The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Report in the “Mitteilungen des Zentralvorstandes der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft” No. 1/1921.

At four o'clock, Dr. Unger opens the discussion on the prerequisites, tasks and goals of an Anthroposophical Society and welcomes the numerous members of the Anthroposophical Society (about 1200) present. After a few procedural remarks that this is not a general assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, nor a founding assembly, but a gathering of the members present here, he hands over the chair to Mr. Uehli, who then gives Dr. Unger the floor as speaker.

Dr. Unger: We are in a difficult position with our movement in the midst of the decline of spiritual life, surrounded by organized opposition, behind which stand spiritual forces that we initially have to counter with only our free will to work. In order to arrive at a discussion of our main questions, some of the history of the anthroposophical movement should be presented, which is briefly outlined in my essay in the double issue of “Drei” appearing on the occasion of this congress, as it must be known to the public today. In future, no opponent must be allowed to claim ignorance of these facts. (What now follows is a reproduction of this essay, which may be read on the spot. The essay ends with the publication of the 'Draft of the Foundations of an Anthroposophical Society' written by Dr. Rudolf Steiner.) Unfortunately, there is reason to assume that even today this 'Draft of the Basic Principles' is not sufficiently known among the members of the Anthroposophical Society to fulfill its task. In the early days after the founding of the Society, it was my task to give lectures to the individual working groups that existed at the time and were forming rapidly about the tasks and goals of the Society. I had already indicated the Society's point of view in Number XIII (March 1912) of the “Mitteilungen” (Communications) for the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, and characterized it by the words “trust” and “responsibility”. The founding committee considered itself responsible for the spiritual current and wanted to call for people to come forward who were willing to share this responsibility. Working groups were to be formed and a kind of trust organization was to be created from trustworthy personalities, who in turn should be willing to take responsibility for what they achieve to the founding committee, just as each individual member should be willing to take their share of responsibility to the trustworthy personalities. Trust should be the prerequisite for responsibility: just as the task was entrusted to the anthroposophical movement, so should trust be expressed in people, that in their hearts the spiritual current that is to be served is at work, trust in the will and understanding of those who approached the task in order to take on the responsible task of building something that could last into the future within the increasingly collapsing world of the present.

A motto precedes the 'Draft of the Basic Principles': 'Wisdom is only in the truth'. (From Goethe's Prose Sayings.) This motto was placed in its position when the Theosophical Society fought against the truth in an organizational way, when untruthfulness, lies and defamation began to cloak themselves in the nimbus of wisdom. In a serious sense, this motto calls us to the starting points of our society. A simple overview of the content of the “Draft” shows that the prerequisites, tasks and goals of the Anthroposophical Society are set out here. It contains an obligation in that every member must know it before joining the Society. But this obligation does not lie in the external organizational structure; rather, the Society as such should mean something to its members in a human sense.

There are secret societies with which the Anthroposophical Society is often compared, albeit wrongly. But for the members of such secret societies, their society means something. Of course there are also disputes among their members, and there are also apostates, but it will certainly not happen that such people will carry anything to the outside world that could harm their society. The Society as such is respected above and beyond all differences of opinion. This is one of the prerequisites of the Anthroposophical Society, which cannot establish a connection between its members through external discipline, obedience and the like, but must achieve this connection out of a free understanding of genuine spiritual life.

The goal of “a satisfying and healthy way of life” is pursued by the Anthroposophical Society in accordance with the “Draft of the Basic Principles” “by promoting genuine and healthy research directed towards the supersensible and by cultivating its influence on the human way of life”; “true spiritual research and the attitude of mind that arises from it shall give the Society its character”; thus from the very beginning the main emphasis has been placed on the practical side of life, and what has since emerged as the effect of anthroposophy on the various areas of life is precisely part of the ‘cultivation of its influence on human conduct’. The three guiding principles, in which the character of the Society can be expressed, are based on true spiritual research. They are prerequisites or conditions for the work of the Society, which sets itself and is not intended to present an external commandment. In particular, the first guiding principle shows that brotherhood is not presented as a phrase or abstract demand, but that it can result from observing the spiritual that is common to all human souls. In order to gain influence on the way of life, the work of Dr. Steiner had to be given the widest possible distribution. It must be added here to the history of the Anthroposophical Society that the initial period after its founding had to be devoted to the inner attitude towards the goals. However, this work was abruptly cut short by the outbreak of war. An Anthroposophical Society only makes sense on an international basis. However, the way in which national matters were handled during the war did not allow for external work. In addition, of the three founders of the Society who served as the Central Board, Dr. Steiner (Miss von Sivers) resigned from her post at the beginning of 1916, so that an interim administration of the Society had to be set up. And in the following years, Mr. Bauer's state of health repeatedly led him to announce his decision to resign from the central board, so that this wish could not be ignored.

The fact that the inner work was able to continue to a certain extent is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that after the armistice was concluded, out of the necessity to make a serious effort to implement the life-promoting impulses of spiritual science in the midst of the collapse of the traditional way of life, many initiatives were taken, initially by individuals. Forms began to develop out of the anthroposophical movement that were increasingly isolated from the outside world: the threefolding movement, the artistic impulses of the Goetheanum, eurythmy, the Waldorf school, research institutes, university courses, etc. All of this worked to influence people's way of life. In the explanations of the “guiding principles”, the “draft principles” then speak of an ideal of life that can be a general human ideal of how to live. Reference is made to the exemplary nature that can flow from the living interaction of the members, but that can only be shaped if the members have the right attitude despite the “complete appreciation of the thinking and feeling of the individual”.

The draft contains much that prompts us to ask: has the Anthroposophical Society fulfilled its tasks, is it in a position to fulfill them in the future? This will be the subject of our discussion. It has become quite evident in the present time that “the human being needs to know and cultivate his own supersensible nature and that of the world around him,” as stated at the beginning of the “Draft of Fundamental Principles”. The souls of people today, especially the souls of young people, are attracted by all kinds of movements with lofty goals that are pursued in an abstract way that suits the times. Such movements seek to attract people who we know are valuable and who should work with us towards our goals. Such valuable people experience great disappointments in these movements. Why don't they come to us?

As a statistical comment, it may be said that the membership of our Society has increased from 3647 in 1914 to 8238 on August 1 of this year; a large increase in membership coincides with the time when strong opposition has become effective. Let us assume that all of the more than 8,000 members own the fundamental works of Dr. Steiner (although not all of them are subscribers to the Threefolding Journal or the “Drei”!). Most of these fundamental works have reached print runs of over 20,000, with the “Core Points of the Social Question” reaching 40,000. With print runs of 20,000, one can certainly expect a readership of 40,000, and these are truly interested readers, because Dr. Steiner's books do not appear in second-hand bookshops. This proves that spiritual science as such is effective; but the Anthroposophical Society is not effective. It must be said, without fear of contradiction, that it is a stumbling block in many quarters, especially for valuable people. Why is this so? That should be the subject of our discussion, for the cooperation of the members of our Society does not correspond to what is stated as a prerequisite in the “Draft of the Basic Principles”.

The Society as such means little in the consciousness of many of its members. One symptom of this is that hundreds of members present here have come to our congress as people interested in the lectures, but not as members of the Society as such. This is shown by the fact that hundreds came without a membership card; this is said without reproach for the individual. There is much that can be said about what happens among us that flies in the face of our principles. But it has consequences that are felt throughout the world. So, in an organization that wants to be based on freedom, giving advice is what can prove to be spiritually effective. In such a society, one must be able to give advice, and such advice should be properly appreciated. Dr. Steiner's position within society is particularly that of an advisor. Dr. Steiner often gave advice, and often the opposite of what he advised happened. But often enough, the effect is that Dr. Steiner is blamed for the opposite of what he advised. I have been able to mention only a few. But much can come from the impulses of this congress for the fulfillment of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society, which must break away from the inheritance of the old Theosophical Society. I pointed out many things in a circular letter a year ago; the circular letter had no effect. At that time, the success of such a congress could not be assumed with certainty. Now we have ventured this undertaking. Whether it will have the desired effect as an action will depend on the members of the Anthroposophical Society. To do this, we must take a serious and honest look at the situation. What I have said should be the basis for discussion, and you will contribute the best to it.

Mr. Uehli opens the discussion on the presentation and asks for written contributions.

Rector Bartsch underscores Dr. Unger's comments about Dr. Steiner's almost superhuman work and would now like to see the relationships of the members to the only remaining member of the central Executive Council regulated. He continues: Much has come from Stuttgart, as this congress also proves, and much would be better if the members of the Anthroposophical Society had shown themselves equal to their task. A movement with such great tasks would need a daily newspaper, and if the well over 5,000 members in Germany were each to recruit two to three subscribers to the three-part newspaper by Christmas, that would be a great success.

Of course, differences of opinion will always arise, but they can be resolved in the way I have described. We can only become a cohesive society if we are based on mutual trust. We must work towards solidarity. Various prominent figures at the forefront of our movement have been moved by such thoughts and feel it necessary to express that we have confidence in the extension of the board through free election, so that such an active board has the opportunity to embody the thoughts that have flowed from anthroposophy. Mr. Graf von Polzer-Hoditz: It is one of the basic truths of our spiritual movement that everything we decide and do happens at the right time. It is part of the signature of our time that everything has been stirred up in the individual human being. Therefore, we must approach our tasks with the right attitude. On behalf of many anthroposophists in various working groups in Austria, and speaking from my experience of being involved in the movement, I would like to express our confidence that the Central Board, which now consists of only one member, will be able to act again. From our relations with our friends in Czechoslovakia, I can also speak on behalf of those anthroposophists who live in Czechoslovakia today.

Dr. Stein uses an example to show how important it is to consider not only what may bother individuals, but also how things appear to the outside world. This is not given enough thought in our circles. He continues: “From this point of view, I would like to say a few words about the opposition, which is little known by members. You can't let the opponents be dealt with by a few specialists, of whom I am one. We must also take care of the individual issues raised by our opponents, for example, against the new edition of “The Philosophy of Freedom”. We do not represent our spiritual heritage at all if we accept it authoritatively. Each individual has the duty to examine the issues that an opponent wants to cast doubt on, and then to stand up for them when they know that they themselves stand for the cause with their entire personality. We are facing an opposition that does not just want to fight us, but to destroy us. The opponents organize themselves by loving evil. If our members knew that evil is even enthusiastically loved, then the strength would also be mustered to defend what wants to flow out of the sources of anthroposophy into all of humanity.

Mr. Ch. von Morgenstierne: Many difficulties have already been pointed out, and much more could be mentioned, for example, the great danger that our movement is perceived as a sect from many sides. Many influential people are repelled by this. We can best avoid this if we try to present the matter as it is done in the two main centers in Central Europe, in Dornach and Stuttgart. This could be seen at the summer course in Dornach that has just ended and at the present congress. We want to try to follow this example in the different countries. This is also said on behalf of many Nordic friends. We want to stand by the leadership of our movement, and I would also like to express the wish that the connection between the leadership of the Society and the other countries, for example with us in the north, becomes a firm and vibrant one.

Mr. Paul Smit: A true coexistence between people, the interaction from one person to another, which is so necessary for today's world, is often prevented by ideas coming between people. But these perceptions must be overcome as such; they must die in order to be transformed into life. That is why it is so important for the Anthroposophical Society to have people who understand how to practise spiritual science by silencing their perceptions when they are in contact with another person.

Mr. Uehli: Dr. Steiner wishes to read a statement.

Dr. Steiner: In a letter addressed to Dr. Steiner and myself, Mr. Kurt Walther, who has admirably led the management of the Anthroposophical Society in recent years, has resigned his office into the hands of those from whom he received it, in view of the changed circumstances and because it might be necessary to make changes that would be beneficial for the further development of the Society. Mr. Walther has devotedly administered the office within the Central Executive Council during these years, which I resigned at the beginning of 1916 for no other reason than because I did not want to associate Dr. Steiner's name with the thousand small affairs of the Society. Mr. Walther has thus taken on many arduous duties. I would like to publicly express my gratitude to him, who has to be absent today for official reasons.

Mr. George Kaufmann: Conscious of the tasks that the Anthroposophical Society has to fulfill in the whole civilized world today, I would like to warmly welcome the impulses that arise from this assembly. As it is also written in the 'Draft of the Fundamental Principles', this is connected with the fact that a knowledge of the supersensible nature of the human being and the world outside the human being is flowing into the hearts of many people. Therefore, our work is always directed towards the ability to judge and the sense of truth. Much is being done from here and from Dornach in all fields, which is beginning to give the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge respect in the world. The Anthroposophical Society should form the spiritual center of this work. Therefore, the Society must not be a sect, but the serious representative of a deep spiritual impulse. This movement is international, and in our hearts, we who work in different countries, live Dornach and the Goetheanum as the actual center of the movement; but it must be said that what could realize the Goetheanum as the center of the spiritual movement has not yet been done. Something could go out from this assembly to all parts of the world that can realize the internationality of the movement with its spiritual center in the Goetheanum; if a new revival of society emanates from here, where the strongest work is being done, and leads to concrete solidarity, then it will be able to have an effect on the non-German countries.

Mr. J. van Leer: In his opening speech, Dr. Unger pointed out that we are openly expressing here what is on our minds. I would like to point out some of the things that are to blame for the fact that we have not realized what could and should have been realized. The Anthroposophical Society welcomes all people who want to work in our spirit, but when Dr. Steiner pointed in a certain direction, cliques easily formed. One cannot say that the artistic is the main thing, or the threefold social order, or the economic, the school, but one must also look at what has been worked on in the branches for ten to fifteen years. That is also necessary. Recently, for example, Dr. Steiner's work has been focused on science, but if we want to let all of anthroposophy flow into all human hearts, then we must not consider the other aspects as unimportant either, even if sectarianism in the branches is reprehensible. This is one of the serious mistakes in our movement: we do not have enough trust to appreciate all the work. Not everyone can do all the work, but everyone can do work in their own field. We also need people who are not scientifically educated. In our society, everything is represented. If we appreciate the work of all people, we have the basis for the proper leadership of the Anthroposophical Society. If everyone works together and places their trust in the board, then we are a cohesive body that has power in the world, and we will also be able to cope with our opponents.

Mr. Vegelahn: Why is it that spiritual science works but the Anthroposophical Society does not work? I fully agree when the confidence is expressed to the central board here. It is indeed nice when it is said that we must strive for community, but what is given as a knowledge of the supersensible world must be put into the right relationship to what can be experienced here in the physical world. The right foundation for spiritual science can be gained from the 'Philosophy of Freedom'. Dr. Unger has given figures about high print runs. The 'Philosophy of Freedom' was out of print for a long time, and one would have expected the new edition to sell quickly. However, it took quite a long time. If the anthroposophists can show that their powers of judgment have been developed, then other people will have to change their judgment of them over time. Many people come to the Society as if seeking refuge from the disappointments of life, but they must also be able to leave this refuge and return to the world. To do this, they need to have strengthened their powers of judgment through the Philosophy of Freedom.

Dr. Kolisko: It has already been pointed out from various sides how necessary it is for our Society to present a unified front to the outside world. However, it can clearly be observed that a large part of what is directed against our movement as opposition arises from the fact that such a unified approach by all members of the Society is not present, because in many cases a basis of trust is still lacking. For example, when certain things are done after careful consideration, one can be sure that one will encounter mistrust or a lack of understanding and that the actions of many members will be in opposition to this. One must remember a peculiar prejudice against the Threefolding Newspaper, which I often encountered when traveling: namely, that it is too polemical, and that this is the main obstacle to all members supporting it and ensuring its distribution. This is because people are not sufficiently interested in the opposition. It has not been realized that, after the opposition had opened the fight, one was forced to take such a tone, as for example with what we have called positive time criticism. It is the case in our society that before the emergence of the threefolding movement, there was never any possibility of forming a social judgment. One was taken by surprise by the emergence into the public. But this had always been pointed out in the anthroposophical movement. The newspaper has been made as well as it could be, and if it is not yet better, it is because there is not yet broad support.

But one could also notice that there was a certain mistrust when, say, something was undertaken from Dornach or Stuttgart. They do not have the confidence that the things that have been undertaken have emerged from a certain solidarity between groups. We will not be able to work externally if we do not try to let what is being done take effect. So many things are thwarted. For example, negotiations were held with opponents when it would have been better not to negotiate with them after taking the opposing view towards them. It is often the case that outsiders have the impression that there is no society in which things are done in such an unsolidaristic way as in the Anthroposophical Society. This comes from the extraordinarily strong individualization in our society, but we must create such a basis of trust that our actions in public are carried out out of an ever-growing understanding of the movement's overall tasks, following joint deliberation. We must be able to trust the people working in the public sphere, because we have the impression that they are acting out of common understanding. Then we can counteract the formation of cliques. Not everyone needs to be an expert in everything, but everyone can take an interest in what is going on in the anthroposophical movement. The fact that they are not properly integrated into society gives rise to a wide range of grievances. I would just like to mention the issue of Dr. Steiner's lecture cycles, which are intended only for members of the Anthroposophical Society. The Society has been unable to preserve this spiritual material. The situation is such that these cycles have been leaked to a very large extent. In many cases, publishers have been keen to get hold of them. There is a tendency in the Society not to take seriously the words that are written down in the cycles. The admission of members to the Society is also handled in a casual manner, so that people have been admitted who then, due to a certain necessity, had to be excluded again. It is clear that precisely those whom one was forced to exclude have become the worst enemies of the movement. Consider where the opponents get their ideas! From the writings of Seiling. Such people, who like Seiling become our opponents, always come from certain cliques, and what confronts us is a reflection of what is present in our own circles.

All those in society who are really active in their work – and there should be as many as possible – must have the opportunity to trust each other, so that one has the impression that things are happening under responsibility. The individual can only come to a correct judgment through intensive, real collaboration. The task we face today must be to create such a basis of trust in the Anthroposophical Society, so that collaboration takes place from the point of view of feeling that one is standing in the same thing and trusting one another.

Mr. Uehli: A motion has been made to take a break now. Before that, Dr. Unger would like to say a few words.

Dr. Unger: I support this motion and would like to see something happen that will serve to fulfill our tasks. But before that, I have to discharge the most important duty. Various speakers have been kind enough to express their trust in me for what I have done or can still do for society. I can only accept this on the condition that I am allowed to express this trust and our heartfelt thanks to those individuals who were particularly involved in the creation of our society. Above all, I would like to mention Dr. Steiner (applause), who from the very beginning did everything that could be done by human beings to bring about a movement. I have already mentioned that Dr. Steiner's works were not yet valued by people in the sense that a movement came about around the turn of the century. The credit for initiating the movement goes to Dr. Steiner. She combined within herself the knowledge and abilities needed, and especially the will to achieve. It is only thanks to her work that forces could develop within society that can now try to develop something for life based on the spiritual science given by Dr. Steiner.

Among our friends, Mr. Bauer is known precisely for always being a personal center for all living things that can work among us. His intimate experience of the spiritual world flows through invisible channels into the hearts of people. In the most sincere and profound sense, I would like to transfer to Mr. Bauer what has been expressed here in terms of approval.

I would also like to express my special thanks to Dr. Steiner for what she shared about our friend Mr. Walther. For it was precisely during the most difficult times that he had an extraordinary workload on his shoulders. Mr. Walther stepped into the breach when something needed to be done, which he took on in such a commendable way.

Since words of trust and thanks are too weak for what is in our hearts at this moment for Dr. Steiner, I would like to express it in the form of a request; because, of course, everything that I and others have said here is based on what Dr. Steiner himself has done. And since everything depends on our being able to listen to advice in the right way, I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to give us his advice on this extremely important matter, where everything can depend on what comes from here, when we meet here again.

It is decided to continue the discussion in the evening. Mr. Uehli opens the continuation at [9] p.m.

Mr. Mengen: I have given particular attention to the question of why our society is often a stumbling block, and have found that we have an individualism in which people come together, listen to a lecture and then drift apart again. It is not recognized that there is a connection between the different areas of life. A free spiritual life is just as necessary as a fraternal economic life. When people talk about fraternity today, it is a cliché. Fresh forces must be brought into economic life from the living forces that are among us. An associative economic collaboration is the necessary complement to spiritual individualism. Today it is necessary for each individual to feel responsible for everything that happens.

Mr. M. Grundig: If we want to get to the point where everyone can be responsible for everything, it is necessary that everyone not only be content to be a member of the Anthroposophical Society, but that if they want to bring something into the public sphere, they must be imbued with the idea of anthroposophy. It has been pointed out that not everyone can be in science. But anyone who is in the circles of the working class knows that it is precisely here that we have to approach the matter as scientifically as possible. In his 'Key Points of the Social Question', Dr. Steiner pointed out how strongly natural science ideas have affected the proletariat. These ideas can only be made fruitful through anthroposophy. One can, as Dr. Steiner once said, come to an appreciation of spiritual science through a healthy feeling, but especially in the face of what can arise from scientific ideas in the proletariat, one must be able to provide sufficient knowledge. And then anthroposophy must intervene in the daily life of the broad masses of the people. To do this, something must be created, such as the foundation stone for the “Waldorf School” and so on, as laid out in “The Coming Day”. In this way, the worker can also do something good for the Anthroposophical Society.

Mr. Heydenreich: As a young person who has asked for the floor, I would like to make an announcement in all modesty. We anthroposophists who emerged from the youth movement came together during the congress in a few special discussions and realized that we have special tasks in our intermediary position between the youth movement and anthroposophy. We have come to realize that it is not only our duty to bring anthroposophy to the youth movement, but also that it is our duty to place our young forces at the service of anthroposophy, so that a corresponding action can emerge from it.

Mr. Michael Bauer: I would just like to make a few brief remarks that the assembly is expecting. It concerns the new central committee. I wanted to make this announcement myself so that people can feel and know from this fact that the new members of the central committee have emerged from the continuity of our movement. The two new members were not chosen over the heads of the outgoing members of the Central Committee, but with their consent, after much deliberation. They are Ernst Uehli and Emil Leinhas. Although both are friends of Stuttgart, it should be noted that it was one of the weaknesses of the old Central Committee that its members lived in different places. There must be close and constant contact between the members of the Central Committee if healthy and fruitful work is to be done, and now that all three members of the Central Committee live in Stuttgart, this is guaranteed. I probably do not need to mention that it is precisely the best factual reasons that justify this election.

Allow me to touch on a thought that has already been widely expressed in today's speeches, particularly in Mr. Kaufmann's speech from London. There has been much talk of trust, and I would like to add that there can be no meaningful communication from person to person if there is no trust in the background of the soul. When I speak a word to any human being and he has the will to understand me, something of my soul plays into the other; and it plays, strictly speaking, on the basis of what is in the first of our guiding principles, on the basis of a common spiritual. That which connects one soul with another, by which one can communicate in words, is consciously the very basis of our society. I could go on to explain that this trust that speaks from person to person in words can intensify and blossom forth as love. I could also point out that what we feel when we listen carefully, as the heartbeat of our aspirations, is a being that may be called the good spirit – I could also say the holy spirit – of humanity. Our society is based on the good spirit of humanity, which must weave from person to person if something healthy is to come about. In recent weeks, I have often been preoccupied with Uehli's beautiful book 'A New Search for the Holy Grail'; it tells how the Knights Templar were obliged not to leave the battlefield as long as a flag was still flying. Do believe that we are in an equally hard fight as the Templars had to face many times! And we should enter the fight with the same loyalty and full consciousness. I want to point out such loyalty at this moment, when you are facing a new central committee that has been formed after the most loyal and conscientious deliberation. And I would like to add the request that you reflect on the common spiritual that is placed in the hearts of people at this moment, when a new start is being made to step into the future with all that this movement wants to bring into the world, in loyalty and in the awareness of our obligation. Then the advice we are now expecting will be fruitfully received.

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends! The occasion for our being together today is an extraordinarily important and significant one; I therefore want to meet Dr. Unger's request in any case. If this request implied that I should give advice, then that will only be possible if I too try to say something about some characteristics of our social life that seems to me to be particularly necessary today. In the Anthroposophical Society, if it is to have full legitimacy and a good inner reason for being, it is necessary to address each individual. Individualism is that which cannot be separated from the nature of such a society as the Anthroposophical Society must be, and therefore it is always difficult to say this or that in small circles if there is no possibility that what has been discussed or, for my sake, reported there will really find its way to the individual members as quickly as possible and then find a responsive heart in the individual members.

Today, however, it is possible to speak to a large number of my dear friends, and so mentioning one or other of them today can also have a very special significance. And so please allow me, even if I do not claim to do so even in outline, to go into some of the history of our anthroposophical movement, and then to come to certain current details. From the very beginning, significant obstacles have stood in the way of this Anthroposophical movement, to the extent that it should live in society. It has already been mentioned today that for certain reasons, what is being attempted within the Anthroposophical Society was first attempted within the framework of the Theosophical Society. Twenty years ago, the German Section of the Theosophical Society was formed in Berlin. During the formation of this German Section, I gave a lecture for a completely different audience that was part of a lecture cycle called “Anthroposophical Reflections on the History of Humanity”.

Even at the founding of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, the anthroposophical goal was the decisive one for me. I do not want to go into the details of the founding now, but just mention that everything that happened in this context led to a small scene, to an argument between two celebrities – at that time German celebrities of the Theosophical Society. They were so angry about everything that had happened back then that the day after the founding they made the following very harsh statement: “Yesterday we buried the Theosophical movement in Germany.” That was the prognosis that two Theosophical celebrities gave at the time to the movement that was to be inaugurated in the way described to them. What had to happen could not be done differently at that time than it was done. But it had the effect that the whole anthroposophical movement carried certain fetters. I would like to characterize these fetters, at least in a few pages. What gradually became the practice of the Theosophical Society was something that, I would say, was second nature to a large number of the members who joined together to form the German Section at that time. They simply had the idea that they could not do anything differently from the way it was done in the Theosophical Society; you will see later why I am emphasizing and mentioning these things.

But my dear friends, for me it was actually impossible at that time, despite my involvement in the German Section of the Theosophical Society, to understand anything of these practices. I will mention just one fact: at that time, a person working with the German Theosophical Society gave a lecture in which she presented an excerpt from Misses Besant's “Ancient Wisdom”. At that time I had not really concerned myself with the literature of the Theosophical Society, but in one excerpt I heard the main teachings being put forward – and with the retention of the whole style of thinking, of looking at things – that were being spread within the Theosophical movement. I found the whole thing terribly unappealing, and I actually rejected such dilettantish, lay talk out of an inner scientific conscientiousness. This led to my being compelled to write my book 'Theosophy' as a matter of course, so that there would be something to hold on to that could also stand up to science. To me, standing up to science was always something different from being recognized by conventional science.

Then I want to highlight one more thing from all these things: I went on a lecture tour in Holland. I presented what I had to say from my own point of view. It actually caused consternation among the members of the Dutch Theosophical Society, because in essence it was heretical in their opinion. This also led to the fact that these Dutch 'Theosophists were the first to turn with all their might against what was then expressed at the Munich Congress in 1907. What came close to the Theosophical Society, but was actually intended by Anthroposophy, was, my dear friends, in many respects a crowd of dreamers who took an extraordinary pleasure in their “dreams”. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about any doctrine today, not about any occult facts or the like, but about human moods. Within the Theosophical Society, it was simply the custom to absorb the Theosophical attitude in the following way:

As an external person, one lived exactly the same way as one had lived before becoming a Theosophist; one was a civil servant, teacher, noblewoman or anything else in the same way. One continued to live in the same way as before, but one had, if I may say so, a new sensation, albeit of a better kind. One pleased oneself in knowing, or at least in pretending to know, something about the whole world from occult sources. Now, my dear friends, they particularly liked to say: “Yes, somewhere, in a place that is as inaccessible as possible, there live certain individuals who are called ‘masters’; they are the guides of humanity, who have been guiding the development of humanity for so long, we are all in their care, we have to serve them.” One took pleasure in these services, which were particularly enhanced by the fact that these masters lived in an inaccessible distance, so that one never knew anything about whom one served as an actor or the like. Perhaps by extinguishing the light or darkening the room and sitting down at a small table, head in hands, one imagined that one was serving the masters in such a way that one was involved in all the most important matters of the present. In particular, one liked to sit down and then send out thoughts; this sending out of thoughts was even practiced with great enthusiasm in circles, especially within theosophical circles.

With these things, I only want to hint at the moods that, out of a certain pleasure in reverie, actually substantiated what, as a kind of mystical coquetry, was one of the vital nerves of the Theosophical Society and of theosophers in general. You see, my dear friends, this kind of mood has become too entrenched within the movement that was now incumbent upon us. No one is to be reproached for this; some have worked devotedly and sacrificially out of this mood. But one cannot say that this mood has prepared well for what Dr. Unger emphasized today.

When 1919 came, the task was suddenly to throw oneself into the stream of world evolution, to show that one had grown with what one had prepared in order to work in the stream of human development. It was no longer a matter of sitting down with a dim lamp, resting one's head in one's hands and sending out thoughts, but of grasping reality with one's thinking, which had been worked through with anthroposophy and had become practical.

In principle, this attitude had always been in preparation, but as far as I was concerned, I perhaps encountered the most vehement opposition – even if it was not expressed – from those followers who, in a certain respect, rightly considered themselves the most loyal followers. For there was always a certain tendency towards nebulous mysticism, which had to be fought against in the most terrible way, especially among those who were most well-meaning and well-intentioned. It is the after-effects of this tendency towards nebulous mysticism that is causing us such great difficulties within the Anthroposophical Society today. Because, my dear friends, we do not want to live in abstractions; we want to see reality as it is everywhere, and it must be said that this mood of dreaming is what becomes the most dangerous seducer of untruthfulness and volatility in relation to real life. No one is more exposed to taking real life lightly than the one who blurs his soul in nebulous mysticism. But that, in turn, is what makes it so difficult for anthroposophists to look at things realistically with a healthy mind. If anthroposophy were taken as it is given, if sometimes, by flowing into the other soul, a completely different soul content did not flow out of it, then the ability to take things of external reality quickly, with presence of mind and simply, would flow out of this very anthroposophy, and from the simple one would then also find the basis for confronting the organized opposition, which is much more than you think.

Let me also say a few words about this, because if the Anthroposophical Society wants to continue to exist, it is necessary to be very clear about these things. It has been pointed out today that a large proportion of the opponents copy the judgments they release from a book by Max Seiling, who once behaved as one of the most loyal confessors of the anthroposophical view. He was cajoled in the most diverse cliques, and again out of a certain nebulous mysticism, he was given a great deal of importance in certain cliques. Now, this man has written a book. Why did he write this book? One can disregard all the filth that can be found in this book. But this is to be envisaged with a healthy sense of reality: this man, who at first threw himself with all his might at - forgive the trivial expression - our Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, was allowed to publish a small booklet, for which I because this booklet was basically quite useful, I even wrote an afterword; but then this man wanted to have a book published by the same publishing house, half of which consisted of plagiarism from my lectures and half of his foolish spiritualist ramblings. This wish had to be rejected, and out of annoyance at this and out of his character, which simply lies when it hates, all kinds of lies were sent out into the world by Max Seiling. That is the reality, and any other judgment about it is nonsense; anyone with a clear mind sees through things.

I will give you another example, which may not be so easy to see through; but if one were to see that within the Anthroposophical Society there really is what has often been expressed today by the word “trust”, then one would only need to say something characteristically significant to illuminate a case on the basis of this trust. This would take hold within the Anthroposophical Society, a truthful judgment would be established. And that is what we need above all. I would like to mention the Goesch case as a small example. Goesch was also someone who, in every way, first of all threw himself at it, if I may use the trivial expression again. One day, Dr. Goesch's wife came to me with her children and introduced me to one of the children, of whom she seriously claimed that this child – I don't know how many days, but a sufficiently large number of days, as the woman believed, always knew in advance when – it was during the war – when the French would attack the Germans in some battle.

Well, my dear friends, you see, all that was needed was to set up a telephone line between the Goesch house in Dornach and the large headquarters, and then, according to the promptings of this little child, it would have been possible to communicate to the large headquarters in Germany every time the French would attack the Germans again. The fact that I was told something like that led me to say a few words about the somewhat inadequate education, and I had to point out in particular the man who was to blame for some of the failings in the education. From the next day onwards, Dr. Goesch was the opponent he has become. My dear friends, things are not that simple. But one must not look for something other than this simplicity, and to achieve this simplicity one must first acquire the ability to judge; this is acquired through healthy anthroposophy, not through that which still remains from the old practices of the Theosophical Society.

My first advice is to ensure that the remnants, not of Theosophy, but of the theosophical-social feeling, may finally be expelled from our Society.

Now, this also means that certain things that happen must be taken with the necessary weight. In my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' (Mysteries of the Soul), I pointed out the whole corruption of Max Dessoir. If what is said in my book about Dessoir's character had been taken seriously – I am not talking, of course, about the powerless anthroposophists, but about those who had the obligation to take such things seriously – then it would be clear that This is not about defending anthroposophy, but about the character of a university lecturer, and my book shows that a person contaminated by such scientific immorality must never be allowed to remain a university lecturer for a moment. This is not really relevant here, but I still had to learn that, after the fact, I was told that our side had personally negotiated with that individual Max Dessoir, so it was considered important to somehow make this man more inclined towards our anthroposophical movement than he is.

And a man like Traub has been sufficiently characterized by the reference to the sentence that he, invoked as an authority, wrote in an important Württemberg newspaper: “In my ‘Theosophy’ I claim that in the devachan, spirits move like tables and chairs here in physical space!” My dear friends! Anyone who is capable of writing such things without thinking must be judged as a pest in the position he holds. And when one is constantly confronted with such things as the sentence: “Yes, the threefold order should deal with positive things, it should not deal with these things in a polemical way so much.” – then, my dear friends, it must be said: This is a complete misunderstanding of what reality demands of us. It is necessary that the truth be told in all its unvarnishedness, and I could multiply a hundredfold what I have given only in examples.

But if such an attitude, which is thoroughly compatible with what brotherhood and universal love are, if such an attitude were to penetrate our ranks, then we would be better off. But we are still very far from this attitude, because one cannot rise to find the way from a false judgment to a true judgment. The false judgment is: “Be loving towards such a Traub, who, as a weak human being, can make a mistake, perhaps out of the best of knowledge and belief!”

My dear friends, I call that a misjudgment. I call it a correct judgment: “Be loving towards all those who are corrupted by such a university educator!” That is what it is about, not throwing one's love in the wrong place, but understanding where to let it flow. Anyone who wants to be benevolent towards the corrupters of youth out of nebulous sentimentality lacks true human love. But this must be developed within humanity, although the first may be more comfortable.

Today, a question has also been touched upon that is indeed important for the existence of the Anthroposophical Society, namely the “cycle question”. In fact, every single member has undertaken to ensure that the cycles remain within the Society. For me personally, it was less important that these cycles should not be read outside the Society than that the form in which these cycles had to be printed, because I did not have time to correct the typesetting, should remain known only to those who are aware of the circumstances. Nevertheless, it has turned out that it is even possible that Count Keyserling can continually boast that he has read the cycles, the man who, when confronted with the objective untruths he has told about me, simply has the frivolous excuse: he has no time to do research on Steiner. - In other words, this Count Keyserling has no time to inquire about the truth, so he spreads untruth. The Cycles have been delivered to people with such an attitude; and if I wanted to go over to the other side, I could cite many other things. So it has come about that today, torn out of the cycles by the enemies everywhere, sentences can be quoted. Actually, I would have to say today: Now that this has happened through the membership, the cycles can be sold anywhere, because it would be better to hand over the cycles to the public than to hand them over to those who misuse them. No one should be criticized in a derogatory way, because what has happened has happened because of all the continuation of what I have referred to as nebulous sentimentality, nebulous mystification and the like.

But such grounds have led to something else, and it is really important to speak out in this regard. Today, too, it has often been said, and it has sounded to me like a shrill discordant note, that changes have occurred in our society, that in the past there was somehow a way of dealing with things by which even the non-scientifically educated could approach society as collaborators, and that it has now become fashionable to proceed scientifically. Now, my dear friends, in forming such judgments, they spread. They are false judgments. Compare the way I presented the beginning of the Anthroposophical Society with the way I present it today; compare how I spoke to the public then and how I speak to the public now, and you will find nothing that could seriously be called a change of direction in the Anthroposophical Society. It is a different matter that individual things have been added that the times have demanded. I would even say the opposite. Anyone who takes some of the public lectures from the beginning of the century will find a more scientific tone from me from a certain point of view than he can find today; but if one were to sense correctly from the depths of the soul in this regard , then one would not come to say, as no one has said today, but as has been said many times: “Now the scientists rule, now the scientists are in favor, now is the scientific era!” No, a healthy sense of reality would lead one to say: Well, it is quite good that people have finally come to the anthroposophical movement who are able to defend anthroposophy against all scientific criticism. In any case, people would be pleased about the active work of our scientists. But from there, my dear friends, it is only one step to a healthy judgment, which is extremely important in terms of cultural history. And for that I would like to present you with a small piece of evidence. In issue no. 48 of “Zukunft” you will find an open letter written by a man who is not particularly well-liked by me, but he is a university teacher among university teachers, and he apostrophizes the entirety of German university teachers in the following manner:

I must go public, because today the filthiest lout believes he can rub up against me where Harnack rubbed up against me.

In an open letter, an attempt is made to show that Harnack, Rubner, Eduard Meyer, the celebrities, simply lied about the scholar in question.

Even blackmailers have taken up the matter and pointed out to me that the slightest public scandal would be highly inconvenient for someone who has been denounced by his peers; therefore, I should rather pay. To stand alone in a world of such mentality and to know that only the law is on one's side is not exactly pleasant. That is why I asked Herm Harden to publish this cry for help. I am looking for that one righteous person (not even the ten for whose sake Sodom and Gomorrah were spared) who will restore German science to its Christian roots.

This is how university teachers talk to each other today.

If only one determined person belonging to the university were to insist on an investigation of this dark matter, then it would have to and would come. I expect especially the honest ones among my enemies to support my demand for objective clarification. They must be convinced that it will show that I have defamed Mr. Eduard Meyer. And since slanderers do not belong at a university, my enemies would then have achieved by fair means what they have so far vainly striven for by foul ones: to deprive me of my associate professorship at the University of Berlin. But if this one honest man cannot be found, then no university teacher should be surprised if our previously respected status is tarnished even more than Sodom and Gomorrah.

My dear friends! I do not want to pass judgment on who is right or wrong here; that would be far from my mind. But I am drawing your attention to the tone in which people speak to one another today, even among intellectual leaders. Is it not time to rejoice that on anthroposophical soil a number of scholars have come together who have what it takes to lead humanity out of what is not me, but one who belongs to the people, worse than a Sodom and Gomorrah calls? I believe that this joy could be greater than the characteristic that we have now entered the era of science. What we really need to do is to take things straight and simply and look for the most important and meaningful, never closing our eyes to what is.

And if the anthroposophical movement had to broaden its circles, so to speak, how did that happen? Please study the history of this movement and you will see that it was usually not out of an urge for further work. My dear friends! I have — I think — five or six uncorrected new editions of my books, and I have had them for months. There is truly no urge, and never has been, to keep on being busy. What looks like a change has come about under the pressure of the times, under the demands that have arisen. The Federation for Threefolding, Waldorf Schools, Kommender Tag magazine – none of this came out of anthroposophical initiative. Study history and you will see how it really lies. But this is something that every single anthroposophist should know.

And that is the second piece of advice I would like to give: that institutions take root in our society that are designed to foster not only ideal trust, which is to be valued in the highest degree, among our members, but also to enable a living exchange that is never and nowhere interrupted.

How often have I had to hear it in recent times: Yes, anthroposophy, that's very beautiful, threefold social order very beautiful, but you can't agree with what those people in Stuttgart are doing. And a certain opposition to Stuttgart is something you come across everywhere.

My dear friends! Among those prominent figures who are directing affairs here from Stuttgart, there are many who, if they could act according to personal sympathies and antipathies, would gladly lay down this burden. If one really takes into account all the things I have tried to point out, one must also come to some conclusion about how the circumstances, how the whole course of events in our anthroposophical movement, have brought those personalities into the leading positions who now hold them. Then we will criticize these leading personalities less for personal reasons and more for everything else. Then we will have active trust and then we will also make it possible for these personalities not to always have to deal with personal differences among the membership and to lose time with it , but then these personalities will be able to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that, with the help of the branches, everything that can be observed at the center as being important for the movement is passed on to each individual member.

My dear friends! It is like trying to open an open door when you point out that the branch work should be appreciated. Branch work has never been underestimated, and least of all by those who have found their way into the Society as scientists. This branch work should be organized in such a way that less judgment is heard: “Yes, we don't hear anything from headquarters.” You can also do something to make sure you hear something, and I have often found that the response “We're not hearing anything” is based on the fact that you're not listening. For example, it shouldn't have happened that Dr. Unger was able to say that he circulated a letter last year and that nothing of significance came of it. This, my dear friends, is what brings us to the central issue: it is necessary for each individual member to regard the Society as their very own concern, not just as a framework for individual cliques that then stick together very closely, but as something in which anthroposophy can live as a reality. If each person regards the society as their own business, then interests in the whole of this society will arise from it. And this interest, the most vital interest in the whole of this society, is what we need if we want to realize what should be realized through the anthroposophical movement. The situation at the Goetheanum in Dornach, at the Waldorf School, at the Kommende Tag, Futurum and so on would be quite different if this interest were present; because living deeds would flow from this interest. But as it is – I am pleased that I can now also mention something that is outside the borders of the Reich, which here is actually only of theoretical interest – but as it is, I had to experience it. Because of what I call the inner opposition, which, contrary to my intentions, is actually very strong, , that last fall in Dornach I pointed out in the sharpest terms the necessity for founding a World School Society and that during my lecture tour in Holland this winter I repeatedly pointed out the necessity for this World School Society.

My dear friends! This world school association has failed, despite my conviction that it was up to us to be able to finish building the Goetheanum in peace. So it is necessary, I would say from month to month, to face the heavy concern that we will not be able to finish building the Goetheanum at all because the funds are gradually drying up. As I said, I do not need to tell you that the countries of Central Europe cannot do anything for the construction of the Goetheanum at present. But it is an example of how little respect is shown for what is, so to speak, thrown into the Anthroposophical Society as a necessity. I would not say it has failed if I believed it was impossible to do this or that, if I had not seen that the words were not understood in the sense in which I had to understand them, that the seriousness and the earnestness needed for such a matter are not taking hold in people's hearts.

And that is the third piece of advice I would like to give: that we acquire the ability to take things seriously enough, not with the superficiality that exists in the world today.

We need this within the Anthroposophical Society, and if we translate what I have taken more out of the historical development into the practical, then today it would be a matter of each and every one of the dear friends who are here trying to do what is possible for them, where they are, so that the future central board society, with such trust that it makes it possible, at the moment when one disagrees with this or that, to also say to oneself, it does not depend on the individual case, it depends on having the necessary total trust in the people who are in their place, even if one cannot see in the individual case what has led them to one or the other. And again, this central board will have to co-opt a number of personalities who are out in the world, working either like the branch leaders or in some other way on the anthroposophical movement and on related matters.

This central board will have to choose these personalities from the available options and will have to do so as quickly as possible if the Anthroposophical Society is to continue to make sense.

This is an organization that cannot be made mechanically. It is an organization that must be done with heart and soul, whether it concerns spiritual matters or scientific ones. We will make progress in everything if we want to bring life into the Society in this way. This life will ignite many other things and extinguish many damages that have occurred because, in recent times, very little has been seen of such life. Then, when such a living organism emerges from society, those personal discrepancies will cease, which today rise up like terrible waves from society and actually disfigure everything, everything, impair all work, because in the face of the great interest in the great cause of society, all these pettinesses in one's own heart will be able to disappear. That is what we must work towards.

I would like to say that the first thing we would take from today's meeting would be unconditional trust in the central committee and the conviction that if this central committee now forms its extended trust committee, the right trust can also be placed in this extended committee. It will be hard work for the Central Board to bring this extended board into being in accordance with the wishes of the members, which cannot be expressed in a vote but must be expressed in quite a different way. But it must be done; and when it is done, my dear friends, the details will have been followed in accordance with the advice that I could have given right at the start in a few words if I had wanted to spare my voice today. I could have said: “The ‘Draft of the Principles of an Anthroposophical Society’ has been printed at the beginning of the Anthroposophical Society, which has now been reprinted in the ‘Three’. And I could have summarized my advice in the words: ‘Realize these principles, because everything is contained in these principles’. And if these principles are realized, then everything will be all right in the Anthroposophical Society and with everything connected with it.

But one must understand these principles in their totality; if one understands them in their totality, then one also knows how to develop a feeling for what is approaching this anthroposophical movement. A representative of the youth movement has spoken here! There are a whole number of student representatives here, my dear friends! The fact that members of such movements or such bodies have come to our Anthroposophical Society is something we must regard as epoch-making in the history of our Anthroposophical Movement. We must feel the need to do everything that can rightly be expected of the Anthroposophical Society from such quarters. The student movement that has emerged within our Anthroposophical Society bears a great deal of the hope for the success of our Society. And how did this student movement come about? Well, it comes from something that I have already mentioned from other points of view: it comes from the fact that young scholars, scientifically minded people, have found their way into our Society. It is because of this “fashion”, this alleged “change of course” in our society, that we have a guarantee for a fruitful future of our movement through the entry of the student body.

My dear friends! We must have an open, free eye for everything that occurs in our society. You cannot give advice in the form of telling someone to do this or that. The only advice that can be given is addressed to the heart and mind of each individual member. Such advice must not shy away from saying something that could be taken by some as unloving criticism. No, if you really care about someone, then out of love you must tell them the truth. And today it is necessary to express the truth in all areas in the most concise words possible. We must see what kind of contrast this truth must be given in order to provide our anthroposophical movement with the momentum it needs.

My dear friends! We must speak of certain necessary educational measures; if we are true anthroposophists, we regard what should be made general through the Waldorf School as something that must necessarily be brought to life for the benefit of our cultural and civilizational development in the present day, for there are remarkable principles precisely in relation to the present. When I mention such principles, you will say, “That is rare.” No, this attitude is very widespread, even if it is not expressed in such drastic words everywhere. The educational principles of an opponent who has recently made himself very badly known, and who, among other things, has also campaigned against the Waldorf School and its educational system, have come to light. And I would like to share with you one of his educational principles, which is: “Children are actually hardly more intelligent than dogs, so you have to educate them similarly.” We are already speaking into the strange perceptions and attitudes of the present, and we must not shrink from developing all the strength that is necessary to be able to work into what is being treated in this way from many sides in the present.

A clear understanding of the present, an interest in the present, and an open eye for what is must, like the recovery of humanity in general, also lead to the recovery of the Anthroposophical Society. Then a time will come when perhaps the possibility will arise to no longer have to negotiate such things as the scattering of the cycles and the like. But if the attitude that I sincerely desire and that I have characterized by speaking today the words that may be displeasing to some takes hold, then perhaps it will be avoided having to sell the cycles in any way, because there is no difference in attitude within the walls and outside of them with regard to this point. So I had to tell you, my dear friends, my advice, actually characterizing; but it cannot be any different within the Anthroposophical Society. It rests on the individuality of each individual, so one can only speak to each individual. And this society will only flourish if the heart and soul and spirit of each individual strive to unfold in full health.

Emil Grosheintz: The third extraordinary General Assembly of the Association of the Goetheanum in Dornach is now in session. I request Dr. Steiner to take the chair for the day.

Rudolf Steiner: Dr. Grosheintz, as chairman of the Goetheanum Association, kindly asks me to take over the chairmanship of this extraordinary general assembly. I hereby accept it with thanks and warmly greet all the friends who have gathered and also the representative of the authorities.

The extraordinary General Assembly is hereby opened, and we will discuss the matters that have become necessary for the organization of the Association of the Goetheanum as a result of last year's Christmas Conference here at the Goetheanum in Dornach.

This Christmas Conference, my dear friends, was intended to bring a new direction into the whole anthroposophical movement, and above all, with this new direction, it should be avoided in the future that things in our movement drift apart, and it should be ensured that in the future they are actually led out of the anthroposophical movement.

As you know, a board of directors was appointed at the Goetheanum during this Christmas Conference, which now, as an initiative board, feels fully responsible for what happens in the Anthroposophical Society. And this intention can only be realized if the Anthroposophical Society in future stands before the whole of public life as the body that really does the work, that really feels fully responsible for everything that exists. This can only be achieved if we now also bring about a unified constitution in the mutual relationship of the individual activities. And so it was agreed between the previous chairman, Dr. Grosheintz, and myself for the Association of the Goetheanum Dornach that, firstly, because the organization of affairs has fallen to me, especially since the painful Goetheanum catastrophe, it must therefore also be possible for me in the future to take full responsibility for what happens here.

I had to lead the negotiations, which lasted almost half a year, about the accident in Dornach, insofar as it was related to the measures of the various insurance companies, with all that interested the authorities in this accident at the time. Then, after that was settled, we had to think about how to rebuild the Goetheanum. Of course, it couldn't be done in a day. It took some time to consider and develop possible plans for the reconstruction. We had to deliberate with ourselves in the most diverse ways.

We are dealing with a completely new material that is being used, because of course we do not want to create the possibility of such an easy fire again. It goes without saying that the building, since it is now to be constructed out of the completely fireproof material of reinforced concrete, must be thought of in a completely different way than it was thought of as a wooden structure. The style, the whole attitude of the building had to change as a result, and when the relevant negotiations with the authorities are concluded, we will indeed have a significantly different building in front of us in the new Goetheanum than the old wooden structure.

But work has continued, and we are now at the stage where, once we have cleared away the rubble on one side, and once we have received the official approval on the other, which will not be long now, and which we hope will be favorable when we have this official approval to build, we will also start building. And it would indeed be my wish to promote this construction as quickly as possible, so that – I am still thinking about it, even if perhaps our architect is overcome by a slight palpitation when I say these words, but despite all that – our architect is a very accommodating man, and he will have to consider how things will turn out, which will then be met by me in the course of the next activity – I am still thinking that meetings could be held in the new building as early as Christmas if the permit comes quickly and we can use the favorable construction period for this.

But please do not take this as a promise, just as a wish on my part, which of course may be opposed by many obstacles, of course. But as a rule, it is primarily the prejudices that are difficult for me in such matters. Then, of course, there may be external obstacles that are sometimes beyond one's control to overcome. But in any case, we will make every effort to overcome the matter.

So you see that there is no other way in the near future than for what has been agreed between Emil Grosheintz and me to actually be carried out, that I myself be entrusted with the presidency of the Goetheanum Association. Of course, I can only do this on condition that Emil Grosheintz, who has led the Goetheanum Association in such a beautiful and self-sacrificing way, is then the second chairperson, and that we can work together. That would be one thing.

But then it will be necessary, out of the whole spirit of the Anthroposophical Society as it now exists, for this Anthroposophical Society to function as the actual registered association, i.e. to be outwardly the institution that represents everything here in Dornach. It will therefore be necessary for the General Anthroposophical Society to exist as a registered association. Within this Anthroposophical Society, four subdivisions will have to be established. These four subdivisions are planned by me in such a way that I take into account only purely real things, and not programmatic matters. We have worked a lot with the programmatic since 1919, but from the moment I took over the chairmanship of the Anthroposophical Society at Christmas, I myself cannot work responsibly with the programmatic, for the simple reason that I am really quite opposed to everything programmatic, everything theoretical, everything that works with paragraphs, not for a personal reason, but for the whole reason of our anthroposophical movement. One can only work from the real.

We have four, I would say four, currents of real institutions that have been active in living, organic activity from the very beginning: firstly, the Anthroposophical Society itself, which, even when the programmatic things began, was was often challenged; so it will continue to exist as the Anthroposophical Society in the narrower sense – I will now proceed historically by listing the facts – as the first subdivision. It is, of course, completely independent of all the programmatic developments since 1919.

Secondly, within our movement, we have the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, which has now moved to Dornach and cannot be treated differently [because] as an integral part of the Anthroposophical movement itself.

Again and again, efforts were made to thwart this view, which is actually the essence of the matter, from here or there. Again and again, the opinion arose that the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House was the institution that needed help most of all because it was not being properly managed, and the like. But when I wanted to substantiate one thing or another in the field of political economy with something that was actually working, and not something programmatic, I could only ever cite the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, which did not develop from a grand program but from small beginnings, starting with two books and then working very slowly, so that it was always grounded in reality and never received any subsidy from any quarter other than that which arose from the matter at hand and which had absolutely real possibilities for covering costs. So that in terms of economic leadership, this Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House could even be cited as an example to follow if one wants to base economics on life. That would be the second subdivision.

The third subdivision – as I said, I am listing historically – would be the Association of the Goetheanum in Dornach itself, which emerged as the third institution and also worked only out of anthroposophical principles, untouched by any side currents. It would therefore also be able to form a subdivision of the General Anthroposophical Society.

And fourthly, the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, which was founded by Dr. Ita Wegman on the basis of anthroposophical principles, would then be integrated. And since I have to justify what it is all about - that it is really a real anthroposophical thing - if I want to explain it, I have to do it in the following way. I have to explain to you that there is an enormous difference between this Clinical Therapeutic Institute and other similar institutes. Many things have come into being since 1919 under the influence of the fact that at that time it was possible, more or less justifiably, to believe that certain things could be carried from some side into our movement, carried better than they could be carried from within the anthroposophical movement itself.

If we consider some institutions, we can say that they would not be there today if it were not for these movements, which emerged at the time in connection with the threefold social order movement, and if these movements had not emerged, the institutions would have been created by them. This is not the case with Dr. Wegman's Clinical Therapeutic Institute. One could say, and this is absolutely correct, that if none of the programmatic institutions had come into being – this Clinical Therapeutic Institute, which emerged from the intentions of anthroposophy, and of course from medical intentions – this Clinical Therapeutic Institute would then be there.

Let us imagine away everything that has been created since 1919. Not only has the Clinical Therapeutic Institute never had any need to take any of this into account, but on the contrary, it has even filled in for the other things to a very considerable extent at a crucial moment, so that here we have an institution that differs in its entire development and in its entire existence, also in the way it presents itself. It is a fruitful institution, one that is self-supporting, economically viable in itself, and promisingly economically viable.

So this institution definitely belongs to those that are now to be subdivisions of the General Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, the clinic is being acquired by the Anthroposophical Society through the Association of the Goetheanum in Dornach, and will form an integral part of the general Anthroposophical movement in the future.

These are the facts that arise purely from the matter itself. I would like to say that one cannot think differently about the further development of things here if one wants to put the matter on a healthy footing for the future. All other measures arise as necessary consequences.

We will have to negotiate the further composition of the Executive Council of the Goetheanum Association; we will have to negotiate the minor changes to the statutes that are necessary. All of this will arise as a consequence of the conditions just stated.

It is still the case that, if this reconstitution occurs, the board of the Anthroposophical Society will of course be on the board of the Goetheanum Association in the future: The President of the General Anthroposophical Society will also be President of the Association of the Goetheanum, the Secretary of the General Anthroposophical Society will also be Secretary of the Association of the Goetheanum, and the entire Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society will be part of the Executive Council of the Association of the Goetheanum. This is a rough outline of what should form the basis for the organization of this extraordinary General Assembly. Perhaps Mr. Emil Grosheintz would like to say something?

Emil Grosheintz: I would just like to add that the Executive Council of the Goetheanum Society had a meeting this morning and that at this meeting Dr. Steiner was asked to take over the chairmanship of the Goetheanum Society and the previous Executive Council resigned. This board, the previous board, is therefore resigning, and the new board will be constituted in such a way that the new members of the board of the Goetheanum Association will be chosen by cooption by the chair.

Rudolf Steiner: So the previous board has decided to resign as such, and the composition of the board would result from what will be laid down in the statutes immediately afterwards – should it be done beforehand? [Representative of the authority:] No. That the Executive Council of the General Anthroposophical Society, as I have stated, is on the Executive Council of the Goetheanum Association, and that then – Dr. Grosheintz will work by my side as the second chairperson – the remaining members of the Executive Council are appointed by this Executive Council. And it will be a matter of course that the previous members of the board of the Goetheanum Association will be re-admitted to the new board. I believe that all of you who are concerned will agree that the previous members of the board should be re-admitted to the board as such. Should it then become necessary to supplement the board in some other direction, this addition could be made over time.

We would then have a board consisting of the board of the General Anthroposophical Society, which includes the chair and the secretary, and then the other board members of this General Anthroposophical Society, as well as Dr. Grosheintz as second chair, [in addition to] the personalities Mr. Molt, Dr. Peipers, Count Lerchenfeld, Mr. Geering, Dr. Unger, Mrs. Schieb, Mrs. Hirter, and Professor Bürgi. These would then be the board members who should be there in the future.

I think that those personalities I have proposed will agree. I then ask to open their opinions.

If that is not the case, I would like to open the discussion about what I have set out. But I would like to proceed with the adoption of the new statutes, which, after all, show no changes other than those that have become necessary as a result of the proposals made. Perhaps Mr. Emil Grosheintz could read out the original paragraph, and I will then read the amended one.

So we have: “Association of the Goetheanum of the Free University for Spiritual Science in Dornach (Switzerland), registered in the commercial register of the Canton of Solothurn.”

[1. Typescript:]

This would be changed to read at the top: General Anthroposophical Society, sub-division Association of the Goetheanum of the Free University for Spiritual Science in Dornach (Switzerland).

[2. Handwritten entry by Rudolf Steiner:]

Strikethrough: That would... would be above... Sub-division of the Goetheanum of the School of Spiritual Science.

Added: Its name would be changed to

[3rd reconstruction of the altered text:] Its name would be changed to “General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach [schaft in] (Switzerland).”

The following would be omitted: “registered in the commercial register of the Canton of Solothurn”, because the Anthroposophical Society is [then already] registered. Then would come: “Articles of Incorporation of June 26, 1924”.

Emil Grosheintz: Now §1: “Under the name 'Verein des Goetheanum, der Freien Hochschule für Geisteswissenschafo, there exists an association in the sense of Art. 6Off. of the Swiss Civil Code; the seat of the association is Dornach (Canton Solothurn, Switzerland).”

[1st typescript:]

Rudolf Steiner: The amended paragraph would read: “Under the name Verein des Goetheanum, der Freien Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft, there exists an association as a member of the General Anthroposophical Society with its seat in Dornach, Canton Solothurn, Switzerland.”

[2. handwritten entry by Rudolf Steiner:]

Strikethrough: the Goetheanum; the School of Spiritual Science

Added in the margin: the General Anthroposophical Society has an association in the sense of [with reference arrow]

3. Reconstruction of the handwritten amended paragraph:] “Under the name of the General Anthroposophical Society, there exists an association in the sense of Art. 60ff. of the Swiss Civil Code. The seat of the association is Dornach (Canton Solothurn, Switzerland).”

[4. Official Protocol:] An association exists under the name “Association of the Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science” as a member of the General Anthroposophical Society. The registered office of the association is Dornach (Canton Solothurn, Switzerland).

Emil Grosheintz: [§2:] “The purpose of the association is to cultivate artistic and scientific endeavors.

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§3: The organs of the association are: a) the association assembly (general assembly of members), b) the board, c) the auditors”

Rudolf Steiner: To be changed to read: “The organs of the association are: a) the board of directors, which includes the entire board of directors of the General Anthroposophical Society.

[Official protocol] b) the board, which includes the entire board of the Anthroposophical Society.

Emil Grosheintz: “§4: The members of the association are: a) ordinary, b) extraordinary, c) contributing members”

Rudolf Steiner: Remains unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§ 5: Ordinary membership is acquired by appointment by the board. §6: The application for admission as an extraordinary or contributing member must be submitted in writing to one of the two chairpersons. Admission is granted by resolution of the board.

Rudolf Steiner: Remains unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ7: A member's resignation must be submitted in writing to one of the two chairpersons. The resignation must be submitted at least three months before the end of the financial year. The board of directors may decide to expel a member from the association without giving reasons.

Rudolf Steiner: No changes.

[Official protocol:] Resignation can only be made to the [protocol incomplete]

Emil Grosheintz: §8: “Ordinary and extraordinary members shall pay an annual contribution of at least 100 Swiss francs at the beginning of the financial year, and contributing members shall pay at least 50 Swiss francs or, upon application and with the approval of the board, the same number of units of the corresponding national currency.”

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ9: The Association Assembly is the supreme body of the Association. The ordinary Association Assembly (the General Assembly) is to be convened each time after the end of the financial year in the following first half of the year. Extraordinary Association Assemblies may be convened by decision of the Board.

The General Assembly is convened by written invitation from one of the two chairpersons to the members. The invitation must include the agenda for the General Assembly. The invitation must be posted at least five days before the scheduled date of the General Assembly.

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ10: Only full and associate members are entitled to participate in the association meetings. The associate members have an advisory vote at these meetings. The resolutions are passed by the full members. One of the two chairpersons chairs the association meeting. He has the casting vote in the event of a tie.

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§11: Requests for items to be added to the agenda of the General Assembly must be submitted in writing to one of the chairpersons at least 14 days before the General Assembly.”

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§12: The Executive Council shall be elected by the General Assembly of full members from among the full members for a term of seven years. If a member of the Executive Council resigns during his term of office, the full members shall hold a by-election for the remainder of the term of office of the resigning member.”

Rudolf Steiner: §12 will be amended to include a sentence. It will read: “The Executive Council, with the exception of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society – which is included by default – is elected by the Assembly of Full Members for a period of seven years. Should a member of the executive council resign during his term of office, the full members shall elect a replacement for the remainder of the term of office of the resigning member.

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ13: The members' meeting shall elect two auditors to examine the accounts and cash management. These may not be taken from among the full members.

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§14: The Executive Council elects two of its members to serve as co-chairs, one to serve as secretary, and also hires the executive director.”

Rudolf Steiner: This §14 will be worded as follows: “The Executive Council constitutes the office in such a way that the chairperson and secretary of the General Anthroposophical Society are at the same time the chairperson and secretary of the Association of the Goetheanum. The second chairperson is elected by the first chairperson.

[Official Protocol] “The Executive Council constitutes the office in the sense that the chairperson and secretary of the General Anthroposophical Society also serve as chairperson and secretary of the Goetheanum Association. The second chairperson is designated by the first chairperson.”

Emil Grosheintz: “§15: The two chairmen are each individually authorized to represent the association independently.”

Rudolf Steiner: No change.

Emil Grosheintz: “§16: The management of the executive council is regulated by the council itself.”

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§17: At the regular association meeting, the board of directors must report on the past administrative period and present the accounts. The auditors' report must be enclosed with this report and the accounts. The association's administrative period is set at one year; it runs from January 1 to December 31.”

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ18: The association's liabilities are covered by its assets. Personal liability of members is excluded.

Rudolf Steiner: Unchanged.

Emil Grosheintz: “§19: The association is to be entered in the commercial register in accordance with Art. 61 of the Swiss Civil Code.”

Rudolf Steiner: Deleted.

Official protocol: “§19: The association is to be entered in the commercial register in accordance with Art. 61 of the Z.G.B.”

Emil Grosheintz: Ҥ20: In the event of the dissolution of the association, the general meeting must decide on the use of the association's assets and the method of liquidation. The association's assets are to be used in line with the purpose of the association.

Rudolf Steiner: Remains unchanged.

These would be the amended statutes. I would like to make one further comment, to avoid any misunderstanding regarding the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag. When I said that it had never received a subsidy that was not derived from the matter itself, this means that it has never received any subsidy from outside at all, but that when work began on the two books, a small Schiller work and the Philosophy of Freedom, it was supported only by Dr. Steiner herself, and that everything that happened economically happened within the publishing house itself. So this publishing house has never received any external funding and has never been supported by capital from outside.

I would now like to open the discussion about what has been presented to you here.

Of course, it is also possible for friends who are not full members of the Goetheanum Association to take part in the discussion. Does anyone wish to speak?

Dr. Unger believes that we can be extremely grateful that the Executive Council of the Goetheanum Association and the new council have undertaken the regulation of the matter in this way, which is desirable and gratifying from all points of view, and would like to recommend that the amended statutes and everything connected with them be accepted en bloc.

Rudolf Steiner: A proposal has been made to accept the amended statutes and everything related to them en bloc. Does anyone wish to speak?

Since no one does, we will proceed to the vote. I would ask those members of the Goetheanum Association who are entitled to vote and who are in favor of this proposal to raise their hands.

It has been unanimously adopted.

It would then only be a matter of leaving the execution of the whole matter, which I believe is clear, to the future board of the Goetheanum Association. Is there anything to be said about this?

Then I also ask those members who are entitled to vote and who are in favor of leaving the execution of what has been decided to the future board to raise their hands.

This is also adopted.

Does anyone have anything to say about anything else?

In this case, we have reached the end of our extraordinary general assembly. I would like to thank the representative of the authority for attending our meeting.

Do you [the representative of the authority] have anything to add regarding the election of the board?

Representative of the authority: No.

Then we have come to the end of the proceedings, and I declare the third extraordinary general meeting closed.

For the correctness of the protocol
The 1st Chairman:
The 2nd Chairman:

Note on the Back of the Typescript with the Minutes of the Meetings of June 29, 1924

No minutes were taken of the proceedings, only of the remarks made by Rudolf Steiner at the end of the meeting. The shorthand notes record that the following had spoken beforehand in succession: Uehli, Vreede, Vacano, Unger, Uehli, Leinhas, Steffen, Vreede, Kaufmann-Adams, Erikson, Moser, Frau Grosheintz.

It is highly satisfying that this evening there have been repeated references to the fact that must never be forgotten within the circles of the Anthroposophical Society: It is the fact that a part, and indeed, I openly admit, even the most essential part of what is supposed to be embodied in the Anthroposophical Society, has shown its existence in the most important, decisive moments. It has already been rightly pointed out today that this consistency was shown when the idea for this now lost building was conceived and how it was truly tackled and carried forward in the hearts and souls of those involved, after our dear friends had made unlimited sacrifices for the work, for the restoration of the work, both at the beginning and in the further course — sacrifices whose extent could only be measured if one were to point out in detail how difficult they have become for some. But that is not necessary. They really did come from the anthroposophical spirit in the sense that they were made in love, in heartfelt love, and that is most certainly one of the main parts of the impulses that are to work within the Anthroposophical Society. And on the night of the fire, we saw these impulses at work again in a truly outstanding way. There can hardly be a truly feeling heart that does not feel the most intimate gratitude to all friends and to fate for what has been revealed in this way. And I would like to go further. I would like to say: The more I have come to know the Anthroposophical Society from this side, the more I have become convinced that this love will certainly not be lacking in the future either. It has revealed itself so powerfully over the past ten years of building this house, and it revealed itself so wonderfully during the night of the fire, that it can simply be taken as a promise of continuity in the future. Everyone here has done their part in their own way. I really would not have needed to call for the young and the old to work together if it had been a matter of what can be achieved and what is basically still being achieved out of this love; because it also takes a certain sacrificial effort to spend many nights here on guard duty and the like, and it is up to us to recognize all the details. And basically, when we look at the work of the young people during the last few days here, we have to say: after this work, they have truly become complete anthroposophists, just like the old ones, in relation to the point I have just emphasized.

So with regard to this first part, my dear friends, I can only express my deepest gratitude to each and every one of our friends, and you will believe me when I say that I feel these thanks deeply.

But now, since we are here together today to my satisfaction, I would like to briefly shed light on the situation from a different perspective, one that I consider to be just as important. You see, the situation is this: this building has been erected; by virtue of the fact that this building stands here, the anthroposophical cause has in fact become something different in relation to the world than it was before. Perhaps not everyone needs to appreciate this other thing that the anthroposophical cause has become. Those who appreciate more the inner, purely spiritual aspect of the anthroposophical movement alone may not feel that the construction of the building, which has made anthroposophy into something quite different in the eyes of the world, is such an extraordinarily important matter for them. But the building arose out of an inner necessity. It was there and as such it made the Anthroposophical Movement into something different from what it was before; it made it into something that has now been judged, sometimes extraordinarily well, sometimes extraordinarily foolishly, by a large part of the world.

Now, my dear friends, I am the very last person to care much about the judgments that come from outside to anthroposophy; for in relation to anthroposophy, one still has so much to achieve in the positive, in the truly creative, that it is understandable if one has no particular interest in the judgments that come from outside. But the world is the world. The world is physical reality. And even if one is not at all interested in the world's judgment, the work is, at least in many respects, dependent on it, in that this judgment can create enormous obstacles. And here I must say that with the building for the Anthroposophical Society, the task has arisen of also keeping an eye on the flourishing of the anthroposophical cause as a matter of contemporary civilization as such.

One might say: just as it happens with an individual person that when he reaches a certain age, he needs adult clothes, so too have special conditions of existence arisen for the Anthroposophical Society, in that the building here was such an enormous outward sign speaking to the world – I do not mean its inner value, but simply its size – an external sign for this anthroposophical movement that speaks so powerfully to the world. This had to be taken into account. And I can tell you that I simply had to experience this from the rib pushes that have come much more frequently since then than before.

So it is a matter of not just looking at how things have to be done today in order to rebuild the structure; that is certainly something that should actually happen once it has been erected; and I remain grateful that our friends have such a serious and holy will to build it. But today, in the face of this catastrophe, we are also faced with the task of rebuilding precisely that which has given the Anthroposophical Society a new form. Today we must also consider: How can the Anthroposophical Society do justice through its inner spiritual strength, through its energetic will, how can it do justice to that which, after all, has emerged as a renewed form for it in a certain respect?

Now, my dear friends, let me say one thing – you must not take it amiss, since you have just heard me say that I feel everything that has been so beautifully expressed today, I feel it most deeply in my heart — that I actually consider the reality of the Anthroposophical Society to be realized in terms of the love that works together, to the extent that I am completely convinced that no obstacles to the reconstruction of the Goetheanum will arise from this side. I already recognize this love as something so enduring that we can build the Goetheanum with it. But just as I am saying this, you will not mind if I attach a few other conditions to it, without the fulfillment of which I cannot imagine today, the way things have become, that the necessary reconstruction of the Goetheanum can lead to more than just an immeasurable increase in the jolts I have spoken of, the jolts that I do not mean personally, but which I mean for the cause, for the Anthroposophical cause.

My dear friends, we worked for the Anthroposophical cause until 1914. This work then culminated in the intention to erect this building, and culminated in the realization of this intention. Then came the world war. Mr. Kaufmann, for example, has rightly emphasized the influence of the world war on our work, both at the Goetheanum and in the anthroposophical movement in general. But my dear friends, these obstacles were external. We can say, for example, that we were perhaps unable to come together from the individual countries that were at war with each other as we would have been able to do without the war; but here we have truly worked together internationally. Here all the warring nations found each other in love, and in Dornach itself something was realized that, in view of the painfulness of the war, every reasonable and feeling human being should have seen as an ideal. Due to external circumstances, there were of course some interruptions. But I can say: As I see it, the world war has not actually made a breach in our inner spiritual structure as an Anthroposophical Society. In many respects, it has even forged the individual members of the various nations here in Dornach and thus across the world more closely together. This could still be seen when they came together again here or elsewhere after the war. Even before the war, the Anthroposophical Society was so firmly established from within that the world war did not actually shake its essential core. The shocks came from outside. So that basically in 1918 [at the end of the war] we were in a position to say: Nothing has come from the anthroposophical movement that we would have to discuss today in such a way that we would have to say: consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society is necessary.

And as for the opposition: most of our friends know how little I actually identify with this opposition internally and how I only give way to the necessities when it comes to dealing with it externally. But one must deal with it when it comes to the internal conditions of the existence of the anthroposophical movement. Until 1918, the hostilities were bearable, quite bearable, however ugly they may have appeared here and there.

Then came the years after the war. And when you ask me, my dear friends, when the lack of consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society began, when the great difficulties for me began, I answer: These are the years since the end of the world war. And then I cannot help but speak to you quite sincerely, but in a sincerity full of love: These are the years after the world war in which individual friends have felt obliged to justify one thing or another in order to graft it, so to speak, onto the Anthroposophical Society.

Now, my dear friends, I do not use the term “grafting” in a derogatory sense, because nothing has been added that was not compatible with the spirit of the anthroposophical movement. But what is really incompatible with this spirit is what has come over the society. And I believe that very few of you today are willing, for example, to recognize the extent to which the current state of antagonism is intimately connected with what has happened since 1919. I can only say that I had great difficulties with this, because since those years I had had the idea, the urge, to plan, to devise all kinds of projects.

If you have a sincere will, my dear friends, it can lead to good things. But experience has shown that in such matters you are dependent on personalities; and the situation was such that it could only be avoided to the detriment of the anthroposophical movement if the personalities who wanted these things, these personalities whom we accommodated, if I may put it trivially, had remained fully committed and developed an iron will to carry through what they had once brought into the world and for which the hand had to be offered, because one had to take the will of the members into account as a matter of course.

But in contrast to this, it must be said what must be felt deeply today in the face of this misfortune. It is this: the way the work has been done since 1919 must not continue. All the love and sacrifice in the broad circles of the members is of no avail if the working methods that have come into being under the project management since 1919 are continued as they were practised: deciding this or that in meetings that lasted for days, sending out programs that were forgotten after four months at the latest, and the like. They rushed from program to program; they had big words that had never been heard before within the Anthroposophical Society; working methods have been introduced that are actually unmethodical.

My dear friends, you can check this in detail. I have to say it, if only because I would consider it a crime not to say it in view of the devoted love of the majority of the Anthroposophical Society, as it has once again shown itself during this night of fire.

What is necessary is to abandon the working method, not the fields, but to abandon the working method; not to get involved in something that is abandoned the next day, but to remain energetically with the things that were once begun, which one has said oneself that one wants to consider as one's own.

I know that I am not speaking to the majority of the Anthroposophical Society in particular; the majority of the Anthroposophical Society has always done its part when it mattered. What is at stake is that working methods are not introduced into the Anthroposophical Society that are actually unmethodical. What is needed is the introduction of a strong will, not mere wishing. A strong will, not just setting up ideals, but a strong will in one's own field, not just setting oneself up and intruding into the fields of others. It is a matter of having a clear eye and an energetic will to introduce different working methods than those that have become popular in many circles or at least in individual circles in the last four years and that the majority of members have perhaps not even looked at in the right way in their lack of method. What we need is to have an open eye.

I know, my dear friends, that it will be easy to work with the majority of the members; but it must be ensured that the paths that have been taken in many areas since 1919 are not continued, and that in this direction in particular, it is not always just glossed over, but that through insight into the mistakes, through a sharp assessment of the mistakes, it is recognized what must be done in the future.

This, my dear friends, is what I ask of you. I thank you very much for everything that has been said here. I appreciate such wonderful words, as those just spoken by Mr. Leinhas, for example, and I am also most sincerely grateful for these words, in the interest of the Anthroposophical Society above all. But I call upon those friends who still have an understanding of the inner workings of the Anthroposophical Society, even where it becomes blurred in its peripheral branches, where it draws practical circles, I call upon the friends to finally put an end to such methods, which have been adopted for four years, to examine where the mistakes lie and to recognize to what extent a large part of the opposition, which extends beyond many areas, beyond which there used to be no obstacle, has actually made the lectures impossible. It is not so much a matter of repelling the opponents; they are sometimes glad when they are given a blow, it helps them, it does them no harm. It is not about that, but rather about the fact that within the Anthroposophical Society a prime example is actually being set of a methodically recognized, that is, will-inspired work. Not a setting up of projects and desires that one abandons at every turn, but one that one sticks to, and in which one really does dedicated work, not just a meddling. This is what a movement based on such foundations, as the anthroposophical movement is, needs above all. I must say it because I reciprocate the love that has been expressed to me again this evening. But if I am to return this love in the right way, then I must speak sincerely to those who can expect it, and then I must say: the friends on whom it depends must seriously consider which methods that have become non-methods in the last four years must be abandoned. Only then will the beautiful love, this love that is not only unimpeachable but cannot be praised highly enough, in which people worked together in the Anthroposophical Society until the start of construction and during the construction until 1918, only then will this love be guided into the right channel, into the right current. And above all, I ask that the matter be considered in such a way that the words I am speaking today only out of the most inner compulsion do not fall on deaf ears. Rather, I ask you to take the love that is present and push it to the point where you will seriously see to it that the methods of the last four years are examined, so that we may once again come to the point — which is necessary — that the Anthroposophical Society, above all, begins by practicing what it preaches to the outside world. As long as we are our own worst enemies, we need not be surprised if, since we are standing on occult ground, a terrible opposition strikes from outside. If we also seek self-knowledge there, many things can be put into the right perspective.

This, my dear friends, is a great task, a task that should be carried out as quickly as possible by those in positions of responsibility in the face of great misfortune. For me it would be impossible to continue working on such a basis, as it has been created from many sides in the last four years, that it would not be an abuse of the love that is practiced by the majority of the Anthroposophical Society: it would be an abuse of this love by me, if I continued to lend my support to these improper methods and if I did not demand that the consolidation of the Society be helped above all by those in positions of responsibility actually and energetically investigating the nature of these improper methods that have brought the Society to this pass, in order to test, when the Society itself is once more in a state appropriate to it, how the opponents can then be dealt with. Please forgive me, my dear friends, but it would have seemed unkind to me, in spite of all the kindness you have shown me today, if I had not told you this in all sincerity, which is very close to my heart.

Lecture given at the second General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society

My dear Theosophical friends!

In connection with the construction of our Johannesbau in Dornach, a number of our friends and members have felt the desire to create some kind of home around or near the Johannesbau, and a number of members have already registered and considered the purchase of property there in order to create permanent homes for the whole year or for some of the year. Of course, my dear friends, the words I would like to say at this moment, following on from what I have just said, are not meant to imply that I would like to interfere in any way with what these colonists are undertaking around our Johannesbau in Dornach. It is self-evident that, given the way we understand our anthroposophical movement, the freedom of each individual member must be preserved to the greatest extent. So I have no business to speak in terms of even hinting at compulsion in either direction; but I may perhaps have the right to express what is desirable.

So, in Dornach we will now have the Johannesbau as such, for which we have endeavored to find a truly novel architectural style, in order to express what we want in the building forms and to create something that can represent, in the sense already often hinted at, a not only dignified but also correct envelope for our cause.

Dr. Grosheintz has shown you the efforts that have been made to achieve this goal in various illustrations. If the funds are sufficient, buildings will be constructed directly around the Johannesbau, individual houses, some of which you have already seen will be in the immediate vicinity of the Johannesbau. And we will try to build these houses in such a way that their artistic design will truly allow them to form a whole with the plans for the Johannesbau itself.

It takes a lot to create such a whole. We have, of course, only had the opportunity to implement the idea just characterized for the small house that you see there (in the model ) at one point, and which is initially intended to be used to make the glass windows in it; so that Mr. Rychter and perhaps someone else can find shelter in it, and the glass windows can be made in the other rooms. Secondly, we have the so-called “Kesselhaus”, which is already in a very definite form, so to speak. This Kesselhaus had to be designed with the modern material of reinforced concrete in mind. And so the problem was how to construct such a giant chimney – which would, of course, be an eyesore if it were built in the same way as chimneys are built today near buildings – how to construct such a chimney in such a way that it is architecturally compatible with the building and made of the appropriate material.

In the small figure form that you see here (in the model), and in what Dr. Grosheintz showed as an image of this boiler house, you will have seen that an attempt has been made to solve the architecture of this structure as well. And once it is standing there and, in particular, once it is heated – because the smoke emerging from the chimney is incorporated into the architecture – then perhaps people will be able to feel that these forms have intrinsic beauty despite their prosaic purpose. Perhaps precisely because the building's function is truly expressed in its forms, one will be able to sense that these forms have not only been purely formed according to the principles of the old utilitarian architecture, but at the same time in such a way that an inner aesthetic formation has taken place. By thinking of the two domes together, with an extension that is shaped differently on different sides, and on the chimney in a burst of, one cannot say “leaf-like” structures, because a member who saw this model found them, for example, “ear-like” – but one need not define them as such, the forms just have to be right. All these forms will probably make it possible to feel that even such a building, which serves a very modern heating purpose – the Johannesbau and the buildings immediately around it will be heated from here – can be given aesthetically pleasing forms.

For such a thing, now – the other things are therefore only provisional and it will become clear to what extent they are provisional – in order to know what is needed for these forms, it is necessary to first know a precise, specified indication of everything that is to take place in the building, for which purpose it is to serve. I would like to say: If one knows how many rooms, for what purposes rooms are needed, how many types of staircase, how many types of view and so on one wants, and if one also knows exactly the location of the building in relation to the Johannesbau, to the north or south, then one can find a corresponding architecture for each such specification.

Therefore, it will be necessary for all those friends who want to become colonists and are thinking of building something near the Johannesbau to really follow, at least in a broader sense, what must be pursued for the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Johannesbau if we do not want to be unfaithful to our principles. For the first thing that is at hand is that through the external construction, through the overall style, it should be apparent to the outside world that all these houses, so to speak, belong together, form a whole. Even if other houses should be in between, it would still be desirable that precisely those houses that are built by colonists be built in such a way that it is clear from the houses: they belong to this whole. People on the outside might say: These are twisted people! Very well, but one should feel it - regardless of whether one looks at it affirmatively or negatively - and we should give cause for feeling that in this way - even if perhaps disturbed by many other things that stand in between - the complex of buildings built towards the Johannesbau forms an ideal whole.

This is the one aspect that really needs to be taken into account. But the other aspect is that we really want something that has a certain significance in the cultural development of the present day. We want, my dear friends – and you can see this from the forms of the John building itself – that our spiritual-scientific attitude should actually be incorporated into the architectural style and into the artistic forms in all areas. Just as we would be in no position to answer the question, “How can one best practise the art of dance?” by saying, “Go to such and such a person who has this or that method”, so too, just as we would be compelled to seek our own way in eurythmy, we must also learn to understand how to seek our own in other art forms and thereby create something for those who want to understand, something that is perhaps only possible from such a productive spiritual current as the humanities provide.

I have often pointed out how it continues to resound in my ears what the architect Wilhelm Ferstel said after he had built the Votive Church in Vienna and was elected rector of the Vienna University of Technology, when he gave a lecture on architecture, what his actual tenor was in this lecture: architectural styles are not invented! One can object to this statement, one can also prove it, both can be equally correct. They are not invented, the architectural styles, but from the correctness of the statement that they are not invented, it does not follow at all that one simply takes the Gothic architectural style, as Ferstel took it, and builds the somewhat enlarged confectionery, this sugar work of the Votive Church in Vienna. Nor does it follow at all from that sentence that architectural styles in our own time can only be formed by modifying old architectural styles in an eclectic sense, welding them together again and again, and in this way creating this or that.

A spiritual scientific attitude should show that it is possible to bring real art forms into the architectural style from within spiritual life. And we should prove to the world that this is also possible in a private house. We should be able to gain understanding for our cause from this point of view. By being able to proceed from this point of view, we will create an enormously significant ideal value for our culture.

So it would certainly be nice, without wanting to exert any influence on the freedom of any member, if the colonists would come together and, of their own free will but with an understanding of our principles, achieve something unified. Since this cannot be changed for the time being – it may be different later – we have to take into account the factor that there is a house near the Johannesbau that cannot be removed yet and will not enhance the beauty; but it is there now and it is not important that we make everything “beautiful”, but that we make what we do beautiful in our sense.

Therefore, I was really saddened, I might say, when in the past few weeks I came across construction plans and proposals for houses to be built by the colonists there. They were, of course, intended with the very best of intentions, but they exhibited all the ugliness and monstrosity of a terrible architectural style. It really can be done differently if you have the good will to do so. It goes without saying that a number of obstacles and hindrances must be expected, but what new movement that has to become established in the world does not encounter obstacles or hindrances?

I do not want to interfere in what might arise from the members of the colony – that is, the colonists themselves – getting together tomorrow; but it would sadden me if anything other than what is in line with the words just spoken could or would arise. It will be entirely possible if we all take care to ensure that what has just been characterized comes true. Of course, if colonists do not have the patience to wait until the time comes when it may be possible to indicate how one or the other could be done well, then nothing favorable can be done.

As much as it is understandable that some of the colonists may be in a hurry to get their building project started, it would be desirable for the colonists who are serious about our cause to exercise a little patience patience in order to let things develop in accordance with the intentions, which I cannot say are ours through our will, but that they arise out of what we have to bring out of the spiritual scientific attitude. Something might indeed come into being of which the world might at first receive an impression that makes it laugh. Let it laugh! But the time for laughing at such things will come to an end. If nothing of this kind were ever undertaken, human development would never advance.

No one should think that they have to endure even the slightest discomfort in their home if the principles I have mentioned are adhered to. But one thing is certainly necessary: that not every colonist goes his own way, so to speak, but that what is done is done in a certain harmony, that people can discuss and hold each other mutually.

The architectural style of the colonists' houses will make the entire colony appear as an ideal unit, and this will be an external expression of an internal harmony. I say this, partly as a wish, partly as a hypothesis, partly as something, yes, I myself don't know what word to choose: It should simply be an expression of the inner harmony of those living in this community!

It will be in keeping with the spirit of the Anthroposophical Society that not the slightest discord or mutual incompatibility, or even a bad word from one member of the colony to another, or even a frown from one to another, will ever be allowed to pass. And it will be beautiful when this is also expressed in outward forms, as it were, as if personified peace were to pour over everything. But even if it should ever happen that a little thing in someone's mind might cause one or the other to turn a crooked mouth or a crooked face, because forms stimulate thoughts, he will turn his eyes in that crooked face to the common peaceful forms and a peaceful smile will immediately cross the twisted face.

If we consider all this, then we really have the reasons for the impulse to create something unified there. Do not think that this unity will mean that one house will be like the other. On the contrary. The houses will be very different from each other and everything will have to have a very individual character. After all, a human organism is not created by saying: an arm is like this, a hand is like this... [gap in the text]. If we had never placed the arm or the hand on top instead of the head, an organism would never have been created. Similarly, the shape of a house that is right on one side will not be right on the other side. But all of this will have to be carefully thought out for our purposes.

And then, when we are in a position to really put it all into practice, there are other aspects to consider. Just think, we were united here this week. On Monday, some Theosophical Society was meeting in the next room with a lecture by so-and-so; on another day, another society was meeting with something else, and on a third day, an “Anthropos” society was meeting, and so on. Just think, if it could happen that the son, daughter, grandson, or nephew of one of our members would join some “Anthropos” society or even some theosophical society, and it came to that houses in our colony were later inherited by such members of a family, then not only would we have the lectures of the other societies in a neighborly way, but we would also have the attitudes and so on of these societies right in the middle of us.

We must therefore consider today what difficulties may arise over time and how we can counter them. We will only be able to counter them if we create such an association of colonists through which means and ways can be found to ensure that the possessions of members of the Anthroposophical Society really do remain with members of the Anthroposophical Society in the future. That this will only be possible through a wide variety of means will become clear to you tomorrow when we discuss the practical principles. Of course, heirs must never be affected, but it is also possible to create the possibility that what one owns in the colony might never pass to heirs who are not members of the Anthroposophical Society, without affecting the heirs.

It would be desirable to preserve this colony as a colony for members of the Anthroposophical Society in the future; but not just to think about how nice it is for oneself to live there, how nice it is not to have to travel far to the events in the Johannesbau and to be there with Anthroposophists. To think only of that, would be even less in keeping with our spiritual current than if it were for anything else. The fact that our spiritual current still has to be associated with certain sacrifices is particularly evident when the principles and impulses of our spiritual current have to be put into practical reality. It should be more or less self-evident that we cannot have our houses built by just any architect who is completely unconnected with our cause. It should also be self-evident that we want to express the anthroposophical character of the colony.

These are certain aspects that I would like to present to you, of course, as I said, not to exert any pressure, but as something that you will admit on closer reflection that you cannot avoid if anything is to come out of the whole matter of our Johannesbau and thus serve our anthroposophical cause.

You see, we had to leave Munich because we did not find any understanding there, initially purely for what we wanted artistically. Out there in Dornach, where we can be now, we can put ourselves in a position to serve as a model for what our spiritual movement should bring in the future. And it would be a misunderstanding of our movement if we did not want to do this, if we let ourselves be deterred from adopting the points of view that have been discussed by petty considerations or by anything else. Basically, everyone who wants to build there should realize that it is necessary for them to really join a colonists' association. Perhaps it would be best if the artistic side of things were subject to a kind of committee or commission. There is no need to force this matter, but it would be wonderful if all the colonists could agree that it would be best to submit to a kind of commission the houses and other structures that are to be built. If we can really carry this out, if we, as colonists, can show that we can imbue a number of us with a common will and give this will the direction that is prescribed by our anthroposophical attitude, then we will create something exemplary there. And what is created there will be a test of how well or how poorly our cause has been understood. A house built by any old architect will be seen as further proof of how little our anthroposophical movement is understood in today's world! And of every house that is a formal expression of our anthroposophical convictions, people will say: How glad it makes one that there is already an inner understanding in one or other of us for what we want!

I would have been so very happy if what I had intended for this General Assembly could have come about. We will see what can still be achieved tomorrow if a really inspiring discussion comes about in this General Assembly in free debate on the basis of the theses: How can we, each and every one of us, best work anthroposophically among our fellow human beings and how can we best show our anthroposophical attitude and put our experience at the service of the world? But my dear friends, by endeavoring to merely bring the wisdom of the anthroposophical movement to the people, we alone do not do what we must do if we want to establish our movement in the world. We must really ensure that what is given to us as spiritual knowledge is properly presented to the world in the embodiment of what is created by us externally, just as the old architectural styles were embodiments of the old cultural ideas.

If we succeed in creating something truly unified there and in legally safeguarding this unity as something to be preserved for the anthroposophical movement, then we will have provided proof that we understand our movement. May it really come to pass that quite a number of such artistic elements – also in architectural and other forms – on this occasion, when it can, provide us with proof that The anthroposophical movement is already understood!

Truly, we do not want to be a sect or some kind of community that represents and spreads these or those dogmas. We want to be something that takes cultural tasks seriously. However, we can only do that in the case of the Johannesbau and the associated colony if we act in accordance with what has now been said.

I think, my dear friends, that these few words may have provided some insights for your colonization efforts around the Johannesbau.

Dear Friends,

At the Annual General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, held in Dornach on June 10, it was unanimously decided to invite delegates from the Anthroposophical Societies of all countries to a meeting in Dornach at the end of July. This decision arose from a proposal that was already contained in the letter sent by the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain to the branches in all countries on June 8. We would like to refer to that letter here, assuming that it will already be in your hands.¹

The purpose of this delegates' meeting is, above all, to ensure that the reconstruction of the Goetheanum, which we all long for, and the necessary financial measures for this, arise from a joint decision of the Anthroposophical Society in all countries. We are now able to give you the final news that the insurance money has been paid out by the authorities. It will now be necessary to muster all our strength to ensure that the additional funds needed for the full reconstruction are secured from the insurance money that has been paid out. With this in mind, a major campaign has already been successfully launched among the members in Switzerland. It was suggested that each member of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland donate at least 1000 francs over a period of 12 to 15 months, a plan that was unanimously and enthusiastically embraced. However, the spirit of the Anthroposophical Society requires that the work of reconstruction be undertaken jointly by all countries. We warmly recommend this plan to all members in all countries.

Financing should emerge from the international assembly of delegates in July in a unified way. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland has passed the following resolution:

"The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland expresses the wish in today's assembly: Dr. Steiner should take charge of the reconstruction of the Goetheanum in Dornach. It grants him, as the leading artistic director, full authority to carry out the construction in every respect, both in terms of the use of the funds earmarked for this purpose and the selection of the personalities to be involved, at his own discretion and arrangement, without any interference from the members.

The task of the Anthroposophical Society in all countries will now be to provide Dr. Steiner with the material means to carry out this great work, so that he can erect the new building as a symbol of the unity and energy of the Anthroposophical Society.

We therefore take the liberty of inviting you to send the authorized representatives of your country to Dornach on July 22.

We hope that many friends from various countries will also be present.

Dr. Steiner will give a cycle of three lectures on the theme: “Three Perspectives on Anthroposophy” on July 20, 21 and 22, 1923 [in GA 225].

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

• 1. See pages 509 / 510.

Morning Session

Mr. Leinhas opened the meeting by asking the participants to express their congratulations to Dr. Steiner on his birthday by rising from their seats.

Dr. Steiner thanked them.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, then pointed out the abundance of wisdom, beauty and strength that Dr. Steiner had poured out over the Society in two decades of his work, but how the Society itself had lagged behind the development of anthroposophy and how its leadership in particular had lacked a guiding hand. He emphasized that there could be no excuse for the tasks that arise from the development of the matter. The criticism that had been expressed at the meeting so far was not new to those concerned, nor had it always been very polite, but the fact that there was criticism at all to such an extent was a sign that the leadership lacked a skilled hand and that it had not been able to establish an atmosphere of trust. But trust in the leadership is the basic prerequisite for their work. He hopes that the leading personalities in society will gain the strength to fulfill their difficult task out of a real insight into their powerlessness, out of their love for the anthroposophical cause and out of their love for Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: Lecture on “Youth Movement and Anthroposophy”

During the members' meeting at the Stuttgart conference in the fall of 1921, Dr. Steiner said: “A representative of the youth movement has spoken! There are a good number of student representatives here, my dear friends! The fact that members of such movements or such bodies have come to our Anthroposophical Society is something we must regard as epoch-making within the history of our anthroposophical movement!” At that time, many a young person's heart beat faster and an overwhelming feeling moved his hands to applause. And yet it was only more hopes and expectations that moved him. But now the time has come for anthroposophical youth to announce what they believe they have found, so that they can help develop anthroposophical life.

For a little over a year, an increasing number of young people have become more and more aware of something that spontaneously led them to turn first against the Bund für anthroposophische Hochschularbeit (BAH), of which they were largely members themselves. They had the experience of meeting young people who revealed a completely new soul state and tremendous future forces, but who could not relate to anthroposophy as they found it. And while some wanted to continue shaping things in a way that corresponded to the forces they themselves brought with them, the gaze of others was increasingly directed towards the not yet actively working forces in the young people they encountered and in their own hearts, and they felt the obligation to help what was germinating in them and around them so that it could truly practise anthroposophy. And while what had once been a thoroughly contemporary attempt to bring anthroposophy into the lecture halls had become an exclusionary slogan in the School of Spiritual Science, that youth had to set out to bring anthroposophy into young people's hearts. This is how Dr. Steiner himself recently put it.

How was it that even in the ranks of his own college federation there was so little understanding for what was being striven for here? The reason was that two generations were confronting each other in it. And that is no wonder. For if one has a sense of the furious pace of soul development in the present day, one experiences that the generations soon replace each other semester by semester! The older of the two generations bore the tragedy that Dr. Stein points out in his report, where he describes how he and his friends came to Anthroposophy, burdened with the whole spirit of the past. And that is truly the contrast between these two generations. The younger generation came not only without this oppressive burden, but as if with a sucking nothing on their shoulders! But how much more this contrast must still be evident between these young people and the older generations of the Anthroposophical Society in general!

When you let older anthroposophists tell you about their path to anthroposophy, when you try to relive their youth, you feel how this youth was still lived in a spiritual and soulful self-evidence. It was still embedded in traditions from all sides, and it was only out of a certain, more vague yearning that they turned to anthroposophy. But with today's youth, it is no longer a yearning, no longer a pleading for spirit, but a terrible begging for spirit, from the depths of utter nothingness! All the capital of wisdom on which humanity has lived since time immemorial has been exhausted. No knowledge helps it more than one that it acquires itself in every moment: it is truly a proletariat in the spirit! Thus there is no possibility for them to build bridges from the past spiritual life into the future, but out of nothing they have to build a new foundation in the future itself, from which the bridge arches can then be built backwards.

So this youth comes to strive for nothing but pure anthroposophy itself. They want to live anthroposophy in such a way that they want to make the morality in it a reality, an action, in every respect. And only from there does it want to work its way into the more specialized forms of spiritual life. In this, however, it believes that it can find immediate understanding, especially among older anthroposophists. Older people often come to me and say: “I often meet incredibly well-educated people who prove all sorts of things against anthroposophy. You young people, especially you students, don't have it so hard. But what am I to do as a simple, naive old anthroposophist?” And then I was able to fill such people with joyful amazement when, precisely out of the attitude of us young people, I told them: ”It doesn't help at all to prove anthroposophy out of the intellect against the intellect. That is why I prefer to leave all my university studies aside and try to lead the other person in their concepts to the point where they begin to become moral – which unfortunately in many cases means immoral. Because what is needed first is for people to stop shirking the moral consequences of their intellectual concepts!

But does this attitude not throw all the scientific endeavors in the anthroposophical movement overboard? Yes, is it not perhaps even right that this is happening? Not at all! On the contrary! The Anthroposophical Society is still far from realizing the responsibility it has to work to ensure that science, art and religion truly become one again. Many an older anthroposophist thinks, what does present-day science have to do with him in his quest for pure anthroposophy! But he has no inkling of the terrible force with which the thinking activity of present-day science alone compels the soul to be immoral in its most original activities. The result is a paralysis of the soul forces in the interaction between scientists, between scientists and students, and between students themselves, which has a devastating effect on the social existence of human beings. And this is the case in all the sciences, from mathematics to the social sciences. But the most dangerous thing about it is that it happens all the time, and the souls themselves do not even notice it, and in the end they are too paralyzed to be able to do anything about it. And this nightmare becomes so terrible that some people, who would actually be the most qualified to work out of new strength on the new, when they have finally awakened, groan: “I can no longer do otherwise!”

It is therefore important to show the coming generation a new path in science from the outset. This generation, of which the well-known pedagogue Eduard Spranger already says that it will only recognize a science in which it finds satisfaction for its ethical humanity; a generation that will call out Goethe's words to today's science via Kant's philosophy: “I feel no improvement in anything!”

But why do the members of the Anthroposophical Society still believe on average that they have no task of their own in this? Because the word “science” forces them to make an analogy to today's valid science. But from the whole description of the nothingness in which the present and future youth stand, one can actually feel compelled to call the new not “science” but “skill”!

But how can every true anthroposophist contribute to it? Yes, it is clear from all that has been said that it can only build on the most everyday awareness of the spiritual itself. And where does this most manifestly meet us? In the other person's 'you'. As we were quietly struggling behind the scenes of the Vienna Congress to shape these impulses for the first time, Dr. Steiner called out to us in his branch lecture there: Anthroposophical science does not lead to brotherhood, but it itself can only arise out of brotherhood. And it is precisely this that the youth have striven for more and more in the course of these months: this conscious collaboration of I and You. On the other hand, however, this is an extremely difficult task for young people alone. Because to experience the right sense of 'you' requires a great deal of wisdom, which an older person can gain from their life experience. And here we would like to reach out to people in the Anthroposophical Society who can help us. Because we feel that we are powerless to accomplish the task of experiencing the sense of 'you' with our life experience alone. However, a life experience, as it is usually the case with old age today, that constantly throws itself at your feet like a block, grinning as it does so, speaking of shattered illusions, of worn-out ideals of youth, we do not need that! But anthroposophy can certainly teach old age to transform experiences into wisdom.

But such a science has yet another important task, other than offering young people who are striving scientifically the possibility of a dignified path for the soul or protecting them from wandering around with their guitar in the fields, woods and meadows, only to become philistines after all, or to carry out social housing experiments purely out of sentiment. And this other task arises from the fact that the best among today's proletarians have actually grown tired of all socialist theories, all party programs, all the pseudo-science of adult education. Thinking has been compromised for them! And they are beginning to say something that is actually quite Russian: “Now we want to start just living. Life will regulate itself. With all our thinking, we have only constantly disturbed it!” But with that, they make themselves all the more easy prey to the only thing that has fully awakened humanity today: hard, cold, killing, unfeeling thinking. We cannot make any further progress unless we counter this thinking with a different kind of thinking. And so it is imperative that our new science should restore confidence in thinking to all these people.

But only anthroposophy can provide the basis for such a science. For although Nietzsche, on whose brilliant critique of educational institutions in the 1870s Dr. Steiner often referred to in his recent lectures, could only arrive at one nebulous experience of nature and at a return to the last culture to be based on a cosmic world view, the Hellenic culture. Only anthroposophy provides a context for all spiritual and physical processes in heaven and on earth that can be grasped by contemporary thinking. the human being; they will only fan out in relation to the study of the connection between the human being in all its details and all the natural and social phenomena around him. But the saying that Dr. Steiner often used about his spiritual research — everyone can understand it, but to research it, you need the organs of the spirit — will apply equally to the new science. In this science, the specialist will only have the research ahead of the layman, but not the understanding. It will carry its popularity within itself; but it cannot be understood at all by a modern university professor! We have two great examples of this: Goethe's Theory of Colours and Dr. Steiner's Key Points of the Social Question.

And how can such science now be created in a concentrated and intensive way, as the needs of the time imperatively demand? How can we find even enough future co-workers for this? Only by working on a common project, a new Free University! As long as we always appear before young people in the outer world and our words culminate in: “We would like” — ‘we could’ — ‘we should have to’, then we will mostly only awaken interest that soon wanes. But we will be able to work quite differently if we can point to this place, as it were. So the creation of such a Free University is just as much an ardent wish for us as it was for the older Waldorf students to hear. And this could be a sacred task in which all generations of the Anthroposophical Society could work together. It is only natural that we young people, out of this, what is so close to our hearts, and out of a purely human perspective at first, and only then into the specialization of spiritual life, want to reach out to the hands of the entire Anthroposophical Society. As a result of our experiences, we had been led by the 'Stuttgart system' to oppose the entire Anthroposophical Society. However, we have since gained a keen interest in the organization of the Anthroposophical Society and we have learned that it cannot be our demand: 'Reorganize the Anthroposophical Society for our benefit!' Instead, we must help with our best efforts to reorganize it! For we have experienced how we are nothing without the forces of the Anthroposophical Society, just as, on the other hand, we believe with a certain self-confidence that the Anthroposophical Society is nothing without us and the coming generations. But we ask the older friends to do what we younger ones, who come from nothing as beggars for the spirit, take for granted: to look with us at the people growing towards us, so that every metamorphosis of anthroposophy, however unexpected it may be, can be lived out in the Anthroposophical Society.

If we work together in such a common consciousness of shared love for the task of humanity, combining the originality of youth with the qualities of old age, then from now on into the future we will do something that not only can make good what has been lost, that not only can reorganize the Anthroposophical Society, not only create an organization of the spiritual, but that can achieve something that is like a plant, that is a germ for the future at every moment, that is immortal from an eternal “die and become” and from which infinite joy and infinite tasks can grow for all of us.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, asks that a committee be formed to create a Free University and calls for donations.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg: Lecture on “The Opposition” [see references]

For years, the anthroposophical movement has had to defend itself against the attacks of individual opponents. Only recently has the movement been forced to reckon with a united opposition. The unity of this opposition is permeated by internal structure: the whole of traditional intellectual life, differentiated within itself, rises up against anthroposophy and its creator.

The onslaught of this material phenomenon can only be countered methodically. Not by refuting the writings of the opponents – the enemies should have their convictions and worldviews; for differentiation is the prerequisite for the development of human spiritual life – but by methodically and unreservedly characterizing the “how” of the opponents' way of fighting.

It is in the interest of all people that the great cultural struggles, which inevitably arise at the turning points of development, do not fall outside the field in which they originate: the spiritual field. If an opponent uses subhuman or even criminal means, then the very existence of every human being is thereby fundamentally challenged.

A methodical examination of the way the entire opposition fights convincingly reveals the evil means they use in their attack on anthroposophy and its creator. All opponents present an inadequate picture of the object of their disagreement. What they present as “Anthroposophy” on the basis of a superficial study of only some of the spiritual-scientific works or even after a superficial glance at the opponents' writings is in most cases nothing more than a caricature of Anthroposophy. They popularize this self-created spectre, which they fight against.

In constructing this scheme, all the tricks of the basest journalism come into play: false or distorted quotation, reproduction of shocking facts taken out of context, suggestive influence on the reader through the form and presentation of the writings, lies, slander, forgery, imputation of absurdities, etc. These recurring phenomena can be categorized according to the individual opponents' groups.

The intrinsic weakness and hollowness of the opponents' literary output is revealed in a fourfold contradiction, which can be demonstrated with exact evidence. (1) the individual writings contradict themselves; (2) they contradict each other; (3) the individual groups of opponents contradict each other; and (4) the uniformly conceived opposition of the entire opposition to the adequately grasped anthroposophy is untenable. It dissolves in itself. It can be shown that the opposition, through its own testimony, is spiritually self-destructing in this fourfold contradiction.

But method can prevail not only in the defense against the enemy's attack, but also in the way the anthroposophical movement brings enlightenment about the perfidious opposition to its contemporaries.

The contemporary who has resigned himself to all knowledge of truth is increasingly skeptical and indifferent towards the content of literary works. Even the content of polemical writings is beginning to leave him cold. But he can still be stirred by aesthetic means. Therefore, protective writings for the anthroposophical movement should be shaped by artists, should be works of art that appeal to the will through their form and to the feelings through their imagery. Only in this way can interest be kindled for the content of such writings. Today it is important to appeal not only to the intellect, but directly to the whole person. To create such a literary defense, therefore, a society must be called upon that has such an unspeakably precious possession to defend as the anthroposophical one; it must do so all the more energetically, as it has neglected its duties in this regard for years. Today, the Anthroposophical Society has a vital interest in an organized defense. Every anthroposophist who is serious about his worldview is called upon to take part in this defensive struggle. In this struggle, the lukewarm and half-hearted will be separated from those who are truly of good will.

The meeting was then suspended at noon. To be continued at 2 p.m.

Opening by the chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, at 2 p.m.

Several speakers report on the agenda. However, since they speak about matters that are to be discussed later, they are interrupted by the chairman.

Dr. Karl Heyer, Stuttgart: Presentation on the “Bund für freies Geistesleben”

The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for Free Spiritual Life), which is to be discussed here from the point of view of the Anthroposophical Society, has its basis in the fact that there are numerous people today who, although they do not want to have anything to do with the Anthroposophical Society at first, have a keen interest in what has emerged from anthroposophy in the most diverse areas of life. The Federation should consciously address itself to them. In this way, for example, study groups for certain fields (such as physics, economics, education, theology, etc.) could be brought into being. This would make it possible to form a group of people who would form a kind of intermediate layer between the Anthroposophical Society and the “outside world”. Such an intermediate layer, which is particularly necessary in the interest of the Anthroposophical Society, is lacking today. It would be able to discuss anthroposophy in an appropriate way and also develop a healthy, appropriate judgment of the opposition to anthroposophy. Above all, it is essential that anyone who can have such an effect on the outside world also has the will to do so. Experience also shows that it is in the interest of a proper public discussion of anthroposophy that new non-anthroposophical associations have lectures on anthroposophy given by anthroposophists, and our friends can do a lot in this regard. The League will try to find speakers if possible. Another point: the German people are in danger of becoming more and more estranged from the foundations of their own nature. Pointing to this nature, as interpreted by thinkers such as Fichte and the Goetheanists, would be one of the noblest tasks of a League for a Free Spiritual Life, which would at the same time lay the groundwork for anthroposophy rooted in German spiritual life. The League can become the source of a healthy formation of judgment on all questions of contemporary socio-cultural life. Such a formation of judgment is sorely lacking in the present day. It can and must be gained from anthroposophy. By working in this direction, for example in the field of folk psychology, the League will at the same time bear witness to the fertility of anthroposophical world knowledge. When the Federation advocates the liberation of the spiritual life from the state and the economy, and in particular the founding of independent schools, it is serving both a general necessity of the times and the anthroposophical movement, which cannot achieve its full social impact without an independent spiritual life. For all these and many other tasks, the Federation needs the cooperation of active individuals. It itself can be nothing other than the sum total of those who want to work actively in this or similar ways. The Federation is not served by local groups that only exist on paper and which are formed by members of the Anthroposophical Society who then do nothing other than what they were already doing as a branch. But if anyone wants to work in the way suggested, I would ask them to get in touch with us, stating the area of work. If we succeed in making the Federation a living and growing organism, then through it the organism of trust that we want to establish within the Anthroposophical Society will extend out into the world, and we will be able to overcome the isolation in which our Society finds itself in relation to the world.

For the following discussion, speaking time is limited to ten minutes. The chairman, Mr. Leinhas, asks that we now speak positively. A procedural debate is interrupted.

Dr. Rudolf Toepel, Komotau, proposes that a new executive council be elected.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner: This assembly has come together to decide on the fate of the Society. And it is really necessary that the individual participants become aware of the importance of the moment. The Anthroposophical Society is certainly not a bowling club. It is therefore out of the question to come to the Anthroposophical Society with the pretension that a board of directors should now be elected before the circumstances as they now exist have been thoroughly discussed. That is something you might do in a bowling club, but not in the Anthroposophical Society, where continuity is above all necessary. It can only be a matter of this meeting being brought to a close by those who were the leading personalities in Stuttgart. How this can be discussed at this moment, in particular, is beyond me. We would descend into utter chaos if motions such as Dr. Toepel's were to be put forward at such a time. Such motions can only be made if the intention is to blow the whole meeting apart.

Dr. Toepel's motion was rejected.

Mr. Erwin Horstmann, Breslau, wishes to make positive proposals. The Free Anthroposophical Youth in Breslau has realized something according to the principle that where ten can live, the eleventh can also be maintained. He proposes that those who wish to devote themselves entirely to this should make 5 percent of their income available to the movement, and wishes to make a signed commitment.

Count Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz, Vienna: When one hears that the fate of the Society is being decided and that the Goetheanum as a matter of humanity is at stake, a sense of unease is bound to arise, and it is understandable if one cannot cope with the time. We need to find something that will enable consolidation. He then reports on how Austria has reacted to the situation. They said to themselves that something had to be done, that the board had failed, so a new leadership had to be established. They had decided to form a circle of trust where people could come together in regular meetings. Then personalities will emerge. The neighboring circles will then communicate with each other. Similar to Vienna, where the two branches have established a connection.

Mr. Martin Münch, Berlin: The Anthroposophical Society has no statutes, but a draft of principles. We should found an Anthroposophical Society that is committed to these principles. To do that, we need trusted individuals who are recognized. In Berlin there was a circle of trust that functioned, namely the youth movement. Here is a lesson in how to do it, because the leadership has not appointed and confirmed any trusted individuals. When admitting members, it should not stop at the registration desk. The introductory courses should not be the responsibility of the branches; we need helper groups to welcome the new members. The central committee must know who is giving the introductory courses. It is a test of the people in Stuttgart. If nothing had happened in Stuttgart, then no mistakes would have been made. He points out that the signatories of the appeal are present and that nothing should be allowed to be demolished, but that the matters must be continued. The committee of nine could be seen as something that can remain in place.

Dr. Robert Wolfgang Wallach, Stuttgart, says that he sees the essence of what Lehrs has said. The most important question in this is to establish the right relationship between older and younger people. So far, this has not been fully achieved in the right sense, because what the older generation wanted to give the younger generation was not what the younger generation was looking for. Young people are not looking for doctrinaire instruction, but for something that arises from what the older generation has worked out.

Mr. Walter Hartwig, Lörrach-Stetten: There has been enough criticism. We need to come up with practical suggestions. The committee should serve as the board for the time being. It could then be expanded to include personalities such as Lehrs and Büchenbacher. It is impossible to figure out who should be in charge in three days. Dr. Steiner is allowed to be critical because he can do better himself. One should try with the personalities of the committee, because they had proven that they had good will. Each group leader knows exactly how difficult it is to gain trust.

Mr. Eugen Storck, Eßlingen: One must not only think about the proletariat, but with it. We need an organization of trust with people from all walks of life. These should not only be thinking people, but also feeling people.

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Stuttgart, again took the “Stuttgart System” as his starting point and characterized it from his own earlier experience. He may be reproached with his own words if they fall into the same mistakes in the religious movement: the know-it-all attitude, the opinion that everything should be done from Stuttgart, while in fact it never comes to that; the unworldliness of isolation; the tendency towards intellectualism without the necessary human warmth; the inadequate leadership of the co-workers in Stuttgart itself. One had to have the greatest concerns about how things would go once Dr. Steiner was no longer physically with us. If the Society gives itself a new leadership, then this leadership must also have a new will, must feel responsible for ensuring that the best life of the whole is guided everywhere, that all the living forces in society are brought into function through help, stimulation and support, that strong slogans for joint work and orientation emanate from Stuttgart. A flexible leadership must be maintained by a trust organization of about twelve outstanding anthroposophists, who above all allow life to flow back from outside. The most important tasks for the near future are: There must be a stronger grasp of the anthroposophical task; there must be a return from intellectualism to Sophia, from specialization to the Anthropos. We must strive for a vibrant community of anthroposophical spirituality. The spiritual wealth of anthroposophy must be communicated much more widely and not just cultivated in a narrow circle, for which experience has led to a number of suggestions. The defense of anthroposophy and its leader must be conducted much more generously. In particular, an unorganized alliance of all decent people who do not want to let anthroposophy be destroyed, but want it to be taken seriously and examined, must be sought. The intermediate layer of those who stand between the anthroposophists and the opponents of anthroposophy must be enlarged. Finally, all the work must be directed towards the youth, then the old will begin to hope again and the enemies will have to suffer.

Mr. Bernhard Behrens, Hamburg, speaks of the necessity of forming strong communities among young people.

Mr. Ulrich Hallbauer, Dipl.-Ing., Hamburg: An organization of trust must be founded on freedom and trust. In the individual cities and working groups, individuals should seek their sphere of activity in a free way. The more diverse, the better. Spiritual scientific work can only be done by the branches. The other areas, especially the professional-scientific, belong outside the branches. In small groups, individual initiative can come into its own. Eurythmy could also be integrated in this way. The individual groups could join together in the community of trusted individuals. This results in larger circles, the union of which could form the board. In addition, the individual groups would have to have a direct link to the center.

Mr. Johannes Pingel, Hamburg, is interrupted after a few sentences.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, as chairman, gives a summary at the end.

End ½5 o'clock.

Evening Session

I. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [with the suggestion to form two societies. See GA 257]

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: We had decided to suggest to you that the discussion be adapted to what was given by Dr. Steiner's lecture. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: Not as a member of the central committee, I would like to take the floor at this moment, after Dr. Steiner has spoken. I would like to ask you, above all, to ask Dr. Steiner to be convinced that I stand before you out of honest will and that I want to seek the way to what is necessary for the future out of honest will. Not only out of honest will but also out of honest love, which I have felt, as far as I could, in my heart for Dr. Steiner and for the Anthroposophical Society. I was given the task of speaking today or tomorrow about eurythmy art for practical reasons and then, in the course of the lecture, I wanted to lead up to what is necessary for the further development of the Society, because I said to myself that there is something in eurythmic art that has always had a positive effect in the anthroposophical sense, but then, from such a field, it is easier to find the way for what needs to be said for the further development of society.

In the course of this presentation, I wanted to come back to the words spoken by Mr. Lehrs this morning; I wanted to come back to Mr. Lehrs' words because they spoke to my heart and moved me deeply. Admittedly, I am one of the old ones who have been in the movement for two decades. But you can believe me when I say that I have a young heart. I feel deeply what has been brought in by the youth, and I can empathize with it, and I want to throw off what has been imposed on me as alien to my nature. I would like to ask Ste, please accept it. Believe me that it is my honest will. Then I would like to mention the other thing that I wanted to say this morning. If it can be granted to me, that it can be understood and taken up by the young friends, I will want to work together in every way, as it was experienced in me, as I believe I can shape it in the future, in a truly anthroposophical sense, as it was put by Dr. Steiner in such a thorough and forceful way. I would like to make this my serious and genuine life's work in the future, and in this sense I would also like to be able to work with young people. But I would not want to see only this as my task. I would also like to be able to work where the old anthroposophists of society are. I want to grow into the Anthroposophical family more than has been possible so far, and make everything our duty and sacred task that we can bring to life out of an honest Anthroposophical will under Dr. Steiner's leadership. Believe me, it is my earnest and most sacred will to seek this. I don't want to make a lot of words about it. I will only say that it is in this sense that I want to seek my task in the future for the further development of the Anthroposophical Society.

I believe, my dear friends, that if we succeed in joining hands with the young and, on the other hand, with that which what was there before the Anthroposophical Society came into existence, and if we want to continue to work hand in hand and heart to heart and believe in the future of the Anthroposophical Society, then I hope that all that has been founded since 1919 as the most diverse institutions can be supported by all. I am firmly convinced that we can then bring the institutions to what they need. If you agree to this heartfelt request, which I can only stammer out, then we will find the way. I would like to say that from the bottom of my heart.

Dr. Unger: I feel obliged to speak from a somewhat different tone and from different backgrounds than what Mr. Uehli has just spoken to you from his heart, because at this moment it is important for me to give an account of what has happened since the time when the foundations were started here in Stuttgart, which then led to the difficulties. We know that these can lead to the downfall of the Anthroposophical Society. What does this mean when we look back at what has happened? Allow me, in this regard, to describe some things that have not yet been expressed in these proceedings. We need to realize the extent to which these foundations are among us as realities, and the extent to which we are able to take responsibility for their existence. I would like to start by saying that in the early years, up until 1918, we had an Anthroposophical Society that was striving to practice Anthroposophy as such. On the one hand, we are dealing with broad circles that are pushing towards the Anthroposophical Society in order to get to know Anthroposophy; but we are also dealing with a Society that has a history. We cannot and must not ignore it. And when we look at the fact that, in consideration of all these foundations, we have sent out the call that we wanted to report on the facts from the most diverse points of view in these negotiations, we encounter a lack of understanding for this fact. If foundations have been set up from Stuttgart that also wanted to serve the anthroposophical movement in their own way, but which took advantage of anthroposophical help, the advice of Dr. Steiner, the burden of Dr. Steiner, it is incumbent upon us to awaken interest in these foundations among all those who are inside the Anthroposophical Society. One could say that the Anthroposophical Society has allowed these foundations to happen... but to awaken interest in these things in people, that is something that we, as the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society, have perhaps not understood. Let us consider what has emerged from this movement in terms of individual, concrete foundations; let us take what has to do with the economic movement: the Society was no longer the same afterwards as it was before. The outside world took a look at what had been done; this led to the formation of opponents, especially in connection with these foundations in the sharpest sense. Therefore, we had to look at the foundations and see what was wrong. The Waldorf School is all right, the “Kommende Tag” is all right in its way; what is not all right are the foundations of the scientific movements. The scientific institutes that have been formed from the resources of the “Coming Day” are not in order because opposition has been formed from the way they are represented. It has not been understood how to keep the anthroposophical spirit so alive in the foundations that they can be expected of the Anthroposophical Society. But this demand has been made, and the question is whether the Anthroposophical Society now wants to continue to live without them or whether it agrees that these institutions dwell in its midst and rightly exist. What has led to this crisis is that we, in a large circle of co-workers of these institutions, were faced with the question: Will we be able to make them healthy enough for the Anthroposophical Society to support them; will we be able to awaken such interest in them as is necessary?

The Committee of Nine, which has been formed, in a sense also represents what is present in such foundations, what is justifiable in their idea, in their approach. The struggles we have fought were to ensure that the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society now also wants to feel responsible for ensuring that something is achieved out of an anthroposophical attitude that can be justified to the outside world. The opponents must not be right. That is what it is about. The institutions are nothing in themselves; they only have significance through the people who work in them, and they want to turn to these people to help carry them. To do this, it is necessary that those working here are truly united in a community. When the new people came here to take over the work, they also took on the obligation to carry it through.

Take the matter of the publishing house. It was founded because we needed a new one. There was already a publishing house, the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, which had grown out of the things that had come about through the Anthroposophical Society itself. But the publishing house of the “Kommenden Tages” was founded, and it first had to be given content. It is a task to awaken interest in this. It is the same with the other things. We have a Clinical-Therapeutic Institute. It must present itself in such a way that it can rightly exist within its own circles.

And now, if we want to be a unified Anthroposophical Society, we must be able to put these undertakings in order. If you have the courage to place your trust in us in this regard, we hope to be able to take the first steps to keep the living, flowing stream that should connect us to society alive. Achieving this goal will be tomorrow's task. It will be the committee's task tomorrow to explain what it intends to do.

Dr. Kolisko: I would like to reiterate the seriousness of the situation. This has not been done adequately by the old central board, by what Dr. Unger and Mr. Uechli said. Dr. Steiner has presented the possibility of a separation of the Society. It seems to me that we should be very clear about what this separation means. We have two groups in the Society. One group is attached to the institutions, the other is not. The latter includes both older members and those of the younger generation who have joined recently. In the past, anthroposophical work was carried out in a wide variety of circles. These members did not feel responsible for the institutions, nor did the young people who have now come out of a yearning for anthroposophy. We are faced with the tragic situation that we have not succeeded in convincing these groups of members that the whole Anthroposophical Society must take an interest in these institutions and support them. It was the fault of the old Central Board that it did not fulfill the task of shaping the whole Society into a unity that supports the institutions. Our departments should serve the purpose of awakening a true interest in the institutions among you. Unfortunately, we did not succeed in achieving this through these departments: they were incomplete. We would have to bury all the hopes we had in such a split society! Be clear about the consequences! The new free society would not take care of these institutions. This is the last moment when we can still come to an understanding, and I believe that it is my duty to speak from this point of view, since I have made all my strength available to these institutions since I have been active in the movement. It was the fault of the old leadership that it did not succeed in winning all members for the institutions. Now a last attempt can still be made to prevent society from having to split. I therefore ask you to be aware that this split would mean the destruction of all these hopes.

Dr. Steiner: I have only one request: you have seen from what has been discussed that tomorrow we have every reason to talk about those things that lead to a kind of consolidation of the society in one form or another. I see no need to talk about such things, which are in order, for example, the lecture on eurythmy.¹ We need to start with the previous central committee briefly setting out its view so that we can move on to something positive. I don't see why we need to talk about things that are in order! Why do we want to fill our time with this and not finally address the things that need to be put in order? I would like to point out this necessity with the perspective that I ask you to consider something tonight or tomorrow and to deal first with what is necessary to reorganize or to create anew.

• 1. This remark refers to Uehlis' statement the previous evening (see page 419) that he had wanted to give a lecture on eurythmy.

Emil Grosheintz opens the General Assembly:

Dear friends and members of the Goetheanum Association! I hereby open the eleventh ordinary General Assembly and ask Dr. Steiner, on behalf of the Executive Council, to take over the chairmanship for the day.

Rudolf Steiner: In response to the kind invitation of the chairman of the Goetheanum Association, I will take the chair of this meeting and will begin immediately with the agenda, since we must first complete the ordinary general assembly, and after a break the important extraordinary general assembly, at which we will decide on changes to the Goetheanum Association , its position in relation to the General Anthroposophical Society, its position in public life and so on, and this assembly is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m., we will now begin to go through the agenda of the ordinary general assembly without further ado, and I may perhaps ask Dr. Grosheintz to give us the chair's report at this point.

Emil Grosheintz: I have to report on the membership movement first. On January 1, 1923, at the beginning of the reporting year, we had 496 extraordinary and 563 contributing members, a total of 1059 members. During 1923, we gained 26 extraordinary and 90 contributing members, for a total of 116 members, so that on December 31, 1923, the number of members consisted of 522 extraordinary and 653 contributing members, for a total of 1175.

Dear friends!

There is actually little to report about the year 1923. For the association at the Goetheanum, 1923 was a year of mourning. On the first day of the year, we stood in front of the ruins of the beloved Goetheanum, deeply saddened by this irreplaceable loss. But our will to continue our work remained unbroken, and we longed to receive a new, second Goetheanum from Dr. Steiner as soon as possible.

Two conditions were necessary for this: one material and one spiritual. The material, financial condition was partially fulfilled by the fact that representatives of all countries in which Anthroposophical Societies exist came together here in July [of] last year and made resolutions, in which the willingness of all members of the Anthroposophical Society to make sacrifices for this new Goetheanum was expressed in a gratifying way. But today, from this place, a strong appeal must also be made to all members of the Anthroposophical Society in the world, in the various countries, to let these funds flow even more abundantly, because if we are to achieve what has been planned and what must come into being for the Anthroposophical Society here in Dornach, we still need a great deal of funds. So I am putting this particularly close to your hearts. May you, those who do not live here, who have come from far away, when you return to the circles in which you work, may you also work especially for the building of a real second Goetheanum in this place. The spiritual prerequisite came through the Christmas Conference.

At this Christmas Conference, a new General Anthroposophical Society was constituted with new statutes, with Dr. Steiner himself at its head, surrounded by an actively working board.

Now Dornach, previously the seat of the Goetheanum Association, had become the central seat of the Anthroposophical Society, and the Goetheanum to be built by Dr. Steiner has thus become a direct concern of the Anthroposophical Society. The reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society also requires, of necessity, a reorganization of the Association of the Goetheanum, and the Association of the Goetheanum may now continue to exist in its new form as a department of the Anthroposophical Society under the direct chairmanship of Dr. Steiner. We will hear more about this at the extraordinary general assembly that is to follow this extraordinary general assembly.

As you know, the plans for the new Goetheanum are already available. As soon as the official approval has been received and the rubble that is still there has been cleared away, the reconstruction will begin with the help of the willingness of the members of the Association of the Goetheanum and the members of the Anthroposophical Society to make sacrifices.

Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! You have heard the report of the chairman on the past financial year. I ask those friends who have something to say to take the floor. However, I would like to say right away that we will have to discuss all questions related to the further development of the Association of the Goetheanum at the extraordinary general meeting that will follow, so I ask that you limit your comments to the report only.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this matter? If not, we will move on to the cash report, and I would like to ask Mr. Binder to present the cash report.

WITH BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

ABELS, JOAN (b. India – d.1962 Heidenheim a. d. Brenz)
Eurythmist. Took part in the very first performance of eurythmy in 1913 in Munich, subsequently continuing the work in Dornach. After retiring from eurythmy, he took on the office work at the Canteen.

AEPPLI, WILLI (Accra 1894–1972 Basel)
Swiss teacher. Member of the Society from 1921. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. From 1927 to 1954 he taught at the Rudolf Steiner School in Basel, and in 1954 became an adviser to the Association of Waldorf Schools in Germany. Wrote books on education.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT
See Note 77.

BEMMELEN, DANIEL J. VAN (Indonesia 1899–1983)
Dutch member from 1921. In 1923 co-founder and teacher at the first Dutch Waldorf school, ‘De Vrije School’ at The Hague.

BESANT, ANNIE
See Note 39.

BRANDTNER, W.
Secretary to the Anthroposophical. Society in Porto Alegre, Brazil, founded in 1920.

BÜCHENBACHER, DR HANS (Fürth 1887–1977 Arlesheim)
Lectured on the threefold social order. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany. 1931-1935 President of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Later leader of the Working Group for Philosophy and Psychology at the Goetheanum in Dornach.

BÜRGI-BANDI, LUCIE (Bern 1875–1949 Bern)
Member from 1907. On the Council of the Johannes branch in Bern. 1913-1925 on the Council of the Bauverein. In March 1925 appointed by Rudolf Steiner to join the administration group for the building of the Goetheanum. Founder member of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung.

CARNEGIE, ANDREW
See Note 61.

CESARO, DUKE GIOVANNI ANTONIO OF (Rome 1878–1940 Rome)
Son of Baroness de Renzis (see below). Member of various town councils in Sicily (Radical Party, later Social Democratic Party). Member of Parliament. 1922-24 Minister for Post and Telegraphy. Co-publisher of Lo Spettatore. Political writings. In 1926 he joined the anti-fascist National Alliance. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the Novalis group in Rome.

COLLISON, HARRY (London 1868–1945 London)
Lawyer, painter and writer. Member from 1910. Leader of the Myrdhin group in London. Authorized by Rudolf Steiner to translate his works into English. Founder of the Anthroposophical Publishing Company. From 1923 General Secretary of the English Anthroposophical Society.

CROSS, MARGARET FRANCES (Preston 1866–1962 Hemel Hempstead)
Owner and head of a private school, interested in Rudolf Steiner's work. The school subsequently became The New School, Kings Langley, Hertfordshire.

DONNER, UNO (Helsingfors 1872–1958 Arlesheim)
Engineer. Founded and ran textile factories, among others. Met Anthroposophy in London in 1913. 1923-1932, at Rudolf Steiner's suggestion, General Secretary of the Finnish Anthroposophical Society. Participated in the agricultural course given by Rudolf Steiner at Koberwitz, Breslau in 1924. From 1928 he endeavoured to run a large farm on bio-dynamic lines. A bequest in his will led to the founding of the Donner Institute for Religious History and Cultural Research at the University of Abo in Finland.

DRECHSLER, LUNA (b. Lemberg/Lvov – d.1933 Poland, in her fifties)
Painter and sculptress. Active in political life (town council). Worked on the first Goetheanum. Initiated the founding of the Polish Anthroposophical Society and became its General Secretary.

DUNLOP, DANIEL NICOL (Kilmarnock 1868–1935 London)
Initially a member of the Theosophical Society. From 1918 a member of the Anthroposophical Society in England and leader of the Human Freedom group. Organiser of the summer schools in Penmaenmawr (1923) and Torquay (1924). Founder of the British Weleda Company. 1930-1935 General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in England.

DÜRLER, EDGAR (St Gallen 1895–1970 Arlesheim)
Businessman. Member of the Society from 1921. Worked for Futurum AG, Dornach, part of the time on the board of directors. Later member of the board of directors of Ilag AG, then Weleda AG, Arlesheim. Then for many years chairman of the board of directors.

EISELT, DR HANS (b. Prague – d.1936 Prague)
Having met Anthroposophy early in life, he worked for it until his death. He was leader of the branch in Prague and also lectured and ran the administration of the national Anthroposophical Society. He took the shorthand notes when Rudolf Steiner lectured in Prague. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the council of the Society in Czechoslovakia.

ERZBERGER, MATTHIAS
See Note 5.

FERRERI, CHARLOTTE (d.1924 in Milan)
Born in Honolulu as the daughter of an American missionary. Leader of the Leonardo da Vinci group in Milan. This group had resigned as a body from the Theosophical Society in 1913 and then joined the Anthroposophical Society. Later she was co-founder of a group in Honolulu. At the Christmas Foundation Conference she represented Honolulu.

FREUND, IDA (d.1931 in Prague)
An active member from 1909/10 in Prague. Her public charitable work was honoured after her death by the establishment of an Ida Freund Foundation.

GEERING-CHRIST, RUDOLF (Basel 1871–1958)
Bookseller and publisher. Founder member of the German Section in 1902 and of the Paracelsus branch in Basel in 1906, of which he became the chairman in 1921. 1922/23 he was a member of the inner working group at the Goetheanum. From 1913-1925 he was a member of the council of the Bauverein and in March 1925 he was appointed by Rudolf Steiner to join the administration group for the building of the Goetheanum.

GEUTER, FRIEDRICH (Darmstadt 1894–1960 Ravenswood)
Met Anthroposophy through Herbert Hahn when both were working as interpreters at a prisoner of war camp for British and French prisoners. After a spell at Der Kommende Tag, he began his lifetime's curative work at the Sonnenhof under Ita Wegman. From 1929 onwards he lived and worked in England, founding two homes for mentally handicapped children.

GEYER, REVEREND JOHANNES (Hamburg 1882– 1964 Stuttgart)
Heard Rudolf Steiner lecture for the first time when he was a student. Member from 1910. From 1912 pastor of the Protestant church. From 1919, at Rudolf Steiner's suggestion, a teacher at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart.

GLEICH, GENERAL GEROLD VON
See Note 8.

GNÄDIGER, FRANZ (d.1971)
Priest of the Christian Community. For a time secretary to Friedrich Rittelmeyer. At the time of the Christmas Foundation Meeting he lived in Zurich, from 1934 in Bern.

GOYERT, WILHELM RUDOLF (Witten a. d. Ruhr 1887–1954 Arlesheim)
Art dealer. Co-founder of the first Waldorf school in Cologne, named ‘Neuwacht School’ by Rudolf Steiner.

GROSHEINTZ, DR. MED. DENT. EMIL (Paris 1867–1946 Dornach)
Member from 1906 and co-founder of the Paracelsus branch in Basel. From 1908 to 1913 he was a member of the council of the German Section. In 1912 he placed a parcel of land he owned in Dornach at the disposal of Rudolf Steiner for the Goetheanum. From 1913 to 1915 he was deputy chairman of the Bauverein, from 1915 to 1924 chairman, and 1924/25 deputy chairman when Rudolf Steiner was chairman. In March 1925 Rudolf Steiner appointed him chairman of the administration group for the building of the Goetheanum. In 1920 he was founder-member and president of the branch at the Goetheanum, which he remained until 1946. 1922/23 he was a member of the inner working group at the Goetheanum.

GROSHEINTZ, DR OSKAR (d. 1944 in Basel)
Member from 1907 and chairman of the Johannes branch founded in Bern on his initiative. Took part in the performance of the Mystery Dramas in Munich.

GYSI, PROFESSOR DR MED H. C. ALFRED (Aarau 1864–1957 Zurich)
Eminent researcher in the field of dentistry who did pioneering work on dental prosthetics. Lecturer and professor at the dental institute of the University of Zurich, of which he was a co-founder. In 1902 he was one of the three Swiss founder members of the German Section and chairman of the Zschokke branch in Zurich which he founded in 1908 and to which he gave house room until 1920. ‘To his manner of working we owe the fact that Dr Steiner's most important Zurich lectures were scientific in character.’ (Marie Steiner, Erinnerungen I (Memoires, I). In 1913, together with Dr Emil Grosheintz, Frau Marie Schief and Frau Marie Hirter-Weber, he was one of the four Swiss members to make the land on the Dornach hill available for the building of the Goetheanum. He was a member of the council of the Bauverein till 1920. At the beginning of the twenties Professor Gysi withdrew from the Anthroposophical Society.

HAAN, PIETER DE (Utrecht 1891–1968 Holland)
Member from 1912. Having been the intended General Secretary for Holland, he withdrew in favour of Zeylmans van Emmichoven when the latter was suggested by Rudolf Steiner. From 1964-66 manager of the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag in Dornach.

HAHL, ERWIN (d.1958)
A native of Württemberg. Heard Rudolf Steiner lecture for the first time in 1919 in Stuttgart. From 1922 he worked in Yugoslavia, where he endeavoured to found a branch in Zagreb. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the work in Yugoslavia.

HARDT, DR MED HEINRICH (Stargard 1896– 1981)
Met Anthroposophy in Rostock, where he was a student. Co-initiator of the lectures Rudolf Steiner gave for young doctors in January and at Easter 1924 in Dornach. Later he was for many years the doctor at the Lauenstein home for the handicapped.

HART-NIBBRIG, FRAU J (b. Holland–1957 Dornach in her late eighties)
Was a member of the Theosophical Society before 1913. From about 1924 she lived in Dornach. She was close to Marie Steiner.

HARTMANN, EDUARD VON
See Note 53.

HENSTRÖM, SIGRID
Member from 1911. From 1924 chairman of the branch in Stockholm. At the Christmas Foundation Meeting she was the representative of the Swedish Society.

HEROSTRATOS
See Note 76.

HOHLENBERG, JOHANNES (1881–1960 Kopenhagen)
Painter and writer. From 1923 General Secretary of the Danish Anthroposophical Society. From 1926 he was the joint publisher and from 1929 the publisher of the Scandinavian anthroposophical journal Vidar till it was closed down in 1940. From 1947 to 1954 he published the cultural and political journal Øjeblikket in Denmark.

HUGENTOBLER, DR JAKOB (d.1961)
Teacher. A member of the council of the Zschokke (later Paracelsus) group in Zurich and then of the Johannes branch in Bern.

HUSEMANN, GOTTFRIED (b.1900–1972 Arlesheim)
Co-founder and priest of the Christian Community.

IM OBERSTEG, DR ARMIN (b.1881–1969 Basel)
Eminent lawyer. Member from 1919. A helpful supporter of the Goetheanum. For many years president of the cafe and restaurant co-operative at the Goetheanum and legal adviser to Weleda AG.

INGERÖ, KARL (d.1972 in Oslo)
At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the Norwegian Anthroposophical Society. Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner were guests in his house on several occasions.

JONG, PROFESSOR DE
See Note 64.

KAISER, DR WILHELM (Pery 1895–1983 Dornach)
Astronomer. Met Rudolf Steiner in 1918. Worked with Dr Elisabeth Vreede in the Goetheanum archives for a while. Lectured extensively in Germany and Switzerland. Wrote many books.

KAUFMANN (LATER ADAMS), DR GEORGE (Maryampol 1894–1963 Birmingham)
Mathematician and physicist. Member from 1916. Acted as consecutive interpreter for English-speaking audiences for 110 lectures, conferences and conversations by and with Rudolf Steiner in England and Dornach. Translated several of Rudolf Steiner's works and wrote numerous books.

KELLER, KARL (Basel 1896–1979 Arlesheim)
Journalist and editor in Basel. Heard Rudolf Steiner lecturing for the first time in 1917. As a member of the staff of the Swiss news agency he was able to publicise an essay written by Rudolf Steiner in the autumn of 1924 on the rebuilding of the Goetheanum.

KELLERMÜLLER, JAKOB (Räterschen 1872–1947 Dornach)
Engaged by Rudolf Steiner as doorkeeper for the first Goetheanum, he performed this task until 1946.

KOLISKO, DR MED EUGEN (Vienna 1893–1939 London)
Member from 1914. From 1920 teacher and school doctor at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. From 1923 to 1935 on the council of the German Anthroposophical Society. Then lived in England.

KOLISKO, LILLY (Vienna 1889–1976 Gloucester)
Collaborated with Rudolf Steiner at the biological research institute in Stuttgart, publishing works on the spleen and on microorganisms in 1922 and 1923.

KOSCHÜTZKY, RUDOLF VON (Upper Silesia 1866–1954 Stuttgart)
Member from about 1917. He was originally a farmer but worked as a war correspondent in the First World War. From 1922 priest of the Christian Community. He participated in bringing about the agricultural course and then became a member of the management of the resulting research group of anthroposophical farmers.

KREBS, CHRISTIAN (d.1945)
A member in Sweden. Participated in the agricultural course given by Rudolf Steiner at Koberwitz, Breslau, in 1924.

KRKAVEC, DR OTOKAR
Member in Prague. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative of the council of the Society in Czechoslovakia.

KRÜGER, DR BRUNO (b.1887–1979 Stuttgart)
Public prosecutor in Berlin. From 1921 he worked with the federation for the threefold social order in Stuttgart, lecturing on this subject. After the failure of the threefold project he worked as a lawyer in Stuttgart.

LEADBEATER, CHARLES WEBSTER
See Note 40.

LEER, EMANUEL JOSEF VON (b. in Amersfoort – 1934 Baku)
Dutch wholesale merchant. Member from 1909. Giver of strong financial backing to the various institutions. 1922/23 president of the management committee of the International Laboratories and the Clinical and Therapeutic Institute AG in Arlesheim. In 1924 the first president of the first management committee of the Weleda AG, Arlesheim.

LEHRS, DR ERNST (Berlin 1894–1979 Eckwälden)
Scientist. Member of the Society from 1921. Teacher at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. From 1923 a member of the committee of the Free Anthroposophical Society confirmed by Rudolf Steiner after the Christmas Foundation Conference, and thus an officer of the General Anthroposophical Society. Published scientific writings. From 1952 he taught at the seminar for curative education at Eckwälden.

LEINHAS, EMIL (Mannheim 1878–1967 Ascona)
Merchant. Member from 1909. In March 1920 co-founder, later managing director and finally liquidator of Der Kommende Tag AG in Stuttgart. From 1921 to 1923 in the central Vorstand of the Anthroposophical Society, from February 1923 a member of the council of the German Society in Stuttgart. Member of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung from 1949. Aus der Arbeit mit Rudolf Steiner. Sachliches und Persönliches (Working with Rudolf Steiner), Basel 1950.

LEISEGANG, HANS
See Note 36.

LJUNGQUIST, ANNA (d.1935 in Dornach)
One of the early pioneers of anthroposophical work in Sweden. At the Christmas Foundation Conference she was the representative of the Swedish Anthroposophical Society.

MACKENZIE, PROFESSOR MILLICENT
Professor of education at University College, Cardiff, Wales from 1910. At her instigation, Rudolf Steiner gave a course of lectures for English teachers at the Goetheanum at Christmas 1920 and he was also invited to lecture at educational conferences in Stratford-on-Avon (Spring 1922) and in Oxford (August 1922). These public lectures in England led to the founding of the Educational Union under the chairmanship of Professor Mackenzie, the purpose of which was to gain an entry for Rudolf Steiner's educational ideas particularly in English and American organizations.

MAIER, DR RUDOLF (Schorndorf 1886–1943 Hüningen)
Member from about 1908/09. From 1920 to 1924 leader of the scientific research institute of Der Kommende Tag AG in Stuttgart.

MARYON, LOUISE EDITH (London 1872–1924 Dornach)
Sculptress working in Dornach from 1914. Collaborated with Rudolf Steiner in the field of the sculptural arts, especially on the wooden sculpture ‘The Representative of Man between Lucifer and Ahriman’. On her initiative the coloured eurythmy figures came into being and also the three ‘eurythmy houses’ to provide living accommodation for those working at the Goetheanum. At the Christmas Foundation Conference she was chosen to be the Leader of the Section for the Sculptural Arts.

MAURER, PROFESSOR DR THEODOR (Dorlisheim 1873–1959 Strasbourg)
Writer and anthroposophical lecturer. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he was the representative for the Alsace.

MAYEN, DR MED WALTHER
He came from Breslau. Worked in connection with Anthroposophy in South America, including Porto Alegre in Brazil.

MERRY, ELEANOR (Durham 1873–1956 Frinton-on-Sea)
English writer and painter. Member from 1921. Together with D. N. Dunlop she organized the summer schools at Penmaenmawr (1923) and Torquay (1924).

MONGES, HENRY B. (1870–1954 New York)
Professor of architecture. Member from 1916. Participated actively in founding, shaping and maintaining the Anthroposophical Society in America. He was its first chairman, and from 1923 its General Secretary. He secured the publication rights for Rudolf Steiner in the USA, translated his works and founded a publishing company.

MORGENSTIERNE, ETHEL

MÜCKE, JOHANNA (Berlin 1864–1949 Dornach)
Belonged to the socialist trade union movement and was a member of the management of the workers' educational establishment where she met Rudolf Steiner during his time as a teacher there (1899-1904). Member from 1903. From 1908 until her retirement (1935) she was the business manager, first in Berlin and from 1924 in Dornach, of the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag founded in 1908 by Marie Steiner for the publication of Rudolf Steiner's work. From the end of 1911 until 1913 she was on the council of the German Section and from 1921 to 1923 on the council of the German Anthroposophical Society. Her book Erinnerungen an Rudolf Steiner und seine Wirksamkeit an der Arbeiter-Bildungsschule in Berlin 1899-1904 (Memories of Rudolf Steiner and his work at the Workers' Educational Establishment in Berlin 1899-1904) was published in Basel in 1955.

MUNTZ-TAXEIRA DEL MATTOS, FRAU (b. Holland – d. 1931 in Brussels)
At the Christmas Foundation Conference she was the representative of the Belgian Anthroposophical Society as its General Secretary. Translated works by Rudolf Steiner into French.

NEUSCHELLER-VAN DER PALS, LUCY (St Petersburg 1886–1962 Dornach)
Together with her husband she first heard Rudolf Steiner speak in 1908 in Berlin. Both thereupon became members. Later she took up eurythmy. With her husband she went to America in 1913 and there built up the eurythmy work and participated in the founding of the Rudolf Steiner School in New York. She moved to Dornach in 1959.

PALMER, DR MED OTTO (Feinsheim 1867–1945 Wiesneck)
Member from 1908 at which time he was a practising doctor in Hamburg. In 1921 at the request of Rudolf Steiner he took on the management of the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Stuttgart. From 1923 onwards a member of the council of the German Anthroposophical Society.

PEIPERS, DR MED FELIX (Bonn 1873–1944 Arlesheim)
Member from 1904. In 1906/7 established a private clinic in Munich. Played the role of Benedictus when the Mystery Dramas were performed in Munich (1910-1913). Co-founder of the Bauverein and member of its council from 1911 until 1925. From 1911 to 1913 a member of the council of the German Section. From 1915/16 leader of the anthroposophical work in Munich. From 1921 to 1924 worked as a doctor at the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Stuttgart.

POLLAK, RICHARD (Karlin, Prague 1867–1940 Dachau)
He and his wife were both artists and took part in the painting of the large dome of the first Goetheanum (1914-1919). In the concentration camp at Dachau he gave over a hundred anthroposophical lectures to those doomed to accompany him through death.

POLZER-HODITZ, LUDWIG COUNT OF (Prague 1869–1945 Vienna)
Member from 1911. In 1917 he used his influence to interest the Austrian government in Rudolf Steiner's movement for the threefold social order. From 1919 to 1921 he worked in Austria for the threefold movement. He became chairman of the Austrian Anthroposophical Society at its foundation in October 1923. At the Christmas Foundation Conference, he was the representative of the council of the Austrian Society.

PUSCH, HANS LUDWIG (1902–1976)
Actor. Participated in Rudolf Steiner's dramatic course given in 1924 and subsequently worked as a member of the Goetheanum stage ensemble under Marie Steiner. Moved to the USA in 1939 where he lectured, gave courses in speech formation and staged the Mystery Dramas.

PYLE, WILLIAM SCOTT (b. America – d.1938 The Hague)
Painter. From 1921/22 in Dornach. In 1929/30, together with his wife Mieta Pyle-Waller, he designed the scenery for the third and fourth Mystery Dramas. At the suggestion of Rudolf Steiner he worked at the production of new plant-based paints (‘Anthea Paints’).

RATHENAU, WALTHER
See Note 6.

REICHEL, DR FRANZ (d.1960 in Prague)
One of the representatives of the council of the Anthroposophical Society in Czechoslovakia.

RENZIS, BARONESS EMMELINA DE (d.1945 in Rome)
Member from 1909. Was one of the pioneers of the Anthroposophical Society in Italy. After Rudolf Steiner lectured there in 1909 she became the leader of a branch in Rome and concerned herself with the translation of his works into Italian.

RIHOUET-COROZE, SIMONE (Paris 1892–1982 Paris)
Member from 1913. In 1921 she founded the Paris eurythmy school and the journal Science spirituelle. From 1931 to 1976 she was General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in France. Translated the works of Rudolf Steiner and published the journal Triades. Wrote Rudolf Steiner, une Epopee de l'Esprit au XXe Siècle, Paris 1951.

SAUERWEIN, ALICE (b. Marseille – d.1931 in Switzerland)
Sister of the prominent French journalist and anthroposophist Jules Sauerwein. Founded the Paris group ‘Saint-Michel’ for whom Rudolf Steiner gave lectures in 1913 and 1914. From its founding in 1923, she was the General Secretary of the French Anthroposophical Society till 1930.

SIMON, FRÄULEIN

SCHMIDT, HERR

SCHMIEDEL, DR OSKAR (Vienna 1887–1959 Schwäbisch Gmünd)
Chemist. Member from 1907. Participated in establishing the Weleda company and was a member of its management from the beginning and later in Schwäbisch Gmünd.

SCHUBERT, DR KARL (Vienna 1889–1949 Stuttgart)
Member from about 1910. In February 1920 Rudolf Steiner requested him to take on the remedial class at the Waldorf School in Switzerland. He was thus the first anthroposophical curative teacher. Later he assisted in the establishment of curative establishments in Germany and other countries.

SCHWARZ, LINA (d.1947)
Met Anthroposophy in 1912 and was one of the pioneers of anthroposophical work in Italy. Worked in the Milan branch, which she represented at the Christmas Foundation Conference. She took over the leadership after the death of the founder, Charlotte Ferreri. She made excellent translations of Rudolf Steiner's works.

SCHWEBSCH, DR ERICH (Frankfurt/Oder 1889–1953 Freiburg i.Br.)
Writer about music, teacher. Member from about 1919. At the request of Friedrich Rittelmeyer, he contributed the essay ‘Goethe und Rudolf Steiner’ to his anthology Vom Lebenswerk Rudolf Steiners (On the Life's Work of Rudolf Steiner). This drew him to the attention of Rudolf Steiner who requested him to join the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. He taught there from 1921. Its re-institution after the Second World War was largely due to his initiative. In 1946 he brought the Waldorf schools in Germany together in the Association of Waldorf Schools, of which he was the chairman.

SCHWEIGLER, KARL RICHARD
Brother of the painter Emil Schweigler. Member from 1918 (St Gallen). Founded a working group in Rorschach in 1921. Lived in Dornach from 1922.

STEFFEN, ALBERT (Murgenthal/Aargau 1884–1963 Dornach)
Swiss poet. Met Rudolf Steiner in 1907 in Munich. Lived in Dornach from the autumn of 1920 onwards. Became editor of the weekly Das Goetheanum when it was established in 1921. From Christmas 1923 till 1925 Vice-president of the General Anthroposophical Society and Leader of the Section for Belles-Lettres. From Christmas 1925 President of the Society. Writer of poetry and plays, eg In Memoriam Rudolf Steiner, 1925, and Begegnungen mit Rudolf Steiner (Meetings with Rudolf Steiner), 1955.

STEIN, DR WALTER JOHANNES (Vienna 1891–1957 London)
Member from 1913. From 1919 to 1932 teacher of history at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. From 1923 to 1928 a member of the council of the German Anthroposophical Society. Later he worked in England.

STEINER, MARIE, NEE VON SIVERS (Wloclawek/Russia 1867–1948 Beatenberg/ Switzerland).
From 1902 Rudolf Steiner's closest colleague in building up the Movement and the Society. At Christmas 1914 they married. With him she developed the Goetheanistic stage arts of speech formation and eurythmy. At Christmas 1923 she became the Leader of the Section for the Spoken Arts and Music. With the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, which she founded in 1908, she ran the editing and publishing of Rudolf Steiner's written works and his lectures. In 1943 she founded the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung to continue with this work. See Rudolf Steiner The Course of My Life; Marie Steiner von Sivers Correspondence and Documents 1901-1905; Hella Wiesberger Aus dem Leben von Marie Steiner-von Sivers (From the Life of Marie Steiner), Dornach 1956; Marie Steiner, ihr Weg zur Erneuerung der Bühnenkunst durch Anthroposophie. Eine Dokumentation (Marie Steiner. Her Path to a Renewal of Stagecraft through Anthroposophy. A Documentation), Dornach 1973.

STIBBE, MAX (b. Padang 1898 – d.1983)
Teacher. Member from 1920. In 1923 he became co-founder and teacher at the first Dutch Waldorf school ‘De Vrije School’ at The Hague.

STOKAR, WILLY (Schaffhausen 1893–1953 Zurich)
Member from about 1916. Writer. 1921-23 colleague of Willy Storrer in the smaller working committee at the Goetheanum, among other things for tours of the building and as a lecturer. From time to time he was also a member of the management committee of Futurum AG, Dornach.

STORRER, WILLY (Töss bei Winterthur 1896–1930 Dornach)
From 1919 onwards worked with Roman Boos in the threefold movement and in his secretarial and organizational work at the Goetheanum. In the early summer of 1921 he took on the responsibility for Dr Boos's work in this area. After the founding of the weekly journal Das Goetheanum, Rudolf Steiner entrusted him with the administrative side. He thus became manager of the Verlag am Goetheanum. In 1920 he was a founder-member and the secretary of the branch at the Goetheanum. In 1923 he co-founded the Neue Generation branch. Belonged to the smaller working committee at the Goetheanum till the Christmas Foundation Conference in 1923. From time to time he was also a member of the management committee of Futurum AG. On 3 May 1930 he met with a fatal accident in his private aeroplane on the Gempen in Dornach.

STUTEN, JAN (Nijmegen 1890–1948 Arlesheim)
Musician. Member from about 1910. From 1914 he was a permanent musician at the Goetheanum (composing and conducting). He portrayed a number of roles on the stage under the direction of Rudolf Steiner, among others that of Faust. Later he also created scenery (in 1928 for the first and second Mystery Dramas). Composer of various works, above all stage music for Faust, Parts One and Two and for Rudolf Steiner's funeral. Member of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung.

THUT, PAUL (b.1872–1955 Bern)
Engineer. Director of the power station at Bern. Member in Bern for many years.

TRIMLER, DR

TRINLER, KARL (d.1964)
Arlesheim and Basel.

TYMSTRA, FRANS (b.1891–1979 Arlesheim)
From Holland.

UNGER, DR CARL (Bad Cannstatt 1878–1929 Nuremberg)
Member from 1902/03. Till his death he was the leader of the main branch in Stuttgart, which he had founded in 1905 together with Adolf Arenson. From 1913 to 1923 he was a member of the central Vorstand of the Anthroposophical Society. From 1923 he was a member of the council of the German national Society. At the Christmas Foundation Conference he represented that council and also the Porto Alegre group in Brazil. From January 1914 to September 1915 he was the technical building manager of the first Goetheanum and from 1913 to 1925 in the council of the Bauverein. Before beginning a public lecture on Anthroposophy in Nuremberg on 4 January 1929 he was shot dead by a mentally ill man. His collected works have been published in three volumes.

USTERI, DR ALFRED (Säntis area of Switzerland 1869–1948 Reinach)
Papers on botany. Plant drawings; lectures at the Goetheanum.

VREEDE, DR ELISABETH (The Hague 1879–1943 Ascona)
Member of the Theosophical Society as early as about 1902. From April 1914 she worked at the Goetheanum where from 1919 onwards she set up the archive of Rudolf Steiner's lectures. In 1920 she became a founder-member and later the secretary of the branch at the Goetheanum. In 1922/23 she was a member of the smaller working committee at the Goetheanum and from Christmas 1923 till 1935 she was a member of the founding Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society and the Leader of the Section for Mathematics and Astronomy.

WACHSMUTH, DR GUENTHER (Dresden 1893–1963 Dornach)
Permanently in Dornach from 1921. In 1922/23 in the smaller working committee at the Goetheanum. From Christmas 1923 till 1963 he was a member of the Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society in the capacity of Secretary and Treasurer, and Leader of the Natural Science Section. He wrote, among other things: Rudolf Steiners Erdenleben und Wirken. Eine Biographie (Rudolf Steiner's Life and Work), Dornach 1941 and 1951; Die ätherischen Bildekräfte in Kosmos, Erde und Mensch (The Etheric Formative Forces in Cosmos, Earth and Man), Stuttgart 1924.

WACHSMUTH, DR WOLFGANG (Dresden 1891–1953 Arlesheim)
Worked for various publishing companies. He met Anthroposophy towards the end of the First World War. In Stuttgart from 1920 he took over the management of the publishing company Der Kommende Tag AG until it was dissolved in 1924/25. From time to time he was a member of the council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany.

WEGMAN, DR MED ITA (Java 1876–1943 Arlesheim)
Member from approximately 1903. Studied medicine in Zurich. In 1921 she founded the Klinisch-Therapeutisches Institut in Arlesheim which resulted in close collaboration with Rudolf Steiner in the field of medicine. From 1922 to 1924 she was on the council of management of the International Laboratories in Arlesheim. From 1922-23 in the smaller working committee at the Goetheanum. From Christmas 1923 to 1935 she was the Recorder of the Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society and Leader of the Medical Section. From 1924-25 she was Rudolf Steiner's physician. Together they wrote Fundamentals of Therapy.

WEISS, FRAU

WERBECK, LOUIS MICHAEL JULIUS (Hamburg 1879–1928 Hamburg)
Member from 1910. From 1917 leader of the Pythagoras branch in Hamburg. From 1923 he was a member of the council of the German Anthroposophical Society. He wrote Die wissenschaftlichen Gegner Rudolf Steiners und der Anthroposophie durch sie selbst widerlegt (The Scientific Opponents of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy Disproved by Themselves) and Die christlichen Gegner Rudolf Steiners und der Anthroposophie (The Christian Opponents of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy), Stuttgart 1924.

WINDELBAND, WILHELM
See Note 41.

WULLSCHLEGER, FRITZ (Zofingen 1896–1969 Zofingen)
Teacher. Member from 1920. Member of the School Association for Independent Education in Switzerland. (See Note 56.

ZAGWIJN, HENRI (d.1954)
Composer and writer from Rotterdam. Set to music Rudolf Steiner's verses ‘Im Seelenaug ...’ and ‘Die Sonne schaue ...’ Wrote Die Musik im Lichte der Anthroposophie (Music in the Light of Anthroposophy). Teacher at the Waldorf school in The Hague.

ZEYLMANS VAN EMMICHOVEN, DR MED F W WILLEM (Helmond 1893–1961 Johannesburg)
Member from 1920. Founder of the Rudolf Steiner Clinic in The Hague, co-founder of the Anthroposophical Society in Holland and from November 1923 its General Secretary. Wrote, among other works, Rudolf Steiner, Eine Biographie (Rudolf Steiner, A Biography), Stuttgart 1961.
[Note: a reader who was at the funeral of Dr Zeylmans van Emmichoven has reported he died in Cape Town, not Johannesburg. His ashes were scattered on Table Mountain. e.Ed]

My dear friends!

AT 2.30 in the afternoon of 31 December a meeting of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society took place in the Architects' Office. Herr Aeppli had called this meeting and had asked Dr Steiner to be present and take the chair.

Members of the Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society present are: Dr Steiner, Albert Steffen, Fräulein Vreede, Dr Wachsmuth. Later also Frau Dr Steiner.

Herr Aeppli greets Dr Steiner and requests him to take the chair.

Dr Steiner opens the meeting called for the purpose of a free discussion at the request of the delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland:

I thank Herr Aeppli most warmly for his kind words. Now let us begin the meeting. Who would like to make a contribution to this open discussion? Would anyone wishing to speak please do so.

Frau Professor Bürgi, Bern, requests Dr Steiner to become the Chairman of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

DR STEINER: I am somewhat surprised by Frau Professor Bürgi's suggestion. For—at least in the long run—we cannot very well depart from the stipulation of the incompatibility of the offices of the central Vorstand with other offices. Thus I too would not be able to take on any other position in some part of the Anthroposophical Society in the long run. But quite apart from that, if we are to enter into a provisional arrangement for the time being, would not Herr Steffen be a better choice as General Secretary for Switzerland? It seems to me that if we are going to enter into a provisional situation, then Herr Steffen would be the right person. Of course it is entirely up to you to have a discussion about it. But it seems rather a problem, or indeed senseless, for me to assume the position of Chairman of the Swiss Society when the only reason preventing Herr Steffen is the fact that he is a member of the central Vorstand. I am in the very same position. Perhaps you would speak further on this.

HERR STEFFEN: I would want to decline. It does not seem to be fitting.

DR STEINER: But my dear Herr Steffen, why not? Since it is to be provisional, I cannot see why not! But perhaps there is another way of getting out of this fix. Perhaps we can achieve both ends, dear friends: bringing about a Swiss leadership for the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and, arising out of the local situation, creating a close link with the central Anthroposophical Society. Or ought it not to be possible for there to be a close link between the central Anthroposophical Society, which has its seat here in Switzerland, and the Swiss Anthroposophical Society? Perhaps we can get out of this fix by seeing to it that we in principle maintain the incompatibility while you express it by choosing a kind of General Secretary apart from us yet at the same time confer on both of us the chairmanship as members of the Vorstand of the central Anthroposophical Society. It would then be that the Swiss Society comes to the resolution, arising out of this meeting of its delegates, that it is an obvious thing for the central Vorstand to be regarded also as the head of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. And the Swiss Anthroposophical Society then appoints an acting General Secretary. If we were to do it like this, it would not have to be provisional, for it would be an expression of the very best of all situations: The Swiss members have no fear for their independence in that they simply take into their bosom the whole of the Anthroposophical Society. This is how I think we could solve this problem. Herr Steffen and I together will take on the chairmanship in our capacity as Presidents of the Anthroposophical Society.

DR HUGENTOBLER: Truly we could not have come up with a better solution!

DR STEINER: Would anyone else like to speak?

Herr Keller suggests that the choice of General Secretary be left to the Vorstand.

DR STEINER: It is of course rather difficult for the Vorstand to make this choice if the matter is not discussed first. I am sure I am not giving away esoteric secrets by saying that it is extremely difficult to discover which individual is so popular all over Switzerland as to be generally accepted as the administrator. Perhaps a little discussion on the matter might contribute to achieving a result. The office will then be exercised in close contact with Herr Steffen and myself. And then what Frau Professor Bürgi said would probably no longer apply in the way it would have done had an independent General Secretary been chosen. What she said was that the Swiss Society was in an exposed position through being so close to the Goetheanum and so on, and that therefore it would be important for the office to be exercised in a suitable manner. But now, since you have been so good as to chose us to take on this office, these arguments may not apply quite so sharply any longer. I rather think that now the person's popularity will be all that matters. But would anyone else like to say something?

Dr Grosheintz believes that it is perhaps not necessary to have a General Secretary in addition to the present Vorstand.

DR STEINER: Would not people prefer that a person be nominated by the meeting so that the various administrative tasks can be better carried out? Surely people would prefer this? I would like to hear what people think.

EDGAR DÜRLER: We of the ‘New Generation’ branch suggest Dr Oskar Grosheintz.

DR STEINER: Dr Oskar Grosheintz has been suggested. Are there any other suggestions?

Herr Thut would like further clarification of the duties incumbent on this person.

DR STEINER: Now that we are making a new beginning, should we not start afresh with new arrangements and disregard the old ones? Could we not give up the old ways and reorganize things starting from the roots? From an objective point of view I don't think there is anything against the Swiss Anthroposophical Society being constituted in such a way that its main representation lies with the General Anthroposophical Society in the way we have just decided. However, on the level of feelings I do want to avoid a sense possibly arising later on that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is being patronized in any way or treated as a second-rate child. In actual fact this would not be possible, for by embracing it in the first place it is shown to be a first-rate child. This would indeed have to be the case. But nevertheless, a hint of a feeling could arise somewhere that the Swiss Society is only an appendage of the General Anthroposophical Society. Tact also has a part to play in this, and in practice I don't think it would happen. But if anyone here does have a hint of any such feeling in his heart, then please do express it now, so that we can really come to a conclusion on this matter. Otherwise it would probably be best with regard to Switzerland simply to make allowances for the old ways to which people are so attached and to carry out the general administration ourselves. In this case Herr Thut's suggestion would be the right one: simply to let the Swiss Anthroposophical Society be administered along with the General Anthroposophical Society. And for any constitutional matters having a substantial inner significance for the Society we would then call a meeting of whatever representatives the different branches wished to send. By doing this from time to time we would be expressing what people have become so attached to in Switzerland, namely the democratic element. I think that would then be the best way to get on. We would always call on the individual members. This would be possible in Switzerland because it is such a small country, but it would not be possible in any other national Society. It would also not be necessary for these meetings to take place always at the Goetheanum. They could be in different places since it is so easy to get everywhere. In fact it would be quite a good thing if these meetings of members were what are usually called wandering meetings. Having meetings from time to time in Bern, Zurich, Olten and so on, always combined, presumably, with one of my lectures, would be the best way of managing our affairs in Switzerland.

HERR THUT: It was not my intention to cling to this old organization at all costs. I merely wanted clarity about which aspects would remain and which would not, so as to be as clear as possible about how the things that are still in question would work.

DR STEINER: In that case I would consider that Herr Thut, and probably most of you here, would prefer it if the representation of the Swiss Society were carried out here by the General Anthroposophical Society? Routine matters can easily be attended to by the administration and no special secretary would be needed for this. And then, in order to keep in contact with the different parts of Switzerland, it would be best if we could nominate, as an advisory group for the Vorstand here, three, four or five men and women who would be trustees, to whom we could turn when necessary and with whom we could hold the wandering meetings. These would not have to be so very frequent, but the group of trustees would give us contact with the different parts of Switzerland. Perhaps this is what people would like?

HERR STORRER: If this were to be the case, then of course the ‘New Generation’ group would withdraw its suggestion.

DR STEINER: Would anyone else like to speak?

Dr Usteri asks a question.

DR STEINER: Your question refers to the Programme. But this is a matter of the agenda each day. You said that you arrived this morning and found the meeting in the hall was not what you expected? Was it not? Well you see we have had to depart from the Programme because it was not possible in the plenary gathering to speak in depth about all the questions that need discussing unless we had constantly adjourned the meetings and had had a running agenda for the members' meetings. That is why I myself departed in the daily agendas from the original Programme. But the agenda for the following day has always been announced in detail the day before. Thus the meeting of doctors in question took place this morning. What a pity that you did not have a chance to ask someone who was here yesterday. Any member would have been able to tell you that there was going to be a meeting of practising doctors in the Glass House at 8.30 this morning.

For you see: We wanted to make this particular Christmas Conference as fruitful as possible and do as much as we could to prevent everything from being watered down in general discussion. That is why medical matters were to be discussed among practising doctors only; so they were removed from the general meeting and are to be dealt with in three meetings of which the first took place this morning at 8.30, the second tomorrow and the third probably also—the time is yet to be announced. Thus the things announced in the Programme are in fact being dealt with in an even better way than had originally been made known. A general discussion amongst all the members would not have led to any better outcome. I have even made sure that all the meetings which do not concern all members but only particular groups have also been announced in the general meeting, so that those not concerned with a particular meeting nevertheless know that it is taking place. That you did not find this out was probably due to the fact that you did not arrive before 8.30, when you would have had an opportunity to ask someone. I don't think a General Secretary would have been able to inform you any better than any of the members if you had got there this morning. In House Friedwart you could have obtained exact information.

But of course there could also be very good reasons for nominating a General Secretary. This is something we could discuss further. There was no vote about it, but I should like to take a vote on this. Would those friends who are in favour of Albert Steffen and myself continuing as chairmen of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society please raise their hands. (They do.) Would those who are against also please raise their hands. (Nobody does.) So, the suggestion has been adopted. Now it is a question of whether we decide to let the administrative office of the General Anthroposophical Society take over the routine administration of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and whether we set up a group of elders, or for that matter younger people, to whom we can turn from time to time when necessary or when something has to be decided.

Dr Usteri supports this suggestion.

Herr Geering supports Dr Usteri.

Herr Thut asks whether representation by a General Secretary would not be more advantageous than that by the representatives of the groups.

DR STEINER: I think it would be best if the individual branches were to suggest their delegates to us. The group of delegates can be as large as the number of branches that exist. The disadvantage hitherto has been that the group of representatives of the branches has at the same time been seen as the council. A council like this is no good for anything. But here—perhaps I am boasting, but this is what we intend—if the administration is firmly taken in hand by the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society, then it will be up to this leadership to take the initiative and call the delegates of the branches together for a meeting. In such a case a rather large group of delegates would probably not pose any particular difficulty. So I think it will be quite manageable for every single branch to nominate a representative for this circle. This, it seems to me, will be the best way. But if any branches wanted to join together to send a delegate, that would also be possible. But it is not necessary for this to be done today. It would perhaps be better to have a thorough discussion in the branches themselves and let us know who has been chosen sometime during the next two or three weeks. Then our administration will be entirely democratic, which is much favoured in Switzerland.

Now I would like to ask whether there is anything else you wish to bring up. I cannot imagine that you do not also have other wishes, urges, longings on your mind.

Herr Aeppli would like to know whether the question of the administration has now been settled.

DR STEINER: The meetings would take place anyway, and as for the purely administrative matters, they would be reported to this group so that the administration would be relieved of the responsibility if the council would accept the responsibility. Would anyone else like to speak?

DR USTERI: Now that there has been such applause, I presume that a formal vote on the two points is not necessary.

DR STEINER: Actually, I would ask you to vote once there is no one else who wishes to speak. Now does anyone else wish to speak on the matter of this group or on what I have said about the group relieving the administration?

HERR STORRER: I should like to suggest that the small branches send one and the larger branches two delegates. But then we should have to define what we mean by ‘large’ and ‘small’.

Herr Trinler says that what matters is not whether there are one or two but that they are the right people!

DR STEINER: Would anyone else like to say something about this?

So are you making this proposal? The proposal is that the small groups send one and the larger groups two delegates.

Herr Trinler says something (inaudible).

DR STEINER: The two proposals are in agreement with one another, they are not contradictory; but we shall have to define ‘larger’ and ‘smaller’. So what is a large and what is a small group?

HERR STORRER: Looking at the Swiss branches, I would say that the large ones are those at the Goetheanum, in Bern, in Basel, in Zurich and in St Gallen.

DR STEINER: But you could imagine that a branch which is small today might grow large later on. We do need a figure to tell us when a group is starting to become a large one.

HERR STORRER: A small group has not more than ten members.

DR STEINER: So ten and less is a small branch; eleven and over a large branch.

HERR TRINLER: A branch with as many as a hundred members does not necessarily achieve any more than a small one.

HERR THUT: It is not a matter of what the branch achieves. Perhaps forty or fifty could be the number determining a large group.

Herr Schweigler asks how he should understand the matter of deciding about the delegates: Would this be by a vote or simply by acclaim? Which is best?

DR STEINER: The situation varies from one country to another. You will have heard that in England I suggested that the selection of representatives be made not according to branches but according to whatever figure is arrived at by dividing the total English membership by seven. I think this would be a very good method for England, but it would not be good to apply this way of thinking to Switzerland. Here I think we should aim in this group for two delegates from branches with over fifty members and one from those with fewer than fifty members. Apart from this, the difference is not particularly important. I think that would be best in this case. A branch with ten members can perhaps work better than a branch with two hundred members, certainly. But that applies to all forms of democratic representation, and I do not believe that you can base any particular rule on this. Otherwise you would have to say: Those branches which work well send two representatives and those which work badly send one. But this would be rather difficult to determine! And a branch which does not work well will certainly not believe such a thing of itself. (Laughter)

DR HUGENTOBLER: I don't think Herr Schweigler realizes that there are things about which you cannot vote.

Herr Schweigler denies this. Dr Hugentobler answers (inaudible).

DR STEINER: So if I have understood this correctly, then the proposal regarding the groups of delegates is as follows: Firstly the group of delegates is instituted, and secondly branches of over fifty members send two representatives and branches of under fifty members send one.

A MAN ASKS: Are the branch leaders not the people best suited?

DR STEINER: But the branch leaders are not decided by the meeting of delegates but by the branches themselves! It has nothing to do with whoever might be the branch leader at the moment.

A MAN: But (inaudible).

HERR GEERING-CHRIST: That is a misunderstanding on the part of this gentleman!

DR STEINER: The initiative has to lie with somebody. And now the initiative will lie with us here in Dornach and we shall be supported by the delegates. The meeting of delegates will be a kind of control body. It does not have to work as a council. A difficulty only arises if there is a council scattered all over the place that never does anything. That is where the difficulty lies.

DR USTERI: Have we accepted Dr Hugentobler's proposal that there should be a vote?

DR STEINER: It has been proposed that there should be a vote. Very well. Dr Hugentobler's suggestion was the most far-reaching, namely that the branches choose their own delegates and let us know in due course, whereby branches of over fifty members will send two and those with fewer than fifty will send one. Does anyone want me to divide this proposal into two parts? If that is not the case, then I now propose the vote for both the questions and ask those in favour to raise their hands. Who is against? The proposal seems to have been adopted.

So now the whole of the administration and leadership of the Society in Switzerland has been constituted.

Does anyone else wish to speak about a matter that concerns the Swiss Society?

HERR STOKAR: I should like to ask the present chairman, Dr Steiner, for his opinion on whether the Swiss Society should now come to grips with the Statutes. As stated in the Statutes, it is now up to us to discuss the Statutes and work out a suitable form for our national Society, perhaps by adding to the general Statutes.

DR STEINER: That will of course be the subject of the first meeting of delegates, and it will be our task, as the council of the Swiss Society, to work out a draft. On the basis of this draft the first meeting of delegates will be able to discuss with us how we adopt the draft statutes or else modify them or whatever. This will surely be in order on the basis of the decisions made today.

HERR STOKAR has another question: When there are official public announcements to be made, will they be made from here or will the representatives in the different towns be expected to make them?

DR STEINER: First of all there will be an official report in the first supplement to Das Goetheanum, [Note 73] and apart from this official report a good number of friends have been present and experienced it all for themselves. They will pass on anything they consider important. That is how I see it. As I see it, people are actually obliged to speak within the circle of the Society about what they have experienced here, and they could also speak about it wherever else they like in a tactful way such as is appropriate when speaking in public.

Dr Hugentobler wants the links with Dornach to be better.

HERR GEERING-CHRIST: Will nothing be made public?

DR STEINER: Let me repeat what I have just said: Members should feel obliged to speak amongst the members about whatever they have experienced. About whatever they have experienced! But they should also feel in duty bound to bring these things out into the world in, shall I say, a tactful manner. And I include the press in this. It will be possible to do it in a suitable way and we shall make sure that it is done in a suitable way. Indeed, I should like to say anyway—and as far as I know the whole Vorstand, which I have been so very instrumental in bringing into being, supports this—that I count courtesy as something that ought to exist extensively within our Society. We need courtesy. Some of us regard it as the most terrible thing that could have happened that one of our most valued members in Switzerland [Note 74] has been lost to us. He was a member of the Goetheanum committee and one of the reasons he was able to give was that he once entered the Goetheanum, as a member of the committee, and was then thrown out. There have been many such examples of ‘discourtesies’. We shall very urgently have to make it our task that courtesy is not the least of the unwritten paragraphs of our Statutes. We shall have to make very, very strenuous efforts in this direction. I presume that what Dr Hugentobler meant encompassed a good deal of this.

It was no small task for the provisional Vorstand to find quarters for all the many people who have come here, and some are indeed lodged in the most primitive and dreadful quarters. Yet they managed. But that does not make the work any less! In addition to all this—please be patient for a few more moments—we shall have to succeed gradually in being truly courteous in every way both towards Switzerland and towards the outside in general!

One speaker says that people could be more observant and take more into account: Yesterday evening someone had arrived in Dornach who had lost his membership card two or three years ago. Every seat was occupied and it was impossible to find one anywhere, and so on.

DR STEINER: In that particular case it would not have helped if the Swiss Society had had a representative or a council since it was a meeting of the General Anthroposophical Society. We should have been delighted if only you had come up to our table at the front. This is the very reason why I made sure that the Vorstand should be visible right from the start. They will be visible at every future meeting and I hope, knowing the Vorstand as I do, that they will also be courteous in future. So please be so good as to turn to the Vorstand during this Conference and things should be alright. Are there any more questions?

GENERAL REPLY: No.

DR STEINER: It seems to me that we have more or less reached the end of our agenda, and as far as the question of courtesy is concerned, let us rather carry it out in practice! I think we can now close this meeting. Please permit me to close the meeting.

The course of the negotiations [of the assembly of delegates] is discussed. Schwebsch's proposal with the six points is mentioned again.

Dr. Unger: The formation of the committee must be described and the replacement of the central committee by this committee.

Dr. Steiner: This point is very important. Actually, everything depends on this point. First of all, Dr. Schwebsch has very well described the tendency of the matter and that the matter is known in Stuttgart. It would just have to be characterized a little more specifically. It would have to be said what is meant by it; furthermore, how to characterize the wrong position of the tax - you can't just always complain - and how to characterize the reversal of the tax. That would have to be presented by the person who is thinking of giving the presentation. A great deal depends on this being presented in the right way.

The matter requires a thorough study.

Theodor Lauer and Jose del Monte ask Dr. Kolisko to give this report.

Dr. Unger: It should be done together with a member of the old Central Executive Board & 5.

Dr. Schwebsch speaks.

Dr. Kolisko: It should be done by Mr. Leinhas.

Dr. Steiner: If it is done by a member of the old Central Committee, it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. It should be done by someone who speaks from the outside, as an observer from the outside, and at most the old Central Committee should comment on it afterwards. He does not have to offer any justification, otherwise it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. How can the old central council give this report impartially? I would like to know that!

Emil Leinhas: It would be more impressive if someone who was in opposition to the leadership did it.

Dr. Steiner: In the last few weeks, everyone has been well aware of the content of such a lecture. It should be possible to prepare a respectable lecture with the appropriate study and organization of thoughts. Many people knew exactly what the sins were.

Emil Leinhas and others suggested Dr. Kolisko for the lecture.

Dr. Kolisko: The failings could be explained as being due to a lack of awareness.

Dr. Steiner: It is a great pity that this first lecture cannot be given by someone who is linked to the life of the Anthroposophical Movement through having founded a branch. For many reasons, the life of the anthroposophical movement has dwindled to the same extent that personalities who were not connected with the founding of branches have entered leading positions. Everywhere the branches will die under the successors, because the successors do not muster the same enthusiasm as the founders. You may judge the quality of having founded a branch or of having established it, but that means something quite different from having entered a position that had already been created. In a sense, it would be true of Werbeck that he could have been well informed about what was lacking in the founding of a branch because there was no central leadership. Someone like that would know, from the former branch leaders.

If you take Mrs. Wolfram or anyone who has set up a branch, you will find that they know how it is to work with a central administration. Certain branch leaders have lacked this. Werbeck will not have any complaints in this regard. Tell him, Mr. Leinhas, to account for all his friendship for you, and then ask him for his opinion. Of course, he will only bring up the negative things; but that is useful if it is presented in such a way that one can see what positive things will come out of it.

Emil Leinhas answers.

Dr. Steiner: It would be necessary to study from this point of view what someone who should lead a branch has missed due to the lack of central leadership.

Dr. Krüger speaks to this. Jose del Monte: Dr. Kolisko should give the report.

Dr. Steiner: It seems to me that the main reason for this is that no one else can be found. This task should not be underestimated. You have to bear in mind that the person who gives this lecture is, in a sense, in the position of someone who has been at the forefront of the opposition so far, and who actually has the sympathy of this opposition. He must be able to inspire people just by the way he presents himself. He must represent the counter-complex of what was, namely, what should become. It is the most difficult task imaginable that anyone could undertake with regard to the Anthroposophical Society.

Emil Leinhas: So we can entrust Dr. Kolisko with this task?

Dr. Steiner: He will have to do it. The difficulty lies only in the fact that as a member of the Anthroposophical Society he is only nine years old, for his membership dates from 1914; so he is a child of the Society. Well, war years count double; Austrian noses are always more amiable than others, even when you throw your head back.³

Dr. Unger: Whether [he] should reel off the whole opposition?

Dr. Steiner: With sufficient cooperation, it would be possible. Of course, in the bosom of the community that is sitting here, it will be very easy to find everything that needs to be presented.

Emil Leinhas: Surely it will be possible to treat it so that we have to present a joint confession of guilt?

Dr. Steiner: Nevertheless, it doesn't have to be.

Emil Leinhas and several others talk about the inner history of the Society (and the history of its institutions).

Dr. Kolisko: These include: the Religious Renewal Movement, the League for Free Spiritual Life and the Waldorf School.

Dr. Steiner: It is a very difficult story. Care must be taken to ensure that the matter is dealt with objectively, very objectively. Up to now, discussion of this point has been emotionally unobjective. It should be dealt with objectively. The point of “inner history” is in itself suitable for raising the whole thing to a very serious level. It must be shown how individual institutions have arisen from a universal of anthroposophy, and how they therefore also have the inner conditions for flourishing. And then one must show how these institutions can flourish, how, for example, the Waldorf school can attract a Japanese professor to look at it, that the English come and so on. The thing is that from what is healthy in the institutions, and from what is sick, the repercussions on society show up. Care must be taken that such institutions, which are already established in the outer world, do not suffer damage. The Waldorf School and the “Kommenden Tag” must not be harmed, they must be used. One must not blindly rush into it. On the other hand, it must also be emphasized that the other institutions must emulate those that are flourishing.

Dr. Kolisko: The difficult question of religious renewal must also be dealt with.

Dr. Hahn speaks to this question.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps someone could at least hint at how something like religious renewal should be treated; at least the direction of it. Otherwise there is no certainty. There must be an awareness of how to treat something like this, from which points of view. Especially when the living conditions of society come into consideration, one must be clear about the points of view from which religious renewal must be treated.

Emil Leinhas: Surely Dr. Rittelmeyer is not supposed to present the fundamentals?

Dr. Steiner: It will be necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to bring the right point of view to the discussion.

Dr. Unger and Stockmeyer speak to this.

Marie Steiner: If we go back to the starting points and take as our first point the lack of interest in the path of knowledge, and make point 3 into point 1, because that shows the starting point of the religious movement, that would be good. The starting point was that theologians came to Dr. Steiner and said: Religion can no longer give us what we need to satisfy people's spiritual needs. But the fact is that the Anthroposophical Society puts some people off. Could we give them what their souls need in a more religiously attuned form? In any case, the theologians are the ones who asked for it and who knew that all knowledge could be given through anthroposophy and through Dr. Steiner. I had a conversation with Prof. Beckh, who said, “We have made a big mistake. We have done it in such a way that we do not convey the knowledge, the Anthroposophy, to the community, so that we talk about Anthroposophical knowledge among ourselves, but not in the community. — The starting point was that the Anthroposophical Society should not become involved with the religious renewal movement, which does not primarily pass on knowledge but rather provides pastoral care. What has happened is that the content of anthroposophical knowledge has been taken and the material basis of the Anthroposophical Society has been used, and now it is being claimed that all the knowledge comes from theology. But it was not anthroposophy that needed religious renewal, but the others, the theologians.

Dr. Steiner: Why should the main thing not be asserted as such, that with full recognition of the content of the religious movement (note from Dr. Heyer: “Unger obviously knows it too little”), the fact that the anthroposophical movement is the creator of the religious renewal movement is placed in the foreground? Why should this point, which is the main point, not be emphasized? If one describes it conscientiously, it was the case that younger theologians emerged who said: We are at the end, we are finished. No more pastoral care can be gained from theology. Theology has no understanding of true Christianity. Now we need anthroposophy, which gives us that again. — That has happened. A cult has really emerged.

Now, that this is a necessity in the present within civilization, that simply follows from the fact that this longing has already emerged strongly precisely within the Theosophical Society. When Olcott was still president of the Theosophical Society, some people converted to Catholicism. Olcott said: If all Theosophists convert to Catholicism, then we can close the Theosophical Society. This was already an acute problem within the Theosophical Society. Then the whole calamity occurred with the Leadbeater crisis in the Theosophical Society, and all with the most repulsive degenerations. Leadbeater converted to an Old Catholic Church. What was completely missing was the creative element. There was a convulsive return to the old cult. Outwardly, it was connected with the theory, which in the theory of descent went back to the original ape. I don't know if people know the things better?

But here in the Anthroposophical Society, something new has emerged creatively. Of course, every cult will include the old elements; but here the necessary creative element has emerged anew. Why not point out that the Anthroposophical Society has been able to create what the religious movement needs? There is no need to emphasize the petty mutual rancor. The point is to emphasize the fact that the Anthroposophical Society was able to create this religious movement. The point is to regulate the mutual relationship, and to do so in a very clear way. Now the devil's advocate would have to come and say that the Anthroposophical Society has not had the right instinct. That is what should come, that one develops an awareness of everything that is going on in the Anthroposophical Society. But the Anthroposophical Society has slept through all the facts.

There is much talk in the world about the Waldorf school. But the people in the anthroposophical movement had to be made aware of the Waldorf school. Little has come from the Anthroposophical Society that has put the Waldorf school movement in the appropriate anthroposophical light. It is precisely from the anthroposophical side that the moment could be emphasized that it is only the anthroposophical movement that has succeeded in founding a school that is universally human. Anthroposophy sets out not to found an anthroposophical school of thought, but a school for all humanity. The fact that something can be anthroposophical without necessarily being “anthroposophical” is something that must come out on this occasion, with striking examples. There was no article in “Anthroposophie” about the religious movement. I know that the magazine “Anthroposophie” is not very well known in this circle here. The most important event in anthroposophical history is missing from the work of the Anthroposophical Society.³ She just trots on. When I come to the Waldorf School, I see the numbers of “Anthroposophie” lying there; they are picked up quite late. But I think what I said belongs to the history of the religious movement. When we return to this starting point, everything will be said.

Emil Leinhas: Within the religious renewal movement, the origin from anthroposophy is not discussed.

Marie Steiner: I could see from what the gentleman said [the name was not recorded] that this point of view is strictly adhered to. I cannot imagine Dr. Rittelmeyer doing such a thing. But what others have done seems more questionable.

Several people talk about keeping quiet about the anthroposophical origin of the religious renewal movement: Dr. Streicher, Dr. Heyer, etc.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to avoid the opponents adding new antagonism to the old antagonism. By pointing the finger of accusation at the fact that things have been given in Dornach and here in Stuttgart, one only makes new enemies. It is not necessary to present this to people on a plate. The point of this discussion is that something like this can be avoided quite well, because that would only be grist to the opponents' mill. You don't have to deny such a fact, but you don't have to present it either.

I didn't say that you should point out how it happened. There is no need to present the outer story. That the religious movement is a child of anthroposophy can be deduced from the nature of things. It is not necessary for anyone to present the outer history now. It is not a matter of pointing the finger at things that will give the opponents ammunition. It was agreed that one should not present the things of the world in an unclear and vague way, but should present the matter clearly from its essence. What I have outlined above can be put forward without anyone from the religious movement being able to object to it. It only leads to quarrels when they are accused of denying their origin. They can say what they themselves believe to be the truth.

Emil Leinhas speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: When it is said that they do not talk about anthroposophy, that is nonsense: they only talk about anthroposophy. What is the significance of approaching these people in such a way? If they introduce other people to spiritual life, what does it matter if they do not immediately label it as nonsense by using the word “anthroposophy”? They have every reason to avoid the word “anthroposophy”.

Marie Steiner: I had the impression that you present it as if all of this could be derived from theology.

Dr. Steiner: This is a dispute about ownership. This is about something other than the dispute over ownership. It is about characterizing the anthroposophical movement itself. Turn the question around: Would there be a religious renewal if there were no anthroposophy? But that already answers the question. One could just as well ask Emil Bock whether his essays represent anthroposophy. It is up to the Anthroposophical Society to take care of the matter of anthroposophy. I do not notice any tactics in this regard among people. The tactic was collecting money.

There are various things to be considered. You have to bear in mind that here in Stuttgart, the task of dealing with such matters is different from that of any other branch. Here, the right balance should have been established.

Imagine any branch that is led by someone very well-behaved. One of the best-behaved branches is in Elberfeld. Let us assume that one of the personalities who is now within the renewal movement also appears in Elberfeld. Now it is natural that these people - even if they are the youngest - have a range of concepts that the others do not even suspect; one is then differently prepared for the spiritual questions.

It is spoken about this.

Dr. Steiner: These are special questions that cannot be treated in this way. Here in Stuttgart, the task would be to gradually develop the right relationship. This would consist of what happens at Landhausstrasse 70 becoming so important for the theologians themselves that they would always appear in person. Then the community members will also be present. The point is that the Anthroposophical Society is not just the mother, but also remains the mother. For this to happen, there must be real life in the Anthroposophical Society. That must be there. Now it is no longer possible for the Anthroposophical Society to simply go on trotting along; it must grow with these things. It is necessary that a center of this growth be formed in Stuttgart.

You can say anything, but you have to say it with the awareness that the tradition of ritual to the religious renewal gave this religious movement the backbone. If you simply have my lecture of December 30, 1922 [in CW 219] interpreted in such a way that you are merely told negatively that anthroposophy does not need a cult, then people lose this backbone. It is never a matter of putting forward the negative assertions alone, but of also putting forward the other thing that I have radically emphasized: For present-day civilization it is necessary that there should be a separate Anthroposophical Society to nourish this other movement. If this is presented in the right way, the Anthroposophical Society can only gain from it, and there is no need to go into the question of ranks. The Anthroposophical Society is independent of the daughter movements, but the daughter movements are not independent of the Anthroposophical Society.

There are a few comments.

Dr. Steiner: Most of the people working outside don't really know very much about the way the financial side of things is handled.⁴For us, however, it is a matter of showing the fertility of the anthroposophical movement at the delegates' meeting.

Marie Steiner: I have read letters from representatives of religious renewal that did not give this impression of restraint. There is a terribly strong competition that seems authoritative.

It is suggested that a speaker for the question of religious renewal must be found. Dr. Hahn is suggested. Leinhas and Dr. Hahn are discussing this.

Dr. Steiner: We have a textbook example here again. Just think how easy it would be for a representative of the religious renewal movement to speak from his point of view about the matter. But the Anthroposophical Society has neglected to inform itself about the matter. I am convinced that this information will be missing if it is not followed by a thorough study. It must be discussed in a proper and professional manner.

Marie Steiner: They will not report on what happened during the courses.

Dr. Steiner: One should not talk about these things at all in terms of believing that one has to communicate the content of the external story, but rather the essence and significance of the matter for the anthroposophical movement.

Ernst Uehli comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: You don't need to say anything about the religious movement. You can get to know it. So you don't need to characterize it to people. But the anthroposophical point of view, which has not been asserted so far, must be taken into account. This anthroposophical point of view is terribly easy to find if you are only interested in it. Steffen is now publishing my lectures on scholasticism in the “Goetheanum”. In them you have all the points of view you need. Of course you have to familiarize yourself with the material. If you just inform yourself a little, then you have everything you need. Leo XIH revived Thomism for the Catholic Church, but in a dead way. In this dead way, all of Christianity persists. But the religious renewal movement demands a living way. You have everything in this lecture series on scholasticism. The elements have been given everywhere.

There must be a center somewhere that is interested in anthroposophical questions, and that should be Stuttgart. These things should be present! The Goetheanum is also coming to Stuttgart. I see it lying upstairs in the Waldorf School. But in any case, what is in it can be processed. The points of view are everywhere, the points of view are really there.

Dr. Hahn: On this positive basis, I would be happy to give the presentation.

The Waldorf School will be discussed.

Dr. Steiner: That can be done. But I don't see why this should be the main point. The main thing is that there is a Waldorf School. There are enough things about this. The person who wants to give a presentation should comment on this. So Dr. von Heydebrand wants to talk about the Waldorf School. Hopefully she will then stop being a Waldorf teacher and be an anthroposophist.

The Hamburg school is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: From here, no position can be taken on other schools. The financial question will decide the matter by itself. You can't let both schools exist and thereby perish, while you could maintain one. That should be terribly easy to arrange. Werbeck himself and his entire entourage are not in favor of this school being established in Hamburg. The Werbeck branch is very large. It will be very difficult to found a second branch based on Pohlmann's and Kändler's authority.

Blumenthal once said that you can fake everything at the theater: criticism, applause – but you can't fake the box office. The members who are only fictitious will pay nothing for the Goetheanum.

Emil Leinhas: They are not only turning outside. Pohlmann has threatened that he also wants to turn to the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: The letters to me will not prove much. The whole school came about because Pohlmann wanted to pay. I do not yet know about this other intention of his, that he wants to turn to the Society. But that proves nothing at all. It seems that an understanding is not possible. Then it must be left without an understanding. I do not believe that Werbeck wants an understanding. I do not believe that it can lead to anything other than Werbeck speaking out against it. So all our things are private matters. The old question arises as to whether the whole Anthroposophical Society can be used as a school. The only thing we can talk about is whether we should do something to have Kändler there.

Emil Leinhas: Perhaps we can come to an agreement to the effect that there is a division of interest in Hamburg.

Dr. Steiner: Pohlmann is the founder. Kändler fits in quite well with Pohlmann. Why can't we take this point of view: “Mr. Pohlmann, you are the founder of the school; do what you want. We cannot support it because we have no money. We must first let the Waldorf School in Stuttgart exist as a model school.

Dr. Heyer will speak at the delegates' meeting about the Hochschulbund and the threefold social order. Dr. Unger will speak on this.

Dr. Steiner: The Hochschulbund should show how not to do it.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko want to take on the question of science and university courses. The question arises about the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life). Ernst Uehli knows nothing about it. Dr. Unger comments on this question.

Dr. Steiner: More than twelve personalities have signed this paper [“Federation for a Free Intellectual Life”]. They were former members of the committee. All those named are prime examples of the curule chairs.

Would it not perhaps be better not to talk about the “Federation for a Free Intellectual Life” since it is not an offshoot of the Anthroposophical Society? It has been buried enough already. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The Bund could still become something today.”) It is strange that no one has thought of reviving the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life).

Dr. Kolisko and Dr. Krüger comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: We recently added up our researchers. Of these eleven researchers, not a single one seems to have been interested in the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life), although it is precisely this free intellectual life that should be the foundation on which these researchers stand.

Dr. Streicher will say something about this.

Dr. Steiner: (Note from Dr. Heyer: The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” was intended to win over people who are only just searching for a standpoint.) There are many people who are searching for a standpoint. If the Anthroposophical Society itself had been founded in the same way as this one, with only 12 signatures on the paper and then nothing more (Dr. Heyer's note: “Kurulische Stühle” [curule chairs]), then the Anthroposophical Society would not exist at all. The “Association for a Free Spiritual Life” could be a good advance troop for the Anthroposophical Society, in that people who do not initially want to become members of the Anthroposophical Society but who want to participate in a real spiritual life that is building itself up independently would join. So far nothing has been done about this, just as our researchers have done nothing at all. It should also be possible for someone to get behind this idea and be a kind of vanguard for the Society. Why should these things not be possible? Why should something like this not be done?

You yourself are a symptom of this whole complex of problems. Your calling was only brought about, only made sense, because the threefolding movement was understood as a “federation for free spiritual life”. Now, from the time you were called until the time you came, they had forgotten what they had called you for.

Dr. Kolisko: Many people would be interested in the scientific work.

Dr. Steiner: Try to get the heavy mass of the Research Institute on its feet so that it will stand behind you as one block at the delegates' meeting.

The question is discussed as to who will take over a presentation about the institutes.

Dr. Steiner: The only question is whether someone who is inside or someone who is outside should speak.

It is decided that Strakosch and Maier will speak about the scientific research institute. Dr. Palmer should speak about the clinical-therapeutic institute, Emil Leinhas should take over the co-presentation.

Dr. Steiner: You were mistaken about the comparison of the horse. It started with the most primitive means. The matter only started to stop when the horse was to be brought to a trot with the right bridle.

Dr. Kolisko and Emil Leinhas discuss the question of propagation.

Dr. Steiner: At the delegates' meeting, some kind of human trust should be inaugurated. At the very least, we should take advantage of the fact that we have a number of representatives of the Society here who are working to spread the means. From the way people speak, it should be clear that the Anthroposophical Society would become a kind of collaborator in spreading the word. On the part of the physicians, someone should appear who explains the full significance of the medical stream, who speaks the preface to the Vademecum. In the medical field it is terribly easy to present a matter that strikes like a bomb. Such things, which must ultimately be decided by the experts, cannot be decided at a meeting of delegates. It would only lead to idle talk. We should approach it in such a way that we use the opportunity to get the Society to work with us on this. We only have to consider how easily people take an interest in two areas: religion and medicine, because people are afraid for their souls after death and for their physical bodies before death. These two areas are the easiest to work with.

Dr. Palmer speaks on this matter.

Dr. Steiner: Regarding specific things, I would think it desirable to point out the centrifuge. It is like when two spouses quarrel. Neither is to blame; the blame lies in the middle.

The branch work is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: At most, the results of the branch work can be discussed. You cannot give directives there. You can only have a discussion about the experiences that have been achieved. But in any case, interference in the freedom of the branches must be avoided.

Jürgen von Grone: I am in favor of not talking about the youth movement.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to find someone who will speak about the youth movement from an anthroposophical point of view. It can only be a question of how far one has to intervene in a supportive way in order to have the next generation among young people. It is a delicate question. The fact that the connection between the generations has been completely broken means that it is easy to make young people obstinate when you approach them in a fatherly, motherly or auntly way. You must not flatter them, be unjust to them or flatter them.

Emil Leinhas talks about it.

Dr. Röschl wants to help Dr. Hahn prepare the presentation on the youth movement. Dr. Wachsmuth speaks about it. The question of opponents is discussed. Dr. Rittelmeyer should speak about it, as he has extensive experience. Dr. Stein comments on it.

Dr. Kolisko: One should characterize the opponents, for example Seiling and Goesch.

Kolisko wants to take on the Seiling case, Dr. Unger the Goesch case.

Marie Steiner: Fräulein von Heydebrand should treat the Schmettau case.

Dr. Steiner: Why should we treat the Schmettau case as such?

The Schmettau case is not a case that comes into consideration.

Marie Steiner: But the opponents use this case - ——

Dr. Steiner: But now it is so that I have only seen her a few times.

The opponents, as for what happened in the case of Schmettau – Fräulein von Schmettau – [here is a larger gap in the notes] – things are simple. There is no need to discuss the psychological case of Ruth von Schmettau. On the other hand, Goesch needs psychiatric treatment because of the many indicatives and conjunctions. It must be shown that some people are ordinary liars. With Goesch, one must not shy away from showing that the whole gang takes a madman seriously. The things must be grasped from the characteristic side. You can't just dish up all the gossip. I don't think it's hard to do.

Dr. Kolisko and others talk about the trust organization and the management of the Society, Leinhas about the publications and the publishing house, the magazines “Dreigliederung” and “Anthroposophie”.

Dr. Steiner: The last issue of “Anthroposophie” was unsatisfactory. There will have to be a change.

Dr. Kolisko: We must take up the fight against the opponents of “Anthroposophy”. Articles about Seiling, Goesch and Leisegang must appear in it. I am thinking of writing an article about Seiling, one of the doctors about Goesch. The number of subscribers is much too small.

Dr. Steiner: “Anthroposophy” must be placed on the cultural basis to which it belongs. “Anthroposophy” must become the expression of the movement.

One should not talk theoretically, one should indicate how things can be carried through the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Heyer speaks to this.

Marie Steiner: There will be another presentation for the students. Call for and invitation to the delegates'

• 3. A typical gesture of Dr. Kolisko.
• 3. This sentence reads in Karl Schubert's notes: “The most important event in anthroposophical history is missing from the work of the Anthroposophical Movement.” The word “movement” was replaced by Marie Steiner in her publication with the word “society”. Dr. Heyer noted instead of this sentence: “The most important events are missing in the ‘Anthroposophy’.”
  Obviously, the remarks of Rudolf Steiner could only be insufficiently recorded. It may have been said that not only was the most recent important event in the anthroposophical movement not reported in the journal Anthroposophie, but that the most important events are missing altogether.
• 4. This last sentence was edited by Marie Steiner. In Karl Schubert's notes it originally reads: “Most of the people working outside don't really know that much about the way in which the matter financially (?)” — above that stands three-fold (?) — “is utilized.”