The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone wish to speak about the treasurer's report and the statement of accounts?

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to ask a question. So, this devaluation, which is calculated at 23,354.65 francs, is that an approximate equivalent or does it have a completely different context? We have always indicated the Swiss franc amounts corresponding to the German mark amounts, which is now a purely illusory thing. Is there now something that corresponds to the equivalent, or is there a different context?

Mr. Lupschewitz: The loans were originally valued at 123 per 100 marks. We have reduced all our mark amounts to 100, and that is why this exchange rate adjustment has been made.

Rudolf Steiner: Of course, but that is not what I mean. I mean whether the two items are equivalent to each other, whether they have a connection.

Mr. Englert: No, these 23,354.65 francs are the compensation because these loans were calculated at 123.

Mr. Lupschewitz: The conversion of this sum is already included in this amount.

Mr. Englert: The connection lies in the number 100.

Rudolf Steiner: Certainly, but I mean, if we don't have the francs 23,354.65 here in the balance account on the left side, we would have an illusory balance account because of these francs 23,354.65.

Mr. Englert: That is the balance of debit and credit.

Rudolf Steiner: The other thing I would have liked to ask is this: an account has been opened at the Munich branch, has it not? “The German marks in the account are a reserve for us for a later date under the current circumstances.” Are they not usable for the present, and can they not be redeemed at all?

Mr. Englert: Yes, but then we would have a valuta loss.

Rudolf Steiner: So legally it would be perfectly possible to transfer this account, and it is only because of the valuta loss?

Mr. Englert: Yes, up to 2,000 marks at a time. I was at a branch office in Berlin and that is where I was told.

Rudolf Steiner: I just wanted to say this so that the members are aware that this bank balance will remain in Munich for the time being, not because it is legally impossible to transfer it, but only because of the exchange rate.

Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, I will give the floor to the auditors.

[...]

Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone wish to speak about the chairpersons' report?

Rudolf Steiner: What I want to say, dear friends, is not to be understood as if I wanted to somehow supplement the reports of the esteemed chairperson or find them incomplete, but I just want to make a suggestion about something that has been on my mind for a long time. Anyone familiar with the research that is done on what has happened in such areas in the past and is still happening today, for example in our construction, knows how great the difficulties are for later analysts to get hold of some details and to establish the history correctly. I emphasize that, for example, even today it is not possible to state with complete certainty when Raphael moved from Florence to Rome. In the books, the dates vary between 1505 and 1508. But in such matters, one can get a little help from the future – and objectivity alone would require that.

I would like to suggest that in the reports that will be given at our general meetings and that will form the basis for the history of the building movement, the names of our loyal supporters should really be listed in detail, along with the movement of funds and other matters. Anyone who is aware of the endless labor that has gone into the great building work will actually consider it a matter of course that all the loyal contributors appear in the reports in the first place, with a description of their work and so on. Perhaps this will be of particular importance and significance under the current circumstances, quite apart from the fact that, in my opinion, objective reporting has to pay tribute to those who have done a truly invaluable and immeasurable amount of work to complete the group and our construction.

If, for example, it has been emphasized how hard we have worked on the group, I would like to stress that one thing must be kept in mind: this group could not have been created without the loyal cooperation of those who have dedicated their labor to the cause; it could not have been created at all, least of all under the present conditions. You know how often I was unable to be here on the spot, and how much work had to be done without me being able to be there in any way. The sentence, for example, that Raphael would of course be Raphael even without hands is a very beautiful paradox, but I would ask you to consider more carefully whether we would have any paintings by Raphael if Raphael had been born without hands. Likewise, I ask you to consider more carefully how much of the entire structure would be there, despite all the ideas and so on, if we did not have such a large number of loyal, dedicated employees, truly dedicated not only with their physical labor, but dedicated with their whole soul, their powers of invention and their entire artistry.

My dear friends, we have much to complain about, especially in view of the actions undertaken by some members against our society and our movement. This may also seem paradoxical, but it is not without connection to the fact that it is compensation for some things that are somewhat lacking in our movement. And that is: in our movement, we do not understand how to be grateful enough for achievements; we do not understand enough how to recognize the achievements of others. And if we want to improve the karma that brings us such strange, irresponsible, even unbelievable opposition from our own members, then a great deal can be done to improve it if we understand how to be truly grateful for such loyal service to the movement. I ask the chairpersons not to take this as a criticism of their reports, but only as a suggestion that I would like to make. I would very much like to see an appreciation of the loyal service of our members included in our reports.

Following the discussion of Mieta Weller's motion to rename the Johannesbau at the Goetheanum:

Emil Grosheintz: According to our statutes, we cannot make a decision today; we can only express our views, we can only explore whether it is desirable at all to change the name, and if so, when it could be changed. Or perhaps someone would like to suggest a different name? After all, Goethe used the name “Humanus” in his secrets. Could we not tie in with this name?

Albrecht Wilhelm Sellin: Dear friends, this is also new for us who are present here. Those out there in the branches don't know anything about it yet. But it seems to me that it would be more considerate to first spread the word in the branches about what has been discussed here, namely that we intend to call our building the “Goetheanum”. If we were to take a decision now, we would be presenting the members outside with a fait accompli. I therefore propose that we do not take a decision until next year and in the meantime work in the branches to prepare the understanding for this decision.

Rudolf Steiner: There is certainly no need to rush into a decision right away. And besides, it would be desirable for statutory matters not to play too great a role in such things, so that it is not something regulated that plays into these things, but the living life. You see, my dear friends, a decision would be extremely difficult today anyway and, under the current circumstances, would have to be very one-sided, because it seems to me that if the decision were taken today, a large number of members would not be able to vote. Under the present circumstances, only the members of neutral countries and the Entente powers could vote today; the German members would, of course, be excluded. A very one-sided decision would have to be taken, would it not? But it is not a matter of taking a decision, but rather of knowing whether you really want to accommodate the intention that I have expressed in the last few days in the public lecture, which is my subjective intention, my subjective conviction, because I never express anything other than my intention, than my conviction. If one wants to accommodate this, then it will be more a matter of making this thing popular so that it becomes established.

This corresponds more to the sphere from which this suggestion comes – if one wants to call it a suggestion, because, isn't it true that Goethe, in addition to being international, is also a German, and that is very important under the current circumstances. And, isn't it true that one might also say that one makes such a proposal not out of German chauvinism – which has to do not with attitude but with origin – but out of German spirituality. And here I must confess that when one really says something like that out of the German temperament, it is already linked to a certain quality in the German that is less well known. The true German character is an enemy of all organization, an enemy of all organization, an enemy of all regimentation, because [true] Germanness does not correspond to regimentation, to the ubiquitous drawing up of statutes and so on. I consider the existence of statutes, of statutory matters, to be a necessary evil in relation to the outside world, but as a curse on any social activity, which must be based on living together. And this is actually the German view, because to say that the German is based on regimentation, on organization and so on, is one of the most incredible defamations of the German character, which in reality is based in its depths on precisely the opposite qualities.

Therefore, I personally do not really care whether the statutes, which after all are not made for us but for the external representation of the matter, state the name “Johannes-Bau” or “ABC-Bau” or “Goethe-Bau” or any other name. I believe that what matters is how we see things and what we are able to do for ourselves and for the cause, not for the statutory, in order to make it popular in this way in the world.

Have we not unfortunately always distinguished these two things far too little, kept them far too little apart? The anthroposophical movement only gains in significance when it is based on living activity, on direct living activity. My dear friends, it makes no difference to the anthroposophical movement whether it has these or those statutes, whether it bears this or that name, but it is of the utmost greatest conceivable value for the anthroposophical movement if it has valuable members who, with full hearts and full understanding, intervene wherever they can, wherever it is in their power and karma, in the current cultural currents. Our movement is actually based on the human personality of our members. And that is what must be taken into account: that everyone carries the matter in their hearts, regardless of what name it has. There are difficulties associated with changing the name “Johannesbau” and difficulties associated with keeping it.

Unfortunately, not all of our members have a clear idea of the difficulties that will arise for the anthroposophical movement in the near future and how they will manifest in all their details. There are certainly difficulties such as those mentioned by Mademoiselle Payen. On the other hand, powerful difficulties will certainly arise if we retain the name “Johannesbau”, if only for the simple reason that in the near future - I am only drawing attention to one point among many - it may be very important to have a name that does not cause any misunderstandings in public. The name “Johannesbau” not only gives rise to the misunderstanding that it takes its name from Johannes the Baptist, Johannes the Evangelist or even Johannes Thomasius; above all, a large number of people associate the name “Johannesbau” with the Freemasonry of Johannes. And the fact that we differ from St. John Freemasonry and have nothing to do with it may, under certain circumstances, be something that has great significance for the near future, especially in the current war conditions. The things that are developing out of our present cultural porridge and cultural chaos will play a much greater role than one might think. Of course, some difficulties may arise if the misunderstanding persists that some kind of offshoot of St. John's Freemasonry has been established on this Dornach hill, which is not the case given the nature of our movement.

All these things are only intended to show that difficulties will arise whether we leave the name or change it. Much is being done to keep our cause out of misunderstanding, if such things do not recur as I had to fight against four years ago in a way that was so unpleasant and unappealing to me. At that time, articles about our, as it was called there, “temple building” came from a certain quarter and were published in the entire European press. The tendency to create misunderstanding after misunderstanding, to press the whole thing into a sectarian hustle and bustle - unconsciously, of course, with the best will in the world - this tendency, which was the basis of those articles at the time and which I had to fight hard, this tendency must not be repeated. If at that time the action against these things had found more support - of course all this should have been done in a friendly way - that would have been very good. It was very unfortunate that at that time these things about the 'Dornach Temple' and so on went around the whole world.

So, what we can do personally to put things in their proper perspective, to give everyone a clear idea, that is what we should do. But this has by no means happened everywhere in our circles, because there were really quite different tendencies in many cases. How often I had to say – which I don't really like – that someone here or there represents something with which I strongly disagree, but which he says I myself would have said. These things are related to a certain trait in the members: they want to represent something, but not take responsibility for it.

Our task should be to create clarity. Perhaps the whole thing can be brought to a favorable conclusion if we do not focus, as if hypnotized, on bringing about a change of statutes and name, but rather concentrate on creating clarity personally in all areas and, above all, on putting this fact into the proper perspective, namely that it really corresponds to the matter when we speak of the “Goetheanum”. This occurred in the most unbiased way, for example, in the report of our dear and esteemed Mr. Sellin, in which the name 'Goetheanum' appeared [as a matter of course]. And if this wish is not forgotten the day after tomorrow, but if we work in this direction, we will serve the cause much better than if we were to make a decision right now. Otherwise, we will only provoke one person saying 'Johannesbau' and another saying 'Goetheanum', while a third person will think: 'Yes, I no longer know what the name actually is, one person says one thing and another says another. It will be much more useful if we imprint the matter into life than if we organize and regulate it, which would not be in Goethe's sense at all, but if we try to bring it to life.

I think that is how it was actually meant, what has been suggested here, otherwise it would be really difficult to find the right thing today. For it is also a matter of tact as to who can vote and who cannot, because the different regions of the world naturally have very different views and feelings about these things. I imagine, for example – and I do not wish to offend anyone – that if a Goethe Society did not yet exist in the British Isles and one were founded there today, it would perhaps not find too many members. But if a Shakespeare Society were founded in Germany today – it is already there, of course – it would have no end of work filling its membership lists, because people in Central Europe today would join a Shakespeare Society in huge numbers.

Of course, there are different feelings and opinions about such things, and stirring up these wasps' nests naturally causes all sorts of difficulties. That's just the way it is. But, as I said, if a Shakespeare Society were established in Germany today, it would be very popular and would find numerous supporters. But it no longer needs to be founded, because it has been in existence for decades.

Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone else wish to say something about this matter? In any case, we have come so far today that no one should be prevented from donating a “Goetheanum” in our “Johannesbau”. If no one else wishes to speak on this matter, I would like to ask if anything else needs to be said under “Miscellaneous”. If this is not the case, I declare today's meeting closed and ask Dr. Steiner to say a few words.

Rudolf Steiner: It has been requested that I say a few words about the purpose of the group, which has been mentioned in the various reports.

Perhaps the best way to understand the thoughts that express the meaning of this group and, ultimately, the meaning of our entire structure, is to continue the train of thought that I expressed just last Monday in connection with the artistic development of Europe in the period of transition from the fourth to the fifth post-Atlantic era. The aim has been to carry out this construction in such a way that it presents a unified whole in all its parts and components. And if one disregards the fact that this unity has been somewhat compromised by the history of the building, then one will be able to see this unity when it is finished, and also notice that this unity has been somewhat compromised by the vicissitudes that have taken place around the building. This is also something that should of course be made a little more popular by our members.

You have to remember: the building was originally supposed to be constructed in Munich. As it was conceived in Munich, the idea was that it should be built in a city, among other building complexes and the like. Of course, it was out of the question to connect such a building idea with current architectural styles and forms. Therefore, it was necessary at the time to think of the building primarily in terms of interior design, and to make it as simple as possible on the outside, inconspicuous. I often said during the Munich period, when the building was still conceived in Munich – of course such things are paradoxical, but it does not matter – that I would have liked most of all to see the building in its basic idea as interior architecture after entering through the gate, and if it appeared as a hill on the outside, covered with grass, so that you could walk over it; on the outside you would only have a hill, you would not see anything at all, and inside you would only have interior architecture. This was, of course, not feasible, if only for the reason that one cannot allow something hidden to become overgrown with grass, and because of the effects of the weather, of course. And so attempts were made to do it in a somewhat modified way, in that they wanted to place the building in the middle of the terrain and erect tall apartment buildings around it, so that actually nothing of the building would have been seen from the street, from the surrounding area, in terms of the external architecture.

As I said, this and many other related aspects were justified at the time when it was intended to erect the building in the middle of a city. When the necessity arose to transfer the building to Dornach, to erect it as a building on a hill that can be seen from afar, it was necessary to at least create some kind of exterior architecture for the interior architecture. For now the building was visible from all sides; now it was necessary to demand that the building be in harmony with the landscape in a certain sense.

Our members at that time naturally had a tendency, in the most commendable way, to stage the matter as quickly as possible. Rethinking the idea of interior design in such a way that there would now be complete unity between interior design and exterior design was not possible at that speed. Therefore, the original interior design concept remained essentially unchanged, and the exterior architecture was then designed around it. Of course, if you look at the building with an artistic eye, you can see this today, and it must be emphasized that the unified concept is compromised as a result.

However, it is always good to make it clear to people who approach this building with an artistic mind that it is intended to provide a starting point, that we do not intend for this building to represent the completion of some kind of idea. A suggestion should be given. If later times express in similar buildings what was inaugurated here in terms of architectural style – perhaps the expression is not correct – but rather in terms of building forms and building ideas, then of course some things will appear infinitely more perfect than they could ever be in the first attempt. In this respect, of course, the unity has not been fully expressed; but one can already see the intention; because it has of course been tried later, with various difficulties, to maintain the unity in some way.

If it is said that the group is in a sense a kind of crowning of the whole structure, then that is absolutely right. Only one must bear in mind that precisely in the design of this group the whole basic impulse of our movement comes into consideration, that therefore precisely in this group everything traditional, everything merely historical must take a back seat to the future-oriented, inspiring. Those who wish to give a group the name of a Christ-Group must do so out of their own personal conviction, if the matter makes an impression on them, so that they can address the central figure as Christ. Here too, it is not good to set anything in stone from the outset.

What one encounters at first is the representative of humanity, the all-spiritual, internalized humanity. Of course, some will immediately associate this internalized humanity with the Christ presence. They will be right. But to stigmatize again, to call the group the Christ group and the like, that will not be good. Leave it to each person who wants to interpret this group, who looks at it, to decide what name to give it. The works of art are always the less good ones that need names to make them clear. A work of art must speak for itself. This work of art should also – it is quite paradoxical for me to say this, of course it cannot be, but it is good for characterization if I say it – this work of art should also have an effect if the history of Christianity were not there, if one did not know it through history, only through what is placed in the room. As a work of art, it must have an effect. It must speak for itself. Any interpretation is already a mistake.

Therefore, of course, all traditional Christ physiognomies and the like had to be avoided, which have changed a lot over time - I have often spoken about this in lectures. Above all, one thing had to be taken into account for the whole group, which is closely related to the impulse of our movement. The representations of Christ have increasingly taken on a form that places Christ in the midst of the physical hustle and bustle of people. Especially in recent times, in the age of naturalism and materialism, it has been welcomed everywhere as appealing to bring Christ as close as possible to humanity. “Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest": People are sitting around the table, Jesus enters as a human being among humans, distinguishing himself as little as possible! After all, this is what theology strives for: the ‘simple man from Nazareth’ who has as little of the divine as possible. For the divine disturbs people of the present.

In the case of our figure, the exact opposite had to be aimed for in the representative of humanity. We are dealing with something that takes place purely in the spiritual. We are dealing with the representative of humanity's struggle with Ahriman and Lucifer, with something that is deeply rooted in human existence, and that is therefore going in the opposite direction to what is currently popular. The times we live in are characterized by a desire to reduce everything to naturalism, to the immediacy of everyday life! In keeping with the impulses of the anthroposophical movement, we had to get as far away as possible from the sympathies of the present day, we had to embody a narrative, an action, an event that completely eludes external sensory observation, and we had to do it in sculpture. It would have been impossible to try it with a material other than wood. For some truly secret and mysterious reasons, the spiritual and soul-like can best be shaped in wood, can best be expressed in wood. And what might have to be considered rules for sculpture, as it is often done today, had to be broken, had to be replaced by something else when creating this group.

Figures such as Ahriman and Lucifer, and to a certain extent the figure in the middle, must be created from within, from the self-creative spiritual-soul, disregarding any model in the usual sense of the word.

But this is the hope for art in general. Because enough models have already been created. And the fact that contemporary art repeatedly goes back to models is precisely what makes it dead. I have already explained in my considerations that the Greeks did not rely on models, but created from other sources. Creating from a model is only a transition, an intermediate state of artistic development. And so, with this group in particular, a start had to be made on creating out of living spirituality itself, overcoming everything naturalistic.

Perhaps these things contain some of the main values of this group's attempt. But this is the case with the whole building. If you consider that the whole idea of building is based on something opposite to what has been valid so far in building ideas, you will have a basis for what you as members of the anthroposophical movement should actually popularize in relation to this building.

You see, I have expressed this wish today out of a truly heartfelt desire to take into account the achievements of the individual contributors to the artistic works, because in the work, in which positions were available for the work on this building, a great deal of selflessness was really necessary, and it was most necessary for the artists. In a sense, everyone who provided their labor had to make sacrifices in relation to everything else that is demanded of them, for example, when they work as artists or otherwise in the external world.

Take just one thing: every building from the architectural point of view that has been valid until now is based on the fact that an interior space has walls and these walls close it off. This enclosure, whether in ancient times the image of a god or the god himself was enclosed in the temple, or in the Middle Ages the community was enclosed in the Gothic building, it was all based on enclosure, on the concept of the wall as an enclosure, as a covering to the inside, to cover the space. For us, of course, only when you are inside the room, the opposite is the case: for us, the walls, with everything that is sculpturally and architecturally intended for these walls, do not give a conclusion, but a self-abolition. So that when you are inside, you get the feeling through the walls of being connected to infinity, not closed off from the outside by a wall, but of being continued into infinity through the wall. The wall cancels itself out; the wall destroys itself in itself through its forms.

Once you understand this, in the forms, then you will know what the building idea actually rests on in this case. It is the opposite of how such building ideas were before. It will also be possible for other buildings. If you look at the basic forms of the house Duldeck, you will see that once it is inhabited, it will also give a feeling of merging with the world, of striving out of being locked up, out of being closed off.

Our principles are not at all in line with certain aspects of the most immediate present. The experiences of the immediate present are very much taken from the past.

Not true, you couldn't even see through the old walls with your eye, with an “eye pass” through the old walls, you just had to stop at the “border” with your eye. Such were the forms, everything that was appropriate. Well, that is common practice today, isn't it: people seal themselves off from each other. Naturally, our movement cannot agree with these things; it breaks through everything through the form itself. It does not stop the eye, but if you understand the forms that are on the building, you will see everywhere: you can imagine such a form where it is, but you can just as easily imagine it fifty miles further on, only it may be a little larger in perspective, you can imagine it in outer space. When you place it in outer space, you can suddenly get the thought: It grows and grows and actually only stops growing at the firmament, and starts there in the appropriate size. The forms do not prevent you from using them as you like to fill the macrocosm, to fill the universe. That is how the forms are conceived. And so, of course, everything is placed in these forms.

If you look closely at the glass windows, you will see that they already express this interweaving with the world. This is because the glass windows, as they stand, are not finished in themselves by their material, nor by what the artist has done to them, but the artist has created in a confederation, in the confederation with the sun! The sun must come and shine through, then the work of art is finally complete. The artist and the sun together do what actually makes an impression on us in the glass windows! There you see how the sun is invoked through every single form, how one creates together with sunlight, how one truly regards light as one's ally.

Look at the dome paintings. All these dome paintings do not have the tendency to respect the space on which they are painted, but they have independent,

macrocosmic entities. And selflessness on the part of the artists was present because something completely new was considered. These figures had to shine from within, by their own light. While one is accustomed to reproducing the striking light, which is then reflected, in the picture, here the auric self-illumination had to be envisaged, which is again something that contemporary art does not consider to be its task at all. For example, for today's painter, it is not the human being who glows aurically, but sunlight falls on him, reflects him, and he paints the reflected sunlight. The model human being is always only the opportunity to paint this reflected sunlight. We paint the glow of the human being from within, and the connection of this glow with the movements of light, with the light impulses of the cosmos.

Hence the endeavour to make the things that occur on the human being in terms of lighting effects and so on grow together with what is in the environment. The light approaches the human being and forms his hair, as was really the case during the solar age. For the hair has not grown out of the human being, but into it – I have often explained this – it is actually crystallized sunbeams that have been placed into it. All these secrets of the world are, of course, not to be expressed dogmatically or scientifically, but in a lively, artistic way, as attempts to be carried out in art. And so it is really intended in all its details in this middle group.

The difficulties that the individual artists had to take on are truly enormous. For example, on the one hand we needed to realize the principle of painting with plant-based colors. Now, one can certainly say that it would, of course, be much easier to achieve certain effects if one could paint with traditional painting materials and colors. Many things cannot be expressed in this way because the preparation of the colors is not yet as advanced as it should be. One must selflessly accept the challenge of painting worse than one could actually paint. It does not only depend on how well one paints or can paint, but on how far our means have been developed, and so on.

So these things just prove the tremendous debt of gratitude one has towards those who have worked with us, who have really put their art and skill at the service of this cause, who have necessarily had to compromise themselves for the outside world, because the outside world does not recognize such things from the outset.

What I hope for most of all from the Christ Group, though I also hope for the whole building, is that it is seen as a first attempt. It was intended to be made in different wooden forms and types of wood, but because of the war we could only make it in one type of wood. I hope that people will see this group of Christ sculptures as a first attempt to artistically depict spiritual realities and to create such things on a larger scale in all their aspects. If they can provide any kind of artistic inspiration in this direction, then they will have done the world a service, quite apart from the contribution they are intended to make to the Bauhaus.

I believe that when this group is installed in the building, some artistic prejudices will have to be abandoned, which are still perfectly understandable and comprehensible today in view of this sculpture, because after all it is not what one imagines a work of art must be. But of course in earlier times people also did not imagine what later artistic forms of creation in the course of human development would become.

With these few words, I would like to conclude today's meeting on behalf of our esteemed board. There would, of course, be much more to say about this group, but we can postpone that until a later occasion.

Regarding the renaming of the Johannesbau Association to mark the renaming of the Johannesbau as the “Goetheanum”

von Heydebrandt: But the word “Association...”

Rudolf Steiner: But that is only for the philistines. Why shouldn't it be? Those who are inside have the matter.

It is voted on: “Association of the Goetheanum, the Free University for Spiritual Science” with one abstention. No one spoke in favor of the other proposal [“Association of the University for Spiritual Science Goetheanum”].

Albrecht Wilhelm Sellin: Dear friends! Just as in the previous year, we auditors, Günther Wagner and I, have to confirm that the books have been kept with great clarity and transparency this year as well, so that we were able to check the individual items in a quick and thorough manner. We did not find any difficulties in doing so and can only express what I would now like to read to you about our actual findings regarding the cash situation.

Martin Lupschewitz: There is no other way to do it!

Albrecht Wilhelm Sellin: There is no other way to do it!

Martin Lupschewitz: It has happened because we are not a commercial company in the true sense of the word. So it serves no purpose for us to always enter the marks according to the actual exchange rate; that would always result in a back and forth.

Albrecht Wilhelm Sellin: Yes, but...

Albrecht Wilhelm Sellin: So I have the following report to make: “The undersigned have examined the accounting and cash management and found them to be in order. The balances from the last annual accounts have been correctly carried forward to the new accounts. The cash balance for June 30, 1918, as shown in the cash book, was found to be correct during the cash audit. The securities portfolio tallies with the amount stated in the balance sheet, as does the total of the individual bank accounts. All other accounts have also been checked and found to be correct. On this basis, the undersigned propose the discharge of the accounting and cash management and sign: Günther Wagner. Sellin.”

After the welcoming address by the chairman, the report on the technical work, the statement of accounts and an exchange of views between the members, Dr. Steiner takes the floor.

Now, if no one else wishes to speak, I would just like to add a few aphoristic comments in connection with the meeting of the Goetheanum Association.

I would like to touch on the moral side of our cause. First of all, following on from what has been said, I would like to emphasize that those who see it as their task to work on the completion of the Goetheanum are, as is basically self-evident, also of gratitude to the leading personalities of the Executive Council, who for many years have devoted themselves to the task in often quite difficult circumstances, providing the foundation for the entire undertaking with their personalities and their work. I believe that it is not always considered what it means that here, for example, in Dr. Grosheintz himself and all that belongs to him, we have a personality who, already connected with the area on which the Johannesbau stands, , has become connected with the idea of creating the Johannesbau here, which then transformed into the Goetheanum, and which has devoted itself to this work in such a self-sacrificing way for many years, which must stand behind everything. And so I would like to express my gratitude to him and to all those who, in a similar way to him, selflessly devote their strength and time to this work in a board-related and connected way, and to express my thanks to them, which certainly comes from all of your hearts. Above all, I would like to emphasize the hope that we can continue to find such noble and understanding support from this quarter in particular. [Applause]

When our artistic work here is discussed, it would always be of particular importance not to lose sight of the way in which the artistic work of the Goetheanum in particular is to relate to the world today. Whenever I have the opportunity to guide any outside visitors through the building, I repeat over and over again, almost at every point where something is said and explained to people, that with regard to everything that is artistically and otherwise considered for the building, it is first and foremost a transition, an intention that should be thought of as a continuation.

It is particularly important that we see ourselves as a beginning for many things related to our movement. It is also particularly important to always teach the world, which is so hard of hearing today, so that judgments can be formed from this point of view about this Goetheanum and everything related to it.

Our spiritual scientific endeavor is itself a beginning. And if this is misunderstood, false judgments will be formed in the world over and over again. Therefore, it is important to me that this be emphasized in all its details: It is intention, beginning, and the intentions that are to find further expression and independent development in the world that matters. I tried to somehow represent this in every detail.

I would like to mention one of the last details, one of the details that unfortunately came to grief. When we were in the very satisfactory position of being able to organize a public eurythmy performance in Zurich, the question arose as to whether — well, how should I put it, it's always on the tip of my tongue, to say something disrespectful — for the philistines who were to be invited, introductory words that could then be printed. And I also wanted to emphasize for this matter of eurythmy, which will certainly be extraordinarily important for the world one day, that with what is now to be presented to the public, one has a beginning, an intention, which is to be worked out, which is to undergo its development, which is to progress. Criticism of beginnings can only be directed in this direction if we always remain aware that they are beginnings.

And so I believe that much of the gossip that is spread about our movement could be replaced if our dear friends were to thoroughly impress upon the world, which is so hard of hearing today, that we are not at all foolish enough to bring anything even remotely perfect into the world in any direction, but that we just want to give a start, something that is an intention, which is not at all regarded by us as something perfect. In more recent times, as I said, when I have the opportunity to show people around, I repeatedly emphasize that now that the matter has progressed so far, I recognize the errors most precisely, and that a second time such a building is erected, it would not be done as it has been done now, and as it must now, of course, be continued accordingly, since one cannot build on top of each other contradictory things.

Above all, however, something else is also necessary in connection with this. Isn't it true that I must emphasize it again and again, because it should lead to the understanding that is to be conveyed, on the one hand, by the members of the Anthroposophical Society, but, on the other hand, by all those friends who are interested in the building. The point is that the inner structure of the building, the artistic inner structure of the building, in a certain respect – why should we not speak quite freely when we are among ourselves? – that the artistic structure could actually only be brought to the stage it has reached today through a kind of struggle.

We must not forget that, due to a peculiar karma, which I will perhaps talk about in these days, the Anthroposophical Society — not Anthroposophy, but the Anthroposophical Society — grew out of the Theosophical Society. Time and again during the years when we were still a “Theosophical Society”, artists made certain objections to the Society, and I emphasize that I still value their judgment particularly valuable to me now, for the reason that artists themselves are only in a few cases, let me say – I want to be polite for once – in a few cases, completely seized by the general philistinism, philistrosity of the world.

The artist, in so far as he is an artist, always retains – I won't say anything about in so far as he is a human being – he always retains something of a certain still freer judgment, which is now one of the rarities in the world. And so it may be said that especially in the last decades of the 19th century and in what has passed so far in the 20th century, in an age of the most widespread philistinism with regard to public judgment in all areas, he has already developed a somewhat – or much – freer, more independent judgment that is more closely related to the intellectual. This still existed in the world of artists. And in the artistic field there are still phenomena of a literary, scientific or critical nature that one likes to follow; while even the most proficient work in the technical, especially the scientific, field, which one must of course recognize as a great achievement of the time, is almost enough to make one sick to death of it, due to the way in which it presents itself to the world in a philistine manner. Because even the most accomplished work in these fields, what must necessarily be accomplished in these fields, in the fields of science and technology, is presented to the world in such a philistine way, in such a way of thinking, that it can really get on one's nerves if one is forced to follow it.

It is different with regard to much of what comes from the world of art. It is connected with this that it has always pained me when, during the years of our affiliation with the Theosophical Society, artists repeatedly and repeatedly tried, sometimes with great goodwill, to look at what was hanging on the walls as such stuff, not true, such huge rose crosses with the correct seven roses, where the question was always: How should these roses be attached? How should one do this and that? What is the right symbolism? and so on. When they had looked at these things and seen what had actually been achieved, artistic natures naturally always came and said: Yes, of course, one cannot object to this spiritual movement of Theosophy, one is interested in it; but one is so taken aback when such artistic Botokudentum prevails precisely within the Theosophical Society. And of course it was painful, because I was the last person who could be inclined to contradict such a judgment. Because such a judgment was entirely justified in the broadest sense with regard to the artistic impulses that lived in the Theosophists.

Of course, it was only possible to fight against it – not theoretically, not through teaching, since you can't achieve anything in these areas through teaching – but slowly and gradually. Of course, we could only achieve something by having truly artistic natures in our midst. I need only think of one personality who must be remembered again and again, who must remain unforgettable for all those things that have been and are being undertaken as vital things in certain areas within our movement. I need only remind you of Fräulein Stinde, but I could also remind you of others. I will only say that by combining what was there from the artistic side, it was possible to take up the fight against all the symbolizing, all the abstract, idealistic stuff in the shaping of our things. And of course, today there is still the need to turn against it when people come again and again and ask: What does that mean? What does this mean? In the sense in which people ask, “What does this mean?” nothing means anything to us! What matters at the Goetheanum – even if it is only a beginning and a rather incomplete one – is to really bring something into the world that is truly artistic in color, form, and so on.

What matters is not where artistic feeling is concerned. I say it again and again, and when people come and see our [sculptural] group over there [under construction], that at the center stands the Christ, and above is Lucifer and below is Ahriman. That is a private feeling, and basically has nothing to do with the artistic feeling and the whole work. Of course, it can be seen as a discussion drawn from the artistic to further explain the matter itself; but it has nothing to do with the matter as a work of art. The line that was added to express the falling Lucifer, the line that breaks away in its harmony with the whole structure in its organism, is infinitely more meaningful than the artistically actually boring explanation: This is Lucifer, this is Ahriman, and so on and so on. What is important is a line that goes from right to left and is felt as a line!

I could, of course, go on in this direction for a long time and draw attention to many things that actually occur in the assessment of these things, but I do not want to put anyone off. Of course, everything is heard with love, no matter what is said, even if it happens that someone holds the raised hand of Ahriman over his head because he thinks Ahriman is a snake and so on: that is even in some circumstances quite interesting in itself; but it does show that with regard to what is actually to be achieved here through the building, there is a lot to be done. And what it comes down to is – I have expressed it for one area in my first mystery drama, for example, that the form of the color is the work and so on.

Of course, saying such things has no particular value, but it does have value if the opportunity is really given to implement such things in reality, in fact.

But that is what I would like to emphasize. I have actually had a great deal of experience in this field, not only in the artistic field, but also, for example, in the field of individual scientific achievements. My aim has always been to introduce spiritual science, but as a living force, not as something dead, into the various branches of life.

If you express any spiritual-scientific idea in an external form, you kill the idea. What is at stake is that, through the intensity of spiritual-scientific inner attainments, one becomes a different person who, in relation to everything in him, learns to feel differently than one can learn anywhere else today. Then, in the particular field in which he is working, he abandons himself to the impulse that has been placed within him, and a different art arises from the roots of spiritual science, but always indirectly through the human soul, so on the detour through the human soul, that all the idealism of spiritual science first disappears, is transformed in the human soul and only in the transformation does art become art. If you still see any forms that are created, anything of what must be given as an idea in spiritual science, then it is artistic nonsense, it is not real art.

That is what I would like to emphasize. And that is why my ideal in this area would be – as I said, I want to emphasize the moral side of our meeting today – my ideal would be if, by everyone reflecting on: What is intended here? What has not been achieved? How could we achieve what we actually want? if, above all, there were a truly fruitful effect on artistic judgment, if there were a real intention to educate oneself artistically through what this Goetheanum wants. This is something that has so far been rejected by the minds of many of our friends — my dear friends, I have to say it. And there is a danger that people will ask: Why are there seven pillars, why exactly seven pillars? And so on. All of this should really be secondary to how one should feel. And then one must also feel the initial intention behind it.

My dear friends, what our very dear Mr. Linde said about my contribution to the small dome is not something I myself value particularly highly, and I also stand by the fact that it is quite a beginning, a beginning that is a bit of picturesque scribble, but a beginning that may perhaps show what is actually wanted, perhaps better in this than in anything else. And I may well make the confession to you that I would perhaps achieve what I want if I were not fifty-eight years old today, but if I could still learn for thirty-five years, in order to then carry out approximately what I would like to carry out and what I would like to see in the small dome. This will also make it clear to you that I myself do not have such an enormous desire to do something in the great dome either.

Of course, I will do whatever is desirable in the given case for each individual part of the building, whatever I consider to be my duty, and I will lend a hand wherever possible. But I also want everyone to know how I myself think about these things, which I view with a fair amount of modesty on the one hand, but on the other hand with a bit of immodesty: because I do believe that what could be achieved by people after a long period of independent work, after a long time when we ourselves can no longer be there, in a way that is fruitful for the future, as intended by this building, inaugurated, initiated. So that one could get a great deal out of what is wanted here, if one understood it in precisely this way. Whether there are external possibilities to intervene in the large dome as well, depends on powers that I am not inclined to call the wise world powers, but which currently force one to live from day to day, in whose goings-on – well, I just don't call them the wise world powers – in whose goings-on one cannot intervene so directly. I will, of course, do everything I can to be on site as much as possible; but one cannot even know whether one might not be prevented from doing so in the coming weeks due to current events and have to be absent for a while. Well, somehow it may be possible that the dawn of a new era will bring greater freedom here as well. But for the time being, precisely for this reason, one cannot say anything particularly definite. I can only say that I will do everything that is necessary to make this building what it should be and what it can become after what has been started.

Then I would like to say a few words about the trust company, which I welcome with such great joy, my dear friends. The first thought of this trust company occurred to me through a conversation that Mr. Molt, on his own initiative, had with me in Stuttgart at the beginning of this year. I do not need to share the content of this conversation with you, because the content was then practically included in the actual reasoning of the trust and in what has been shared with you today. I will just say that at the time I welcomed the establishment of this trust with tremendous satisfaction, for the following reason.

Please understand me correctly, my dear friends. I welcome it with deep joy when there are many idealists and spiritualists in the best sense of the word within our society – even if many of them are quite impractical people who do not always carry so-called practice, especially not business practice, on their noses – when there are many people within this society who get their intentions from a certain idealistic point of view. But if you just look at this financial account, you will understand that the Johannesbau, which has now become the “Goetheanum”, is something that also requires quite a strong intervention of practical impulses. Our friends who initially turned to the Johannesbau out of their idealism cannot always bear this in mind. And I would be the very last person to want to introduce even the slightest discord into the very deep, honest gratitude that I feel for those who, as I said at the beginning of my words, have dedicated themselves to the Johannesbau in the background, so to speak, in the role of directors.

However, my dear friends, the progress of the work over the years has shown that the intervention of a certain practice is necessary. It is so difficult to bring together idealism and practice in an individual. As I said, I don't want to introduce the slightest discordant note. But the esteemed and dear chairmanship will not take it amiss if I now, for example, mention a small but truly kindly intended damper that I felt during the meeting. This does not in any way affect my deep, honest gratitude. But isn't it true that I, who am accustomed to seeing meetings go in the way they should, winced inwardly at the failure to touch on the very first necessary point on the agenda and to request that the minutes of the previous general assembly be read or at least that a vote be taken on whether or not they should be read. These formalities must not be omitted. And so there are many things that must be considered. Right? You have to be a stickler at the right moments, and you won't hold it against me if I say such things. It's just a personal problem, and it really doesn't do any harm in practice today. But that's the way it is with these and other things.

Well, my dear friends, in February of this year, the idea of the trust company approached me, and I will now tell you quite frankly why I welcomed it with particular joy. You see, all that is said there, interest on loans and so on, is certainly very nice, but that actually goes without saying when you set up a trust company; what else could you do if you didn't do that? But that is not what impressed me about the idea of the trust company back then, my dear friends. I believe that it will be realized and could perhaps be particularly important for our time. What was important to me was that precisely those personalities in our society who are somehow involved in the rest of the world, who are involved in it through one or other social aspect, should come together under a certain aspect.

A cause such as ours, when it is as tangible to the world as the Johannesbau, can only flourish if the members do not just pursue it in the way that many do. I am not criticizing them, that's just the way it is; they are members of the Anthroposophical Society or the Johannesbau Association in secret, so to speak, but they don't want it to be known, do they? I believe that there are some who even like to come to the lectures of the Anthroposophical Society, but are very reluctant to have it known at their bank office that they are members, and so on. Well, there are such things. But you can't get anywhere with that. Of course you can have an ideal society, but you won't get anywhere with it if you want to create something like the Goetheanum, which has to be run in a business-like manner. You can only make progress if the personalities who belong to it also really make use of the other social affinities they have in the outside world, in other words, if someone is this or that, they use the respect they have in their circle to create a foundation, a real foundation, for what is to be created there for the good of humanity.

So I welcomed the trust company as a collaboration between personalities who have a position in the rest of the world and who use this position in the interest of the Goetheanum. Therefore, my dear friends, it was immediately plausible to me that the name “Goetheanum” emerged precisely in connection with our society. There will be many idealists in our Society who do not like the fact that the beautiful biblical name, or whatever it is, 'Johannesbau' is being changed to the name 'Goetheanum'. But, my dear friends, everyone can carry in their hearts what is actually being achieved here for humanity. The matter is to be presented to the world in such a way that the world understands it as simply as possible. And to attach importance to something happening differently, so that the world understands it, I think that is very damaging to our cause. Therefore, it was quite right for the trust company to say to itself: if we call ourselves 'Johannesbau', everyone thinks: well, that's just something, well, 'something'! And if we call ourselves “Goetheanum”, then that connects with something [recognized], and those people who would say about “Johannesbau”: well, that's just “something”, would at least be embarrassed not to acknowledge Goethe.

I am certainly not overestimating our contemporaneity, because, after all, they may well think of the “Goetheanum” as “something” in their hearts, but then they feel a little embarrassed. And we also have to be aware of such impulses from our revered contemporaries. All kinds of things come together. As for why one should say 'Goetheanum' for spiritual and intellectual reasons, I have dealt with this sufficiently in my lectures. But I wanted to mention the example of the trust company to show that there is also a very practical reason for doing so. And if, in the present difficult times, when we are heading towards such chaos, everyone in the trust company uses what they have to stand in the world, to connect with it and to bring it into the building of St. John, which will certainly also have a difficult position in the world, then the trust company will do something good. Otherwise, it would, of course, be necessary to set up a super-trust company for the trust company at a later date, so that the super-trust company would relate to the trust company in the same way that the Johannesbau relates to the trust company, and so on.

Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone else wish to speak? - If not, I would like to close today's meeting.

Dr. Grosheintz opens the meeting, welcomes those present and gives a report on the progress of the construction work. He concludes with the words: “With heartfelt gratitude and reverent wonder, we see how Dr. Steiner, in his tireless work, transmits living forces to us from the inexhaustible source of spiritual knowledge, so that we can make them fruitful in the world.” - Following the technical report, Mr. Hermann Linde speaks about the artistic design of the building. Dr. Steiner then speaks

My dear friends!

You have heard the reports of the Executive Council; the cash report is still to come. And perhaps a few things should be interwoven here so that you are informed about some circumstances just before the cash report is received. I believe that particular significance must be attached to those parts of today's report that point to the connection between the entire Goetheanum building and the general culture of our time. The Executive Council has very commendably emphasized this significance in its report, and it will be good to present this aspect of the Goetheanum to a wider public as well. I will be making a small request along these lines shortly.

Above all, I would ask you to bear in mind that we should not regard the Goetheanum as merely a matter for the Anthroposophical Society or the Building Association, but as a matter for the world. And in this context, it is certainly not only money that is at work in our building. Of course, money is at work first. But today a great deal of the energy that has led to the great public interest that has developed around our Goetheanum is already contained in this money. We must ensure that this interest grows ever greater and greater! It is precisely because of these intentions that something like eurythmy has recently been developed and propagated with such energy here in Dornach.

Eurythmy is something that makes sense to many people purely in itself. And through eurythmy, interest in our general cause is in turn fostered, as is inevitable. That is why things like eurythmy, or the lectures that were recently held here for the public, and those that are yet to come – a longer lecture cycle that we will organize within this year – all these things can no longer be considered separately from the whole building project that is taking place here. All these things should be considered in close connection. And one should realize that by promoting eurythmy here, everything that is connected with the completion of our building is essentially also being promoted.

Even if these things cannot be proved here in detail, the fact remains that it is so. Therefore, our friends will have to direct their attention in all directions and try to make their interest as general as possible.

It was natural that at the beginning of our work in Dornach this radiated; but in the course of time, the necessity will arise more and more that individual activities, I would like to say, associate themselves, that more and more work is done out of the things themselves. And in connection with the report of the board, I would therefore like to mention how this “Association of Goetheanism” is intended, of which has been spoken.

The “Association of Goetheanism” of the School of Spiritual Science is not initially based on the idea of founding a small association, but on a very specific fact. You are all aware of the situation, which is not only present in Dornach: the huge, global world calamity of the housing shortage. It is necessary, for example, if we want to continue working at all, that we build apartments for our employees. It would not be enough for us to buy houses; that would only drive out the other people, which is precisely what we do not want. We can only make progress by creating housing opportunities for our co-workers here, not just for the workers, but for all our friends working on our building project.

A start has been made by a sum of money being entrusted to me personally, which will initially enable the construction of three small houses for friends working with us, in which very modest apartments will be found. This matter will now be left to me personally: I will initially take care of the start of the three small houses with Mr. Bay. And these houses, as I said, are to be built here as my personal affair. To do this, it is necessary to create the “Association of Goetheanism” because such things immediately become a matter for the law and the authorities. This association initially includes the three personalities who have decided to support me in this project, as far as I consider it necessary: Dr. Boos, Mr. Etienne and Mr. Ballmer, who will initially form this association.

This association of Goetheanism is destined to grow gradually. But this must not be done by giving it guidelines for everything, as they have proliferated so much in the old Theosophical Society. They have made peculiar statutes for all kinds of things, made beautiful resolutions, put the statutes in the casket. The committee existed but did nothing more; that was the main activity. But the point is that we are now at a stage in our work where something like that cannot continue, because it would only lead to ruin. What we need now is to gradually bring together the work that has already begun, that really exists.

Consider, on the one hand, we have perhaps more than the people concerned have realized, an extensive activity in the eurythmic arts. And secondly, we have to mark the beginning, through lectures that have been held here by Dr. Boos and others, a beginning, a start to something that is to find expression in the late fall, through a few weeks, not just individual lectures, but larger courses to be held for the general public in front of a larger number of friends, insofar as they are experts in their respective fields. It is necessary that this public should know something about it, that a certain activity should be developed beforehand for these courses. That is the second thing: eurythmy is the first, the courses the second. In the course of time other things will come which will connect with those that are already really there, that have really developed and flourished to a certain stage. These things will join together.

Out of these things will arise what must arise out of this “Association for Goetheanism”, which will always have to work in close harmony with the Goetheanum Construction Association, which will truly have no less work to do as a result, but whose work will grow more and more. But it is necessary that things do not develop peripherally from what already exists, but that things that develop out of themselves come together through the people who work on them. Later, the 'Association for Goetheanism' will include all those people who are already leading some specific activity, so that people are not designated for a specific activity, but that people who are already leading a specific activity join together. In a particular, special field, this is also a way of working from the concrete, from reality. And that must be our particular maxim: to work everywhere from reality, not from theories and programs or from the statute. We have to work with those who emerge as personalities, who have previously developed an activity to a certain degree, and only then join forces. This must be taken into account in particular in such a case: that you simply start with the fact that something is already there. That must become our principle in general. Then it will be possible to represent our endeavors, the nature of our endeavors, to a larger public.

Not that I would call this unjustified, but I have been repeatedly confronted, first by our friends, but then also by people from outside, with the fact that people don't really know enough about what is happening here. As I said, this is justified to a certain extent. Over the past few years, people have had other things to deal with and have not really got around to spreading the word properly. So the first step will be to really make the world aware – I would like to say literally: aware – of what is happening here. Therefore, I would like to submit a request, especially for what is being discussed today, namely for the reports that have already been read, that these things be printed in extenso, and that this time we refrain from distributing these things only among our members, but that they be made known to the world.

I have been working for some time on the print version of what I have now presented here several times about the construction, so that one will get some kind of picture of the artistic intentions of this building. It might not be a bad idea to do this. I ask that this be considered. Wouldn't it be good if we could create a proper publication from these two things: first, this presentation of the building, prepared for the public, in connection with the other reports, which would make a little book that we could also sell to visitors instead of an entrance fee. This would make it possible to really arouse more intimate interest in the larger public.

Then I would like to consider the idea that it would be useful, at least in the main, for the details we can still discuss in the inner circle, if the main figures that you will hear later in the accounts would also be known to the public. Otherwise, we always have the misery of gossip and rumor about the “millions” that the construction costs. We need not be afraid to tell people: We have spent so much on the construction so far, and the completion of the building will cost so much more. I believe we have no need to hide anything from the general public. We are able, to a certain extent, to present a financial statement to the world and to justify the preliminary steps that will be necessary to the world. I am putting this forward for consideration. I believe that incorporating this into a small brochure would not do any harm! It would just be a matter of us deciding on it now. In my opinion, this could help us in the near future in terms of construction.

And I would like to use this, to some extent, as a basis for making the partial request, insofar as I am allowed to do so, that the special work of our esteemed board be recognized and appreciated to the greatest extent possible and that on this occasion today we should not forget to pass a resolution to thank our esteemed board in the most intensive way for its efforts in the last business months and years, the previous years, and to express these thanks in the minutes. That is what I have to say on the matter.

The chairman thanks Dr. Steiner for his words and suggestions and the trust he has placed in him. The cash report is to be given and the question is asked whether anyone has anything to say about the cash report. Dr. Steiner says the following:

Dear Friends, you will find it necessary to study this financial report very carefully, for it contains extremely important information about how we should act in the future, especially with regard to our financial activities here at the building site. You have heard that of all the potential contributors in the future, the Mittelländer almost have to give up! The currency of the Central Europeans has been thoroughly destroyed, and since the conditions for lasting improvement are not at all present, we can of course only expect a significant improvement in the currency of the Central Europeans for the near future if we are illusionists! So that they can no longer contribute.

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the inhabitants of the Midlands to come here to share in the blessings of the construction. Of the other friends, those belonging to neutral countries and those from the United States are best off. They are currently in a currency situation where, if they take care of the construction properly, they will be able to say after some time: at least we have applied our money to a cultural endeavor for humanity! Because you can be quite sure that the illusion is just that, an illusion. The favorable exchange rate conditions in the United States and the neutral countries could remain as they are for a very long time, or rather, they could be left as they are for a long time. This is all connected with the overall development of our international labor and pension conditions. And in this respect, with regard to the financial situation, the United States and the countries that remained neutral during the war will experience a completely different fate, and yet another fate will befall those of the Entente itself.

The former, that is, the citizens of the United States and the neutral territories, will really be able to say to themselves after some time: we have at least contributed to a cultural endeavor before we have spent our money in other ways. Those who are not particularly poor can easily do something like this. But for those in the middle, it will initially be almost impossible to even come here if they cannot be helped. So I don't want to suggest that such things should be done, I don't want to give advice, I just want to say that if such things were to happen with a huge inventiveness, if such things were to happen in the near future with a huge imagination rooted in reality, I would like these things very much!

After some discussion among the members about current affairs, Dr. Steiner announced that Dr. Boos would have some further reports that could be of interest in view of what Dr. Boos himself had said in principle.

Dr. Boos speaks about the work opportunities that need to be created by those who founded and work together in this association of Goetheanism. In contrast to certain other efforts, which fill 72 folio pages with their rules and paragraphs, it contains only four short paragraphs; because he does not want to make rules, but to develop activity so that those who are still sleeping are made to wake up. The association is committed to working in close contact with Dr. Steiner, based on an understanding of the necessity of the cultural impact he has given, and out of a free will to serve this gift. Dr. Steiner, who never demands obedience, is able to convey the insight that in the near future the main work will have to be the preparation of the autumn courses. The tasks of the association include working towards the threefold social order and the beginnings of a healthy economic life. If such forces come into play from all sides, the Goetheanum will surely be able to gather all the healthy forces that want to build something new out of the collapse and counteract the tendencies that are driving Europe to the level of darkest Africa.

Dr. Grosheintz: You have indicated through your applause how much you agree with Dr. Boos' words. I now ask Mr. Molt to speak.

Mr. Emil Molt proposes to continue the negotiations in the afternoon and to further consider the suggestions given by Dr. Boos.

Dear attendees!

It is in a deeply moved and earnest frame of mind that I now speak these first words in this room that are dedicated to spiritual science. The mood must be serious. The need of the time stands in the background and all that which has led out of a negative spiritual life into this need of the time. But before my soul stands today also all that which has been done out of such a time by understanding souls who are enthusiastic for the development of the spiritual future of humanity, so that this building, in which we are now beginning the first college course in spiritual science, could be led at least up to this stage. Our thoughts must arise out of the spirit of the school of thought meant here, with the greatest gratitude for the beautiful attitude and its power, which was present in all the material and spiritual helpers in bringing about what is to come about here. And above all, I would now also like to address those numerous friends of our cause who have come here for this course. Those who have come here for this course are showing that they at least expect something from what is being done here, something that the serious need of our time, the particular state of our spiritual life in the present, demands.

By appearing here and wanting to attend the course, you are, in a sense, announcing how you expect that the powerful call of the time will be heard from these spiritual experiences, and that efforts will be made to serve the tasks to which this call of the time points. In this solemn and serious moment, it cannot be my task, esteemed attendees, to give the first of the lectures that this course is intended to offer. Everything that our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to bring will be presented to those present through the course itself, initially in a preliminary form. I would only like to speak about the intentions and goals that should prevail here.

Those who feel today that a new spirit must be brought to bear on the social ills and the ills of humanity as a whole often think at the same time: Let us take the science that has been cultivated in the lecture halls for a long time, let us popularize it, let us bring it to the people, who, through ignorance, are drifting into chaos, and it will be seen that the spread of intellectual life must result in an ascent of our civilization.

The work that is to be done here is based on a different conviction, the conviction that the science that has prevailed in its direction for three to four centuries, and which has essentially contributed to the decline, will bear no fruit if it is carried out of its narrow spaces into the expanses of folk education centers, folk high schools and the like. Here the conviction is effective that a new spirit of science must be carried into the lecture halls from new spiritual sources of research, into all the individual disciplines. If we did not have this conviction, we could rightly be mistaken for one of the sects that are opening up so numerously in today's confusing times, to put themselves, so to speak, alongside what is otherwise being done in the way of spiritual life. We do not want to be such a sect. And all our efforts are not geared towards being such a sect. All our efforts are geared towards making a contribution to the living spiritual life, to everything that contributes to the development of humanity in a broad sense.

This building is an outward sign of this. It does not stand there as chosen from any of the traditional architectural styles. It stands there in terms of its forms, its artistic language, as an original creature from the spirit of this spiritual research, which is to be carried out in it. And just as the material form surrounding the spoken word is intended to fulfill this purpose, so too should the spoken word have enough living power to penetrate far into all those spheres of life that need to be renewed and transformed if we are to overcome the impending decline and achieve a new spiritual ascent. That is why, in recent times, a broad social endeavor has been driven out of what is called anthroposophically oriented spiritual science here. The aim here is not to strive in theoretical, abstract seclusion, but in harmony with everything that can advance humanity in any field.

This, esteemed attendees, is connected with the tragedy of our time, that such unity has not been sought, that the search for such unity has been gradually lost for centuries, and that this loss has reached its highest peak in the present day. When we consider such things, we must, of necessity, cast our eyes back into the primeval times of human development, when, out of an instinctive, original wisdom, that which now confronts us as a trinity was born: art, science and religion. There were times in the development of humanity – and I hope that the proof of what I am now only hinting at can be provided within the course itself – there were times in the development of humanity when there were no separate educational institutions, no separate churches, no separate art institutions; rather, there was a unified activity that was both artistically discerning and religiously oriented. There were places that can be called mysteries, where an art was cultivated that was both religion and science at the same time, where a religion was cultivated that expressed the artistic striving of the time in its cults , in which a science was cultivated that, out of the spirituality from which it arose, led directly to those divine sources of human and world existence that are to be experienced in religious feeling.

Of all the aspects that were once part of this unity, I would say that art is the one that has most closely adhered to its original form. Until very recently, art remained, I would say, the child of the ancient mysteries that remained young, the child through which our culture seeks to incorporate the spirituality in which the human being can live into external material. All that spirituality that has emerged from the original instincts of mankind had to be paralyzed in the course of cultural development. It must be regained. What mankind once possessed in instincts, what it had to lose in this form, must be regained in freedom and with full consciousness, so that man can strive for it again out of freedom.

Art, in a sense the childlike child of the ancient mysteries, but it was also seized by the gradual paralysis of inner human spirituality in recent times. So that this art gradually had to flee into unreality, while once everything that man had experienced in terms of deep religious feeling and will, everything that man had experienced in terms of deep spiritual knowledge, was incorporated into his artistic creations, so that spiritual reality was revealed to him through his artistic creations. All this, there is nothing more that today's science goes to, nothing more that today's religiosity goes to. Art gradually embodied the spirit, but one no longer had the spirit as a living thing. And so one felt that which art presented as something spiritual, but as something unreal, as something that should arise from mere fantasy. I would like to say, using the Greek word in its sense, that our art gradually turned from cosmism into acosmism, moving away from the beauty of the universe in faith. That people sought a way out for art in naturalism, in the imitation of an external sensual-physical reality, only proves that they had lost access to those sources of spiritual life from which the creative artist must shape in every field of art if art is to be a revelation in spiritual life.

And so we have an acosmic, an unreal art emerging in our most recent age and up to the present. Why did it emerge? Because the original, artistic-religious-cognitive unity has formed the trinity, which gradually lost its connection: art, science, religion. Science, which had separated from the old mystery being, from its siblings religion and art, gradually pushed towards where the one naturalism exists for it, where it can no longer grasp the underlying spirituality of nature from the spirituality in the human soul, where it is only able to grasp the external sensual-physical fact through experiment or observation. This science, it became, out of what once strove out of instincts for knowledge of the spirit behind nature, a science that can be described as agnosticism. And this agnosticism, which actually came about through the observation of nature and through the experiment on nature, only to be able to establish for itself: I am no longer exactly, I am no longer really understanding nature, when I ascend into spiritual regions, this agnosticism cannot give that warmth to the soul, it cannot give that light to the spirit that leads to a real art created from the spirit. Acosmism in art gradually became agnosticism in science.

That which once lived united with art and science as religion in the mysteries became more and more separated and became a mere inward matter of the soul. And if we follow its course – this course is intended to present it – we find that what once offered man such a rich religious content, indeed in an ancient form, a content so rich that the human soul, after it stood there physically born into the world, felt reborn, reborn out of soul and spirit alongside the physical birth, this religious impulse, it lost its content. And that is precisely the tragedy of the present day: that alongside acosmic art and agnostic science, an atheistic religion is becoming more and more prevalent, especially among those who so that what once belonged together, primal art, primal religion and primal science, is now gradually becoming more and more acosmism, agnosticism, atheism in the broadest sense.

What today may be heard only by a few in its full meaning and strength - those who want to establish anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, they feel it strongly. That is why they want to open up the sources of spiritual research that leads, in turn, to the life that man lives with his surroundings, to seeing, to seeing a spirit behind the perception of the sensory world. From this seeing of the supersensible in the sensual, the power to implant a creative power of art will arise again. One would like so much to be able to feel how, however, a first weak attempt has been made in this construction to express the spiritual content of the outer forms through the living comprehension and living observation of the spiritual and supersensible world. And this observation of the supersensible in the sensual should lead to art, to the recognition and comprehension of the supersensible by the human spirit in science. Our science, in turn, should become spiritual, then it will, by recognizing, ignite inwardly in the human soul, so that not abstract ideas arise from this human soul, not abstract laws of nature arise, but that living spiritual experience that expresses itself in ideas, but that is also powerful and capable of shaping itself in art.

Alongside such a seeing art, such a spiritual science, there must arise what may be called a religious mood and feeling, which emerges from all this and unites again with all this in a unified way. Just as art must become a seeing of the supersensible, science a knowing of the supersensible, so religion must become an experiencing of the supersensible. How could a science that aims to lead to the beholding of the supersensible in art and to the comprehension of the supersensible in understanding, act differently than to create a religious mood that leads to the experience of the supersensible? Out of such a religious mood, man will learn anew to comprehend the Mystery of Golgotha, which has placed itself before the development of mankind in order to reveal to man, through the divinity of Christ that appeared on earth, how that which is born sensually must be reborn in the supersensible in order to attain a fully human existence.

We would like to bring three new forces to creative expression from spiritual sources: a seeing art again, a recognition of the supersensible as spiritual science, an experience of the supersensible for the rebirth of soul and spirit in that religion, the mood of which must be formed out of this art and this science. We are not only convinced that what is to be born as a force in this way, but we who work here have an insight into it, so that we can carry it into the individual branches of human cultural life, into all the details of our present-day social life, that which can arise from the new trinity, from the observing art, from spiritually grasping science, from religion newly experiencing rebirth in the supersensible, from all this for the living existence of humanity. This building should be dedicated to this task.

How wonderful it would be if I could say today that this building is complete, that this building could be handed over for its intended purpose, that after seven years of work – because seven years ago we laid the foundation stone for this building here – that after seven years of work this building could be handed over for its intended purpose. I cannot do that. For much remains to be done, many sacrifices will still have to be made before this building can reach its completion. So today we are not opening this building, but we want to present to the world, provisionally at first, in this college course, what we believe from our spiritual stream, even in this unfinished building.

And so those who have come to this course are not led into the finished building, but, I would like to say, are first led in, so that they may perhaps - as we expect, confidently expect - gain the conviction from what they will hear here: Yes, the building must be finished. And so we may hope that those among whom we may find understanding will help us in every possible and necessary way to complete this, our building.

Therefore, and no less gratefully, I thank all those who have brought this building to its present stage from the spirit of our spiritual science. It is out of this gratitude and satisfaction that I turn first to those who, as older or younger members of the Anthroposophical Society, have come here today in such large numbers to work with us on what is to be worked out of a new spirit for the progress of humanity.

But I turn especially to those visitors to our course who belong to the student body in various countries. To them, these students, I would like to say that it gives me the deepest satisfaction to see them here, because I believe that, although it has been a long time since I belonged to the student body, I can still feel among them in the truest and best sense. Because that which strives as has been characterized here, must be striven for primarily out of youthful spirit and youthful zeal. Combine your youthful strength with the seriousness that resides in those who work here for spiritual science out of serious need of the times, and that which the need of the times demands so urgently must succeed. Therefore, above all, welcome!

It has already been shown in practice in many ways how the spirit of spiritual science at work here affects the human mind of our contemporaries. We have often noticed it, and in the last few days it has been noticed here in particular, how those workers who had to do hard work either downstairs in the accommodation building or up here on the building site, so that everything could be completed in time for our friends to be here and for the course to could begin, we have seen how these workers, who have to work hard, want to work harmoniously and fraternally with those who work here spiritually, really working long overtime hours so that what is to begin here today can come about. It is particularly gratifying in our socially troubled times to welcome as a manifestation of the times that such a thing has become possible here, out of the spirit of work.

And so it will be seen that, basically, peace and harmony will spring from all that is drawn from spiritual sources here, if only it is allowed to sprout. We can happily leave it to others to create disharmony and discord.

Another sign of the times, ladies and gentlemen, is that thirty-five personalities have come together to carry our spirit into all the individual sciences, who will pursue spiritual science from the most diverse points of view in our course. Thirty-five lecturers will carry what is to be given here as a spiritual impulse, one may say, into seventeen different branches of human knowledge and feeling and work. We will hear lectures on special parts of spiritual science, we will hear lectures on philosophy, theology, on history, on linguistics, on physics and mathematics, on chemistry and medicine, on Indology, on jurisprudence and pedagogy. We shall hear what artistic natures have to say about the spiritual foundations and the spiritual forces of their art. We shall hear what the creative spirit in poetry has to say about its connection with our spiritual science. Eminent personalities from the field of technology will speak, and, particularly welcome, we shall hear from practitioners of economics and business. And it is one of the advances that we are striving for above all, that life is understood as a unity, that what leads up to philosophical heights forms a unity with what the factory director has to utilize in his factory practice in practical life down to the last detail, that factory practitioners will speak within our course, we welcome it with particular joy.

Because, dear attendees, not the cultural direction is truly spiritual that says one must seek the spirit in cloud heights, far from all materiality, the cultural direction contains real spirit that out of this spirit becomes the power to carry it, this spirit, everywhere into material life, into everyday life, into the difficulties of the machine, into the difficulties of commercial life. Only that is spiritual which knows how to carry the spirit into matter.

Therefore, in addition to philosophical lectures, this course will include something that is to be welcomed with particular joy: “The Industrialist in the Past and Future from the Point of View of Spiritual Science”. It will also include what practitioners have to say from a commercial and economic point of view. If we look through the list of our lectures and our lecturers, we can already say, my dear attendees, that this spiritual scientific endeavor has already borne fruit. It has already had an inspiring effect on a number of personalities who feel the strength within themselves to dare to try not only to show the individual sciences and also practical branches of life in the light of this spiritual science, but to show how the practical becomes even more practical, the cognitive even more powerful through the impulse of spiritual science, which is to be given here.

Of course, it should not be thought immodestly here - that would be against the spirit of spiritual science - but a right volition arises only from a genuine conviction, from a cognizant conviction. Therefore, it is perhaps not immodesty, but only what, I would like to say, flows naturally from the forces gained from spiritual research, when it is said to the one what is the need of the time, to the one what is already being characterized by enlightened minds as necessary currents of decline , which is almost characterized as if it were inevitably leading to the decline of the whole Western civilization. Something should be set against it here, out of the power of artistic, cognitive, religiously intimate and social will, that can lead to the ascent, to the building of a new civilization.

Therefore, out of modesty, but at the same time out of the conviction gained from spiritual science itself, we call upon all those whom we would like to see here today, who want to join us in our work, to express the spirit in which we want to meet here:

To turn to the light
In dark times of need,
To the dawn of the spirit,
Send the soul's gaze:
Let it be the will of man here
And remain so for evermore.

Autoreferat in der Goetheanum-Sondernummer der Waldorf-Nachrichten 3. Jg. Nr. 4/5 (März 1921)

In the following, I will share some of the thoughts that I expressed at the opening of the School of Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum in Dornach.

It is with a heavy heart that I say the first words in this Goetheanum. For before me stands the serious goal that this as yet incomplete building should serve in the future. The spiritual outlook that should be striven for here appears as a challenge of the present and the near future to all those who have made material and spiritual sacrifices for its construction.

This willingness to make sacrifices should be remembered first. The construction of this Goetheanum has been started from their insightful penetration into what is currently needed by humanity. Through them, it has become possible that in the coming weeks, many areas of scientific, artistic and practical life will be discussed here. Through personalities with similar spiritual direction, this Goetheanum will be able to be completed in the future.

These people, willing to make sacrifices, have grasped the idea that has arisen from the realization that the development of humanity has reached a point at which an active orientation towards spiritual knowledge must be striven for.

It was with this thought in mind that the foundation stone of this building was laid seven years ago; and it is with this thought in mind that thirty leading figures will now discuss science, art and practical life here. They want to present their experiments to the public in order to show how the various areas of life can be enriched by the knowledge of the spirit that is being sought here.

In present-day civilization, what we call science exerts an enormous influence. And alongside science, art and religion stand to go their own ways. But today, more than in the recent past, the human soul feels more powerfully the urge for a unity of its experience. This feeling asserts itself more and more irresistibly. It expresses one of the most serious demands of present-day civilization.

Under the influence of this feeling, one must consider those times of human development when science, art and religion had not yet gone their separate ways. Today's recognized science does not want to know much about this form of human civilization. Spiritual science, which will be discussed here in the coming weeks, must present it as a fact based on its insights. There were times when science, art and religion formed a unity. In those times, research was not as conscious as it is today; a more instinctive knowledge was developed. But this knowledge was not expressed in the abstract form of thought that is currently ours. What was intuitively known was expressed in pictorial form. And these pictorial forms could also be presented to the outer senses. One could make knowledge visible to the senses. Before the senses, scientific knowledge arose as a vivid art. And the mind could worship what it had before it as artistically designed knowledge. In religious devotion, wisdom revealed itself as beauty.

Humanity could only progress in its development by separating knowledge, artistic creation, and religious experience. The soul life became richer through this separation. The currents of life had to be given separately to inquiring thinking, artistic feeling, and religious contemplation.

Humanity has arrived at a point in time when these three currents want to merge. Further separation would rob the soul of its health.

Science, which has flourished in modern times, has greatly enriched our external lives; it has provided us with an unlimited service in understanding the external world. It cannot, however, fulfill our striving for a unity of knowledge, art and religion.

Goethe already sensed what must be addressed as the deepest need of humanity in the present and even more so in the near future: that in art, at a higher level than in the instinctive time of the soul, knowledge is to be experienced again. He sensed the unity of science and art by saying that when nature begins to reveal its manifest secret, one feels the deepest longing for its most worthy interpreter, art.

Even if, out of outdated habits of thought, some theorists say that science must keep away from everything artistic, they are blurring the boundaries and confusing human striving. Those who speak in this way cannot be right if it turns out that nature itself creates in artistic forms, and that one remains far from nature's secrets if one only wants to express oneself in a conceptual form.

The anthroposophical spiritual science to be striven for at this Goetheanum wants to be as rigorous and scientific as any recognized science of the present day. But it leads to the realization that forces can be developed in a strictly methodical way from the depths of the human soul, which lead mere thinking to the beholding of a real spiritual world content. In this way a world reveals itself that is not accessible to the senses and ordinary reason. But it is a world through which the sensory realm becomes understandable in a higher sense. Through this insight, a realm of existence is opened up that can be experienced artistically again. What was granted to early humanity through instinct, the possibility of transforming what has been cognitively explored into artistic creation, can be achieved again in full consciousness. This does not mean unartistic symbolism and allegory, but the experiencing of the forces of existence through direct perception, which are sometimes expressed through the idea as spiritual science and sometimes revealed through elementary artistic creation. Those who visualize thoughts of logical or observational knowledge do not work artistically. Those who realize in art what they have experienced through spiritual vision do not create differently than the true artist. For they do not clothe what is seen spiritually in symbols, but as artists they shape that which can reveal itself through its own nature, on the one hand in accordance with ideas and on the other in accordance with images.

Just as Goethe was able to say that art must be turned to when nature begins to reveal its manifest secrets, so too may one who is striving in the Goethean sense say: When nature begins to reveal its manifest secrets through spiritual vision so that he must express them in ideas and shape them artistically, the innermost part of his soul urges him to worship what he has seen and captured in art with a sense of religion. For him, religion becomes the consequential experience of science and art.

Spiritual science, which is to be cultivated in this Goetheanum, permeates the whole human being, the knowing, artistically feeling, religiously attuned human being. Therefore, it can also hope to serve the urgent social needs of the present. These hardships arise from the fact that science, which merely satisfies the intellect, lacks the momentum that man needs if he is to consciously act as a social being. Today there are already so many people who no longer close their minds to the fact that neither state nor economic life can heal itself; rather, new impulses in the spiritual realm must have an effect on the state and the economy. Here at the Goetheanum, this idea is to be thought through to its logical conclusion. We stop halfway if we think that the spiritual impulses needed today can be provided by adult education centers, popular education efforts, etc., that what is cultivated in lecture halls can be carried into the broad masses of the people. Those who believe this do not realize that the small circle of educated people to whom this spiritual fruit has come has driven humanity into a terrible catastrophe. Should that which has led to such results in a few now also work through the widest circles?

The kind of thinking that should be cultivated here at the Goetheanum is based on the conviction that the old spirit of the lecture hall cannot be carried into the broad masses, but that a new stream of knowledge must first be directed into the lecture halls out of knowledge of the spirit. What flows from such knowledge will be a spiritual life that also provides true education for the people and the strength to shape society. It is with this in mind that this Goetheanum was begun seven years ago; it is with this in mind that I may now open our college courses; and may those who have made all this possible be joined by others of the same mind, so that this Goetheanum may soon be visited in its completion.

My dear friends!

What I have to say has been said here in recent years on these occasions, so there is little that I can add today to the proceedings. First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the friends who have contributed artistically, scientifically and in other ways to the realization of the Goetheanum and its work over the past year. Once again this year, the dedicated nature of a large number of friends, especially among the staff, has been evident in an extraordinary way in the completion of this Goetheanum. These thanks arise from an awareness of the importance of this work for our entire present civilization. Those to whom these thanks are addressed know how they are meant and will accept them in the sense in which they arise from an awareness of urgent cultural necessities.

But what I mainly have to say is this: you have heard a financial statement; you have heard reports of other kinds. But if, like me, one has to see above all that what is wanted and what must be wanted with this Goetheanum is accomplished, then one has to deal with the balance sheet in a somewhat different way. Isn't it true that the balance sheet for December 31, 1920, which has now been delivered, is relatively favorable; but that can be of little interest today. We need the financial statement of June 27, 1921; and those who are primarily interested in the continuation of the project are interested in the current balance sheet. I cannot calculate this current balance sheet any differently than by telling you that the Goetheanum's coffers are currently short of around three hundred and eighty to three hundred and ninety thousand francs. If we do not receive these in the coming months, then we will not be able to continue the construction despite all the other good intentions expressed in words or empty feelings. We will be left with an unfinished project and will have to close down the work.

There should be no illusion about this fact, which I have already pointed out several times. I shall therefore repeat it very clearly: for the continuation of the building work – and this does not, of course, mean a hidden deficit – but for the continuation of this building work, that is, for the living work here, the Goetheanum's coffers are almost four hundred thousand francs short; and if these are not raised in the next few months, the completion of the building will have to be abandoned. The restoration of the building must simply be interrupted.

It was said earlier, when the accounts were presented, that the Dornach enterprise resembles an organism in which the blood is gradually becoming sluggish. And, isn't it true, many of the appeals that I have made to the membership and the world over the past year, especially in this direction, that it is necessary to stand up for a broader interest in the realization of the Goetheanum, have fallen on deaf ears. They were not received with interest; and that is what, looking around today at the Goetheanum, gives me the greatest concern. It gives me the greatest concern because there is another fact.

We were able to begin the spiritual work of the Goetheanum. Courses have been held in all fields of science. Attempts have also been made, for example, to broaden the artistic activity that is so beautifully evident at the Goetheanum itself by taking the art of eurythmy out into the world. It has become apparent that an ugly opposition is emerging from certain quarters – it was recently called “vulgar” in the newspaper on threefolding –. I do not want to say now from which side this uncivilized opposition comes. Anyone who wants to see the truth can easily see it. But of course there is no need to fear that the interest in one's own circles will consolidate to the extent that the interest in the opposition grows in the other circles.

But just take, I would say as symptomatic, the following: in other respects it is no different, but take the two courses from September and October of last year and those at Easter this year. We have made significant progress. Of course, this is my subjective judgment; but first of all, the four hundred thousand francs that are missing from the treasury are also my subjective concern. We have these two courses, and we have seen significant progress in the quality of the lectures and in the progress of the content of spiritual science. One can say that what has been done in the main building and here from the podium at Easter 1921 shows significant progress compared to what could be achieved in the fall of 1920. As I said, the same can be seen in artistic terms. We have the potential for external progress in this area. If we look further, it may be mentioned that the spiritual work in the Stuttgart Waldorf School has progressed significantly, that the overall spirit, the activity of the Waldorf School and the permeation of this activity with the spirit that should be inside have made significant progress.

By contrast, let us consider the evening discussions in the fall and at Easter. Well, in the fall they were already at a level that really could not be praised. But at Easter: I must confess, they were something terrible, these evening discussions. They showed quite clearly how the movement can advance as a spiritual one, how a small circle is involved in the advancement of the movement, how the scientific and the artistic grow, and how, by contrast, the general interest among the membership simply fades. This has become apparent from the decline in the level of our discussions from last autumn to this Easter.

If I have to speak from my subjective point of view in these matters, I have to remind you of a certain fact. Those who are sitting here today were probably present when these facts were unfolding. When we spoke here some time ago about all the possible external foundations connected with the anthroposophical movement, I said: the ideas for these foundations are good, are extraordinarily significant, and as far as the ideas and the inner possibilities are concerned, I am not at all worried. But when I look at the human material of the present day, which wants to be active in practical life, when I see how little the so-called practical man is up to the mark today, it worries me when I think of such foundations.

Now, please do not misunderstand me. This is not to say that the things that have been established are bad from their own point of view. They work quite well; and from an external point of view there is no need to worry about them. But from another point of view, these things are nothing more than an increase in my worries, and for the work needed to continue the Goetheanum they are nothing more than a drain on my own energy, strongly detracting me from other necessary tasks because I have too many worries about what has been added without any sign of thought for the further development of the actual center, which is crystallizing here at the Goetheanum.

All the external foundations, too, have ultimately arisen on the basis of the anthroposophical work that is crystallized in the Goetheanum. And what is forming on the periphery is only justified by its emergence from this root; and it would therefore be necessary for all these individual branches to develop a real sense of thinking, feeling and working together. If this lack of empathy and cooperation continues as it has so far, nothing else would be possible but for the actual central work to suffer in the most severe way.

As I said, the spiritual movement has gone. The teaching staff at the Waldorf School, for example, is becoming more and more a real incarnation of the spirit that is to work out of anthroposophy in an educational direction. The same applies to the artistic sphere. And we would also overcome our opponents if the inner consolidation of our own membership really progressed, if something were really done in this direction. Do you see why we had a better external balance sheet last year? It was because we were able to get a few individuals to take charge of improving it. Most of it came about through the personal efforts of a few individuals who traveled around. It would have been a matter of continuing this work for the cause. But that was not done. And that is why we are experiencing what I had to characterize. I would like to give an example of how little my intentions are being addressed. You see, it was at the end of April that someone in Holland is said to have said: Yes, World School Association, you can't make it popular as quickly as you think you can, it takes five to six months.

Now, do the math. I pointed out at the end of the last fall course, I might say, that that was the time to personally stand up for this World School Association. I said that, given the time situation, it would be too late if we did not do so. So take the starting point of the reference back then, let's say October. Then do the math: November, December, January, February, March, April - six months. Six months had passed since I emphasized the necessity. So if we had started in October of last year, we would have had the six months. Instead, after six months, they say we need six months. Yes, if we continue to think and work in this way, then in three to four months we will have fallen asleep in terms of the outer movement, and this just at the moment when we might have the greatest and best prospects in terms of the spiritual and the spiritual.

This is not said merely because one wants to lament these things, but because labor is taken up by them, which should be working in a different direction. Of course, one has to take care of these things when others do not take care of them. And since the manpower is required, it is self-evident that the ideal and spiritual work suffers as a result and cannot reach the level it should actually reach. It is, of course, a hypothesis when I say that we could perhaps reach a peak of our spiritual achievements in three to four months; because this peak depends on the members doing the right thing.

For the near future, not tomorrow, but today, there should be a desire for some kind of energetic action for the administration of our cause. Above all, those foundations that have been able to emerge on the periphery should feel a strong obligation to contribute to the central core, to the whole; they should, despite the fact that they may well stand on their own (no one should misunderstand this), feel the obligation to support and sustain the center of the matter and, above all, to relieve it of external material work.

And as unpleasant as it is for me to say it, it had to be said, and it had to be said again today. It has often been pointed out in recent years, but it has fallen on deaf ears. To the same extent that the mark accounts have understandably declined, to the same extent the prospects of our cause have gradually faded. Now there is a large loss of Swiss franc accounts, after there were no more German mark accounts at all. That is the actual result, which I can only summarize in the words: the Goetheanum treasury is currently short of four hundred thousand francs for the next few months. If there is to be any prospect of continuing the construction and administrative work, these funds must be found.

This is a great concern to me. I said it very clearly last year and regret that I have to say it again at this moment.

My dear friends!

Allow me to say a few words, which are meant to be, so to speak, an interpretation of the moral and financial balance sheet that has been presented to you today. I would like to tie in a few things that I am convinced are intimately connected with this balance sheet, but the connection cannot always be seen immediately if things are not considered thoroughly.

I would like to start from something very obvious, and draw attention to something else here: the fact that the anthroposophical movement, of which the Goetheanum here is the external representative, has recently become very widespread without the movement itself having done very much directly to popularize it. Little by little, anthroposophy has actually become something that is widely taken into account, and this is precisely because people have become aware of it from the outside and have studied it. As a result, it is really already part of all the various efforts and struggles that are being waged within civilization today. This can be seen quite clearly. We couldn't have changed that. For it is precisely in the circles where anthroposophy is widely discussed today that we have basically done nothing, but have endeavored to maintain the original impulses, to work more and more in a positive way towards the given treasure. And of course it would have been different – despite some enmities arising from the movement – it would have been different than it is now, when we are exposed to the broadest public to such an extraordinary degree. But this factor simply has to be reckoned with, and in this respect the recent Congress of Vienna was particularly characteristic. There we were, if I may say so, in full public view, and we were also in public view in front of numerous people who, with regard to what is necessary to build civilization, to rebuild civilization, are also asking themselves questions.

It is quite clear today – and this must also be said in this circle – that one thing is quite clearly noticeable when one observes life on a large scale. It is noticeable today that in Western countries there is a conviction, perhaps not yet very strong, but clearly emerging, that the old cultures that have developed within Central Europe must be ferments for a spiritual reconstruction. The West's antipathy towards the spiritual life in Central Europe will decrease, while political antagonisms are currently still on the increase. Although other symptoms seem to indicate the opposite, political antipathies are steadily increasing. The same is not true – even if it is less noticeable – of the sympathies for that which can become effective in the spiritual realm in Europe for a healthy building up of civilization.

Yes, my dear friends, there are many things to be considered. I will first draw attention to just one detail. I will single out the special reception that the three eurythmy performances have now found in Vienna. If you have an ear for these things, you can distinguish between them. The reception of eurythmy in Vienna was the warmest imaginable, the warmest that has existed so far; even if it was not perhaps the most outwardly striking, it was still the warmest because people were able to see the artistic aspect in general and because did not think of all the things that we ourselves - and I in particular in every introduction to the performances - emphasize; because it did not occur to them, because they were able to take it all in as an artistic disposition of the heart. The reception of eurythmy in Vienna is actually something that marks an epoch-making event within the anthroposophical movement.

And here we must take into account the fact that there is a strong urge today for the artistic element in anthroposophy to be developed. We ourselves cannot exert a direct influence on many things because of our working conditions, because we are absorbed by the things that already need to be done. But when, for example, a number of younger people feel the need to train in the art of recitation and declamation, and also in the elements of dramatic art, when it has become necessary for Dr. Steiner to hold a course here for young people in the art of recitation, declamation and mime, at the request of young people, then it is at least a sign that the striving, however little it may be apparent today, is present.

All these things must be treated with an extraordinarily strong objectivity, because, of course, the impulses that live in such things can also be expressed in a negative way, and in the moment when, for example, the artistic is led only a little on an inclined plane, in that moment all possible luciferic and ahrimanic forces are immediately set loose, and the matter leads into a false channel.

Therefore, it is necessary, especially on this point, to pay attention to the experiences gained so far, as could be gained through the previous operation. These experiences must be carefully considered, and in this area in particular, the always inhibiting criticism and even derogatory discussion, which is very common in our circle, must be avoided, as it leads to nothing but hindrance in the real advancement of the matter. Because, of course, something can be objected to in everything, and the critic can always know better. I don't mean that ironically at all; sometimes it can be better in theory, but it can't be carried out under the conditions that we are given. But it can't be carried out at all because it is mere theory and not really artistic practice.

Such things must certainly be taken into account: that attention is paid to what the personalities have experienced so far and what ideas they have formed [about] how things could proceed, personalities who have so far mainly been involved in the issues. And the others should help them more so that they do not experience inhibitions at every turn due to knowing better and the like, which can always be very easy. These are things that are much more connected with what you have actually encountered here in the balance than is usually believed.

I would like to point out another fact. You see, it is now very natural that when such congresses or university courses and the like are held, as was particularly the case in Vienna, people talk about it everywhere. It is only natural that the education should be discussed, that the principles on which it is based should be expounded, and so on. The Vienna Congress is of such great significance because, if it is properly followed through, the success we have had, first of all with the general public, can indeed prove a great blessing for the anthroposophical movement. 'If it is not capitalized on, it can of course - because it has led to things being so widely publicized - lead to a situation in which all the things that are now coming out of all corners with it will increase the opposition considerably.

You only have to consider the following in this context: in Vienna, despite the fact that such things were not sought – on the contrary, people were somewhat shy about them – outsiders have already published quite objective descriptions of what happened at the congress. But you must not forget that at the moment when something like this occurs on one side, the malicious and harmful opposition in particular makes full use of it.

I will mention just one fact. When I was traveling back, I had a somewhat longer stay in Linz, where I bought a newspaper. You do it in such a way that you go to the kiosk, pick up a newspaper, and you can have the most interesting experiences. There was an article in it called “Steinerism”, and the article was written in such a way that it wanted to show that the congress in Vienna could show the harmful aspects of Steinerism in particular, because if you go to Germany, things are worked a little more tightly there, and then more of the beneficial aspects come out. But when you come to Vienna, everything is immersed in sloppiness, the writer of the article says, and so you perceive the special form of sloppy Steinerism. And so you can see in the sloppy Steinerism just what is really wanted. And then it is peeled out; what is actually striven for in Waldorf school pedagogy, and in fact in the form that is said: the essence of Waldorf school pedagogy consists in homosexuality.

Now, my dear friends, you see, this is carried out in every detail, and so in a relatively widely circulated daily newspaper, people are taught the judgment: Don't make any sacrifices for this Waldorf school movement, because it's just a mask for spreading homosexuality.

Now, my dear friends, these things must of course be carefully observed. I could also illustrate what I am saying to you with other examples. One need only be led, by chance or by one's karma, to become aware of such things. For example, I once had to wait for something to happen in Vienna during the last days, so I went to a coffee house to avoid waiting on the street. As I still find it most useful on such occasions, I took a fair number of newspapers. The Congress had just ended. The newspapers had a lot to say about the conclusion of the Congress. But a large part of what appeared there in the way of reports was not written in such a grotesque style as the article that I then found in Innsbruck – not in an Innsbruck paper, but in a Viennese one. This grotesque style was not achieved, but nevertheless nice things were said from various sides. And some of the newspapers that had previously published objective reports then thundered from a completely different corner.

I emphasize this because it should be understood that the word has a much greater significance; that I always say that one should know how things live in our age, how things work, otherwise one cannot really [be familiar with the realities]. Of course, in anthroposophy the impulses are so strong that one does not need to take out one's earplugs, but can go through the world with them in. But one can no longer do that when the anthroposophical movement has spread so much without our doing. And so we must see to it that we ourselves find the possibility of finding our way, while remaining constantly alert and constantly taking into account everything that is happening. We must simply come to find our way. When you look at the bigger picture, it is quite confronting. That civilization cannot continue as it is today, as many people think, is becoming fully clear to other people. That is why the most beautiful alliances are being formed today, with the most beautiful programs.

Now I have been completely convinced of the following in recent times: We have certainly also found a certain number of people at our Congress of Vienna who, through this Congress of Vienna, have become aware that we are not making any progress with the old way of thinking, that it is necessary for a completely new and spiritual approach to come. It is precisely because of what was done and implemented at the Congress of Vienna that numerous people, certainly enough people for such a congress, have come to this conclusion.

If these people have now come to this conviction and now want to translate this conviction into practical life, then, my dear friends, what has always been there on a small scale also emerges again: these people do not join the Anthroposophical Society, but they do join another of the covenants, whose external leadership, whose external organization, whose external collaboration of members they like better. So that we actually - we can say it, and today I am saying it quite decidedly, because it has come to me so decidedly in recent times - so that we actually now often work in such a way that we thoroughly win people over for the facts, but they do not join us, but enter into the other covenants that are currently being founded. So the material success is actually not lacking. You can't even say that people don't want anthroposophy, because they do want it, and those who enter into the other alliances are sometimes very good anthroposophists, they just don't join us. I'll leave it to you to think about the reasons for this, because that will be the useful thing in working out an opinion for yourself.

But now I would like to start calculating. I believe that a great deal of money is being spent today to stage such alliances, and quite a lot of money is flowing into them. I am convinced that we could have this money if our cause were properly managed. We don't get them. We could very well build the Goetheanum with them and continue to operate it if only we understood that people really join us, and don't join other [societies] after they have been convinced by us.

To do this, however, we must really pay attention to the only specific thing, we must not pass by the single specific thing. And so it must be said: other alliances are relatively successful in raising and collecting sums of money from the broadest circles. If you were to see in detail how we have been offered the opportunity to continue our work at the Goetheanum in recent times, then, apart from the respectable beginnings in raising larger sums from individual smaller contributions, the main thing that has helped us so much comes from a very few individuals, who must be approached again and again, and who have indeed given their all. So we should not be deceived by drawing up statistics according to country and so on. It is individual people who have actually helped us decisively so far. And that is what prompts me to think with an extraordinary feeling of gratitude of those individual personalities who have really understood in an extraordinarily sacrificial way to make possible the continuation of the Goetheanum building and what is connected with it.

But since I am convinced that many people who have worked in this extraordinarily sacrificial way have actually given their all, I also believe that we are currently in a particularly critical and that attention must be drawn to the moral foundations of our balance sheet, in such a way that we should take into account just such things as those I have just mentioned.

You see, my dear friends, the fact of the matter is that, given our membership, it would be absolutely possible for the journal Das Goetheanum, which appears here – and which, of course, viewed from the outside, has emerged quite respectably in relation to how other journals emerge – but that a journal like this, which actually provides an extraordinarily good picture from week to week of what is happening spiritually here, it would be possible, through our membership, for this journal to have ten times more readers than it actually has, if it were sufficiently taken into account. If people were sufficiently aware of what is actually involved in the simple fact that this magazine, Das Goetheanum, exists and is so well managed by our dear friend Steffen, if people were aware of all that is involved for our anthroposophical administration, I would say, then I would be able to do something extraordinarily good through these moral impulses, I would say.

For there is no doubt that someone could easily say that they know better: one article should have been published, the other should not have been published, and so on. I do not disagree with someone who says something like that, of course. But if the necessary support were there, which would simply consist of our being in the thick of it, really making DasiGoaheanam min an extraordinarily widespread magazine, then, in turn, the support that would be provided by that would of course make it possible to do better and better. These are, of course, things that point to the remote, but they are related to what should actually be considered above all: that we now interest the world in our sense, so that people also learn to know what the reality is of something like Waldorf school education and the like.

Do not underestimate this: if – well, I cannot say anything very decisive in this regard – but if, for all I care, a hundred thousand people read after the Congress of Vienna has concluded: It has become quite clear in Vienna that Waldorf school education is based on homosexuality. So it has been read by a hundred thousand people, and it only helps if we do not have these hundred thousand people, but other hundred thousand people who now approach things as they really are. It is much less a matter of repeatedly dealing with people who cannot be convinced, but rather of reaching the others who do not absorb the opposing poison in this way. There is no need to deal so intensively with those who might express such views, unless it is a matter of defense. No one can believe that someone who expresses such views can ever be convinced.

Not true, I have discussed it on a variety of occasions; I have discussed it very clearly when some person has once again spread the nonsense here about my magical effects on the German Kaiser and so on: there is no point in dealing with those people, whose worth is known from the outset, because they have such an immoral basis for their judgment. It is just as necessary, of course, that we spread our good things among people in every direction on the other side. And in this direction, we cannot say that the first condition, an awareness of these things, is present. There is no awareness of what it actually means to have something like the magazine Das Goetheanum. I think it is absolutely necessary to become aware of these things first, then we will really make progress. Our work begins with becoming aware of them.

In Vienna, we discussed with friends from various countries the possibility of financing the construction of the Goetheanum to such an extent that the sum is available annually that is not only necessary for the expansion, but also to to avoid constantly going around with a collection plate for every single thing, such as for eurythmy; so that the Mystery Dramas can be performed again, and so on. In doing so, it is really necessary first of all to consider these things in such a way that one does not say: the Mysteries should be performed. They will be performed as soon as it is possible. But this possibility really also requires that one does not, I would say, always have to worry from eight days to eight days about how to raise what is needed for the construction, or how to stretch and so on.

Rather, it would be necessary for us to find ways of approaching the people who, I might say, are springing up like mushrooms; people are saying: There is nothing to be gained from all the economic chatter and all the politicians are doing; the task today is to create spiritual movements. People who say this are springing up like mushrooms all over the place today. Of course, they may disagree with this or that; they fully recognize the practical work of anthroposophy, but when it comes to whether they join us or somewhere else, they join somewhere else, because, after all, [gap in the text]. Think for yourself about things, how sometimes things approach in such a strange way, how often they are so strangely barricaded, so full of clauses, not in the principles, of course, but in practical application. It is difficult for some people to get through some of the things that come their way when they should approach our movement.

Of course, we really have to pay attention to this if we don't want to have to start the managing director's report last year by saying that last year it was pointed out that the progression is declining and that we can only talk about adding around 290,000 francs to the value of the Goetheanum. Since the construction of the Goetheanum was stopped, we have only had to account for the administration of the remaining funds up to the last few months before the construction of the Goetheanum was stopped, now to those people who are still interested in the past. Please do not take this as an exaggeration. If things are not taken in hand energetically, a report like this may well be the beginning of a new tradition. For the critical moment to which I have referred has certainly arrived. But I have had to point this out in previous years as well, for I would say that the basis of our accounting is more spiritual than material.

I am always extremely reluctant to have to make such a statement, which some might call a diatribe, but it is absolutely necessary, and I am fully convinced that it is fully compatible with my deepest gratitude to those who work with me at the Goetheanum. It is indeed the case in the anthroposophical movement that a group of co-workers has come together in the most dedicated way in all fields, artistic and non-artistic, and now works in the most self-sacrificing way, so that resistance in the work of this group can never be found in earnest. I am often confronted with the fact that whenever I ask why this or that has not been done, the answer is always: We didn't think of that! It will be done the next day; there is always the will to get things done. But it is more important, above all, to consider that things should be done more rationally, more economically.

You see, if I may speak for myself: the corrections for my books are very high! I can't get to them, for the simple reason that there are always other things to be done. It is quite natural that there are other things to be done; but when you look at a lot of things in more detail, the fact is that I am very often not asked at the decisive moment about things that are being conceived somewhere, that are being done somewhere. Then they happen. Then, after some time, they do not go any further, and then one is asked about the details. That is, of course, an endless matter.

I am not at all annoyed when I am asked about all sorts of things, but it must be the main things. It should not be the case that I am not asked about the main issues, and then have to negotiate about the secondary issues in endless meetings, by which I do not just mean those of the “coming day” and the “future”; it is not the case that I am referring to these in particular. Rather, I mean that it is necessary, now that we are really facing such enormous demands from the public, that we now do things with a certain rationale, that they are considered, and that they are done in such a way that they are not just done out of momentary ideas, but that they are really done with a certain overview. Otherwise, the same thing will happen that has already become a calamity within the anthroposophical movement.

You see, something like the Congress of Vienna is particularly evident. The Congress of Vienna is closing; the most urgent requirement is to make it count. This commercialization consists, of course, in evoking a correct judgment in the world as to what the Congress had as its content. And then it is a matter of this being done by people who are collaborators. At the moment when one needs new collaborators, because the old ones have simply been overworked, it is no longer possible. In our case, the matter very often comes to a halt due to the fact that we have a number of exceptionally good workers in a particular field; when their number reaches a certain size, the result is not that the circle expands, but that people overwork, as is the case with such bodies, say, as the Waldorf school teaching staff and the like. People overwork themselves; and of course, overwork does not make a person more resilient, but less so.

Today, of course, there is the very aggravating fact that if it were a matter of founding new Waldorf schools, we would face a major difficulty. If someone were to give me, say, fifty million francs to found new Waldorf schools immediately, then things could be done very well. But if there are constant calls for Waldorf Schools to be founded without the fifty million francs being available, for instance through the establishment of a world school association, then we face the greatest difficulty of all: we cannot find teachers. If you want to found Waldorf schools today, you have to create teachers who are truly capable practically out of thin air. It is even extremely difficult to expand the teaching staff of a Waldorf school in an appropriate way.

My dear friends, I would like to illustrate to you why this is the case: You see, with the current state of the anthroposophical movement, it is simply not possible for me to deal with each individual teacher as much as is necessary to hire a single teacher here or there. It is absolutely impossible. It is not possible. The moment we are in a position to offer a joint course again for, say, a hundred or three hundred teachers, then we can do it again as it was done at the beginning of the founding of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. Then the matter is settled; then we can move on. But for that to happen, we really need to be able to hold courses that are embedded in the bigger picture. As the movement stands today, it is impossible to fragment our energies in the way that they are fragmented when things go the way they do today.

So if there are fifty million available to found Waldorf schools, then many can be founded; because teachers are available, they just need to be trained first. You need a teacher training background and so on. And those who are the best teachers in the world today need to be trained first. If someone wants to become a teacher today, they say: they want to take the course that was held for the Waldorf school back then. That is all well and good, but it is not the same as three weeks of real teacher training! Then you would have the opportunity to establish a whole series of Waldorf schools. But if you have to do something on the side in the meantime, you face the greatest difficulties, then it simply does not work. And so you will simply end up having to keep replying, “I don't have any teachers,” to these constant small advances.

What is important is not the utopia that I am creating here, but rather my firm conviction that it can be done; but the most important things always fall through, they are rejected. The World School Association was clearly rejected in its founding. They didn't want it. But it could have helped us, because if we had really launched the World School Association as it was meant at the time, we would not have membership fees for the World School Association of fifty francs, but of five or even one franc. If there is the necessary reality behind it, then we can move forward, we can form public opinion, and that is where it must start. That is where the matter lies. We must be able to form a public opinion. Now the matter always comes to a halt because we can, to a certain extent, place personalities in the places where they need to be placed, that they overwork themselves there, and that we cannot draw on forces from outside, because of course that depends on the most diverse circumstances.

But, my dear friends, these conditions also mean that, in each individual case, when you want to bring in this or that personality, you are faced with the question: how do you pay them? And that is where it stops. You simply cannot pay them under the current conditions. You have to let them go. These are the things that must therefore be taken into account.

Marie Steiner: I would like to mention that no one has ever gone around with a collection bag for eurythmy, so as not to cause any misunderstandings. For theologians, for everything possible, one has already gone with the collection bag, just not for eurythmy.

Rudolf Steiner: That is not quite what I meant. When one says “to go with the collection bag”, it does not mean that one actually goes from one person to the next with the collection bag.

Marie Steiner: But it is easy to get that impression. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that teachers are often asked to come to various German cities to teach eurythmy. Everything is agreed, even the rather low remuneration, and then when the time comes, they are told: No, we need the money for the theologians or for the schools or for the lecturers, so please stay at home.

Rudolf Steiner: Going around with the collection bag means that the money is raised from corners that would otherwise not give anything, but which have to be sought in such a way because people do not think about the fact that these things also have to be provided for. By “collection bag” I mean that the funds have to be raised. If, as unfortunately happens time and again, a eurythmist is appointed far away and people realize how much it costs when they see the bills, then the money has to be found somehow if the people are to be sent there. That is how I mean it, that you are constantly worrying about how to get the money together for the most important things.

Marie Steiner: It would be no use at all, because for people everything else is more important than eurythmy. They have even found that something that was already intended for eurythmy has to go into the school!

Rudolf Steiner: It is indeed the case that things have to be done in this way all the time.

Marie Steiner: I have even been told that the clothes are not beautiful enough on the stage.

Rudolf Steiner: But they are very beautiful!

Marie Steiner: I am taking this opportunity to mention this for once.

Rudolf Steiner: Those who grumble are the ones who can pay the bills! Isn't it true that we actually have to go around with the collection bag for the most important things – I don't mean that in a derogatory way – that we have to go around collecting. We have to go around with the collection bag for the most important things. If I express myself in this direction, then the collection bag will also be abolished, but don't think that it offers a very uplifting sight when I now have the collection bag in front of me every time I leave the carpentry workshop! I am not saying that – except in special cases – anything of significance goes into it, it is not really noticeable. But in any case, it is not an uplifting sight. However, I would like to add, when making such a comment, that it should not lead to the elimination of the collection bag at the door or even just for oneself.

Yes, it is the case that recently we have found the courage for everything except for the things on which the anthroposophical movement was built. We have found the courage for many peripheral things, but not for the things on which the anthroposophical movement was built, and of course these are the things that would have to be taken into account in a very decisive way.

I do not have high hopes when I say this, because I have said it here almost every year and people simply do not believe it. They think it is a propaganda speech, like the ones they already hold! But now, the things that are happening are, on the one hand, extremely encouraging, but on the other hand they are really not being seen in the way they should be.

Yesterday, for example, I was confronted with a fact that really speaks volumes. I was confronted with a fact in the most beautiful way, so that I have to acknowledge that it was brought to my attention; but it does have its downsides. It told me yesterday: It would really be appropriate for a pedagogical course to be held for Swiss teachers. This is something that is of the utmost necessity.

Yes, my dear friends, not too long ago I held a pedagogical course for Swiss teachers in Basel. There was almost no one in it. Here, too, such a course was added at Christmas. Everything was there; they just failed to even look at the things, to take into account that they were there! They didn't even bother to look at them. But that's not true, you really can't just think of a pedagogical course for Swiss teachers, where there would certainly be a number of people. But it would still not lead to what I mentioned earlier – that you could really win over teachers and make progress in the Swiss school movement.

There must be an echo, a support within our movement. People must take an interest in what is happening. And this interest is of course lacking, despite everything, it is not there. And that is why, for example, something like this will not be reported, will not become known in the world, that eurythmy in Vienna has had such an elementary success and the like. Our members also go there and are witnesses to such things. But at most they find that the clothes were not beautiful enough, that they could be even more beautiful, but then they do not pay for the expensive clothes. The positive things are not emphasized, which should really be presented to the world, when we are on the other hand obliged to go before the great public.

Of course, it is due to some things that are already connected with our anthroposophical movement! But it must be emphasized again and again, so that something is thought in this direction after all, so that one really understands when something like this is demanded of us, that we have to work under the most unfavorable conditions. We will work. But the damage will become apparent, and the damage will not lie in the matter, but in the fact that we will only ever be able to have a small circle of employees who overwork and ultimately cannot catch their breath. And then we find no interest in the fact that things are like that, but then the criticism sets in, and that this is considered to be in the matter after all, not in the surrounding conditions.

This is what I would like to see propagated, I would like to say, to tell people again and again. Otherwise, we end up with a report like this: After we completed the construction of the Goetheanum so and so many months ago, at this year's annual meeting we can only report on the administration of the last funds. Repairs cannot be carried out because we have no money. We are therefore also faced with the sad fact that what has already been built will fall into disrepair and so on.

Serious thought should be given to how such a report can be avoided! I regret that I have spoken out of turn again this year. But those who have been devoted co-workers in all areas should accept my most heartfelt thanks. Because it is not at all a question of not working extremely hard, but rather of the fact that we see ourselves as being constrained in every way when it comes to really drawing the consequences of what one begins. It is certainly the case that the things that are done are good. But when something arises – I don't want to mention a positive thing – when something arises that is supposed to come out of the anthroposophical movement, then the money for it has to be sought from outside, from those who are outside. But the reasoning is always done in such a way that with each new foundation, the anthroposophists are now being shelled out and thus, of course, have no. have any money for the things the Anthroposophical movement was actually built on.

I don't want to cause misunderstandings by not naming the individual things, but it always comes back to the fact that this or that is justified and that one says: It is an urgent necessity of the time. If it is an urgent necessity of the time, then one should approach those people who are not exactly anthroposophists, but for whom one wants to fulfill an urgent necessity! And when you point out this urgent necessity, people come back and say: No one has given us much, the amounts are quite minimal; but with the anthroposophists, we have repeatedly found the opportunity to get this or that out of it. That has been the order of the day lately. Then it comes about that there is money for everything, but not for what the Anthroposophical movement is actually based on.

We are put before the public and have to fulfill the conditions of the public. We have to get to the point, my dear friends, where those who approach us say: Well, yes, there is so much evil talk about anthroposophy in the world, but actually they are quite nice people, and you can even talk to them, while everyone thinks: They are such arrogant people that you can't talk to them at all. You can see for yourself: It is possible to talk to them.

But as a rule it is not so, rather one hears again and again from the outside: I had the best will to deal with this or that person, I also approached him, but, oh dear! He has done a number on my corns! Yes, that is something with which I hint to you in pictorial form what I find in many cases, namely that people say: Anthroposophists always hold their heads so high, they are so arrogant that they then don't know where they are stepping, and then they usually always step on your corns. We prefer to go where they curtsy and don't step on our corns.

That is, in a very narrow-minded picture, what is repeatedly found. The chapter “The arrogance of anthroposophy” is something that could fill very thick books, not just individual essays. And if I were to tell you more details – I will take good care not to – but if you ask: Who has been arrogant again?, then those are named who, when I speak of arrogance in general here, are terribly astonished at how it can be! That is what one very often experiences.

Please do not consider this address as a diatribe, but as a confidential message that is not given because someone wants to give someone a piece of their mind, but because they would like them to work together in the right way, and it is believed that in the future they will think less about their own interests and many other things, but more about the problems of other people.

Emil Grosheintz: Since no one else has requested the floor, I believe that the meeting can be closed.

My dear friends!

It will be different for me too, and I will have to speak to you today from a different background than I have been able to do in these meetings in past years. For we are still under the impression of the passing of our beloved anthroposophical building, the Goetheanum. I do not need to emphasize again and again what that actually means. The words of the Chairman have brought this home to you today; and I am convinced that these words were spoken from the soul of each of you. It is indeed the case that an accident beyond a certain level can only be revealed in silent language, and that words are really not enough to express what has been lost for us with the Goetheanum.

In the lectures that I had to give at the General Assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and the General Assembly of the Goetheanum Association in the meantime between the two assemblies and following them, I had to talk about everything that I feel compelled to say at this time.

Much of what I have to say at this time is, of course, said precisely in view of the great stroke of fate that has affected us. It should also not be overlooked how this stroke of fate has shown that there is a great deal of shared feeling among the members of the Anthroposophical Society. But, my dear friends, what I would say came to expression in a way that was self-evident to us at the time, when we were under the immediate and momentary impression of the Goetheanum fire, was that we did not want to give up the continuity of the work of our spiritual life. That must always inspire us. And it is particularly important that we know how to act in the sense of what I said yesterday: to work from the center of our spiritual life and not to be deterred by the most painful or uplifting impressions from the outside world in this actual inner work and attitude that comes from the center. The real perspective of the anthroposophical movement depends on this. It does not depend on how many and what kind of blows of fate come from outside. These must be accepted with the attitude that arises from the anthroposophical view of life. But the question of whether the inner energy needed to work out the center of spiritual life slackens despite all strokes of fate, or despite all favorable strokes of fate, depends on what is to be achieved and can be achieved with the anthroposophical movement.

But we must always remind ourselves of what is necessary for such work, especially in these very difficult times.

I would just like to note that in a spiritual movement of the kind that anthroposophy is, if it is to find the right path, success and failure must be taken as meaningless, and that only that which arises from the inner strength and impulses of the cause itself means anything. But a great deal depends on the consciousness of those united in the Anthroposophical Society.

My dear friends, you only have to consider the following: attitudes and impulses of consciousness do not materialize overnight. We cannot say today what the successes of the impulses of consciousness and attitudes of the day before yesterday are. If you did that, you would end up in a completely different direction than anthroposophy can take. For example, if you were to take the matter in this external way, you would be able to say: We rely on our good luck. But then, if this luck is not there in the way you imagine it, you would also say: We lose our courage, our energy. I might have imagined that at the time when we were struck by the terrible misfortune, there might have been souls, even among anthroposophists, who would have said: Yes, why did the good spiritual powers not protect us in this case? Can one believe in the impact of a movement that is so abandoned by the good spirits?

Such a thought, my dear friends, is linked to appearances, not to that which comes unerringly from the inner center of the matter, through appearances alone. If we want to take it seriously that our attitudes, thoughts and, in particular, our impulses of consciousness are realities, then we must believe in them ourselves, in these impulses of consciousness, in these thoughts, in these feelings, not in the help that they can get from outside, but in their own power. Then one must be sure that what one draws from such impulses will, despite all outward appearances of failure, reach its true goal, the goal prescribed for it in the spiritual world; even if it were to be completely destroyed for the time being by external circumstances in the external world.

He who can ever entertain the belief that a spiritual idea, which is rightly willed, can be completely destroyed by anything in the external world, even if the destruction takes place in the external Maja, does not really believe in the power of spiritual impulses, in the power of spiritual energy. It must still be possible to say at the moment when everything external perishes: Success is certain for that which is willed from within. But then one may only speak of success in the sense of that which lies within the inner impulses, the thoughts, the intentions of consciousness themselves. The things that take place in the outer world usually happen in such a way that they often only become explainable after decades, or perhaps even longer. And to judge the government of the spiritual world by the current constellations, if I may say so, would be to be timid about this spiritual world. The spiritual world must give itself its strength and power. Now there is nothing within the earthly world except human minds in which this power can find a home, can be understood; not organizations, not institutions, however beautiful or ugly they may be, can in any way prove or disprove what is really willed by the spirit.

Those who seek to prove or disprove the truth or falsehood of the spiritual by outward appearances are on the wrong path, for they do not stand within the center of spiritual impulses but outside it. The innermost part of the human soul is the only thing that can be used to judge what is at issue here; external connections can never be decisive. On the other hand, however, this means that people who want to be the leaders of such a spiritual movement must strive more and more for this inner strength and develop an understanding of what it actually means to work from the inner center of a spiritual movement. It seems to me, my dear friends, that it is urgently necessary, especially at this moment, to become fully aware of how difficult this is and how it cannot be sufficiently fulfilled by what is often expressed by saying, “I have the anthroposophical attitude, I have the anthroposophical will.” It cannot be satisfied by that in any way.

And here I would like to mention a word that I have often spoken, often spoken since the Goetheanum fire, and which I would like to see really understood; I have often said it: The first Goetheanum, the form of the first Goetheanum, this home of anthroposophy, as a building, as it stood there, cannot be rebuilt.

You see, my dear friends, when such a word, which is meant in the spirit, is spoken, it must be felt as a reality, one must make the assumption that one can look at it from the most diverse sides, as one can look at realities from the most diverse sides, that one can often only gain the right perspective for such a word from a certain starting point. For such a word was spoken initially out of spiritual obligation. And at the moment when the word is spoken out of spiritual obligation, there is absolutely no need to carry around on one's physical hands all the reasons, the so-called reasons, for such a word.

Today, at this hour, it is less incumbent upon me to speak of the external circumstances, but I would like to speak today particularly about something that is connected with the inner impulse of this word: the first Goetheanum cannot be rebuilt. And please allow me to speak of it with all seriousness; because only this seriousness towards the task of reconstruction can give the friends the right attitude.

You see, we can report an external fact today. This external fact is that the legal investigations that followed the Goetheanum fire have now been concluded; one can say that they have been concluded so that the authorities have now been able to decide to pay us the sum insured of three million and some hundred thousand francs. The payment has been made. These three million are there; and this fact can be recorded for the time being today. So, since June 15, we have had these three million.

Now, my dear friends, it could turn out that souls would breathe a sigh of relief at the fact that we now have these three million for the construction and at most have to raise another three million through the willingness of our friends to make sacrifices. One could characterize the fact in this way. One could now record this June 15 as an extraordinarily joyful event in the development of the anthroposophical movement.

My dear friends, it is not. And if I am to shed light on the matter for you today from a perspective that is wholly in keeping with anthroposophical life, then I must speak differently. For me, for example, this fact, which may be described as extraordinarily joyful by some and extraordinarily sad by others, is extraordinarily painful. And one of the feelings of suffering that I have had since the Goetheanum fire is that I have had to say to myself: what has happened now must be brought about, must be brought about in the best and most energetic way, must happen of necessity; but something must be brought about that actually has nothing to do with the center of the anthroposophical movement, that lies completely outside the center work of this movement.

You see, my dear friends, the saying: The first Goetheanum cannot be rebuilt, has not only an aesthetic, not only an opportunistic, not only an external-historical background, but also an anthroposophical-moral one. And it is this anthroposophical-moral background that I would like to talk about today.

Let us look back to 1913, 1914, and ask ourselves: what were the reasons behind the decision to build the Goetheanum and to start this construction project? What was pursued at that time and in the period leading up to December 31, 1922, or January 1, 1923, was based on the fact that every single franc that was invested in the Goetheanum flowed from the willingness to make sacrifices of those who, in some way, professed their belief in the anthroposophical movement. The Goetheanum was built entirely out of inner understanding. Every franc flowed out of inner understanding for the cause.

My dear friends, the following is truth, is real truth, because reality coincides with the inner core of the matter: at the moment the last lecture was given at the Goetheanum, we had a home for anthroposophy that had been built with the sacrificial pennies and sacrificial cents of those who were wholeheartedly committed to the cause. From the hill in Dornach, the building shimmered, having incorporated anthroposophical will and anthroposophical willingness to sacrifice into every cubic centimeter of wood and stone. This moral substance was built into the first Goetheanum.

My dear friends, now we will begin to build with three million francs, many of which come from the pockets of those who not only have no inner interest in the Goetheanum, but have an interest in this Goetheanum not being there. And when the Goetheanum again shimmers down from the hill of Dornach, it will not only be built with anthroposophical willingness to make sacrifices, but also with what is common outside of anthroposophy in the structure of the present world.

Then, my dear friends, there will be a very different structure, seen from the inner spiritual point of view. There will most certainly be people who will not only not accompany with any deep sympathy, but perhaps even with a kind of curse, what, according to the social context that now exists, comes out of their pockets and is built into the Goetheanum.

I have often said that within a movement such as anthroposophy's, it is a matter of being awake, not sleeping. What I have told you now is not said in a sleeping state, but in a waking one. For us, words such as “blessing of a thing”, “connection of blessing with beautiful qualities of the human mind” must not be a mere phrase; for us they must be a fact. And so the first Goetheanum was built with the inner feeling that we were doing something that, from its right causes, takes the path forward in such a way that this path is the path of the causes themselves. Now we are building the Goetheanum in a tragic direction, my dear friends. A tragically built Goetheanum is different from the Goetheanum that we were able to tackle in 1913, 1914.

You see, my dear friends, anthroposophy is often criticized for being too intellectual. No, it leads through what lies in its real impulses to the deeper feelings of humanity. In 1913, one could begin building with a joyful heart; today, when one begins, it is almost inevitable that one begins in tears. I am giving you just such a description, which comes from the inner center of spiritual thinking; and such thinking differs quite essentially from thinking that takes its impulses from external facts. Thinking that is linked to external facts would probably not express the words I have just spoken; instead, it would be excitedly joyful that June 15 brought us the three million.

My dear friends, I have often spoken, perhaps unjustifiably in the eyes of many of you, about the fact that there is an inner opposition within the Anthroposophical Society to what I sometimes have to represent from the center of anthroposophy; today I do not want to characterize this opposition again; but I would just like to ask the question: Has the feeling that I have just expressed been present everywhere in the course of the last few months, since the Goetheanum fire? If another feeling has been present, it has been an example of inner opposition. It was a feeling that should no longer have been reckoned with, after the anthroposophical movement has gone through the three periods of its existence.

When we stood here on the hill in Dornach, bowed down with grief on the first day after the fire, while the flames were still licking outside, many anthroposophists gathered around the still burning building. One or another said something. In the end, it really did not matter to me what anyone said, because the content of the words is only a symptom for the actual spiritual background; but I would like to say that what was said on that first day after the outbreak of the terrible disaster differed in two respects. Anthroposophists spoke the word, for example: Now we no longer have the Goetheanum, now we want to build it in our hearts. It was an elementary feeling that already had something to do with the center of the movement. But there were other voices that spoke like this: The Goetheanum is insured; will it be possible to rebuild it with the insurance money?

My dear friends, I do not want to lead you into impracticality in any area of life. I have nothing against these things being considered as practically as possible. But it depends on the intentions. It depends on whether one recognizes the difference between what was there before and what will necessarily have to be built now. For no one should say, in the anthroposophical field, that it does not matter what the intentions are, as long as the Goetheanum is rebuilt. Attitudes and thought impulses, especially impulses of consciousness, do not work overnight, but move in the currents of the spiritual world and must not be judged by mere external facts, which are only symptoms for them, not an immediate reality.

Now, in everything that had to be done after the fire – please forgive me for mentioning this too – I tried, as far as it was possible under the influence of the necessary facts, to shape our actions from the center of the matter. Therefore, I calmed the friends who, in the first few days, saw it as the most necessary thing to use all possible means to protect our interests – for example, during the negotiations with the insurance company. I tried as far as possible to remove from our actions everything that did not come from the core of the anthroposophical movement itself.

My dear friends, must we not think that we have to learn to take our affairs into our own hands, that we have to learn not to proceed as we would on unanthroposophical ground? It was certainly not to impose more work on myself that I tried to conduct all negotiations in such a way that they were conducted by us on our own side.

I knew that I was taking on a responsibility towards our friends. Because if the outcome of June 15 had been worse, people would naturally have said: If you had taken the right lawyers at the time, things would have been different. But such responsibilities have to be taken on when it comes to the higher duties arising from the center of anthroposophical work. They have to be taken seriously. And they are no longer taken seriously if one does not, as far as possible, remain within the designated center in specific cases. One immediately describes one's powerlessness when one declares oneself unable to deal with matters that are one's own, from the center of anthroposophical impulses. Of course, we can never set out today to do what should actually be done, I would say, as the most radical thing: to use the three million for some charitable purpose, and to build the Goetheanum again only out of the sacrificial willingness of the friends.

My dear friends, as I said, do not regard me as a person who wants to tempt you not to be practical. But my concern now is not just to focus on the external deeds; my concern is to utter the words that should shape our thinking, to utter them quite openly. If we make them shape our thinking, then they will also, in the nobler sense, have the right results.

Those who say, “So we have to use the three million for charitable purposes and have to wait until the building can be rebuilt out of a willingness to make sacrifices,” would of course be wrong now. They would again be confusing what must be done with what suits their selfish, ambitious intentions. The energy and strength do not lie in choosing the easiest path, even if the easiest path can be described as extraordinarily moral in an egoistic sense; but the energy lies in the fact that, even if the path has to be a tragic one, one plunges, if I may say so, into the tragedy. But this must not be done unconsciously; one must plunge into the tragedy consciously and know that one is in a realm in which one cannot do what is purely anthroposophical; one must know that one must do what one has to do, despite the fact that it is not anthroposophical, but must balance it out with an all the stronger anthroposophical element. When you weigh something, you don't take away from the pan on the side where the weights are too heavy for the other side; you add to the other side.

We will need that. We will have to create the counterweights through an even stronger anthroposophical approach to counteract what we are tragically being led into, as something that, for the most part, perhaps for half of it, must happen un-anthroposophically. I can say that it would perhaps have been easiest for me to say: I will only lend a hand in building the Goetheanum if the three million insurance money is used for charitable purposes and the building fund is created entirely through donations. It would have been easier because it would have caused less pain. But we must not shy away from pain, my dear friends, if we want to work in the realm of reality. But neither should we want to ignore the pain. We should not just keep telling ourselves: we are doing what is most beautiful, what is best. We cannot do that in the earthly world, least of all in the present. Therefore, we should not let our heads sink and say: then I will lose heart altogether. When the gods sometimes seem to fade away, as if they were not there, as if humanity had been abandoned by them, the wisdom of the gods consists in people receiving impulses to seek them out even more in the places where they have hidden, but not to complain about their disappearance and inaction. Wanting the earth only as a soft resting place and only finding it divine when it presents itself in such a way that it always corresponds to what one would like, can never form the attitude of a spiritual movement, because that is not strength, that is powerlessness. And we will not perform the Goetheanum, which is colorfully tragic, out of powerlessness, but only with the development of strength, with the awareness that where the gods seem to have withdrawn, they must be sought all the more by us in their place, where they seem to be hidden.

My dear friends, I wanted to develop thoughts of encouragement. And since it is quite difficult to speak between the lines, today I have added some things to the lines themselves, I would say with a certain clarity. But what I have added to these lines is really necessary if we want to develop the right attitude in the near future for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum and also for other things. It would not help at all to lull ourselves into this or that illusion; but it helps solely and exclusively to face ourselves without a veil with the eyes of truth, in this case the inner truth that flows from the moral side of anthroposophy.

If that can happen, then what should actually happen would happen: that the Anthroposophical Society, in the midst of today's world events, would be a place where people do not indulge in the illusions in which everyone lives today. Because for much of what is happening in the present, you can expose the illusions. Since 1914, people have been living with a certain relish in illusions because they do not have the inner courage to admit the truths. If the Anthroposophical Society, the association of the Goetheanum, could develop awakening soul power in the midst of a world full of illusions, then, my dear friends, the tragic situation in which we now find ourselves, and about which we should not be under any illusion, would be counterbalanced as it is in every real tragedy.

Study the tragedians of all times. You will see that the tragedy consists in the fact that everything external seems to collapse and that only within oneself is the strength to lead beyond the catastrophe. When this occurs in art, some people like to look at it, although today there are not many, because tragedies are no longer very popular. But if it is to happen in reality, then things must happen as I have characterized them. Then something must happen that makes the Anthroposophical Society, the Goetheanum Association, stand out in its inner spiritual attitude like an island formation within a world based on illusions. Then what is a real power can radiate into the world based on illusions.

My dear friends, if we take the words in the right way that I had to speak to you, then there will be much intention, much endeavor, much striving for a different state than the one we are in, in our feeling. Then we will not be blinded by much satisfaction, especially not much self-satisfaction. We will banish from us the thoughts of satisfaction and self-satisfaction and awaken in us those thoughts that can arise from a purely spiritual view of things. Then we will have right thoughts of building up out of the spirit.

My dear friends, it was in all seriousness, but also, I believe, with complete objectivity, that I wanted to speak to you today. And I thank the board of the Goetheanum Association for giving me the opportunity to speak these words at this event about what is so closely linked to the fate of the Goetheanum, the past and the possibly coming Goetheanum.