The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Dr. Steiner: The negotiations on the current affairs have been going on for so long, and it is so urgent to deal with other matters, that it would almost be a catastrophe under any circumstances if the negotiations this evening were to be as inconsequential as those of last Monday. I have asked that these negotiations not be conducted before such a large body as before, because that only serves to make things go without result and to prevent us from emerging from the current crisis. I myself will say as little as possible; I want to hear what intentions there are for the future of the Anthroposophical Society.

I just want to say this so that there is no misunderstanding about the significance of our deliberations. Such deliberations, as we are now accustomed to, would not have been possible up to a certain, not very distant period. They have become possible and are now taken for granted because most of the people gathered here today have been able to gradually take on the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society in a leading position over the past four years or so. So the earlier situation in which many of those gathered here today found themselves, namely that they had joined the existing Anthroposophical Society and, so to speak, did not have the full measure of responsibility, no longer exists today.

They must be aware that a large number of personalities have, so to speak, taken the lead in anthroposophical affairs with their own full initiative. Therefore, it has become necessary today that the responsibility for a large part of anthroposophical affairs falls back on these personalities. And these personalities should be aware that the changes that have taken place cannot be erased.

After these changes occurred in the membership, it was therefore quite natural that I was obliged to turn to the leading personalities regarding the question that arose for me from the circumstances, before appealing to the individual members to possibly restore the former situation. These changes imposed duties on me that have withdrawn me from my previous duties. It is therefore natural that before I try to restore the previous conditions, I once again turn to the leading personalities – which of course has been done in vain – to get them to see what they want to do before I turn to the individual members. I do not want to participate materially in today's negotiations. Today I will first of all just listen to what comes out of the bosom of this meeting today, to see afterwards how we can move forward. So it depends on whether you conduct the negotiations in a fruitful way. Otherwise I will have to assume that you have no interest in it if the Anthroposophical Society is led into a catastrophe in the very near future.

I ask you, so that we do not part without result, to at least approach the matter with the utmost seriousness and a sense of responsibility today. I ask you to consider this as an introduction to today's negotiations. Much will depend on what you do today.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko speak. Dr. Unger: We have to look for ways to overcome the “Stuttgart system”. Dr. Maier, Dr. Palmer, Miss Toni Völker, Paul Baumann speak.

The question of an intended medical vade mecum is addressed.

Dr. Steiner: We should have learned to rethink the clinical pictures in general. We must not obstruct, that goes without saying. One can construct a building, although the difficulties are infinitely great; but they are not considered at all. Just as little as the method of deliberation was considered when the Waldorf School was founded. The question is what could have been done two years ago today. These omissions are the issue. If we beat about the bush and make excuses, then it is self-evident that the excuses are not suitable for writing a vade mecum. The description of heart disease must be thought of in a different way, quite apart from whether the individual remedies can already be used. We must think differently about heart disease. Presented in a different way, it will be able to appear before the world more plausibly than in the previous manuals. What is needed is the good will to rethink in the field of medicine, based on the principles of spiritual science. But because all the discussions are being led down dead tracks, I have to speak. I cannot imagine what should happen, but I can imagine that medicine can be rethought if the will to do so exists. Perhaps there is a much greater need to work from physiology and to rethink the disease patterns physiologically. This does not depend on whether or not the disease remedies have been tried out. This is something that applies “in itself”. However much we may not underestimate the difficulties, we must not beat about the bush about them, as has been done, otherwise we will get nowhere. It is not a matter of presenting the pathology in its entirety. The manuals are always being corrected. It is not about merely recommending remedies to the world. I consider the “remedies list” to be the most harmful thing that could have come about. The point is to advocate the method. I consider everything else to be something that has only harmed us. We do not have to wait for people to accept something like this today; then we can wait until the next incarnation. The point is that we advocate the matter before the world, just as others have advocated their methods; they throw no small amount of abuse at each other. It is not a matter of painting the thing into the mouth of every single professor of medicine, but of presenting it as it could have been presented six months after the inauguration of the matter. That is to say, we present the matter as natural healing methods were once presented. It is a question of medical thinking. The discussion should not be led down dead tracks. We should talk about what is at issue, not about what is self-evident. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Before this vote, Dr. Steiner had already spoken twice during the negotiations. One time, in response to the description of the specific difficulties given by Dr. Noll, he said that one would end up in a ‘regressus ad infinitum’ if one made ‘methods’ out of the difficulties. The other time he said: When would we ever have been able to found the Waldorf School?"

Dr. Unger: I wanted to talk about active trust.

Dr. Steiner: I have described the methods in detail and in detail. The doctors have not been born out of a heavenly realm in which the task has been set for them. Generally speaking, it seems either plausible or implausible.

The doctors Dr. Husemann, Dr. Noll, Dr. Palmer, and also Eugen Benkendberfer speak to the matter.

Graf Polzer: Who will write the Vademecum?

Dr. Noll: It will definitely be written.

Emil Leinhas, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko speak to this.

Dr. Steiner: It would have a certain value if there were a discussion about why the Vademecum has not yet been created, and if it could then be seen that it can come about out of an understanding of the true reasons. If the reasons are really discussed, then one can count on it being produced in the future – I am convinced that one man can produce it in six months – but there are reasons that are not objective and that would have to be uncovered. Then one could see whether it will be produced in the future.

If we continue to conduct the further discussion as we have done so far, it will not be possible to see whether society can be led beyond this crisis! The crisis has been brought about by the fact that since 1919 a movement has come into being that has led to all kinds of foundations. The point is that personalities must feel responsible and that they take on this responsibility. That should become clear if we want a guarantee for the continued existence of society. Perhaps then it would be discussed what difficulties there are in bringing about a physical examination. We would learn something about why a lecture is announced to the public but then does not take place.¹ There are quite different difficulties behind that. We urgently need to discuss the things that are already related to anthroposophical life. If the discussion is not to be led into a fruitful field at all, by doing passive resistance, then I would like to draw attention to individual things that show that these are very central anthroposophical matters.

It was before the Vienna Congress [June 1-12, 1922]. Dr. Kolisko had intended to go to Vienna and give a lecture. I was not very pleased that he had the migraine topic in mind. But in the end it is not my business. For me, it was a matter of starting the conversation about it. During this conversation, the following words were uttered: “When I go to the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute, they refuse to give me the material.” — The thing is that such a word can be uttered! If it is really true that the migraine material has been refused for lectures, then we come to the conclusion that this is not an anthroposophical attitude in this matter. If we were to behave in an anthroposophical way, things would come about that are meant to come about. The external developments since 1919 have run into difficulties precisely because of the non-anthroposophical behavior of the individual personalities living in Stuttgart. When there is talk of inhibitions, the real inhibitions should be mentioned. It seems that people want to avoid these things.

I only wanted to point out this characteristic, but I would still like to bring the discussion back to a more fruitful track than the one we have been led to. If these attacks do not cease, then those who are supposed to work together anthroposophically will not work together, but will mutually prevent each other from writing the Vademecum. I have been confronted with this many times: it has been said that individuals prevent each other from writing it. These are the things that would have to be understood, and if they are understood, if the wounds are really pointed out, then there would be a guarantee that the things could be stopped in the future. From what has been said so far, there is no such guarantee. There is no other guarantee than that it is said why there is no cooperation between Gmünd and the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute [in Stuttgart]. Things are then related when asked why there is no collaboration! There is a kind of obstruction going on. This is what I ask you to consider. If there is no serious talk today, it will lead to a catastrophe for the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot continue to work on mere promises.

Dr. Kolisko: Regarding the migraine question, the material was sent to me later. It was not quite what I needed. Personal differences between the gentlemen prevent “the book” [Vademecum] from being written.

Dr. Steiner: In any case, the situation was such that it could be said: Those at the top do not publish their work. If I compare this case with the attitude of the [Clinical Therapeutic] Institute towards the work on the spleen,² I have to say that these things are not very promising.

Some members are speaking.

Dr. Steiner: It would have been better if two individuals had spoken. Again, I don't see where the method lies through which we will make progress.

Emil Leinhas: We must talk openly about things and their reasons.

Dr. Steiner: What has been said is the following: From the very beginning, when medical activities were to take place here, I said that it was not a matter of offering individual remedies, but of offering a medical method. I will only mention that once the method of homeopathy was taught, another time another method. It is important to advocate a medical methodology. In Landhausstrasse, quite a long time before this little book saw the light of day, I suggested to Dr. Noll that we sit down and write a vade mecum. I said that I did not expect much from a “college”; it had to be written by a single person. I made this comparison very early on, to show how homeopathy and naturopathy were represented. This comparison was made to show that agitating for a single remedy cannot be the right thing to help the world in this case, but that it is a matter of telling the world: Here is a certain medical way of thinking. This, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Peipers as a conviction before the doctors, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Noll, this then led once again to my saying in summary: This methodical approach can best be made clear to the world by a vade mecum.

When I say something like that in front of laymen, it is immediately understood that all of these things can only discredit us. The fact that van Leer has come forward is due to the fact that at the meeting that was held recently, it was necessary to discuss what the basis for the effectiveness of our remedies is, and that it was necessary to say again that the methodology must be disseminated first, just as the homeopathic methodology was disseminated at one point. The layman van Leer understood this and drew the conclusion from it; the layman understands this immediately. But our medical college has drawn the conclusion from it that a pedantic-methodological treatise must be written.

These are things that one would think one would only have to mention for people who are familiar with them in their practice of life to understand. One could cite a hundred examples to support this. Again, without judging their value or lack of it, I will cite this.

Schlegel of Tübingen once invited a circle of physicians. He spoke to this circle of physicians and took a stenographer with him. Apart from the value or worthlessness of the method, an extraordinarily stimulating little book was created. A kind of vade mecum was created. They had a case of how something like this arises in practice when you wall. This booklet has helped Schlegel a lot. Imagine, homeopathy is being discussed all over the world. If they had come up with something like this that would have meant something to people, they would have really had something. It is a medical methodology, like homeopathy or allopathy. That is what it is about.

Miss Rascher speaks.

Dr. Steiner: This depends only on the will. I would like to make the assertion that the vade mecum you are asking for should be in the mind of every doctor. Something that you naturally have in mind must be written down. I would like to know where we would be today if we had something like this vade mecum! I would like to know where we could be today! We are not getting far enough with the list of therapeutic products.

I just wanted to point out that the vade mecum could be written in a relatively short time and that the objections that have been raised today are not the ones we need to talk about. As long as we lack the will to speak the truth, we will not get the Anthroposophical Society back on its feet. Do you think that if we were to start talking at the teachers' conference as if there were uncertainty about the method!

Emil Leinhas: Unreserved discussion is necessary, otherwise things become chronic. The expression 'pigsty' has been used.

Dr. Palmer says he does not believe that Dr. Noll can write the thing.

Dr. Steiner: Are you convinced that Dr. Peipers or Dr. Husemann can do it? We must be clear about the fact that completion through joint work would at best turn out to be an acceleration, but that it is something that each of us can do alone.

Dr. Palmer: There is so much material in the lectures. But it is terribly difficult to rework it.

Dr. Steiner: That would only justify you making the claim that you cannot do it on your own. I did not make the unreasonable demand on you personally. I assumed it from others and was clear about the fact that I could assume it there; just as I was equally clear about the fact that I could not assume it with you. The case can be resolved. I was clearly aware from the antecedents what it would be about: namely, that the other gentlemen do the scientific work while you do the practical work — and then the scientific work failed. The only person I cannot reproach is you; that can be said just as sincerely as the other: whether it might not have been possible after all to advance the matter, as one says in popular language.

Dr. Palmer says there was an inhibition.

Dr. Steiner: What was this inhibition? You did not say what the inhibition was.

Dr. Palmer: One might have thought that there was a lack of goodwill and enthusiasm.

Dr. Steiner: I always maintained that goodwill was lacking. It is very important to me that you admit this today.

Dr. Peipers: We are hearing for the first time today that Dr. Noll had this assignment.

Dr. Noll: I did not take on the task as if I alone were capable of doing something like that.

Dr. Palmer: Just admit that the matter is up to you.

Dr. Kolisko: It had become clear to me that Dr. Noll cannot make up his mind about anything.

Dr. Steiner: I don't think we will be able to come to a decision on this question. It will be a matter of seeing how the other things stand in relation to this question. Whether or not we face a catastrophe depends on many individual things. So, first of all, we want to put Dr. Palmer's promise on record.

Then I would ask you to continue discussing the things that you also believe need to be discussed. It would be important to get information about such things. The question goes far beyond the scope of what concerns Stuttgart. It just radiates out from Stuttgart. Certain difficulties that we encounter in Dornach when the affairs of the local laboratory are discussed always lead to the fact that it cannot be done here with Gmünd. This relationship has also been discussed in my presence. I have always been convinced that more could be done in terms of cooperation than is being done in our circles. Because it is true that people are such that they also put obstacles and difficulties in your way! You have to deal with the difficulties. Now some of the difficulties may lie with Dr. Knauer. But they won't change him. I could never understand the situation regarding the relationship between the Clinical Therapeutic Institute and Dr. Knauer.

Emil Leinhas: It is Dr. Knauer's character.

Dr. Steiner: It is necessary in our movement, once a step has been taken, not to break off the commitment to the first step without further ado. I had no objection to the doctors bringing Dr. Knauer in. If he had not been drawn into the intimate details, it would have been possible to deal with him later. But now that he has been drawn into it, we must say B to A. That means: We must also deal with him further. These things must be taken into account. Not taking such things into account causes the greatest damage to our society. Something is always started in a certain careless way. I am only pointing out how careless we were with Sigismund von Gleich! This is how our anthroposophical troubles arise, from not having the will to say B after saying A. This is one of the things that must change for us.

Dr. Palmer and Emil Leinhas comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: It always seemed to me that the more intelligent person gives in. Dr. Knauer cannot be considered an authority. If he had only impressed the medical council, then it would have been fine. You gambled away the chance with him. We cannot have the principle that you first bring someone in and then throw them out when they are no longer convenient. You can see that a large part of what is inflicted on us from the outside [in the way of opposition] is based on a few expulsions that were carried out by the Anthroposophical Society against my will.

The discussion moves on to a different topic. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “At this point it was 1 a.m.”)

Dr. Kolisko speaks about the Research Institute and about Dr. Theberath.

Dr. Theberath speaks about his failure. Dr. Schmiedel put his name on the program without asking him.

Dr. Steiner: Don't you feel obliged to do something for the public interest of the Anthroposophical Society?

Dr. Theberath: I felt obliged to carry out the experiments. A delay in the experiments occurred because what was previously a minor matter became a major one.

Dr. Steiner: In this way we will never get anything out of our research institutes.

Dr. Kolisko: I should have rejected Dr. Theberath's article. There is an error in the editing.

Dr. Steiner: If we start from the principle that the one to whom something is reproached simply justifies himself, then I am convinced that everything that is discussed will end in a justification. If we think in this direction, we will not make any progress. You must remember that the ideas of these foundations have arisen from the bosom of society. Now you cannot necessarily assume that society will go bankrupt because nothing is achieved in this research institute. It is self-evident that a series of experiments can be made more precise and more precise, but it is necessary to show something to the world. The only valid objection to the spleen experiments is that the series of experiments could have been extended. Of course, scientifically it could be justified that a series of experiments never comes to a complete conclusion. I do think, however, that the question should be asked as to how the [research] institute can be made fruitful through work. If we take every question only personally — and Dr. Theberath's view of this question is a prime example of this, then one can only say that the Anthroposophical Society is proving incapable of continuing along the paths of 1919. Then the matter must be abandoned and it must be pushed back to the state it was in in 1918. If you absolutely do not want to deal with the question in such a way that the matter bears fruit and that the leading personalities reflect on it: How do we present the matter to the world so that it bears fruit? Then we will not make any progress.

Liberation in these four different directions – then I will be finished. And please make an effort not to come to every meeting unprepared, but to come prepared once in a while.

• 1. See note on page 68 and the program on page 851.
• 2. See note on page 70.
• 3. M. Steiner made the following comment in her edition: “They wanted to exclude Dr. Unger.”
• 4. There are no minutes available for this meeting of the Stiebener Circle.
• 5. Dr. Kolisko took the place of Ernst Uehli.
• 6. A member of the youth group. The meeting in question was the extended meeting of the 30s on January 22, 1923. What Miss Ruben said has not been recorded.
• 7. With the Circle of Seven, see page 221.
• 8. Bock's remarks must also have been made at the extended meeting of the Thirties on January 22 and rejected by Rudolf Steiner at the meeting on January 29, for which, however, there are no minutes.
• 9. Here, in Karl Schubert's transcription, it is noted: “gap”.

according to Dr. Heyer, beginning at 11 o'clock in the evening.

Dr. Unger reports that they want to meet in serious responsibility for the continuation of anthroposophical affairs. A statement to the membership with the signatures of all those present should be formulated definitively. Individuals wanted to take responsibility for the foundations.

Dr. Palmer says that Dr. Noll should be given time to work on the Vademecum and that the deadline of August 1 should be extended.

Dr. Noll hopes that the obstacles can be overcome and that the book can be written.

Dr. Peipers wants to take responsibility for the connection with doctors and for lectures to doctors, etc.

Alexander Strakosch says that the tasks set in 1920 should be the focus again. Dr. Maier should work on the magnetic field, Dr. Noll on the vade mecum, Dr. Streicher on crystal solutions and plant substances; Dr. Theberath considers the day and night task to be completed. They all wanted to work to ensure that Dr. Steiner's courses could be properly worked through.

They report:

Dr. Heyer on the work on the weekly journal “Anthroposophie”;
Dr. Theberath on his scientific work, comparing the decomposability of light-sensitive substances by day and by night;
Dr. Hahn on the work on the linguistic course and on the relationship to youth work;
Dr. Kolisko on the trust organization;
Dr. Unger also on the planned trust organization;
Paul Baumann on the work in schools;
Jürgen von Grone wants to work on the complex of opposition.

Dr. Steiner: At first I can't find any point that should have emerged from any consultation. That various things have been promised is stated in the initiative of the various personalities. The only point that has occurred to me is that today a consultation with the youth organization took place. This could contain something positive.

Dr. Unger on this negotiation with the youth. Constant contact. Exchange.

Dr. Steiner: What was the content of the discussion?

Dr. Unger: Mistrust of the youth towards the older ones. Cooperation decided.

Dr. Steiner: These are formalities. What about the specifics?

[There is obviously a gap in the stenographic notes here.]

Dr. Steiner: What should be presented to the assembly of delegates? Or what should be in the circular letter? Then I would like to ask: Does this committee of seven have anything to say about what has been said today? Is it satisfied with the results of the deliberations of the last few days?

Dr. Kolisko: We have considered it our duty to work together with the entire group.

Dr. Steiner: One could even, if one wanted to make an appeal today, possibly put together individual sentences that I have given for clarification, in the appropriate wording. The result would be an appeal in which the remarkable fact would be that no one had noticed that I had already given advice in the last few weeks. It is remarkable that people constantly demand advice and then do not even notice it.

The alternative of December 10 is on the table: I must ask, whether – in view of the events of recent years – the central board, together with the others, is able to say what it wants to do to enable the disintegrating Anthroposophical Society to move forward. Otherwise I would be forced to go over their heads and do what I consider necessary. If two such possibilities are being considered, then you cannot speak as you have done today. It cannot be a matter of my giving directives to be carried out. For I have indicated: if a Central Board is to have any meaning, it must want something that goes beyond mere formalities. The will of the Central Board must not be zero. Otherwise, you can make as many promises as you like to the individual institutions, that they want to be good, since they were not good in the past. It would all be in vain. It is really necessary that we not just theorize today, but that there is something tangible to be done. I find that in everything that has been said, the most important thing has not been said. Because youth is not the most important thing. Youth should be an echo for you, not the other way around. In reality, youth expects something from the old. Impotent— What has actually been positively discussed in recent days? The next step should be to issue a call for a meeting of delegates and to include the things that I thought should be dealt with tangibly. The Hochschulbund is the most sterile and one of the most harmful foundations: sterile because nothing has been done; harmful because the demonstrations had no support. This has resulted in a huge amount of opposition. The Hochschulbund has a number of young people who are quietly immersing themselves in anthroposophy; they have not said that they want to do something to give something to young people in the future. The first task would be to describe the facts in the right words. Take the attitude of my course for young people [GA 217].

Dr. Unger speaks about the planned appeal.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps I may ask: How do you think the current affairs should be continued? It would have been enough if the proclamation had been read out. The declaration was foolish because no one stood behind it; but the declaration itself was certainly clever.¹ The youth have not declared that they want to do something. The Pedagogical Youth Course [GA 217] contains advice that has simply been ignored. What we are discussing here is not connected with the burning of the Goetheanum. The Goetheanum was still standing when the mandate of December 10 was given. The inaction has continued. The first thing that happened was that I was approached by a young man who told me that today's discussion had been ^{2Probably a discussion that took place before Rudolf Steiner's arrival was even more terrible than it has been so far, and that, with the exception of a conversation with the youth, nothing has really happened. I will come here again because I expect that at least the first step will be taken: the call. For my sake, I will also hold a conference tomorrow afternoon. There is no spirit to do something fruitful. If one thinks that something should be done at all, then I don't know why at least the first step should not be taken. What is the content of the rally? This content of the rally with the statement – [gap] is something I don't understand. The way it was presented today had a very unfavorable effect. That nonsense is then spoken is of course.}

Dr. Unger said that the draft should not be made earlier than until the most important things had been presented.

Adolf Arenson: Dr. Unger tried for two days, but the occupation from morning to evening did not make it possible for him.

• 1. This declaration is not available.

According to Dr. Heyer, night session after Rudolf Steiner's branch lecture)

[The unsuccessful negotiations have led to an unrecorded suggestion by Rudolf Steiner to form a committee of nine to take over the leadership until the assembly of delegates instead of the central committee.

Dr. Stein: There is so little possibility of designating new trusted personalities.

The following speak about the appeal: Dr. Schwebsch, Dr. Noll, Karl Stockmeyer, Dr. Unger, Paul Baumann, Dr. Hahn, Hans Kühn, Alexander Strakosch.

Marie Steiner: The first sentence of the appeal seems to me to place society quite suddenly on a democratic basis.

The following speak: Adolf Arenson, Dr. Unger, Miss Dr. von Heydebrand, Dr. Kolisko, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Stein – all about the appeal.

Marie Steiner: Central Executive Council? Surely such a council cannot be called a 'Central Executive Council'? Such a huge council does not deserve to be called a 'Central Executive Council'.

Dr. Blümel: What is the position of the central committee in international life?

Dr. Steiner: As things stand, one can only speak of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, not even in Austria. The Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. We have at least achieved this — as confirmed by the English teachers' visit — that other countries have accepted the fact and are willing to recognize it, despite all their other antipathy towards Central Europe: that the Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. Therefore, it is necessary that the consolidation is now taken care of by Germany. The Anthroposophical Society has been formed in Switzerland. The Society in France is in the process of being formed, as is the one in England. The Swedish Society has been independent from the outset. The Norwegian Society also wants to become independent. These Societies will be independent in the future and seek a common center in Dornach, so that the international center will remain in Dornach. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Seek Dornach, if Dornach remains.”) I have always insisted that the consolidation must take place here in Germany, because this historical fact is recognized, that the anthroposophical movement originated in Germany. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Crisis everywhere if there is no consolidation in Germany.”) But you cannot decide anything here. The French Society will recognize the fact and join with the German Society in Dornach – if it remains – as its future center. What has been said here applies only to the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Furthermore, it is necessary that this Society in Germany, as the starting point of Anthroposophy, consolidates – and everything else can then join. That is what is to be formally understood: that here, on the basis of the history, consolidation is to be carried out in all directions. Nor should membership dues be set for outside Germany. Whatever you decide internationally will not be of concern to anyone outside. A central board can only exist for the Anthroposophical Society in Germany.

Adolf Arenson speaks about the invitation of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: First, the appeal could be discussed. But you must be aware that the provisional central board cannot sign this appeal on its own initiative. Given all the reasons stated by Mr. Arenson, the majority of the former board of directors, who would remain only filled with Dr. Kolisko after the departure of Mr. Uehli, cannot sign this appeal. The appeal cannot be made in such a way that it merely proclaims self-accusation to the world. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Dr. Stein's whim to proclaim self-accusation...” It should at least be signed by a majority of the board, which does not represent the majority of the previous board.

One cannot work by signing one's own guilt. The members of the board may stand by it, but there should be a majority that does not identify with the guilt. To send out this appeal, signed by three members of the provisional board – Unger, Leinhas, Kolisko – would be to deal the final death blow to the Society. You don't establish trust by issuing a vote of no confidence in yourself. That doesn't exist. Only Dr. Stein, out of a certain lack of practical experience of life, could regard that as possible!

Secondly, you should take into account the real extent to which things have already developed. Just today I received a letter from Mrs. Wolfram, who writes that the Leipzig branch is hardly functioning anymore because the branch members have joined together to form the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life”, which will work without connection to the Anthroposophical Society. These things will multiply. People will begin to propagate anthroposophy outside the Society. The positive thing about this is that, in a sense, new people are also committed to it, not just the old ones in the majority.

It has been pointed out to me that the youth group would be quite reconciled. On the other hand, I have been given this document today. I am not at all suggesting that we should proceed in the spirit of this document; but it does show the mood. With the representation of the youth movement that is meant here, it is not the case that one person is called into the Society, but the current should be represented. This group should take responsibility for the fruitful continuation of its work. It is not possible to work on such a matter in any other way than by these people first making their decision for themselves, because this group is not yet part of the Anthroposophical Society at all. Something would have to be created that could enter into some kind of relationship with such groups as a whole. All compromises lead nowhere, because the differences soon arise again and have not been bridged.

I would like you to be clear about the fact that the three members of the executive council cannot sign the appeal in this form. Instead, you must consider ways and means of truly embracing all those who want to work with anthroposophy today, regardless of your assessment of their value.

I would also like to draw attention to the following. It is necessary that this assembly of delegates works towards the consolidation of the society. To this end, it is really not necessary to establish anything other than the principle of the composition of the delegates, other than that all delegates who are sent here work in the spirit of an anthroposophical union. No anti-anthroposophical people can come here. To consolidate, you do not need to call speakers who speak against anthroposophy. Since it is about the unification of anthroposophists, it is necessary that they speak for anthroposophy.

The link to the old organization of trusted representatives will be deeply disturbing in the truest sense of the word. Hardly anything will come about if the old organization of trusted representatives is applied. The delegates should discuss current matters of the anthroposophical union with those who are leading here. It is necessary to exclude all bureaucracy from the rally, so that you have to answer the question: Why are the delegates coming here? is that the leading personalities want to discuss current affairs in Stuttgart. Don't set out a program in advance! Then people will know why they are coming here. But if you want to create a kind of bureaucratic organization, then you will only make them angry. There is hatred for the bureaucratic system in Stuttgart. This must be avoided at all costs. As little as possible needs to be said about how the delegates are to be elected. Only that it is a matter of the people being sent by the branches or the existing groups coming together so that a joint discussion can take place here. Do it in a completely unbureaucratic way!

Then I don't think it's a good idea to emphasize the negative too much. It's coming anyway. If you put the two things together¹ you will see that essentially the negative has been emphasized and not what should be there as a positive, around which one should then gather.

But one last thing that cannot be kept secret is this: you will meet with fierce resistance if you formulate this appeal in such a way that the Thirties Committee as a whole signs it. You will drive people apart if you do that. This Thirty Committee is a stumbling block that certainly does not work. It is better and more honest than its reputation - but it cannot sign. This committee has thoroughly made itself unpopular.

Several people speak.

Marie Steiner says: We should not commit ourselves; Dr. Steiner cannot be the chairman.

Dr. Steiner: The situation of 1918 cannot be restored! – So what is said about this in the appeal is correct, that the situation of 1918 cannot be restored, that one cannot simply demand that a board of directors be formed somehow. That cannot be. It would have to take a different form. But why should we not actually take advantage of the opportunity, so that a way would be found, after all, to bring about this anthroposophical union, after all the things that have been undertaken since 1919, sometimes with great aplomb on the part of the Society. Before it is too late, a way to achieve union could be found!

But you must realize that a little worldliness is required for this. There would be no worldliness if you just put these two documents together.² You can't send anything out into the world like that today; you also have to address those circles that have already fallen away internally. For I received the following news today: a 'League for Free Spiritual Life' has been formed in Leipzig because the branch there is disintegrating and people still want to cultivate anthroposophy. They must not go about this in such a way as to create a union in which people unite in opposition to society. You will lose this matter if you do not bring about a union at the last moment. To do that, you need to talk to those who are still on the outside, such as young people, in a completely new way, without this mere pater-peccavi idea, where you only give yourself a vote of no confidence. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Otherwise people will accept it!”) That is what I fear. The point is to formulate things less negatively, so that people — even if in Stuttgart — who have not previously been identified with what is called the “Stuttgart system” will stand by it.

The congresses are a prime example of how not to do it. These congresses have been held with a great deal of effort, and then they have been absolutely not utilized in the interest of the anthroposophical movement, despite my emphasis that these congresses, because anthroposophy is discussed endlessly, ultimately create an opposition that surrounds us like a wall. The exploitation of the congresses has never happened. Hence the misfortune with the Vienna Congress! The Vienna Congress was in itself – in its framework – a great success. But due to the failure to exploit it, it actually ended to our detriment. A meeting has now been held in Dornach to discuss whether a congress should be held in Berlin [see page 66]. This has now led to the decision not to hold one in Berlin. If the earlier congresses had not been mere efforts behind which the Anthroposophical Society did not stand, but rather if it had stood behind them, then we could also hold a new congress. Just think what some other body would have made of such a congress! All the magazines would have been full of it for months! We have not done that. We are making nothing out of all this.

There has certainly been no lack of events. If the events had been turned in our favor, we would not need to talk about a consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society. The fact that we cannot make anything out of all this is precisely our misfortune. What is at issue is what comes to the fore everywhere. When the people from the 'Religious Renewal' discussed with me, I made it clear that I would not participate in beating about the bush. So I asked: Do you have anything that shows that I have ever said anything like that about the religious movement? If the right point of view had been maintained, the Anthroposophical Society would have made it clear through its organs what it means that, in addition to all the other things, a religious renewal movement has emerged from the Anthroposophical Society. I would like to know which other body in the world can point to as many things as ours! In between, the Anthroposophical Society always runs like a fifth wheel on the wagon.

We have not represented any of these things as a society, and that is what matters. You really have to take the bull by the horns. Therefore, I would say: Wouldn't it be most advantageous – now that things have taken this course – to consider whether what was intended on December 10 could not be taken up as a suggestion, so that something comes of it? The point was that the Central Executive Committee, reinforced by other prominent figures, should take up something that points in a positive way to a consolidation from within the Society itself.

We have, of course, experienced the appearance of the Committee of Seven. Unfortunately, it got lost in negations, and when the negations had been exhausted, it canceled itself, it no longer appeared. Yes, now it would be possible that the same suggestions that the central committee ignored would be taken up in some way, so that something happens, not from the thirty-committee, but from a number of prominent personalities in Stuttgart who have something to represent. I am merely offering this for your consideration. If you approach the matter in such a way that the majority of the former executive council and the thirty-member committee sign this appeal, then you will achieve nothing.

The members continue to discuss.

Dr. Steiner: There is not much time left, we have hesitated for too long. My opinion is that many people here could actually know what needs to be done. But so little comes out of the discussions. It would be sad if nothing came of it. The majority do not make use of the opportunity: that is absolutely the case. Dr. Mellinger is in the youth group. There is no point in sitting down with the youth group before the adults have consolidated. It would only lead to a debate if you were to negotiate with the youth. You might as well call together all the inhabitants of the world. Nothing can be achieved if the adults don't know what they want. It can't be any different than the youth seeking something from the adults in good faith. Before that, it shouldn't even come to sitting down with the youth. This representation of the youth can only come about when the old society has found itself. Otherwise, we cannot introduce Bolshevism in principle.

Dr. Mellinger comments on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: The matter is this – if you want to understand it in principle – the real institutions that belong together and must exist are: Berliner [Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer] Verlag; hiesiger [Kommender-Tag]Verlag; “Kommender Tag”; Zeitung [«Anthroposophie»]; Waldorfschule; früherer Vorstand; vielleicht zerstreute Interessen; «Religiöse Erneuerung»; Ärzte-Kollegium. The research institute must first show that it is there. — Not true, now it would turn out that someone from the “Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House” must be there. We can represent that ourselves; Ms. Mücke would be considered for that; only Ms. Mücke can be considered for that. — Local Publisher: W. Wachsmuth; Clinic: Dr. Palmer; Newspaper: von Grone; “Kommender Tag”: Mr. Leinhas; Former Central Board: Dr. Unger; Waldorf School: Dr. Kolisko; “Religious Renewal”: Dr. Rittelmeyer; Scattered interests: Mr. Werbeck.

In principle, something would be created that could be placed under the appeal. This is roughly how I imagined the committee I mentioned would be composed: prominent individuals whom the central board could turn to. I imagined that the central board would expand to include these individuals. After all, the day-to-day business must be taken into account. It is important to consider the fact that the movement is facing the world when the anthroposophical movement is united. Now, Mr. von Grone's essay in the last issue of Anthroposophie proves in the most emphatic sense that he has something to say in the direction he has taken in this essay, and that you must take him up. You must act on the facts.

The seven gentlemen would be able to meet again tomorrow morning as early as possible: W. Wachsmuth, Dr. Palmer, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko, Dr. Rittelmeyer, Mr. von Grone. These seven are uniting to finish deliberating the appeal. This appeal must be an act! The only thing that would stand in the way of this is if the personalities do not like each other! I would very much like to have Dr. Stein in this, as a punishment; but I do not want to do this to you. It would be a punishment for the others if he were to start again with the “pater peccavi”.

Dr. Palmer: I did not like the way Mr. Leinhas treated the [Clinical-Therapeutic] Institute.

Dr. Steiner: Mr. Leinhas represents the “Kommende Tag”; what is meant by this is that the interests will be discussed in a more intimate meeting between their representatives.

This appeal should be discussed tomorrow as early as possible. We should be able to meet again here as a committee at 5 o'clock. Tomorrow the young people will be on my back, especially when they hear that I said something about “Bolshevism”! A closed circle is only real if things remain closed within that circle. Otherwise it is the same as putting union leaders on the supervisory boards everywhere. That is, in principle, characterized humorously – don't the women gathered here have husbands and the men wives who are in the youth movement, so that everything is carried out?

We can meet again at 6 o'clock.

• 1. The most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter are probably meant here.
• 2. This probably refers to the most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter.

with Dr. Steiner [Dr. Rittelmeyer is a new addition] in the chair.

Dr. Kolisko reads the circular letter [the new draft of the Appeal].

Adolf Arenson is not in favor of the whole story going out into the world in print, but only to be presented to the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Schwebsch asks Dr. Rittelmeyer what impression he has gained from the matter that has been read out.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I had the impression that the Society was being set on fire. Discussions like the one on Monday are impossible. This afternoon I was present. [Dr. Steiner did not attend this meeting.] On the whole, I would like to see a warmer tone adopted, so that the positive things that the Society wants and can do are convincingly expressed. The tone that is struck should bear witness to the fact that each individual is brought to carry out his function. Great slogans must come from Stuttgart. Each of the speakers should see that something great is happening through it. Care should also be taken to ensure that the anthroposophical spiritual material is properly conveyed. Efforts should be made to ensure that the right kind of polemic and apologetics are provided.

Dr. Steiner: Our opponents must not be given the opportunity to gain the negative impression from us.

Many speakers speak: Dr. Hahn, Dr. Schwebsch, Alexander Strakosch.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: What is at stake is that we come to self-reflection in the face of the tremendous hour of destiny. Would it not be right to make a positive suggestion that a number of us, quite on our own, without regard to the programs that have been presented so far, would reflect on the deepest essence of the anthroposophical impulse and put it on paper. Then it could either be used as it is, or the most suitable thing, with which everyone can best identify, would be sent out.

Dr. Husemann supports this proposal.

Dr. Steiner: I would have found it understandable if Dr. Husemann had made such a proposal three weeks ago today. It is understandable that Dr. Rittelmeyer is making it. But that Dr. Husemann, at this psychological moment, expects us to do something for a society around which – as Dr. Rittelmeyer rightly said – a fire has been set, which I have always emphasized, too – when Dr. Husemann expects us to do something like that, then I can only say that I cannot understand his whole view and sympathy. The psychological moment has not come to sit down again and brood over nothing for as long as possible. There has been enough time since the many weeks when we always spent the time driving back and forth between Dornach and here to learn about the things that have been discussed here. Dr. Husemann, you must not think that you can be offered anything!

Dr. Hahn will speak about this.

Dr. Steiner: The best must be expressed in the appeal. Mr. Arenson says that this version will immediately be in the hands of the enemies. I consider the belief that this will do no harm to be the greatest naivety. One must be clear about the fact that one cannot sleep through the whole process of the Anthroposophical Society. You have to realize that whatever version is published, tomorrow it will be in the hands of the enemies. So you have to realize that you are publishing a version that can fall into anyone's hands. This version must not begin with the sentence: 'The hour of destiny has come for society'. If you send out the matter in this version, then those who started the fire will have the very best foundation. I was pleased that this was said today in the middle of the discussion. I have emphasized it myself again and again. It's just that no one ever listens to what I say. Everyone must admit that you could have known this. Everything here is done as if there were no opposition. You can only want to send out such an appeal if you are completely cut off from the real facts of the situation. We had this appeal almost word for word yesterday. That is why I asked for it to be discussed today. The result of the discussion is that the same appeal appears again.

Adolf Arenson and Mr. Baumann will speak about this.

Dr. Steiner: On page 2, the sentence: “This order was not recorded by Mr. Uehli. Such omissions were openly admitted.” Page 3: “Since Dr. Steiner insisted at all meetings that one should press ahead until the real damage was known...” Page 4, for example, the impossible sentence: “do better from now on and expose mistakes unreservedly...”, “Don't let the question of personalities come to the fore...”.

If you write down a sentence like this, for example, you will see that a large number of people who are pushing for a reorganization say, “These people don't even understand the very basics. They make suggestions to downplay the question of personalities.” The question of personalities is exactly what matters! Out there, it's about people, not about the central committee.

Only today I was told how bad blood it made when the pedagogical course met here and the invitations had to be obtained. The matter was told to me in this way – it serves only to characterize the “Stuttgart System”, it may even be possible to correct it -: The matter was that this youth league, which had organized the course, was supposed to invite the central committee; a conversation is said to have taken place between the invitees and Dr. Unger, in which Dr. Unger is said to have said that it was not important to him to be invited personally, but that the central committee had to be invited. The young people invited the three gentlemen personally and individually; but they had not invited the central committee.

If you throw these sentences into the fire that exists within the Society, people will say: They don't have the slightest talent for doing what matters. — By saying this, you are conjuring up an impossible intensification of this fateful hour.

The whole of what follows as a portrayal of the coming day is a single point of attack. For example, that I should also give my advice to those who work for threefolding outside the movement. People will laugh at that. As if I had assumed that I should give advice to the whole world! The relationship to religious renewal is also presented quite wrongly here. —- “The leading personalities are fully aware of the omissions and wrong methods. That these methods have been particularly emphasized by Stuttgart...” When such sentences appear in an appeal, then above all the people who would now like to have the Society as you know it – above all the outside opponents – will say: So that's all; they not only wash dirty linen in their own house, but what this Society is doing is hanging out its dirty linen for the whole world to see.

I have tried so hard to point out what would lead to the matter being brought before the world in a plausible way. This has not been taken into account. Of course, the damage also had to be mentioned. But the damage was only mentioned in order to get to the positive things.

Several people present speak.

Dr. Steiner: The matter is so obvious. One must look at the things I have mentioned that belong to the positive part of the call. One could say: It is a fact that since 1919 the prominent personalities we have in society have moved here to Stuttgart. This should have led to a powerful impulse for the movement emanating from here. Instead, these foundations have been established. A Waldorf school has been set up. The Waldorf teachers feel that they can ignore what is going on around them, because they have the school.

I said: We can't go on like this. This is something that plays into the hands of our opponents. Has anyone ever paid attention to what I said? It was like that every time. I was very glad when Dr. Rittelmeyer gave his speech. He emphasized that this “alliance of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” is bringing up certain things from the past. This is a very important clue that can now be put to extremely good use. Was it necessary that we did not take the defense of the anthroposophical cause itself into our own hands years ago? That we did not repeatedly point out specific defamations in an appropriate manner? I myself do not get around to it because other things are more necessary. It was not necessary to continually supply new material to the opponents, but to also take the defense of the Society into our own hands. Now they are making an appeal accusing the Society. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The ‘Federation of Non-Anthroposophical Connoisseurs of Anthroposophy’ presents facts that we should make use of in order to point out the specific slanders with a single blow —— defense of the Anthroposophical Society —— The appeal must state that we now want to do what was not done earlier.”)

Mr. Fink: The individuals should withdraw and work something out.

Mr. Stockmeyer supports the motion that the individuals should withdraw, that each person should draft the appeal and that they should then meet again.

Dr. Steiner: I would like to briefly outline what Dr. Rittelmeyer said. Firstly, that fires have been set everywhere around the Anthroposophical Society; secondly, that impossible discussions have taken place here in the branch twice in a row; thirdly, that he wishes there to be a warmer tone overall; further, that the positive should be strongly emphasized; that certain strong slogans should be issued; that the sectarian spirit must recede; that the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge be imparted in a careful, not distorted way as by the opponents of the world; that he had listened to the offensive in the discussions and that the story of the cloud secret [...] then came out; that above all he misses correct mediators of the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge.

Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Röschl): Why can't one reveal that one is familiar with the writing [of the league of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy]? [It says:] “It is a fight to the death.” Should we openly document that we do not care about our opponents?

Dr. Noll: Dr. Goesch characterizes himself as an epileptic. Two absences. These

people are going to be led around by an epileptic.

Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Noll): Do it! You are a doctor, aren't you! The weekly journal Anthroposophie is waiting for material for its next issue. Anthroposophie is as boring as it can possibly be because no one provides any material, and those who know the material provide nothing.

A motion has been made that we adjourn.

The meeting is interrupted and the participants write their proposals. After two hours the meeting continues.

Continuation (night session, starting at 10:30 p.m.)

Dr. Steiner: Then we can begin.

A large number of the participants read out their proposals or talk about the difficulties of society: Dr. Noll, Mr. Apel, Dr. Heyer, Dr. Röschl,

Dr. Stein, Mr. Stockmeyer, Mr. Maier, Mr. Wolffhügel, Mr. Strakosch, Dr. von Heydebrand.

Dr. Steiner: Twelve calls! I request suggestions as to the form in which we want to negotiate.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: It seems to me that the calls are mostly full of empty phrases. There is far too little concrete discussion based on the situation. Seriousness is mentioned, but it is not given enough consideration.

I imagine it could be worded something like this – I have written it down: “We have become aware that society in its present form is not the right vehicle for spiritual values. It has become too entrenched, too selfish and self-indulgent. There has been a lack of cohesion of forces. So it has come about that precisely the yearning that awakens in youth has not found the right place in society where it can be satisfied. The universal need for spiritual knowledge has not found the right organ. The present situation calls on us to be mindful of our duty. An opposition has awakened that has already given us all kinds of tests. We must become fully aware of the high spiritual good that has been entrusted to us in this hour of world history. We bear the responsibility for ensuring that this spiritual good is conveyed in the right way. New, elastic, free forms must be found for what has been entrusted to us. Everywhere it is a matter of leading the spirit in full freedom and purest clarity to the depths where the solution of the problems shines forth. If we become aware of the tasks, then we may hope that a solution can be found.

Paul Baumann: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be asked to write the appeal.

Jose del Monte is opposed to a single person making the appeal. He should come about through the combined efforts of everyone.

Dr. Unger: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be involved.

Dr. Stein: Dr. Rittelmeyer should choose those with whom he believes he can do it.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I am actually only in a position to make the material I have written available to you. I need at least until tomorrow morning so that I can present it. I don't want everything that was in the other individual calls to be lost.

Dr. Steiner: We are back to square one. The situation has become tragic. Isn't it true, just consider this: yesterday I asked you to summarize the individual institutions. But let's refrain from doing so at this moment. What preceded the discussions that have begun about the reorganization of society? This was preceded by a polemic against the improper behavior of anthroposophists towards the “Movement for Religious Renewal”. Then a small committee was formed that is historically connected with this defense against what was overgrowing the society. A committee of seven was formed to take charge of the reorganization. And now the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society themselves are transferring the reorganization of the Society to the leader of the religious renewal! That is the fact that you have now organized. Just consider that the person who made the request was also the leader of the committee of seven.

If you believe that we will make progress in this way, that the steps we are taking will have any significance, then the situation of society is quite tragic. Because just admit what it means to hand over a reorganization plan with nothing but negative criticism. Yesterday I myself suggested calling Dr. Rittelmeyer. I have only given all this as a description of the situation we find ourselves in.

Marie Steiner: Now the Anthroposophical Society is buried, and the gravestone can be placed on it.

Dr. Unger (jumps up): If no one else offers to do it, then I will undertake to make the appeal alone. I repeat the offer to make this appeal. It could be ready by tomorrow morning.

Dr. Steiner: Just consider what the deeper meaning of all these weeks of discussions is. It is this: when something happens in the Society, the will of people must also stand behind it. It is not enough to express thoughts and then have others say that they agree with them. It just so happens that the people who have held the leadership of the Society externally in recent years have moved to Stuttgart. Today we have reached a point where it is no longer possible to merely have the appearance of leadership, but where leadership must be taken up with real power. No matter how many thoughts I would say, it would be of no use to you. After all that has happened, it is of no use to hand down thoughts with which one then declares one's agreement. If society had been left with the standpoint of 1918, there would have been no “Kommende Tag” and no Waldorf School. Now that all this is in place, it is a matter of actually taking control of it. To do this, the will must be connected with the thoughts of those who want to lead, otherwise there is no will and no power. You have to muster the strength to do something. This strength must be able to turn into something positive. You have to have something in yourself. And, isn't it true, if an attempt is made to put something like this forward here, it ultimately leads to suggestions like the one just made. Until yesterday, the whole of society had not thought of inviting Dr. Rittelmeyer. The whole of society, which has been discussing here for weeks what to do, is now calling on Dr. Rittelmeyer to write the appeal. It must not be understood as if the whole Anthroposophical Society agrees with this.

Adolf Arenson: I felt a sense of relief when Dr. von Heydebrand spoke earlier.

Dr. Steiner: We could have said that we ourselves did not want anything and transferred the whole thing to Dr. Rittelmeyer. It is better to say everything as it is. There is no other way than to say: the old board stays, and then we wait to see what the others say, who have been shaken up in this way. That is the conclusion: the old board stays, since no result has been reached; we will wait to see what the company says about it tomorrow. But what was the whole campaign for? Why was all this staged?

Dr. Stein: They wanted to perform a feat.

Dr. Steiner: We started by saying that the old board had become a laughing stock, and we end up with the result that the old board has to stay because of the lack of results.

Dr. Blämel: Could Dr. Steiner, as the occult leader, not designate those who have the ability to lead the Society out of chaos?

Adolf Arenson: The task now is to write the appeal. Emil Leinbas: The old central committee can no longer function.

Dr. Steiner: The point is that the Anthroposophical Society should want something in its leaders; this may even differ from what I myself consider desirable. What the Society wants in its leaders must emerge. This is quite independent of the accident in Dornach. It arose from the task I gave Mr. Uehli on December 10. I asked Mr. Uehli to meet with other members of the central committee, reinforced by leading personalities here in Stuttgart, to make proposals about the opinions that exist in the central committee and in the committee regarding the further continuation of the Society. Nothing came of this. Because when I arrived here, a committee of seven members, actually under the leadership of Mr. Uehli, met me. This committee really behaved as if it had the philosopher's stone in relation to reorganization; and its criticism culminated in the fact that the old board was a laughing stock. Since then, negotiations have been ongoing. I also presented the other part of the alternative: that otherwise I would be forced to turn to each individual member of the Anthroposophical Society myself in order to somehow put the Society itself in order. Now, as I said, instead of the Central Board carrying out the task, a committee has confronted me here, and the actions of this committee have now led to this result, which has just been characterized. Either the leadership of the Society declares: We give up the possibility of continuing the leadership —— or it must express what it wants. But it must offer some kind of guarantee that the Society has a will and is not just grumbling. There must be a real will.

Now, the negotiations have been carried this far for the reason that I must, of course, offer the utmost chance that the Anthroposophical Society can continue to act as a society. You have to look at things as they are. We cannot undo what has happened. What does it mean to go back to the situation in 1918? I will mention just two things. One would be to close the Waldorf School; the other would be to pay out all the sums that have been paid in for shares. We must be clear about the consequences of everything. It is easy to make speeches, but we in the Society have institutions that must continue to function. Therefore it is not an easy matter when I have to address each individual member. You can't close the Waldorf School! You can't buy back the shares! But these are the real foundations for such an action. If I were now forced to do so, it would mean that nothing would remain of the old Anthroposophical Society but these real institutions. The “Kommende Tag” must be treated in such a way that it does not lose its reputation; the Waldorf School must continue to exist. But the Anthroposophical Society must dissolve, and I turn to the members to create something new.

Therefore, the last chance must be seized. When the Anthroposophical Society was constituted, I expressly stipulated that I would not be a member. You have only to discuss whether you want to resign your leadership or continue to lead. Please bear in mind that I have never been involved in the administration of the Anthroposophical Society. Things must be taken as they are. You cannot act as you have done, out of your emotions, and say that the old Central Board is a laughing stock. Do you think it is easy to face people and say that we have once again sat through a night without results? Oh, we already know what the sparrows are saying on the rooftops: “Let's get rid of all your leadership!”

Marie Steiner: The will is directed towards dismissing Dr. Unger. But there is no pure will for the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society and for the cause itself.

Dr. Steiner: One also has the right to dismiss someone; but one must know whom one then puts in his place. Just imagine: it would rightly be laughed out of court if, after three weeks of negotiations, the decision were taken to adjourn the meeting. And that after twelve appeals have been made! After two hours, twelve people had decided to take action, after otherwise just waiting for someone else to do something. I can only say: the simple fact that twelve calls have emerged after two hours testifies to the lack of interest in a matter that one has represented with an unparalleled zeal. What could have been achieved if the same intentions that have been developed in the last two hours had been present earlier!

It is not surprising that nothing of any significance has been said. The way people think about a matter that is serious in the deepest sense is what has characterized the “Stuttgart system” to this hour. I do not want to reorganize the Anthroposophical Society. I have to turn to those who have turned to Anthroposophy. You are deciding the fate of the Anthroposophical Society! We cannot go on telling people: “Be so good as to wait!”

Adolf Arenson talks about the reorganization. He gives a summary of the points on which he intends to negotiate with the Friends: What is it that is still missing? He sees only the need to call the Friends together to make the weak points strong.

Dr. Steiner: We must not just give programs. If we want to issue a declaration of will, we must say something in it. The words must express a direction of will. Dr. Rittelmeyer's suggestion was good, but the tragic situation is that the others think that without what Dr. Rittelmeyer called “strong slogans,” they could no longer save society at all; everyone else should adhere to these slogans. What do you think? The people you call here as delegates want to find leadership here. The situation must be created in which the people say: Now the people of Stuttgart are confronting us in such a way that we want to follow them. In Stuttgart, people must know what needs to be done. The others are waiting to hear what is being done here in Stuttgart. Otherwise we will end up in pure negation.

Youth is not the most important thing. What do you think will happen if you don't come up with slogans today? Tomorrow, young people will say: “They don't know anything; now we have to do it!” Young people don't know anything either; they only think they know something, but they don't know anything. They are passing judgment on society with what they want or don't want now. This must be taken into account. You can't just say: Well, let's call a meeting of delegates; they'll then tell us what we should want.

The following spoke: Adolf Arenson, Miss Dr. Röschl and Dr. Schwebsch.

Dr. Steiner: The committee that was formed yesterday met today.¹ A spokesperson presented the first draft. This is the committee's appeal. Then, aren't they, the other appeals that have also been put forward are from Dr. Unger, Dr. Heyer and so on. These are personal appeals, just like the others. These two things must be considered absolutely separately.²

The fact of the matter is that yesterday this committee had Dr. Kolisko's draft as something finished. We parted: firstly, with the appointment of the committee; secondly, with the request to this committee to convert the draft into a positive one. Furthermore, the draft, with all that it contains, cannot of course be signed by the provisional central committee. So the starting point for today's appeal was, secondly, that its negative points should be converted into positive ones. The mistake, then, is not that any positive points have been newly added, but that only the old negative points have remained. I expected the negations to be transformed into positives. Substantially, it is important that the twelve appeals suffer from an excess of phraseology; they do not have enough substance. Those who make the appeal do not act independently enough.

Dr. Stein once said: We should not let the life's work of Dr. Steiner be taken away from us. — The appeal has now made the following impression: The points that I myself gave were heard, but they appeared in the appeal without any inner connection. The point is to make such a thing one's own. That is why I repeated these things again. What you have written in there does not have enough affinity with the personalities. That is what it comes down to.

José del Monte speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Dr. Rittelmeyer began his speech by saying that he had reported in detail to the committee on what he had said. I am just surprised that there is nothing about this in the committee's appeal, nor about what was decided yesterday: to transform negation into a positive.

I cannot formulate the points that should ultimately be the positive ones. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “It would be detrimental if I were to state the positive points.”) This must be done by those who have been given the task of working in the direction indicated.

Now, as a result of all the misery yesterday, we have come to form a committee that is roughly the same as the one I had imagined the old board could have formed. I imagined that the old board would have formed this committee from the synthesis of positive activities in the anthroposophical cause. It is composed of all the necessary antecedents. This committee has the opportunity to represent the shades of the old, and through its two members, Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth, who are young, it has the opportunity to be accepted by young people. So this morning, because we had to give the young people some information, I said: ³ I am just curious to know whether the old people among the young will accept the young people among the old. So I asked if the old among the young would accept the young among the old. I was told that it would only depend on how they would approach us. — The new committee has the opportunity to exist as something old; and at the same time it has the opportunity to be accepted by the youth.

Things must arise out of the real facts. Furthermore, as already mentioned, the committee is composed in such a way that it is a synthesis of those positive activities that are decisive in the anthroposophical movement. This committee is given out of the nature of the matter itself. But if we don't achieve anything, then the society must abdicate.

If only the committee acts in the right way. Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old; he is already called the “second soulless dialectician”; Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old. Because this committee has two prominent, still completely undiscovered personalities among its members, it only needs to reveal itself in the right way in one or the other direction. A committee must be such that it can work in a wide variety of directions. The committee could not be better composed. I cannot understand why it should not work.

Just consider: before I left last week, we had heard the most serious accusations against each other. Before I left, I asked the Provisional Committee to prepare the matter so that we could discuss it the following Monday. I had in mind what had been read here. The question was whether another Monday meeting should be held here. At least the call could have been made. What happened on Monday? This Monday meeting was a mere repetition of the meeting that had taken place before I went to Dornach. The same thing happened again. Of course, small variations occur; time alone makes them because the earlier process is no longer remembered exactly. When I complained that there was an exact repetition, I was told that it was with other bases. I was also told that negotiations had to be conducted with the people. Now we were at the point where there had been a straightforward repetition and it had to be made clear once again that such an appeal had to be made. We can continue the matter like this. From yesterday to today it is a straightforward repetition, with the exception of what the pause for thought has produced.

We had a memorable vote yesterday.⁴ I had a vote on who had read Mr. von Grone's essay. I had a vote on who had not read it: that was the vast majority. When I go to the Waldorf School, the magazines lie there for many days. Lack of interest begins with only taking care of one's own narrow field. Here one is no longer an anthroposophist by degrees; one is really no longer an anthroposophist. It takes three weeks before one comes to the decision to reflect on anthroposophy.

What Dr. Rittelmeyer said this evening follows from all of this. If you had been present at the small committee meetings, you would not be able to deny that all these points have already been raised; most of them in even greater detail. No one has taken care of this. They could have drawn on the things that have been discussed here for weeks. As long as we do not make an effort to draw from reality and do not get tirades out of a book, we will get nowhere. The reader senses whether there is anything real in the appeal. The spirit must enter in, which engages with the facts with good will. And it is this spirit that is being opposed.

Now I don't know whether we will see another copy tomorrow night. If we don't make every effort, then we will end up with a revolution in full swing in society. At least we should be clear about that, that Mr. Leinhas would also have to stay if we stay and only

Friday morning. But then the time would have to be used for work.

Adolf Arenson: I object to the fact that it is said that this group made that suggestion.

Dr. Steiner: Anyone who did not make the proposal can object. The fact remains that this proposal was made this evening by this group. You can now be appalled that this fact has come to light. Such a group should at least agree on the most fundamental things, so that it does not reduce itself to absurdity.

So tomorrow the whole group.

• 1. Without Rudolf Steiner. There are no minutes of this.
• 2. Of the numerous drafts that were made for the appeal, nothing is available.
• 3. No protocol.
• 4. It was not possible to determine in which district the vote took place.

Emil Leinhas: The draft is still incomplete. But we worked together harmoniously. (He reads the draft.)

Dr. Maier, Dr. Heyer and Dr. Peipers speak to this.

Alexander Strakosch: The question of the executive council still needs to be clarified.

Dr. Steiner: The passage about antagonism does not quite correspond to fact. From the personal reasons for the resistance against anthroposophical spiritual values, the antagonism that has arisen to me would not have been of any further significance; it would have appeared as a foolish episode. It is only through the reasons given by the various enterprises since 1919 that the attacks are used as a means to an end by an antagonism that for the most part has no interest in the attacks themselves,

used as a means to an end, in order to eliminate the anthroposophical movement.

Marie Steiner: The opponents are treated too lightly, it is immediately said that the compilation of the quotations forms the basis for attack, while the opposition does, after all, make use of mean methods.

Dr. Steiner: One is the opposition that uses defamation; the other is what the opposition does by creating a distorted image. Then the question arises as to whether, under certain circumstances, this opposition should not be attacked a little more boldly, which is only possible and necessary by using individual words.

Is it not true that the opponents are often protected by a certain official reputation, because to the outside world Dr. Jeremias, mentioned yesterday by Dr. Rittelmeyer, is the well-known orientalist of the University of Leipzig, while in fact, if Dr. Rittelmeyer's description is correct, he is a very mean person. He visited me repeatedly, discussed individual questions in a serious manner, asked to be allowed to attend the lecture in Leipzig. There was no reason not to let him attend. Afterwards he turns out to be a mean hypocrite. Such examples are actually something that one can no longer do without in characterizing opponents. One must tear this mask off people. I give this only as an example. We must be clear about what it means when someone has wormed their way in under the mask of someone who 'wants to recognize' and then comes out as a vile slanderer. If we do not manage to reveal this meanness among people who are simply protected by their official positions, if we do not succeed in doing so, then things will be difficult.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I was present at the meeting. There he personally exposed you, Doctor. He said that he distinguished between anthroposophy itself and the person of the founder of anthroposophy. The goods train could contain goods that were good even if the locomotive was defective.

Dr. Steiner: Such a thing must be exposed to the world. That is the case today. But on the other hand, the special way of fighting must be characterized, which consists in the opponents not engaging in a discussion, but instead they accept the matter in part, like Goesch, but at the same time they act with the most vile, unobjective, purely personal slander. This is the very precise fact; in the present situation, we cannot shy away from characterizing it. It may be necessary to give individual examples. But this does not need to be given by name; perhaps it is even not good to give names, perhaps the names can be avoided and the people can simply be characterized.

You will get a characteristic of Seiling by saying: There was a person who was particularly disgusting to Dr. Steiner because of his fanatical devotion, which was reinforced by a hand kiss at every visit. But now he is being used by the opposition to compile all kinds of slander. Everyone has the opportunity to point this out at the right moment. You achieve more by such a characterization than by mentioning names, because then you can point out such people at the appropriate moment.

Jeremias is an old type who has ingratiated himself, who, for example, came to see Frau Doktor in the box at the theater in Leipzig and paid his respects there. The combination of this box visit in those days with what Dr. Rittelmeyer has told us characterizes the man as a creep. One only needs to say: One of the opponents, who was present at one of the defamatory meetings, made himself unpleasantly noticeable not quite a year ago by paying his respects to Dr. Steiner in the Leipzig theater box during a eurythmy performance in the most boorish way. He demanded it. He appeared on stage and wanted to be brought to the box. He pushed his way into the intimacy. Masks like this must be drawn with a strong characteristic.

I did not meet Leisegang personally; only those who can vouch for them personally should characterize them.

I would also like to say the following. If you listen to the discontent today, one basic tone shines through everywhere. It is unpleasant for me to say this, but one tone shines through everywhere. That is that no one has ensured that the anthroposophical is truly represented in society. I ask you to comment on the extent to which this reproach is justified. I am only reporting what is felt from the various sides. It is felt that within the Anthroposophical Society itself, the representation of anthroposophy has been neglected, that other things have taken the place of anthroposophy and that the inner life has been lost as a result. A more 'scientific', external activity has taken its place, and with it a certain externalization. People express this by saying that anthroposophy is becoming more intellectualized. We have to meet the mood of the young, which is moving towards internalization, without lapsing into enthusiasm. This is particularly felt in academic circles. They do not want this food to be served to them, as it has been served to them in the college courses; they want an internalization of the human soul life. It is a debacle that the college courses have been perceived by young people as something that is just a slightly different infusion of what they already had. They were told things that they already had at university.

The call should include the will to really pursue anthroposophy, to pursue anthroposophy from the perspective of knowledge as well as from the perspective of the soul and from the perspective of morality and religion. That should be in the call. Then, in addition to the things that have been listed – we have already discussed this – there should be something in it about the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society. The agitation in certain circles has already reached a pathological state. People give the impression of being in a pathological state of agitation. There should be something in the appeal that people can personally relate to. It should say something about a group of people who have taken the lead. These are the seven or nine people who have provisionally taken charge of the affairs of the Society until the delegates' assembly is convened. It should not be about the “Central Board” – the word itself is a red rag – it should not be about the Central Board, but about the seven or nine who have the appeal on their conscience; they should be presented as the leaders. If you talk about the central board now, it will simply lead to this or that group breaking away, to the society disintegrating as a result, and other groups forming for anthroposophy.

One can only say that people are absolutely fed up with the Stuttgart leadership, but they are of good will. The moment they see people taking something seriously in hand, they are ready to follow. The mood is a psychologically curious and characteristic one. Young people are waiting for something to happen. That is what I have to say about the content of the call.

The passage about the inner work would have to be elaborated. It should come out that there is a will to respond to what is expressed by some more naively and by others more educatedly, namely that people say: We don't learn anything about real anthroposophy; we are presented with all kinds of things that we don't want to hear. That is what is said. Some say it more naively, others more educatedly. But it comes from all circles. It is remarkable: however idealistically one speaks, it is not enough for people. If the idea is to deepen anthroposophy, the soul side must never be neglected. It is always emphasized that there is no heart or soul left in the Anthroposophical Society. That is the delicate point, that people say: You can't get through to the gentlemen in Stuttgart at all; you can't get through to them on a human level, they are too reserved, you can't get close to them. — So this is a delicate point. It belongs in this chapter, where things have to be said as they really are. You have to express how you want to improve something without making a paternoster. A way should be found in the future to ensure that the human relationships between individual anthroposophists are cultivated or at least recognized, regardless of whether they have leading or non-leading positions.

So the goal of the last few days, after going over everything that has gone before, was to finally come up with an appeal that makes sense. But no matter how much sense it makes, if the forces that should be here in this circle are not behind it, it will have no consequences. The further discussion of the appeal should not just lead to negative talk, as has been the case recently, but should have a certain content (substance). One must express what one wants to improve in the near future through the appeal, in order to correct some of the mistakes that have emerged in Stuttgart. We would like to hear something about how the Stuttgart personalities want to support the appeal. Because the fact that you agree with it is only one side of the coin. The other side is that people should not think: Now that the appeal has been printed, we will go back to the Waldorf School, become office managers at Kommender Tag and so on. Something tangible should emerge in this direction, showing that the appeal is being supported. The appeal is only valuable if people support it.

Emil Leinhas: What the appeal says must be worked out in the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: This point would have to be dealt with much more thoroughly and attentively. If this group is to have any significance in the continuation of the matter, then this point would have to be dealt with much more thoroughly. They would have to decide to pay a little more attention to such things. One would really have to pay attention to it.

You see, when you mention the name of Rudolf Meyer in Berlin, for example. This Meyer is a characteristic personality for the reason that he does not represent an aberration in the sense that things come from the head, because he wants to be a personality who wants to present everything from his own experience. What some people in Stuttgart are accused of – predominantly intellectualism – is not so much attributed to Meyer.

You just have to reduce what arises from the circle of members, mostly from a correct feeling but from a false interpretation, and ensure that a correct view of it takes hold. There is too much complacency in Meyer's work. That which comes from a real inwardness is never complacent and does not repel; that which comes from an apparent experience and appears tremendously complacent repels as a result. What people say about it is irrelevant. Reality must be grasped somehow. There must be some place where it is grasped. What is lacking is the kind of immersion in a certain, truly spiritual life that is far removed from all nebulousness. What people always call “dialectical” is just talking about things in such a way that the soul is missing from this talk. And if that does not enter into reality, if acumen, pointedness and such things overwhelm people too much, then they feel repelled.

The Stuttgart gentlemen feel that if someone does get through to one of them, they leave as if they have lost their sense of self; everything is thrown at you so rationally that you lose yourself in the process. — I would be uncomfortable if I were asked to name names. When the gentlemen from Stuttgart talk to them, the people feel as if they have been emptied of their substance and their will. Well, that is not true, it has to do with the fact that a “system” has now really been formed in Stuttgart, namely that the people here live as if in a fortress with high walls and do not know what is going on among the people who belong to the Society. They speak from within the fortress, without concern for what is going on in the Anthroposophical Society; and the people who come here feel that they are not listened to when they come with their experiences; they feel that they are not listened to at all.

Sometimes the feeling that people have has been expressed as follows: In Stuttgart, the human personalities switch off. — I was confronted with the statement that The people of Stuttgart send us gentlemen here who come with their notebooks, ask their questions, write something down, and then these notebooks are put into the archive, because all things end up in the archive; the personality does not come to us, but instead brings a notebook and then takes it to the archive; we would like to have human contact with personalities.

I only relate the things that are said. These things may be terribly distorted when expressed, but there is much more in the distortion that comes from the bad experience. This sentiment perhaps expresses an even stronger truth than is being expressed. Thought must be given to how this can be remedied. Otherwise there is really nothing left to be saved.

If the delegates' conference really does take place and such judgments are formed, then we will not get anywhere either. Likewise, it would be good if the misgivings that go out were also consciously brought up here. Dr. Rittelmeyer said that “powerful slogans” should be issued from here. Such slogans are indeed being issued. Marie Steiner: I would like to say something about this that relates to Munich. I was sorry to hear about the things that are happening around the work of the young priest Klein. Such things as 'idolization' and 'worship' can lead a young man to believe that he can lead old people. I then asked whether these things were true. The answer was the question: Why did they want to destroy the anthroposophical work in Munich? The report culminated in the sentence that only a few months ago this gentleman had received the order from a member who is here: The religious work should be supported and the branch work should be ignored. It was said that this “motto” had been issued by a prominent personality. As a result, things have happened that have led some members to believe this. In Munich there were special conditions, branch difficulties of a special kind, from which such opinions could arise. He, the reporter, stood as one of the

accusers.

Dr. Peipers: When Klein was with me, I had the impression that something could be hoped for from the religious movement in Munich.

Dr. Steiner: You seem to have said that. People have understood that the leadership in Stuttgart wants to put the Munich work to sleep and replace the anthroposophical movement with a religious revival. We will have to reveal the things that come from the “Stuttgart system” as misunderstandings. Such facts are creative! So this is a “slogan” that came from Stuttgart: the Munich branch work should be put to sleep; everyone should concentrate on the work of religious renewal. If this were said by someone who is a leading figure in the religious renewal movement, there would be no objection. But when it is said by leaders of the anthroposophical movement, such a slogan will cause the anthroposophical movement to perish.

Dr. Peipers: I refused to support it.

Marie Steiner: But what has just been said refers to your conversation with Klein. I was told that you wanted to give a large sum of money for the religious renewal, and that you think the anthroposophical work should be put on hold. But these words have had an effect.

Dr. Peipers: What people say is so easily misinterpreted.

Marie Steiner: These slogans fly on like arrows.

Emil Leinhas comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: The person who issued this slogan belongs to the “big heads” in Stuttgart, and for that reason alone this slogan would have been decisive in Munich. So the religious movement is cutting off our water. The Munich people are indignant that the anthroposophical work in Munich is being destroyed by the Stuttgart leadership.

Dr. Peipers: I have been told that the Munich people are no longer doing any work at all.

Dr. Steiner: We will explain everything as a “misunderstanding”. But that does not prevent these things, which were coined as slogans in Stuttgart, from having a destructive effect; that is to say, that the “Stuttgart system” is dissolving anthroposophical work as it reaches the periphery.

The term “bighead” is related to drawings in cartoons. People like that have been depicted in cartoons as having huge heads and small bodies. In Austria they are called “bigheads”. So misunderstandings are creative.

You can't form an opinion about these things if you don't start from the same assumptions as those presented here. Most of what has been done here must be left out; that would have to be negotiated. So far, all that has happened is that people have signed the appeal. The assembly of delegates must take place, and at that the gentlemen must not appear as they did here, sitting around the table and waiting calmly for the others to act. Everyone must express their opinion there, but the next thing—I have to leave very early tomorrow morning—is that here, in a skillful way, the youth movement, for example, must be reassured, because they are waiting for an answer. One must enter into negotiations with them on a broader basis. Today they are waiting for someone to say: something has happened here. Now the ground on which everything has taken place so far will have to expand. We will admit the youth and negotiate with them, and from tomorrow on it must be done without curtains.

Another suggestion has been made regarding negotiations with young people.

Dr. Steiner: It would be better than the leaders of the youth movement attending our meetings here. That would be an achievement. Above all, I would like to point out that within the youth movement, the word seems to have been dropped that the opposition to society should be organized. It would be very good if this organization of the opposition were actually understood. I imagined that, in addition to Dr. Palmer, Mr. von Grone and Mr. [Wolfgang] Wachsmuth could also relate to this dissatisfaction in society. I believe that people in Stuttgart could understand the dissatisfaction. Why should we only meet in phrases of harmony? If you show understanding for what people are dissatisfied with, something will have happened. Not from above, but by showing that you yourself have some of the sting of dissatisfaction, you will achieve something with young people. If the other person feels: This is someone who is content too, then he says to himself: I don't want anything to do with him. Take this as a humorous presentation of something that is meant seriously.

Jürgen von Grone speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: Now this has not been achieved in Stuttgart. Dissatisfaction that arises from the matter is sometimes very fruitful; but if this dissatisfaction is not reckoned with in terms of what people feel, but is passed over, then it has a destructive effect.

Marie Steiner: It refers to what was said in the cycle.

Dr. Steiner: Indeed, one must say that. We have had these two phases of the academic youth movement, which must be characterized as follows: First, the Hochschulbund was founded. The celebrities left the student leaders alone and did not stand behind them. The bond between the student leaders and the Stuttgart celebrities dissolved. Now the student leaders didn't know what to do, and then these kinds of student associations were formed, which Maikowski chose. Now, Maikowski is a person who is extremely easy to convince of something if you only know how to speak his language. Now any connection between this youth movement and the Stuttgart gentlemen was impossible. The young people were no longer open to anything that came from these gentlemen. Illusions arose. It is still the same today as it was when these people organized the “Pedagogical Youth Course” here. I think that the term “organization of the opposition” arose because people feel that they cannot get close to the gentlemen from Stuttgart. The older ones outside all have a very similar feeling.

The essentials should be discussed. I would characterize the situation as follows: there are many questions in Stuttgart to which one avoids giving an answer. This is one of them: if you talk to a lot of people today, they feel the need to talk about how the branch work is organized. The leading personalities, on the other hand, do not feel the need to talk about the organization of the branch work. But this must be done. It must even be included in the call, just as the communication of the anthroposophical spiritual heritage should be done. Now it could also happen that people avoid talking about these questions. The most important questions are kept quiet here at all.

Ernst Uehli: The branch leaders are always asking how the branch work should be organized.

Emil Leinhas speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: The main question is this: How can we get the branch work to be such that it satisfies us? All we hear is: How can we talk to the gentlemen in Stuttgart? How can we approach the gentlemen in Stuttgart so that they hear from us what we would like to have? The point is that there are questions to which an answer is avoided. A positive answer should be given to this. We should talk here about what answer we give to those who say: We are purely lost members, we used to enjoy the cycles; who should we turn to so that someone knows that we are not satisfied now?

Alexander Strakosch speaks appreciatively about the earlier work of Miss Stinde and about individual branches.

Dr. Unger speaks about the difficulties that arise from the new forces. One can only explain the branch work by example; descriptions should be given.

Emil Leinhas: People want to see personalities who themselves have anthroposophy within them.

Marie Steiner: The demand that one encounters is much greater after lectures than after reporting. There is an urgent demand for Dr. Steiner's lectures.

Dr. Unger asks about the way of reading.

Marie Steiner: One must read quite simply and sympathetically, not too quickly. Rhetorical behavior should be eliminated as far as possible and one should be permeable only to the content. It does not do for someone to read the lectures quickly while in the rush of business. One would have to read the matter through four times. You need to have a sense of the punctuation. Furthermore, the content must be able to flow through you. You have to work through the lectures thoroughly and then erase the personal element. You have to be able to live with them for several hours beforehand.

Emil Leinhas talks about the question of reading or lecturing.

Marie Steiner: Above all, a certain attitude of soul must be present. One must avoid the terribly insistent intellectual emphasis, always leaving oneself out and wanting to show oneself off as little as possible.

Dr. Peipers: Both must be done: reading aloud and lecturing.

Dr. Unger: The archives must be converted into reading rooms. It is hardly possible to give a presentation if you were not present at the lecture yourself. Courses should be held at different levels.

Marie Steiner: There is so much material in the cycles that it would take several lifetimes to absorb it all. If someone wants to do special studies, the opportunity for such purposes is also given. So this possibility is also there for particularly serious specialized work. It has been shown that there has been a strong need for this. Much of what has been presented has been said to be something that could be heard elsewhere, and that is not what is needed for a special branch work.

Dr. Steiner: We have digressed from what can be fruitful in the present moment. We have digressed from what could be fruitful for this evening, for standing behind this call. The way it is done in the branches is not what is meant at the present moment. What the members are now expressing as something that leaves them unsatisfied is something quite different. What the members mean is that they have the feeling that they hear too little about anthroposophy. Whether it is read to them or presented in an anthroposophical way is not the subject of today's discussion. The question is: what can be done so that the anthroposophical can be brought before the world, and first before the branches, in the right way?

Surely, to do that, the question would have to be addressed much more thoroughly. For the dissatisfaction that prevails goes back to the history of the last four years. You must not forget what compromises have been made by the speakers who have been wildly let loose out onto the branches and onto the world. What a stir there has been when cabbage has been talked about again and again! Mr. Uehli spoke in the Elberfeld branch. The most important thing is not what he said; the most important thing is that Damnitz was terrified. He is convinced that he can only achieve something personally by reading aloud. But people have come, brought up by the bad education in Stuttgart, people have appeared who have presented their own cabbage. These are the bad habits of Stuttgart that have been introduced into the “Association for Threefolding” through the bad habit of lecturing. What a load of nonsense is presented to the audience! The dissatisfaction goes back to what was done here in Stuttgart. An absolute failure in education has come from Stuttgart. We should meet the dissatisfaction halfway. There was this course of lectures of mine before a horde was unleashed on the German audience. Look at the echo of what has been done by this horde! What has been done out there is sometimes so grotesque that it surpasses everything. Whether it was the duplication of the lectures or the speakers' lack of control over them, there was no spirit in it. There was a hideous bureaucratic operation in it, there was no inwardness in it. Horribly duplicated transcripts were sent to people in a truly bureaucratic manner. This special thing that has been introduced here, this impersonal bureaucracy, the lack of inner attitude, everything that has been introduced as special nonsense from the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Federation for Threefolding), still has an effect, it has not yet been completely eliminated. This comes into everything, connected with the matter. There must be the will to refrain from many things that have been done and to do many things that have been neglected. Someone has to take responsibility for this; then things will improve. Similarly, it happens that, again, people who should be given the things are simply deprived of everything indiscriminately. On the other hand, someone who is merely sensationalistic gets things. A certain care should be taken here. When you hire people, it is also the case that you do not exercise care. You have to exercise care! You must not give the feeling that it is categorized, compartmentalized, but that there is a human impulse behind it. What is the use of saying that human relations must be cultivated if you then proceed in an inhumane way in the way you handle things? When you say something like that, nobody feels affected because you can't see how terrible the system is in the way it is handled. Often those who have practiced the mischief the worst are the ones who now criticize it the worst. As I said, in Elberfeld, gentlemen appeared who had been raised by the mischief that occurred in the threefolding movement. Damnitz would not have objected at all if free good lectures had been given. He himself said what he opposed. There were a few gentlemen at the Stuttgart Congress who felt called upon to give free lectures in Elberfeld-Barmen. I am convinced that they talked pure nonsense and that anthroposophy was discredited as a result. Damnitz himself might have said that he could not do it either. This system, that everyone should talk their own talk — I am not speaking against independence, but against this unwillingness to distinguish between what should be and what should not be —, it is easy to end up in speculative-dialectical discussions.

Of course, poor performance can always be undermined. But there is a great difference between a way of doing things that has emerged in recent years and a way of being human that is behind things. You can tell whether a performance is good or bad on the basis of the individual performances. I have nothing against someone giving their own lecture. On the contrary: as much as possible. I have demanded it myself: giving one's own lectures. Whether someone gives a lecture or their own lecture: within our movement, everything should serve to cultivate our cause, not to discredit it. That is what matters. Things are all relative. I can well imagine that it is handled differently in different branches. In one branch there will be someone who reads aloud; in another there will be someone who speaks on their own initiative.

Sometimes there are also strange conceptions. I know of a branch – and this also applies to the things I have just mentioned, because it leads to an overall judgment – whose leader would never have allowed himself to merely read out lectures, but instead got the material from me on things that I had not even presented myself. The personalities concerned chose the topics themselves. Now it is impossible to decide whether something like this is a lecture in its own right or not. It depends on the personality concerned whether it is more or less free or unfree.

The question of promoting the anthroposophical cause through shared attitudes: yes, this is a matter of principle. We would have to learn to distinguish certain things. Of course, you sometimes come up against things that are difficult to judge. And then, because you come up against such things, the judgment in the widest circle becomes confused. Isn't it true that sometimes it will be dreadful after all.

Enthusiasm must arise! And enthusiasm can only arise when one takes hold of something in the right way, for example, when one brings anthroposophy into the world in the appropriate way. Here one develops enthusiasm for many things that have nothing to do with the anthroposophical cause. On the other hand, it would not easily occur to someone to do the same for the things that grow on our soil, for example, eurythmy. To put eurythmy, with all that it entails, into the whole movement with enthusiasm, that is how one would work for the anthroposophical cause! While it actually detracts a little from our cause when something is arranged like a concert in our rooms next Saturday. That is something that distracts in the most eminent sense; what does it have to do with our cause?

Paul Baumann comments.

Dr. Steiner: This brings us to the point where it is a matter of having an anthroposophical attitude or not. That is why I say: we are touching on the limits here. The Stuttgart center is the starting point, where everything that is anthroposophy is being messed up. If it is at all possible, a singer is brought in to sing on our premises. In this way, we completely lose sight of the essential. Then we deserve to be treated by the world as it is when really perfidious ideas of anthroposophy arise. That is part of what it is about. I am not surprised that the whole Anthroposophical Society is being ruined from Stuttgart, that all feeling for what is actually supposed to be given with Anthroposophy has been lost.

Marie Steiner: The ladies who work here at the Eurythmy School are often asked by members what they actually do here. So, people have no idea that there is a eurythmy school here.

Dr. Steiner: If we stoop to wanting to be a dumping ground for anyone who could be anywhere else, without having anything to do with anthroposophy, then the movement loses its momentum.

Marie Steiner: There are only ladies who have come from out of town to go to the Eurythmy School here. There is not a single person from Stuttgart in this course.

The foundations are discussed.

Dr. Steiner: I would also like to see this transformed into something positive; I would like to see enthusiasm arise for carrying the anthroposophical into the world in the appropriate light. We really have no right to establish things externally and then not use them to cultivate the matter. That is what is so terrible. We have brought about the external possibility of cultivating the anthroposophical by making material sacrifices; we must also make use of this possibility. We have to come to the point where the journal 'Anthroposophie' is something completely different, where it serves the anthroposophical cause, where one does not just have the feeling that every week there is the worry that it will be full. That's part of it when I say you have to stand behind the call.

The call has now been successfully made. What difficulties! The necessary changes can be made easily; but the call has really been made. The discussion about standing behind the call is again such that in the next few weeks things could go back to the way they were before, with more or less reading aloud or speaking oneself. That is not what the people who are dissatisfied today mean. Things are going nowhere because people are not engaging with them.

Dr. Unger and Emil Leinhas speak; others make suggestions.

Dr. Steiner: I fear that if we only have lectures and eurythmy performances in the evenings, I fear that many will shirk the task of addressing the seriousness of the situation on the agenda. The lecturers will not be concerned with discussing the fate of the Anthroposophical Society. I fear that it would be something that could be excellent in itself, but that will not become what we need at the present moment. We have had brilliant such events. We have had the congresses one after the other. We have had them in Vienna, in Stuttgart, in Dornach. Yes, the things were excellent in themselves. But they did more harm than good to the anthroposophical movement because they were never utilized.

Emil Leinhas advises lectures by Dr. Steiner and reports about the institutions.

Dr. Kolisko comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: They also need to be treated. If today's discussion, from the moment we finished discussing the appeal, takes this course, it is a prime example of how this delegates' meeting must not be. It must not be like this! Couldn't the question of why this committee of 30 has become so sterile be discussed a little, when the cleverest people in Central Europe are sitting together? Perhaps it would be useful to ask why this illustrious circle has remained so barren?

Dr. Schwebsch speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: I know that there are personalities sitting here who consider the whole thing unnecessary, that one is dealing with the question of the consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society. If these things had never been dealt with, if no effort had been made to deal with them, then you would not be sitting here today. There would be no funds to support the Waldorf School. You can be sure of that, that it was once different. The Society was founded out of life, and that is what made it possible for you to be sitting here today and to find that all this is unfruitful. If it had always been like that, if, for example, many people like you had been at the starting point of society, then you would not be able to sit there today. You are like the famous person who wants to pull himself up by his own hair. Therefore, you would already be obliged to found the matter more deeply. Why don't you say the important thing yourself, which you lack here and which would raise the matter? Life is not just for our pleasure. If it is only about comfort, then one should not hold thirty-session meetings. Why don't you make it better yourself? One can also sit here and still not be there.

Marie Steiner: One must struggle when it comes to group-spirit insights.

Toni Völker: They have not understood how to take you, Doctor, as an esoteric teacher. They have not understood how to bring the esoteric into practical life. That seems to me to be the problem.

Dr. Steiner: The things that are to be discussed here - and actually discussed in real terms - have become necessary because of what has gradually emerged in society. But what used to be found in society, that a word of mine remained in a narrower circle, that no longer exists today. And so it has become impossible to talk about the necessary things in real terms. Today it is the case that I should not really make the claim to say a word in a narrower circle, because every word is carried out into the world. In the sense of esotericism, of esoteric truths, we can speak more than we used to. Now there is more esoteric content in the public lectures than there used to be in the cycles; but in the past it was still possible, in a sense, to bring something into narrower circles that remained in those narrower circles. But today that is out of the question; today it is absolutely out of the question.

Toni Völker: If you bring the esoteric into life, then the conditions could not arise as they are now. It would depend on doing things instead of talking about them.

Dr. Steiner: The things that one would never have dreamed of, that one would not even have imagined would come out of the circles, appear in the brutal articles in the newspapers; they have been discussed for years, and Father Kully writes about them in the newspapers. There should be an inclination to reflect on why society has become like this. This decline of society is linked to the course of events as it has developed in Stuttgart over the past four years. It has led to the Anthroposophical Society being so terribly run down. Gossip prevails over seriousness. Triviality prevails over what should be in this direction, in the direction of reverence. It would have been good if the time that has now been used for trivialities had been used to address the terrible situation of the Society with a little more clarity. The Anthroposophical Society should become a reality. It has become a shadow, but this shadow is truly a very Ahrimanic product. The Anthroposophical Society is full of Ahrimanic holes.

Ernst Uehli: The Society has sinned through the threefold social order movement. There was this circle of thirty, but no real action was taken. What was discussed was not put into the realm of the will. Dr. Röschl: The specific questions are not being addressed. I always have the thought: What am I supposed to do there?

Dr. Steiner: Things would improve immediately if we did not continue to tempt each other in the moment when we clearly see things. Of course, things also have their justification. On the other hand, the course of the negotiations lies in a certain psychological state of the group. If you have listened to how the discussions have gone, you will have noticed that a large part of the speeches, the requests to speak, for weeks has amounted to someone saying, “I propose that we talk about this or that.” Such a way of proposing has only emerged in this circle. It would not happen anywhere else for someone to speak up and say, I propose that we talk about this and that. — Here in this circle it has happened all the time. Elsewhere, people start talking about what they think about something. I could show how few people have said anything about their topic. A large part of the debate also boils down to someone saying: I fully support this and that. That doesn't change the material substance of the matter. One evening consisted of one person after another saying that they fully supported this or that. Just think, if this psychological moment were considered, how the content of what is said simply proves this: one does not feel oneself as a reality. One does not feel as a reality; one allows oneself to be a mere shadow. Look back and see how often these things have happened! It is easier to ask questions than to give answers. Look at the matter from the psychological side.

I would like to say the following. Things can be discussed in all good will. You are asking for something that you should not ask for. The one who talked about the seminar knows exactly what happened since he spoke to the gentleman in question.⁵ If he brings up the matter, it could be that he has been thinking about it since he found out. He could bring the results of experience instead of the results of not thinking.

In general, in the thirties, there is a tendency to demand a lot from others but as little as possible from oneself. This cancels out so much; the calculation cancels itself out. Almost the impossible is demanded of others, and no one expects to demand the same of themselves. There is a lot in that. Therefore, I cannot fully agree when Dr. von Baravalle constantly says, “I have nothing from this circle.” Why does he never ask, “How much does the circle have from me?” This question should be raised by each individual. Because this takes its toll. This is the case here as long as the circle exists. There is so much cursing; everyone knows what damage the Thirty-Party has done; so one would assume that the damage would be stopped. Since everyone knows, everyone could have thought about it today. The cursing and not thinking about it has become such a habit, and people keep falling back into it.

Today the call has come about. It has emerged from the intellect of this illustrious body. Do you think it completely out of the question that this appeal could not have been made even after the third session? The appeal is an emanation of intellect. That it was not already accomplished three weeks ago is a lack of an outpouring of will. You would become terribly clever if we wanted to continue waiting for ten years. I do not think that the drafting of the appeal was helped all that much by yesterday's meeting. It is a matter of will. One must decide on these things. One must want something. Why can't we want something? Why is there only negativity, only rejection of the other? Why can't we commit ourselves to the other? Actually, it takes much more sophistry to recognize the other's faults as precisely as if we all had the intention of seeing the positive in the other as well. If we were to use only a quarter of it for the positive, much would come of it.

We are now clear about the fact that from now until the delegates' meeting, which must take place as soon as possible, this committee of seven will lead here [Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Rittelmeyer, Miss Mücke, Mr. von Grone]. I wanted this committee of seven to do such a good job that the delegates would want it to stay.⁶

I have to give an answer this evening: when should we hold the delegates' meeting? I think in two weeks. We can plan for three days. It would be good if we could use this room for the daytime meetings and the Sieglehaus hall for the evening lectures.

The members comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: It would be better to send a report on the course of the meetings to the foreigners, because the whole thing should be treated as a closed one. The call, which does not concern foreigners, should not be sent.

Mr. Leinhas: Austria, Holland and Scandinavia have considered themselves to be part of this.

Dr. Steiner: I don't know if, if it is sent to Austria, it should be sent to the leadership in Austria and left to them to distribute it in Austria. It can be sent to the leadership in Vienna, and they should distribute it with their own signature.

Emil Leinhas: The local groups have no central office in Vienna. Dr. Steiner: As far as I'm concerned, it can also be sent.

Emil Leinhas: Mr. Steffen would probably have to be sent the appeal for information.

Dr. Steiner: You can give him the appeal privately. Officially it's none of his business. Mr. Leinbas: February 25, 26, 27 or 24? Eurythmy in the evening and two lectures.

Marie Steiner: I would have to be here for the rehearsals.

Dr. Steiner: I am very concerned that the enthusiasm is waning. I am extremely concerned about it. I will have to decide to come back on Monday. Only the shell of the building is there; the matter of the 'inner life' still needs to be carefully worked out. It must be presented on Monday in a form that can still be completely corrected. It can be printed on Tuesday. The envelopes can already be ready. It can go out on Tuesday.

• 5. It is not known what is being referred to here.
• 6. This body then became the executive council of the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany”.

Regarding the expansion of the Anthroposophical Society

Dr. Steiner: We have now reached the point where at least a draft of a circular letter to the Anthroposophical Society has been made.¹ This has created a kind of basis on which negotiations would be possible. I believe that it would perhaps be good now if you were to negotiate what you yourselves want in joint negotiations with the committee that will be in place until the delegates' assembly. This committee has been put together purely on the basis of merit, so purely that it is not the members of the individual institutes who are on it, as was previously the case in the Thirty Committee that you are familiar with, but rather those who have to represent the existing institutions. This committee is composed in such a way that of the old central committee, Mr. Leinhas for the “Kommende Tag”, Dr. Unger as the rest of the old central committee, Dr. Rittelmeyer as a representative of the movement for religious renewal, Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Mr. von Grone, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko, Miss Mücke for the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press and Mr. Werbeck from Hamburg for the remaining external interests. I have asked the seven Stuttgart members to take the steps you have proposed together with you. I myself will have to leave for Dornach tomorrow morning and will be back on Monday. I regret that I will not be able to attend the next meetings. I now believe that it is best, since there can be no difference between us, that you conduct the negotiations with these personalities on your own initiative. As things stand, these personalities are the ones given, since all shades are represented among them; the youthful ones through the presence of Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth - I leave it to you to decide whether you find these two likeable - who are, after all, completely inexperienced in terms of all board work. Furthermore, Dr. Palmer has stated that he wants to build every possible bridge to young people.

The appeal to the members of the Anthroposophical Society is available in draft. It will essentially contain what the Anthroposophical Society has had to say. It naturally had to come from those who have led the Anthroposophical Society up to now. From February 25 to 28, a meeting of delegates will take place in that the individual branches and groups that consider themselves to belong together will send their delegates here, so that a kind of general assembly will take place. This will provide an opportunity to present all views on the development. Until now, we were faced with the alternative of doing it this way or allowing the Anthroposophical Society, as it was, to come to an end and founding something completely new. In 1918, it would have been easier to found something new; now we are faced with positive institutions with which we are committed to the world and from which we cannot get out, so everything must arise out of the Society. Society itself must be more freely formed within itself, and it must be impossible to feel constrained in it. I think it will work, but I would like to hear something that you have to say on your own initiative. The fact that it took so long to get this far must be put down to the deliberateness of age. We will be happy to hear what you have to say at the present moment.

A representative of the younger generation will speak about the involvement of younger people in society with regard to what Dr. Steiner said in the last Stuttgart branch lecture about the individual phases in the history of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: What you said about the wall that has arisen in connection with the first, second and third phases of the movement, which can be very clearly distinguished from one another, is correct. One must bear in mind that the individual phases lasted for approximately seven years, and that the Society itself is now around the age of twenty-one. What is true is this: the impulses for entering and participating were actually different for the earlier members than they are now for the essentially academic youth circles. They are different in that the people who came during the first phase came with the whole complex, admittedly from today's contemporary conditions, but with completely unconscious longings; they did not know themselves in connection with any contemporary conditions and were at an age at which one does not give a clear account of one's relationship to time. They came with very general human interests related to time, but people did not realize it. It was almost the same in the second phase. Anthroposophy came a lot further, but the Anthroposophists, with exceptions, were less interested in contemporary issues. Those who came to it earlier found the third phase rather creepy. They came together with all those who were dissatisfied – not with the general conditions of our time, but with what these people had experienced in today's educational institutions in a very specific way. They would not have come to anthroposophy if it had not been for the strong contrast between anthroposophy and today's educational institutions that they felt inside. They came with different impulses than those who had actually seen the least of Anthroposophy in relation to time. I myself had to talk about it. What I said about the relationship between Anthroposophy and time has actually been taken up very little. But they came, strangely and yet not strangely, with a longing that actually goes to the heart of Anthroposophy.

Now a strange thing has emerged: namely, the misunderstanding of the School of Spiritual Science courses. I do not want to say anything against their value. But the School of Spiritual Science courses were a misunderstanding. What was expressed there was not at all what you were seeking. You were seeking anthroposophy in itself. This could not be understood by those who had come into the Anthroposophical Society as academics in earlier times. They wanted to weld their academic work together with anthroposophy. They did not accept this. So in time they will not come into conflict with what I have called the bulk of the Anthroposophical Society. The real conflict was only with the academics because they believed they wanted to represent anthroposophy in a biological, chemical-physical, historical way. They do not want that. They want pure anthroposophy. They have the difficulty of getting over this mountain together with the whole society. The academic side that has entered is like a mountain; but it must be crossed over and over. If both sides work with goodwill, it may prove useful. On the other hand, however, if we want to make progress, in the end a little specialization is also needed. If goodwill exists on both sides, it will work.

A participant talks about some of the younger people's wishes regarding the reorganization of the branch work, in particular the lecture and presentation system.

Dr. Steiner (interrupts): This little book by Albert Steffen is justified because it reflects the content of my lectures in a truly artistic way. It is not a journalist's report; it stands on its own. In the past, nothing like this has been done. We will see if it becomes a precedent. It would be a stroke of luck.

Wouldn't it — the appeal will have to include two main points. One: the emphasis on the need for inner work in the anthroposophical movement. Secondly, it is already essential that the Anthroposophical Society is so strong that it can fend off opponents. Not by polemics, but by real, appropriate work in the world. If, in the face of opposition, nothing is done, then anthroposophy will perish. One cannot work in such a way that one person asserts something and the other refutes it. With the most important opponents, one cannot reach the public. When defamations are spread about Anthroposophy today from the circles of the Pan-German and German-Volkish parties, then one has an audience that believes everything under all circumstances. One cannot reach them. One must know the people who are among this audience. There are certain things one cannot say in a Catholic audience. If the refutations are wrong, then they are wrong. But if they are right, they are of no use to us, but — I have to use this word — only harm us, especially among Catholics. They are annoyed when one is able to refute the opponent's assertions. Being right harms us today, being wrong perhaps less so. The only way to refute these things is to do positive work. Make yourself strong, as the others are. Dr. Rittelmeyer was right to use the saying the other day, and I myself have often pointed it out: you can't imagine how everywhere there is something that can be said about: fire is being made everywhere! Our opposition will be expressed in a very terrible way in the near future. It is necessary to form a united body against it. All things that are good endanger society. It is already the case that the movement for religious renewal endangers the Anthroposophical Society. It is the case that no one has imagined that we will achieve something in this area as well. And if we continue to work in the academic field, which is of course very desirable, then the leakages will slip everywhere. It really worries me because the old reactionary forces are growing stronger and stronger. When the School of Spiritual Science was founded, there were many more opportunities to hold back the old powers. Today these opportunities have diminished. They will have to suffer a great deal. But even if anthroposophy were killed, it would rise again, because it must arise, and it is a necessity. Either there is a future for the earth or there is none. The future of the earth is inseparable from anthroposophy. If the latter has no future, then all of humanity has no future. The tendency alone is enough. Anthroposophy may go through various phases in its expansion. I do believe that you will have to come over this mountain, which I mentioned earlier, for the benefit of society in all peace.

A participant talks about a different relationship that young people should have to society.

Dr. Steiner: You just have to bear in mind that in the case of old cultural currents that have already come of age in world history, there were very different attitudes of the soul than in the case of those that are historically very young. Today, people simply no longer have any idea how difficult it was to be a Christian in the first centuries of Christianity. Today it is easy to be a Christian. In the early days it was not the external difficulties of martyrdom, but the internal difficulties of the soul. It was difficult to be a Christian in one's own eyes. Today it is difficult to be a true anthroposophist. It is difficult in a certain sense. Those who have been anthroposophists for a long time, who carry within themselves, in their whole soul attitude, the whole difficulty of being connected with the first appearance of a spiritual movement; in them the understanding for certain phenomena of life is not so strong.

Those who have been anthroposophists for a long time, longer than the younger ones, sometimes talk at cross purposes to each other. Just the other day I came across a very blatant example of this. These friends had a meeting; the mood there was that the belief was that all bridges had been burnt, now they were on the same page. They were quite honest on their side. With you, on the other hand, I was met by the feeling that we had to organize the opposition; we did not find each other at all. This is a perfect reflection of the slight tendency to be under illusions about life's circumstances when one is in a certain attitude towards life, which I have characterized. It is difficult to be an anthroposophist; it is not easy to overcome a certain rigidity. The illusionists are honest. They come with the freshness of soul, and therefore, as one who has not yet grown tired, you are less inclined to have these illusions than a tired person. Many have grown tired and weary through the difficulties we have faced. That is why there has been so much talk these days.

One participant talks about his original plan to redirect the energies of the youth in particular, which have been devoted to the opposition, and to organize them in a fruitful way.

Dr. Steiner: Some things are already so that realistic thinking must also take them into account. Somehow there must also be something in the future that is like your educational institutions. Even if all hopes for the future are in the bud in this respect, it cannot be the case that the university remains a mere sham. It really worries me how far away we still are from that. On the other hand, the higher education system is in a sorry state. A century ago, at least we still had a unified worldview; that is now completely gone, including the sense of human dignity. You see, Leisegang – it's not at all the way he treats me – but Leisegang, who will soon become a professor, since he has all the aspirations for it, has now published a work about Plato, a first volume. He doesn't treat me as badly as he treats Plato, he treats Plato much worse, he caricatures him, only – people don't notice it. You see, and that worries me, really worries me, how far we are from the possibility of creating a university.

A participant points out the way in which a university has been created by the prisoners in the prison camp where he worked, and presents this as an example for the creation of a university for spiritual science.

Dr. Steiner: One cannot bring a university into being today, because the first and most necessary condition for that is the presence of individual scientists. Ideas and approaches are already there. But as long as one can only have the people who are to work within the movement as starving students, it will be difficult. This is becoming more difficult every day because the time is approaching when it is hardly conceivable that the preceding period will provide the subsequent period with scholarships. The possibility of bringing about a completely new education in a different way is becoming more difficult every day. I must emphasize two things at every opportunity for purely spiritual reasons: firstly, to strive with all intensity to become as strong as possible; secondly, to devote all energy to expanding one's circle of friends. It would not be necessary to look at the number from a spiritual point of view, only in view of the time conditions. In the spiritual, the opposite must be true, but in view of time it is so. The widening of the circle need not be at the cost of deepening, but efforts must be made in that direction in order to maintain a large number of friends. Otherwise, the downfall of the individual and of the movement as such is more likely. It is already so. But you must not be afraid to be strong as a youth in order to achieve outward growth.

A participant talks about how difficult it is to communicate with the elderly.

Dr. Steiner: Apart from judgments, it is also the case that the lack of understanding is mutual! The older generation can say: the way it is is not his fault, but his destiny. But the resistance of young people to old age is both a defense mechanism and a weakness!

Become interested, and you will become a genius!

• 1. See page 274 ff.

Dr. Steiner: Now that the call has been successfully made ¹ and the willingness of this group to tackle the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society has been demonstrated, it would be good if a kind of chair for today's meeting were elected from among the assembly. This would best correspond to the inner workings of the matter. We have so far been, to a certain extent, a disorderly group of people, and we are now to enter into a specific community of will, as has been emphasized several times. Therefore, I would like to ask you to elect a chairperson from among yourselves, so that today's proceedings are fruitful and proceed in such a way that it can be seen that something can come out of the delegates' meeting. It will only come to something if a kind of self-evident spiritual leadership and direction emerges from the group of personalities gathered here.

It is proposed that Emil Leinhas be appointed chairman.

Emil Leinhas: I would just like to point out that I am not sufficiently informed.

Dr. Steiner: Since today's meeting has obviously been prepared over the last few days, it would be reasonable for someone in the middle of it all to take the chair.

Mr. Baravalle: I propose Dr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth if it cannot be Mr. Leinhas.

Dr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth and Dr. Kolisko are proposed. Emil Leinhas: I accept the position if I have to.

Dr. Steiner: Then I ask those of the esteemed attendees who are in favor of Mr. Leinhas to raise their hands.

A vote is taken and Emil Leinhas is elected chairman. Dr. Steiner: I will now be able to listen all the more attentively.

Emil Leinhas: The circular letter should be sent to all members in Germany. Mr. Werbeck should participate after all, shouldn't he? (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Circular letter without Werbeck's signature? Sensitivities regarding Werbeck?”)

The following speak on this: Dr. Kolisko, Dr. Heyer, Emil Leinhas and Toni Völker.

Dr. Steiner: Apart from the reason given, namely sensitivity, I don't see what could be against it. The fact that this sensitivity plays such a role in the Anthroposophical Society is the really ruinous fact. We can give up on the Anthroposophical Society if we rely on the sensitivities. These sensitivities do not only show themselves in their naked form, but also in all kinds of masks. Over the years, they have gained tremendous power because they have been camouflaged. This is one of the factors that has become ruinous. If we continue to take sensitivities into account, the reorganization is in vain. We must begin to discard dishonesty and say truthfully: We can found a Philistine society, then sensitivities can play a role. But then we will drive anthroposophy out of society. We must make an effort to overcome this sensitivity.

Emil Leinhas: You often have to be considerate of it.

Dr. Steiner: You can do that in other things. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “not in matters of principle”)

Emil Leinhas: Werbeck will be admitted to the committee, and an explanation will be given later as to why his name is not on the appeal.

Dr. Kolisko speaks.

Emil Leinhas announces the detailed program of the delegates' conference and opens it up for discussion. Many speakers contribute.

Dr. Steiner (2): We would then accept the proposals of Dr. Schwebsch, who, as the most specialized, has proposed such a program.

Dr. Schwebsch: I have considered a few things, such as headlines: 1. Situation of the dwarves; 2. Branch work; 3. Organization of trust; 4. Inner history and

history of the institutions; 5. New generation and youth movement; 6. Treatment of opponents.

One speaker thinks it should be asked whether the assembly of delegates agrees that this committee remains in charge.

Dr. Steiner: You expose yourself to the danger of a random leadership. How do you want to prevent a random president from being elected?

Dr. Kolisko: The leadership must come from the same place as the invitations.

Dr. Steiner: It will just be a matter of preventing the question from arising in the first place by the appearance of the committee. There should be no desire to somehow elect a president. This desire should not arise. What I fear is that there will not be enough discussion by the committee and from this circle, so that a new tone would really be established from the outset. So that is what has emerged so strongly as a deficiency, that people have not become aware of what it means to lead such a society. At this assembly of delegates, this may lead to the election of a random president. Some member who joined the Anthroposophical Society the day before yesterday and who says something clever is then elected president. This happens in particular when such things recur and when people are not aware that they must not recur. Then all sorts of things happen.

It was criticized yesterday that — if I may put it this way — the management had failed completely. I could only perceive the after-effects because I arrived late. Yesterday it is said to have been the case that basically throughout the whole evening this committee of thirty did not take action at all, but rather was notable for its mental absence. ² It can go wrong if this happens again at the delegates' meeting, that no sound is given, that one is not aware of what the actual duty of this circle of “large-headed” people is. If they are not aware that something must be done so that the others also have a reason to recognize the committee, then it can also go wrong.

Several members, Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko and Emil Leinhas, talk about the fact that the members of the Circle should speak.

Dr. Steiner: All members of this committee of nine are, of course, members of this Circle of Thirty. And just as these seven have signed from the Circle of Thirty, it could just as well be a different seven under certain circumstances, and yet another seven. The appeal will be signed by the individual members of the Circle of Thirty. It could not be signed only by the Thirty Circle itself, because the Thirty Circle as such – as has been revealed – has shown itself to be an impossibility in its entirety. It is a fact that this Thirty Circle is something terrible. It raged particularly terribly in the assembly, where the circle had strengthened [see the expanded Thirty Circle meeting of January 22]. If it had been written below: Thirty Circle, that would have been impossible. But when its members appear before the assembly of delegates as individuals, it is only each person's duty and obligation. I don't see why they shouldn't be there. There is absolutely no way to fathom why a mandate should first be created for those who should have represented the interests of the company here.

Consider just one fact that has been mentioned this evening. You could just as easily get a second one. That is that the members of the individual branches were delighted when the second newsletter arrived. If only the members outside hear anything at all about what is going on in Stuttgart, they are happy. The only terrible thing was that the central board said to itself on December 4: I will send out a newsletter; and after that it ignored the Society. Nothing has happened in the time since then. So when a sign of life came in the form of the newsletter, the members were very happy. If only someone will draw friendly nostrils in the anthroposophical sense, then the matter will be there. You cannot demand that by merely signing — you cannot draw the nostrils without them — that without these friendly nostrils the members will infer what the Thirty Circle has achieved with the appeal. The individual members are not obliterated by saying that the Thirty Circle as a whole is a disgrace. All the more should one prepare oneself, preferably in front of the mirror, to make the friendly nostrils. Hopefully the circle will focus some attention on the nostrils.

I have to speak with the individual people tomorrow and hold teachers' conferences; in the evening it is already too late. It should be possible to continue today.

[Because the meeting had to be interrupted due to the lecture by Rudolf Steiner in the Stuttgart branch, it should be continued later.]

• 1. See page 334.
• 2. There are no minutes of this 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.”

Dear friends!

The Anthroposophical Society has entered a new phase of its development. We need to grasp this fully consciously and shape our anthroposophical work accordingly. In the early years, it may have been enough to absorb the results of spiritual research with an open mind and receptive heart and to prepare places for it in smaller circles. In recent years, the anthroposophical movement has increasingly become a world movement. This fact poses new challenges for those who want to represent anthroposophy to the world. This is a consequence of both the inner progress of anthroposophy and the changing conditions of the times in general. The realization that anthroposophy can bear fruit in all areas of life has given a number of people the courage to found a series of enterprises in the spirit of the anthroposophical worldview and its practical implications for life since 1919. Dr. Steiner supported this intention in the confidence that those who undertook the enterprises would also work with unyielding will to carry them out. In view of the fact that the opinion has taken hold in wide circles of the Anthroposophical Society that Dr. Steiner himself is the founder of such enterprises, it is our duty to emphasize that this is not the case. Rather, full responsibility lies with those who founded them. The way in which anthroposophy can enrich life, where it can work out of its own inner impulses, is shown by creations such as the now destroyed Goetheanum and the art of eurythmy, which has developed in unexpected ways under the direction of Mrs. Marie Steiner in recent years. They have been recognized worldwide as creations of universal human significance. Similarly, the Waldorf School, with its pedagogy born of anthroposophical spiritual insight, has found the greatest respect in Germany and far beyond. In the practical economic sphere, it has been possible – despite fierce hostility arising from old ways of thinking – to develop the joint-stock company “Der Kommende Tag” (The Coming Day) in such a way that it can fulfill its important task within the limits imposed by the general economic situation.

Dr. Steiner has shown how scientific work can be enriched by supersensible knowledge. But this gives rise to enormous tasks for anthroposophical work. The scientist can only do justice to them if he incorporates anthroposophical methods into his research, as was done, for example, in the work on the function of the spleen by Mrs. L. Kolisko of the Scientific Research Institute. Whoever is aware of the difficulties with which research in this field has had to contend up to now must welcome such a discovery, as presented in this paper, as the epoch-making beginning of a new understanding of the nature of the human organism. Dr. Hermann von Baravalle's work “On the Pedagogy of Mathematics and Physics” is a similar achievement in its field. Dr. C. von Heydebrand's work on experimental pedagogy must be seen as an act in the field of pedagogy. It delivers a scathing critique of the grotesque excesses of experimental psychology and pedagogy, countering them for the first time with positive results of the spiritual-scientific art of education.

How are these achievements to be taken into account by external science if they are not appreciated to their full extent in our own ranks?

Beyond such positive results, there are many indications from Dr. Steiner that, in continuing legitimate scientific research, the researcher himself can see himself on the path to supersensible knowledge. The Anthroposophical Society, if it wants to be the true bearer of anthroposophical life, must take a lively interest in these important tasks. Cultivating the path of spiritual-scientific knowledge is the main task of the Anthroposophical Society. The present consciousness is undergoing a transformation in many people that threatens to drive some into a state of mental chaos if they are not offered the strength to shape it through anthroposophical work.

Young people carry within them the power of new creation. They are striving to escape from the dull atmosphere that sometimes still hangs over our college courses and go to where they can find anthroposophy as such. Anthroposophy must meet their desire for healthy internalization in such a way that it takes hold of knowledge, feeling, moral and religious striving. An older generation that has followed the path of inner soul development in the sense of anthroposophy cannot come into conflict with the young, since this development awakens youthful forces in all souls. On this basis of the anthroposophical striving for soul development, there is no antagonism between old age and youth. The smear campaign by our opponents demands a counter-campaign that is conducted with objective clarity and vigorously pursued. The opposition that arose from Dr. Steiner's establishment of anthroposophical spiritual science would not have been of significant importance. It was only since the various enterprises were founded after 1919 that dangerous opposition arose. This latter type of opposition took up foolish assertions of former members and used them as a means to their intention of eliminating anthroposophy from the world. Thus an unscrupulous opposition managed to shower the person of Dr. Steiner with a flood of slander.

It is the task of the Anthroposophical Society, and especially of those who want to represent Anthroposophy in all fields, to vigorously counter these slanders in order to finally protect Dr. Steiner from such attacks in an effective way. Above all, it is important to vigorously combat defamations, such as those contained in the “Psychischen Studien” (Psychical Studies), which have then been uncritically circulated by almost all opponents, by characterizing and pillorying their authors.

In Munich, for instance, there was a man who was particularly troublesome to Dr. Steiner because of his fanatical devotion to him. He tried, for example, to kiss Dr. Steiner's hand at every opportunity. Later, out of wounded vanity, he became an equally fanatical opponent. All the other opponents drew from this source of filth. An example from the most recent past also sheds light on the character of our opponents. A private lecturer at a famous university tried to obtain unpublished material from us under the guise of scientific interest. At about the same time, he proved his manly courage by asking some of our members not to treat him in the polemic debate, as they did Prof. Drews, and thus ruin his career. The methods of many of these new opponents must also be exposed. They have tried to foist a distorted image of anthroposophy on their contemporaries, often abusing their official positions or scientific authority, and maliciously compiling numerous quotations from Dr. Steiner's books and lectures out of context. We must counter this distorted image with an accurate representation of the true nature of the anthroposophical spiritual heritage.

We owe it to anthroposophy that its representatives express an attitude of soul created by independent spiritual experience, which enables them to present anthroposophy in its full dignity in such a way that all human souls can find their way to it. Even the opponents' assertions, such as that supersensible knowledge about past human conditions has no significance for real life, are refuted simply by the way Anthroposophists themselves live when these insights are cultivated in the branch work and in individual life in such a way that it becomes apparent what they can give to people in terms of strengthening their personality and enlightening their existence. The knowledge of prenatal and post-mortal life will not be presented to people in abstract dogma if it becomes directly tangible as an ethical force. The revival of Christianity through the results of anthroposophical research will not be presented to people as a disputable assertion or an uncertain promise when it comes to them from the whole attitude of the anthroposophists themselves.

In view of the strength of the opposition, it is also imperative that all the living spiritual forces present in the Anthroposophical Society neither weaken through isolation nor wear themselves down in antagonism, but fully develop in free cooperation, and that the leadership of the Society should support everyone working in a truly anthroposophical spirit, to achieve the fullest possible effectiveness in the service of the common cause. A human relationship must develop among the individual anthroposophists. New flexible forms must be sought, so that the Anthroposophical Society can emerge from its isolation and self-isolation and become a versatile mediator of its spiritual wealth. Every leadership of the Society will have to be supported and at the same time kept flexible by a living organization of trusted individuals who will feel jointly responsible for the work as a whole.

What we have only outlined in this appeal from our sense of the new tasks for the Anthroposophical Society, we would like to present to a representative assembly for discussion. In view of the extraordinary significance of the decisions we have to make, we request the working groups in Germany to send such personalities, who are deeply committed to a re-organization of the Anthroposophical Society, to a conference to be held in Stuttgart from February 25 to 28.

Until the representatives' meeting, we signatories will form the leading trust body for the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. Stuttgart, February 13, 1923.

Jürgen v. Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Johanna Mücke, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth.

Dear Friends!

From the appeal that we hereby present to you, you will see the importance for the Anthroposophical Society of the delegates' assembly to be held from February 25 to 28, 1923. In this appeal, we also present those points of view that we consider to be the most important foundations for the deliberations. We may express the hope that if you now send the delegates of your confidence to this meeting, we will all be able to discuss and organize our affairs together in a fraternal spirit.

We would like to give you a completely free hand in the way you wish to appoint your delegates, including the number of delegates; in particular, we consider it a good thing if groups that carry out joint anthroposophical work within or outside the recognized working groups are also represented. In addition to the delegates, every member of the Anthroposophical Society is entitled to participate in the discussions. Please bring your delegate ID and membership cards. During the days of the conference, rooms will be available for free gatherings, group discussions, individual meetings, etc.

A detailed report of the conference will be provided.

We will try to provide free accommodation for a limited number of delegates at our local members. We therefore ask that the names of delegates who require this and any accommodation requests be sent to us by telegraph.

If any of the working groups should have financial difficulties in sending their delegates here, we ask to be notified quickly so that we can help out according to the available funds.

We request that all correspondence regarding the delegates' meeting be addressed to Mr. Jürgen von Grone, Stuttgart, Champignystr. 17, with the note “Delegates' Meeting”.

We would like to point out that this is an extremely urgent matter and request that you begin preparations for the determination of delegates as soon as possible.

With warmest anthroposophical greetings

Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Johanna Mücke, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth

Delegates' Assembly program

On Sunday, February 25, 1923, at 8 p.m., Landhausstraße 70

Meeting of delegates.

Further deliberations will take place at the Gustav Siegle House, Leonhardplatz, Stuttgart, on Monday, February 26, from 9:00 a.m. to noon,

from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. On Tuesday, February 27,

9 to 12 a.m. and 2½ to 4½ p.m. Wednesday, February 28, 9 to 12 a.m. and 2½ to 4½ p.m.

Tuesday, February 27, 5 p.m., Landhausstraße 70, performance of eurythmic art

under the direction of Mrs. Marie Steiner. The performance will be repeated on Wednesday, February 28th, at 5 p.m., at the same place.

Tuesday, February 27th, and Wednesday, February 28th, at 8 p.m. at the Gustav Siegle House, Leonhardsplatz.

Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

NB: On March 1, the prices of tickets are expected to rise again, but it can be assumed that tickets purchased on February 28 will again be valid for three days.