thought and yet allows the listener to follow the train of thought without feeling that the man is speaking subjectively. I have also presented to you Bismarck’s dictum about politicians “steering with the wind”—a metaphor that is actually taken from the very person with whom he was debating, but which, in turn, frees the argument from the rigidity of the line of reasoning under discussion.

[ 13 ] Such things, when properly understood, are the artistic devices that will certainly replace what must not be present in a speech: mere logic. Logic is for thoughts, not for speech—I mean, for the form of speech, the manner of expression. Of course, there must be no illogicality in it. But a speech must not be structured the same way one structures a train of thought. You will also find that something can be quite incisive and well-placed in a debate and yet not necessarily have a lasting effect. What has a lasting effect is what enters the speech as an image—namely, when that image is quite distant from what it signifies, and when the person using the image has himself been freed from slavish reliance on the pure meaning of the thought.

[ 14 ] This kind of thing then leads us to recognize the extent to which a speech can be elevated through humor. Even the most serious speech can be elevated by humor that, let’s say, has a certain bite to it. It’s just this: If, as I’ve said, we try to force our will onto the listeners, they’ll get annoyed. That’s why we should direct our will toward ensuring that the speech itself takes on images that are, in a sense, inner realities. The speech itself should be reality. You may be able to grasp what I mean when I tell you about two debates. The second will not be a debate in the strict sense, but something that can be instructive—precisely in the context of characterizing speech—regarding the use of imagery.

[ 15 ] You see, it is often precisely those debate speeches that try to be a little humorous that take on a very subjective tone. For a time, the German Parliament had such a witty debater in Representative Meyer. For example, there was a time when the famous—or infamous—“Lex Heinze” was being debated in that German Parliament. I believe the man who delivered the defense speech was a minister at the time and, as a member of the Conservative Party, always referred to “the Lex Heinze” in his role as its defender. He always said: “The Lex Heinze.” Well, you know, things like that can happen. But it was one of the peculiarities of the Liberal Party—to which the joker, Representative Meyer, belonged—to specialize in precisely such things, and so he asked to speak later in the debate and said something like this: “The Minister has defended the Lex Heinze and kept saying ‘the Lex Heinze.’” I had no idea what he was actually talking about; I went around everywhere asking what “Lex” was. No one could give me an answer. I consulted dictionaries, looked it up, but found nothing. I was already planning to come here to ask the Minister when it finally occurred to me to use the last minute to look it up in a Latin grammar book as well—and lo and behold, there it was: “What cannot be declined is considered neuter!”

[ 16 ] Certainly, it’s a good, crude joke that elicits immediate laughter, but it lacks bite; it doesn’t need to strike deep, because with something like this, sympathy for the person being mocked quietly reasserts itself in the listeners’ subconscious. This is, therefore, too subjective an approach; it stems more from a desire to mock than from the matter itself.

[ 17 ] In contrast, I have always found this to be an excellent illustration: The future Prussian King Frederick William IV was a very witty man as crown prince. His father, King Frederick William III, had a minister whom he was particularly fond of; his name was von Klewiz. The Crown Prince could not stand von Klewiz. Once, at a court ball, the Crown Prince approached von Klewiz and said: “Your Excellency, I’d like to pose a riddle for you today:

[ 18 ] The first is a fruit in the field;
the second is something like this: when you hear about it,
you get something like a mild shock;
and the whole thing is a national scourge!

[ 19 ] Von Klewiz blushed all the way up to his ears, bowed, and tendered his resignation after this court ball. The king summoned him and said, “How dare you! “I cannot do without you, my dear Klewiz!” — “Yes, but Your Royal Highness, the Crown Prince said something to me yesterday at the court ball that makes it impossible for me to remain in office.” — But that’s impossible! His Highness the Crown Prince wouldn’t say something like that—I can’t believe it. — Yes, it’s true, Your Majesty. — What did His Highness the Crown Prince say? — He said to me:

[ 20 ] The first is a fruit in the field;
the second is something: when you hear about it,
you get something like a mild shock;
the whole thing is a scourge!

[ 21 ] There is no doubt that His Royal Highness the Crown Prince was referring to me. — Yes, a strange business, my dear Klewiz. But let’s have the Crown Prince come and hear what the matter is all about.

[ 22 ] The Crown Prince is summoned. — You are said to have made a deeply offensive remark last night toward my indispensable minister, His Excellency von Klewiz. — The Crown Prince said: “Your Majesty, I do not recall.” If it had been something significant, I would surely remember it.” — “It did seem to be something significant, though.” — “Yes, yes, yes, I remember: I told His Excellency that I wanted to pose a riddle to him:

[ 23 ] The first syllable refers to a fruit in the field;
the second syllable means something—when you hear it,
you get something like a mild shock;
the whole thing is a national scourge.

[ 24 ] I don’t think I offended His Excellency all that much just because he couldn’t solve the riddle. As I recall, His Excellency simply couldn’t solve the riddle! — The king said: “Yes, what is the solution to the riddle?” — Well, then:

[ 25 ] The first syllable, a fruit in the field, is: Heu
the second syllable, where one gets such a slight
shock, is: Schreck;
the whole word is: Heuschreck;

[ 26 ] That is indeed a scourge, Your Majesty.

[ 27 ] Well, why am I saying this? I say this because no one who tells a story like this—who also frames his phrases in such a way—needs to carry the story all the way through, since no one expects, when it is told, that the scene will be discussed further; rather, everyone can form the corresponding mental image on their own. And it’s good to occasionally leave something for the listener to imagine when speaking. That doesn’t happen when someone mocks—then the balance comes out to zero.

[ 28 ] The point, then, is to enhance clarity by giving the listener the genuine sense that they, too, are allowed to do something—that they are free to think things through. But then, of course, it is necessary to allow for the appropriate pauses in speech. These pauses must definitely be included.

[ 29 ] Well, along these lines, there really is an extraordinary amount to say about the form and structure of a speech. For it is commonly believed that people listen only with their ears, whereas the fact that some people open their mouths wide while listening when they want to grasp something particularly well speaks against this. They would not do that if they were listening only with their ears.” In fact, one listens much more with the speech organs than is usually assumed. In a sense, one always “snaps” into the speaker’s words precisely with one’s speech organs, and the etheric body actually always speaks along with them; it even always participates in eurythmy while listening—specifically, movements that correspond entirely to eurythmic movements. However, people are usually unaware of this unless they have studied eurythmy.

[ 30 ] The fact is that everything heard from inanimate objects is perceived more from the outside by the ear, whereas human speech is actually heard in such a way that attention is paid to what comes to the ear from within. This is a fact that, as one might say, very few people are aware of. Very few people realize what a great difference there is—let’s say—between listening to the ringing of a bell or a symphony and listening to human speech. With human speech, it is actually the inner aspect of speaking that is heard. The other aspect is much more of a side effect than it is when listening to anything inorganic. That is why everything I said about one’s own listening had to be stated, so that one might actually formulate speech in the same way one would critique it upon hearing it. I mean that the act of formulation arises from the same force, from the same impulse, as the critique when one hears it.

[ 31 ] It is certainly of some importance that those individuals who set out to work specifically for the threefold social order—or something similar—take into account that what they wish to convey must also be presented to the public in a certain artistic way. For, as I have already indicated, when one speaks to an ordinary audience about the threefold social order, one is essentially speaking to deaf ears. And one will have to—I would say—be fully immersed in the subject from a certain perspective, namely with feeling and emotion, if one wishes to work in such a way that there is a prospect of success. Not that it is necessary, so to speak, to study the secrets of success—that is certainly not necessary—nor to pander in a petty way to what the listener wants to hear. That is most certainly not what one should strive for. But what must be aimed for is a genuine immersion in the phenomena of our time. And you see, such an immersion in the phenomena of our time—the arousal of a truly deeper interest in them—can today be brought about only through anthroposophy. For these and other reasons, anyone who wishes to speak effectively about the threefold social order must, at the very least, be absolutely imbued—at least inwardly—with the conviction that, for the world to understand the threefold social order, it is also necessary to bring anthroposophy to the world.

[ 32 ] Certainly, ever since work has been carried out in the spirit of the threefold social order, the situation has been such that, on the one hand, there are those who are said to be interested in the threefold social order but want nothing to do with anthroposophy, and on the other hand, there are those who are interested in anthroposophy but want nothing to do with the threefold social order. But if one takes this fact too much to heart, one will achieve nothing in the long run; something may be achieved for the moment, but in the long run, one will achieve nothing.

[ 33 ] In particular, one will achieve very little with something like this—which one might consider a tactic—especially in Switzerland, for the reasons I have already stated with specific reference to Switzerland. The point is that, at the very least, the speaker must be deeply convinced, even if only subconsciously, that without the anthroposophical foundation of the threefold social order, one cannot truly get things off the ground. Of course, one can take advantage of the fact that some people accept the threefold social order while rejecting anthroposophy; but one should be fully aware—and once one is aware of this, one will naturally incorporate the necessary phrasing into one’s speech—that without the dissemination of at least the most basic tenets of anthroposophy, nothing can be threefoldly organized.

[ 34 ] What, exactly, is supposed to be divided into three parts? Just imagine for a moment a territory in which, let’s say, a state has complete control over the school system on one side and economic life on the other, with legal life falling in between—yes, just imagine for a moment that the improbable might occur: that this territory would now be divided into three parts! In the realm of education, which would now be independent, steps would likely be taken in no time at all to elect a “school monarch” and a “school minister,” and the free intellectual life would be transformed into a state in no time!

[ 35 ] Such things cannot be approached formally; they must be rooted in the whole living reality of human beings. After all, there must first be something there in the form of a free spiritual life in which people are immersed if one wants to establish spiritual life as a foundation within the social organism. Only when spiritual life is also cultivated in the anthroposophical sense—as, for example, at the Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart—can one speak of having something there that is a small seed for a free spiritual life. But in the Free Waldorf School, there is neither a principal nor a curriculum, nor anything else of that sort; rather, life is present there, and full consideration is given to what one must take into account in relation to life.

[ 36 ] I am absolutely convinced that, when it comes to an ideal, free school system, any group of three, seven, twelve, thirteen, or fifteen people who get together can come up with the very, very best ideas and draw up a plan: first, second, third—many points. This program could be such that one could hardly form a mental image of anything better. The people who devise this program wouldn’t even need to be particularly clever; they could, for example, be perfectly ordinary members of parliament—or they wouldn’t even need to be that—they could be barroom politicians, for all we know, and they could come up with thirty or forty points that embody the highest ideals for a flawless school system—but you can’t do anything with it! It is completely unnecessary to draft paragraphs and statutes in this way if you can’t do anything with them. You can only make something of a assembled teaching staff if you don’t rely on statutes at all, but rather on what you actually have, and make the best of it with vitality.

[ 37 ] A free spiritual life must, after all, be a genuine spiritual life. When people today speak of spiritual life, they are not speaking of the spirit at all; they are speaking of ideas—they are, in fact, always speaking only of ideas.

[ 38 ] So if anthroposophy is meant to reawaken in people a sense of a real spiritual life, then it is indispensable if one is to advocate the threefold structure of the social organism at all. So, fundamentally, the two must go hand in hand: the promotion of anthroposophy and the promotion of the threefold social order.

[ 39 ] Even today, one can see how little people appreciate the value of a free intellectual life, as evidenced by the fact that here and there demands are being made for an economic life emancipated from the state. Just imagine, in concrete terms, what kind of social structure that would be: on the one hand, the constitutional state—which, however, embodies the entire constitutional framework and from which, in fact, everything that is subsequently developed in terms of wisdom within economic contexts is supposed to emerge—and, on the other hand, an economic life emancipated from the state! Anyone who is truly in favor of the threefold social order should never even think of saying something like: “Well, there’s already a part of the threefold social order—namely, the twofold social order.” — The chaotic unitary state is far better than any kind of twofold division. For that is the essence of the threefold social order: that it is precisely a threefold social order and not a twofold one.

[ 40 ] Now I said: In Germany, for example, after the revolution—because everyone was expecting something new—it would certainly have been possible to find a way to achieve the threefold social order in a relatively short time; but for reasons you are well aware of, that simply did not happen. In Switzerland, at first, there was no such external impetus at all—absolutely none—barely enough for the discrepancies between the three Swiss nationalities to evoke a sense of the necessity of the threefold social order. But these discrepancies are, after all, so superficial—despite the fact that much is written about them—that even they could not evoke a profound sense of the threefold structure of the social organism—by which I mean, of course, not three nations, but the three members listed in the “Key Points.” Therefore, it will be necessary for Switzerland to always strive to broaden the horizon of its perspective, to view Switzerland exactly as I did a few days ago: as a kind of pivot point for the entire world. And this sense should be evoked among the Swiss.

[ 41 ] I have always believed that during that terrible global catastrophe, the most effective step toward achieving peace—as early as 1915—could have been taken from Switzerland, had it been handled decisively and competently, however strange that may sound. But first and foremost, it is necessary that the Swiss people’s gaze be directed toward the broad global horizon.

[ 42 ] To this end, for anyone who wishes to speak in the spirit of the threefold social order, it will be necessary above all—indeed, if I were to speak in everyday terms, I would say: not only to read the weekly journal *Das Goetheanum*, but also to study it. And if I were to generalize this, I would say: Take an interest in everything that is happening on the great world stage today, and have a heart and a mind for the fact that, let’s say, the South African minister, Smuts, expressed part of today’s world turning point when he said: “World interests are turning away from the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean and finding their new focal point in the Pacific Ocean.” — Whatever a South African minister of today’s caliber might think points to exactly where the forces of decline—particularly with regard to the European continent—are to be found. I say: What a minister of this sort might say. He can, after all, speak only from an economic standpoint, because that is the only one familiar to him—it is the only one he understands. And if what such people might think today were to come to pass, then Europe would indeed become a sort of semi-barbaric peasant land. The trend is certainly heading in that direction.

[ 43 ] One must feel this deep down; otherwise, one will truly be unable to shape one’s speech in accordance with the spirit of truth today. No matter how much one engages in politics, one will speak without inner truth—and therefore ineffectively—if one harbors the underlying feeling: “Well, it’s always worked out; even if things went downhill for a while, they eventually went back uphill; so it won’t be that dangerous now either!” — That is not the case! Only those who are thoroughly imbued with the realization that, as indicated, only forces of decline are being unleashed for Europe can sense which are the true forces of renewal. The true threefolding thinker today must simply live with this sense: In all that has taken shape as the world order today, twilight reigns for Europe. — Therefore, one must free oneself from what is taking shape there and, drawing from original sources—above all from spiritual sources—must revive the wasteland into which Europe is to be turned by the West and also by the East. It is certainly true that one must listen closely to what the “time-tested statesmen” are saying today, as has, for example, been heard once again in Geneva. When a statesman, for example, presents the dream of a “World Court” in which statesmen will then unleash their wisdom for the good of the peoples, one should always have the feeling—and not shy away from evoking this feeling—that these statesmen, who are the only ones meant here, have brought about the current state of affairs and that they will reinforce it if things continue as they see fit.

[ 44 ] But people today, in particular, are weary in mind and spirit. They would actually prefer to avoid arriving at original thoughts and feelings. They simply want to keep nurturing what has long been tried and true. They want to hide away somewhere. They do not turn to anthroposophy—where it is necessary to stir the soul into activity—but instead, especially the intellectuals, they are flocking in great numbers to the Roman Catholic Church because no effort is required there. There, the priest or bishop takes it upon himself to guide the soul through death. Just think how deeply ingrained this is in people today: Parents have a son; they love him; therefore, they want to secure his future. There is the state; that is where he must find a place, for there he is completely secure, and he does not need to fight the battle of life on his own. There he works as long as he can; then he retires; thus, even beyond his working life, he is provided for. How can one not love this state when it takes care of one’s children!

[ 45 ] And people aren’t particularly fond of the struggling soul either. The Church is supposed to care for the soul until death, just as the state cares for labor. And just as the state provides for the outer, physical human being through its power, so too should the Church provide for the soul when a person dies; it is to care for the soul, to provide it with a “pension” after death. This is something so deeply ingrained in people today, something so deeply rooted in each and every one of them. Out of politeness, I will just say that this applies not only to sons, but to daughters as well, for they, too, prefer to marry those who are provided for in this way, don’t they? So, people are already obsessed with this: not relying on themselves, but having some mystical power somewhere that they can rely on. The state, as it exists today, is also a mystical power. Or isn’t there a great deal that is obscure about the state? I think there is far more obscurity there than even in the worst mystic.

[ 46 ] All these things must simply be rooted within us as feelings if we are to set ourselves the kind of tasks you wish to undertake—and which are, in fact, what led to this course being offered in the first place. In conclusion, I can only say: In this course, I had to limit myself more to the formal aspects of rhetoric. But what is essential is the enthusiasm and devotion in your hearts to the necessity of that influence that can emanate from the Goetheanum in Dornach. And to the same extent that this power of conviction grows within you in true reality, to that same extent it will not only become a convincing force within you, but it will also be able to become a convincing force for others. For what do we need? We do not need merely a doctrine today. No matter how good it may be, it can gather dust in libraries; it can appear here and there in the words of desert preachers—unless care is taken to ensure that the impulse of the threefold social order, with all that it entails, enters as many minds as possible as soon as possible. What pertains to the threefold structure of the social organism must enter as many minds as possible, for only in this way can anything be achieved—namely, that the very nerve of this threefold movement resides in as many minds as possible. Then what is to lead to its realization will come all by itself.

[ 47 ] But we simply must try to make an impact on a large scale. It is, one might say, almost necessary that a publication such as the weekly newspaper *Goetheanum* be distributed as widely as possible, especially in Switzerland. This is, of course, just one of many things. For such a weekly will not merely repeat in the same form what was said at the beginning—and which, of course, everyone should take to heart again and again—but it will also be compelled to engage with the currents of the times and to apply and develop, in the most diverse fields, what works in the spirit of the threefold social order. Witnessing what flows through the “Goetheanum” in this way will be particularly necessary for those who wish to work—as you do—in the spirit of the threefold social order.

[ 48 ] But above all: What we need is energy, courage, insight, and an interest in major world events! Not to shut ourselves off from the world, not to get caught up in narrow interests, but to take an interest in everything that is happening across the globe today. This also inspires our words; it will make us true collaborators in the field we have been seeking.

[ 49 ] It is in this spirit, my dear friends, that I wish to have spoken to you, and it is in this spirit that I have added today—as a sort of supplementary note, so to speak—to what was said this week, what I felt I had to add, since, after all, only an extremely small amount can be conveyed in such a short time.

[ 50 ] As you now set to work, you can be certain that the thoughts of the one who has spoken to you over these eight days will accompany you. And in such a collaboration there may also lie something that strengthens the impulse meant to inspire us when we wish to work in the true sense of the word, especially in Switzerland.

[ 51 ] With that, I offer you a heartfelt “Glück auf,” even though I do not wish to send you down into the depths of a dark shaft, but rather to a place where it is bright, where there can be fresh air for the development of humanity, and where this brightness and this freshness of air can bring you special satisfaction—because it is you yourselves who must bring this light and this fresh air into a part of the world.