The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Anthroposophical Society was founded on December 28th 1912 in Cologne, German, with about 3000 members. By 1923, the international growth of of the Anthroposophical Society made restructuring necessary. This restructuring took place during the Christmas Conference in 1923.

The General Anthroposophical Society is, “an association of people whose will it is to nurture the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.” The Society is public, without political agenda or religious affiliation. Its activity is seen today in independent national societies and initiatives throughout the world, with members from all cultures and continents.

The aim of the Society, the School of Spiritual Science and the Goetheanum is to make a spiritually based contribution to the life of humanity in the world of today and tomorrow.

This text is from a pamphlet printed by the Anthroposophical Society of Great Britain.

1. TheAnthroposophical Society is a union of human beings who desire to further the life of the soul—both in the individual and in human society—on the basis of a true knowledge of the Spiritual World.
2. The persons gathered at the Goetheanum, Dornach, at Christmas, 1923—both the individuals who were present and the groups which were represented—form the foundation of the Society. They are convinced that there is in existence at the present time a real Science of the Spiritual World—discovered and elaborated for years past, and, in important particulars, already published. They hold, moreover, that the civilisation of to-day needs the cultivation of such a science. This is to be the task of the Anthroposophical Society. It will endeavour to fulfil the task by centering its activities on the spiritual science of Anthroposophy cultivated in the Goetheanum at Dornach, with all that results from it for human brotherhood, for moral and religious life, and for the artistic and cultural life in humanity.¹
3. The persons gathered together at Dornach in founding the Anthroposophical Society recognise and support the view of those responsible at the Goetheanum (represented by the Executive formed at the Foundation Meeting) in the following particulars:—“The Anthroposophy pursued in the Goetheanum leads to results which can be of assistance to every human being—without distinction of nation, social standing or religion—acting as an incentive in spiritual life. These results can in a real sense give rise to a social life based on brotherly love. The possibility of making them one's own and founding life upon them depends on no special degree of learning or education, but alone on a free, unbiased human nature. The researches, however, which lead to them, and the power of competent judgment on the results of research, are subject to a spiritual-scientific training which must be acquired step by step. The results are in their way no less exact than those of Natural Science; and when like these they attain general recognition, they will bring about a like progress in all spheres of life—not only in the spiritual but in the practical domain.”
4. The Anthroposophical Society is an entirely public organisation, and in no sense a secret society. Without distinction of nationality, social standing, religion, scientific or artistic conviction, any person feeling the existence of such an institution as the School of Spiritual Science—the Goetheanum in Dornach—to be justified, can become a member of the Society. The Anthroposophical Society is averse to any kind of sectarian tendency. Politics it does not consider to be among its tasks.

5. The Anthroposophical Society looks upon the School of Spiritual Science at Dornach as the centre of its work. This School will be composed of three classes. Members of the Society will—at their request—be admitted to the School after a period of membership to be determined in each case by those responsible at the Goetheanum. They thus gain entrance to the first class of the School of Spiritual Science. Applicants will be received into the second or third class respectively when those responsible at the Goetheanum deem them ripe for admission.
6. Every member of the Anthroposophical Society has the right to participate—under conditions to be announced in each case by the Executive—in all lectures, demonstrations and meetings of any kind arranged by the Society.
7. The establishment of the School of Spiritual Science is, to begin with, in the hands of Rudolf Steiner, who will appoint his collaborators and his eventful successor.
8. All publications of the Society will be open to the public as are those of other public societies.² The same will apply to the publications of the School of Spiritual Science; but in regard to these works, those responsible for the School reserve the right from the outset to deny the validity of opinions unsupported by the proper qualifications, namely by the training of which the works themselves are the outcome. In this sense, and as is customary in the recognised scientific world, they will admit the validity of no judgment which is not based on the requisite preliminary studies. The publications of the School of Spiritual Science will therefore contain the following notice:—“Printed in Manuscript for the members of the School of Spiritual Science, Goetheanum, Class ... No person is held qualified to form a judgment on the contents of these works, who has not acquired—through the School itself or in an equivalent manner recognised by the School—the requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded; the authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.”
9. The object of the Anthroposophical Society will be the furtherance of spiritual research; that of the School of Spiritual Science the actual pursuit of such research. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever shall be excluded from the Anthroposophical Society.
10. At the beginning of each year the Anthroposophical Society shall hold an annual General Meeting, when the Executive shall submit a full report and balance-sheet. The Agenda shall be issued by the Executive together with the invitation to all members six weeks before the meeting. The Executive may summon emergency General Meetings and fix the Agenda for such Meetings. Invitations to such Meetings shall be sent to members three weeks in advance. Motions by individual members or groups of members shall be sent in a week before the date of a General Meeting.
11. The members of the Society may join together in smaller or larger groups, on any geographical or other basis of activity. The seat of the Anthroposophical Society is at the Goetheanum, whence the Executive shall communicate to the members or groups of members what it considers to be the task of the Society. The Executive enters into communication with the officials elected or appointed by the several Groups. The admission of members is in the hands of the Groups; the forms of admission shall, however, be submitted to the Executive at Dornach for signature, the Executive signing them in confidence to the officials of the Groups. As a general rule every member shall join a Group. Only those who find it quite impossible to enter a Group should apply for admission at Dornach as individual members.
12. The subscription shall be fixed by the several Groups; each Group shall, however, send 12s. (twelve shillings) annually per member to the headquarters of the Society at the Goetheanum.
13. Each working Group formulates its own Statutes, but these must not be incompatible with the Statutes of the Anthroposophical Society.
14. The organ of the Society is the “Goetheanum” Weekly, which shall for this purpose issue a Supplement containing the official communications of the Society. This enlarged edition of the “Goetheanum” will be supplied to members of the Anthroposophical Society only.
15. The Foundation Executive of the Society will be as follows:—

    First President: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.
    Second President: Albert Steffen.
    Recorder: Dr. Ita Wegman.
    Members of Executive: Frau Marie Steiner,
    Members of Executive: Dr. Elisabeth Vreede.
    Hon. Secretary and Treas: Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth.

• 1. The Society is continuous with the Anthroposophical Society founded in 1912. With the same objects in view which were then defined, the intention is, however, to create a fresh point of departure, in keeping with the true spirit of the time.
• 2. The conditions, too, whereby one enters into the training of this School, have been described in published works, and their publication will be continued.

The outcome of the four-day negotiations: At the suggestion of Rudolf Steiner, a German national society, the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany,” and a “Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany” are formed for those mainly younger members who did not feel at home in the previous society.

The leadership of the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany” continues to be assumed by the so-called committee of nine: Dr. Carl Unger as representative of the Anthroposophical Society, Emil Leinhas as director of “Kommenden Tages”, Dr. Eugen Kolisko as director of the research institutes, Johanna Mücke as director of the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer as the supreme leader of the Movement for Religious Renewal, Dr. Otto Palmer as head of the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart, Jürgen von Grone as editor of the journal “Anthroposophie”, Dr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth as head of the “Kommenden Tag Verlag” (publishing house), Louis Werbeck as representative of the anthroposophical branches.

The leadership of the “Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany” is assumed by a committee of eight individuals: Moritz Bartsch, Hans Büchenbacher, Jürgen von Grone, Ernst Lehrs, Rene Maikowski, Wilhelm Rath, Maria Röschl, J. W. G. Schröder.

Jürgen von Grone, who belongs to both committees, is designated as the liaison between the two societies.

Report on the delegates' meeting written by Dr. Carl Unger and Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, published in “Mitteilungen, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Deutschland”, No. 5, Stuttgart, June 1923. The footnotes without [] in these minutes come from the authors of the report.

The following report of the Assembly of Delegates is intended to give all friends who were unable to attend the meeting itself a picture of what took place.

In order to keep the costs of printing this report within affordable limits, the stenographic records of the individual statements of the delegates were summarized as far as possible. Therefore, only part of the statements could be reproduced in the original wording. However, an attempt has been made to give an objective and accurate account of the proceedings. The abundance of material available and the extensive editorial work involved meant that this report can only be published now.

The two lectures given by Dr. Steiner at the delegates' meeting on February 27 and 28 have been published separately by the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischen Verlag, Berlin, and are available from their well-known distributors.

Dr. Steiner greets those present with the words:

My dear friends!

Allow me forthwith to open the Foundation Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society. My first task is to announce the names of the General Secretaries who will speak on behalf of the national Societies:

America, the United States: Mr Monges.
Austria: On behalf of the Council: Count Polzer.
Belgium: Madame Muntz.
Czechoslovakia: Dr Eiselt, Dr Krkavec.
Denmark: Herr Hohlenberg.
England: Mr Collison.
Finland: Herr Donner.
France: Mademoiselle Sauerwein.
Germany:
on behalf of the Council: Dr Unger.
on behalf of the Free Anthroposophical Society: Dr Büchenbacher.
Holland: Dr Zeylmans van Emmichoven.
Honolulu: Madame Ferreri.
Italy: On behalf of the Council:
Baroness de Renzis, Rome,
The Duke of Cesaro, Fräulein Schwarz, Milan.
Norway: Herr Ingerö.
Sweden: Fräulein Henström.
Switzerland: Herr Steffen.

Secondly I have to read to you a telegram which has arrived: ‘Please convey to the gathering our cordial greetings and best wishes for a good outcome, in the name of Sweden's anthroposophists.’

Before coming to the first point on the agenda I wish to ask whether in accordance with the rules of procedure anyone wishes to comment on the agenda?

No-one.

Then let us take the first point on the agenda. I call on Herr Steffen, who will also be speaking as the General Secretary of the Society in Switzerland, within whose boundaries we are guests here.

Albert Steffen speaks:

He concludes by reading a resolution of the Swiss delegates:

The delegates of the Swiss branches have decided to announce publicly today, on the occasion of the Foundation Meeting, the following resolution:

‘Today, on the occasion of the Foundation Meeting of the General Anthroposophical World Society in Dornach, the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland wishes to express its gratitude and enthusiasm for the fact that the Goetheanum, which serves the cultural life of all mankind, is to be built once again in Switzerland. The Swiss Society sees in this both good fortune and great honour for its country. It wishes to verify that it will do everything in its power to ensure that the inexhaustible abundance of spiritual impulses given to the world through the works of Rudolf Steiner can continue to flow out from here. In collaboration with the other national Societies it wants to hope that the pure and beneficial source may become accessible to all human beings who seek it.’

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends, in the interest of a proper continuation of the Meeting it seems to me sensible to postpone the discussion on announcements such as that we have just heard to a time which will arise naturally out of the proceedings.

For the second point on the agenda I now wish to call for the reports to be given by the various Secretaries of the various national Societies. If anyone does not agree with this arrangement of the agenda, please raise your hand.

It seems that no-one disagrees, so let us continue with the agenda. Will the different General Secretaries please come to the platform to speak to our friends. I first call on the General Secretary for the United States of America, Mr Monges, to speak.

Mr Monges gives his report.

Dr. Steiner: I would now like to call on the General Secretary for Belgium, Madame Muntz, to speak.

Madame Muntz expresses her thanks for this honour, declares herself in agreement with all the statements that have been made and wishes the Meeting all the best.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the General Secretary for Denmark, Herr Hohlenberg, to speak.

Herr Hohlenberg reports.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the representative of the Council in Germany, Dr Unger, to speak.

Dr. Unger reports on the work of the German national Society. He concludes with words which have been recorded in the short-hand report:

At present we require in some aspects a rather comprehensive structure to accommodate this Society. This will have to be brought into full conformity with the Statutes presented here by Dr. Steiner for the founding of the General Society. We declare that the Anthroposophical Society in Germany will incorporate every point of these Statutes into its own Statutes and that these Statutes as a whole will be given precedence over the Statutes or Rules of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. In addition I have also been especially called upon to express deep gratitude to Dr. Steiner for taking on the heavy obligations arising out of the founding of the General Anthroposophical Society. Out of all the impressions gained from this Conference, the question will have to be asked whether every aspect of the work done in a large Society such as that in Germany can participate in and wants to participate in what is wanted by Dornach. Ever since Dr. Steiner took up residence in Dornach, ever since there has been work going on in Dornach, it has always gone without saying that what took place in Dornach was seen as the central point of all our work. Whatever else needs to be said about the work of the Society in Germany will be better brought forward during the further course of our gatherings. Let me just say, however, that in recent months we have begun a very intensive public programme. Hundreds of lectures of all kinds, but particularly also those arising out of a purely anthroposophical intention, have been given, especially in the southwestern part of Germany, even in the smallest places. All those who have participated, and there are many, agree without reservation that even in the smallest places there is a genuine interest in Anthroposophy, that everywhere hearts are waiting for Anthroposophy, and that wherever it is clearly and openly stated that the speaker stands on the soil of the spiritual research given to the world by Dr. Steiner it is really so that people feel: I am reminded that I have a soul and that this soul is beginning to be aware of itself once more. This is the case in all human souls, even those found in the smallest places, so we may look with confidence towards continuing our work in future.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the representative of the Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany, Dr Büchenbacher, to speak.

Dr Büchenbacher reports and concludes with the words: I would like to express our feeling of deepest gratitude to Dr. Steiner for taking upon himself the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society. This gives us the will and the courage to work with what strength we have on the general stream of forces of the Anthroposophical Society. We express our profoundest thanks to him for having done this deed. And we request that the Free Anthroposophical Society for its part may be permitted to work according to its capacity towards the fulfilment of the tasks which Dr. Steiner has set it.

Dr. Steiner: May I now call on the General Secretary of the English Anthroposophical Society, Mr Collison, to speak.

Mr Collison reports.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in Finland, Herr Donner, to speak.

Herr Donner reports.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in France, Mademoiselle Sauerwein, to speak.

Mademoiselle Sauerwein reports.

Dr. Steiner: I now call on the Dutch General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society, Dr Zeylmans van Emmichoven, to speak.

Dr Zeylmans van Emmichoven reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I ask you to remain in your seats for a few more moments, dear friends. First of all, even during this Conference forgetfulness has led to the accumulation of a number of items of lost property. These have been gathered together and may be collected by the losers from Herr Kellermüller on their way out.

Secondly, the programme for the remainder of today will be as follows: At 2.30 there will be a meeting of the Vorstand with the General Secretaries, and any secretaries they may have brought with them, down in the Glass House, in the Architects' Office. This meeting will be for the Vorstand, the General Secretaries, and possibly their secretaries, only.

At 4.30 there will be a performance of the Nativity Play here.

Because of a eurythmy rehearsal my evening lecture will begin at 8.30.

I now adjourn today's meeting of members till tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. I shall then have the pleasure of calling on the representative of Honolulu, Madame Ferreri, to speak, and representatives of other groups who did not speak today. The meeting is now adjourned till tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Delegates' conference ¹ in preparation for the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society

Stuttgart, September 13-17, 1923

Invitation in No. 6 of the “Mitteilungen, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Deutschland”, Stuttgart, July 1923

To the members of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany

We hereby invite all members of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, in particular the members of the extended board and the trusted representatives, to a general meeting to be held in Stuttgart between September 10 and 15 of this year. We are not yet able to present you with a detailed program for this conference, but we have the great pleasure of informing you that Dr. Steiner has accepted an invitation to give a series of lectures from September 12 to 15.

Applications for this main conference can already be sent to the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, Stuttgart, Champignystraße 17.

Dear Friends!

Since the delegates' meeting, Dr. Steiner has spoken in various places, for example at the two general meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, about the fact that the Anthroposophical Society must set itself a new task that will also gain it the respect of the outside world. The question is most forcefully raised in the eight lectures he gave in Dornach from June 10 to 17. In this issue of the “Mitteilungen” we are bringing a summary report of these lectures and would like to draw particular attention to the passage at the end: “How to give the Anthroposophical Society a certain character should be discussed everywhere.”

Such discussions have been the focus of many circles since then, and what we have been able to learn from the letters we have received has been extremely valuable to us, and we are very grateful for them. Now it will certainly move hearts to an even greater extent, just as it has here in Stuttgart, and we are confident that we will succeed in gathering the fruits of this summer's work from all sides at the main conference, so that we can then approach the work of the coming winter, which will certainly be particularly difficult, from the new perspective.

We see the necessity of resuming public work as quickly as possible with powerful lectures on the essence of anthroposophy in all major centers. We have a new style in mind for such lectures, a new language, so to speak. The students of anthroposophy, who have been drawing on the living spirit for so long, should present themselves in such a way that no one can say that it is a copy of what Dr. Steiner has said or written. We have to throw a lot of our own power of persuasion into the balance to prove the power of anthroposophy on living human beings.

To appear in this way, each individual needs a society behind them, whose organization ensures uniformity of approach. Already today, the fruitful seeds of a natural structure are emerging spontaneously in different places. We hear, for example, from our friends in central Germany that they hold quarterly meetings so that a number of working groups can exchange experiences and report to each other through their representatives. The friends on the Rhine have achieved the same, despite the endless complications caused by the occupation. Here in Stuttgart, we can look back with great satisfaction on the meetings that have taken place every four weeks, with friends from all the surrounding towns coming here to work together.

If we consciously develop the tendencies that are present here, we will be able to achieve what we cannot achieve through correspondence or sending printed material. We have written and received countless letters at the Anthroposophical Society's office and can confidently say that, aside from purely “bureaucratic” matters, which are justified and necessary in their place, the best that we have to say and give each other cannot be expressed. But if we imagine that we are creating about six to eight centers throughout Germany that can be regularly reached by all members living in a larger district, then perhaps six to eight letters are enough to achieve regular and rapid communication with all friends. Travel would also become more feasible if mutual visits and, in particular, the participation of the local board were possible at such gatherings in the larger districts.

The main conference will be able to deal with such questions. Furthermore, we want to establish the extended board and the body of trusted individuals; and these matters will in turn point to the internal work of the individual working groups. For example, the important question of an introduction to anthroposophy should be mentioned: “We have to work our way through to the individual guidelines, which will then work as the self-evident.” This is how it says at the end of the seventh of the Dornach lectures.

Overcoming the “three points”, which in their fundamental nature are reminiscent of older occult societies, is perhaps the greatest task that the Dornach lectures present to us. We hope to be able to present you with a draft in the near future that is intended to emphasize three guidelines: 1. what those who approach from outside can see as the purpose of the society, 2. what the people united in the society want to set themselves as a task, 3. what the society wants to achieve in all areas of life.

If we can summon up the right self-reflection for what has led each of us to anthroposophy, then we will also find the right words that can be heard by the “homeless souls”.

Time is short and the tasks are great.

With warm regards,

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany 1. A.: Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger. Dr. Walter Johannes Stein.

Circular letter from the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany to the working groups in Germany and Austria and to the trusted representatives:

Stuttgart, July 31, 1923

Champignystraße 17

Dear Friends,

Today we can give you more details about the main conference in September, to which you were invited in the June issue of the “Mitteilungen” (No. 6), although the program cannot yet be given its final form.

With regard to the date, there has been a slight postponement in that the conference will not take place between September 10 and 15, but from Thursday, September 13 to Monday, September 17, 1923. The conference is planned in such a way that the extended board, the trusted individuals, and the working group leaders will meet and deliberate from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. (based on special announcements to the participants).

The main lectures, in particular those by local co-workers, are planned for the afternoons from 4 to 6 o'clock. These will be followed by discussions.

In the evenings, lectures will be given by Dr. Steiner and possibly by other speakers, starting at 8 o'clock.

---

The following topics will be discussed during the morning and afternoon sessions:

I. The Anthroposophical Society and its spiritual task internally and externally. The following topics are planned:

1. Confidential organization, extended board, etc.
2. Regional associations of working groups
3. Lecture system
4. “Introductory courses”
5. Lecture transcripts
6. Membership admission
7. Financial matters.

II. Combating opponents.

III. Formation of anthroposophical societies in individual countries and founding of the international society in Dornach.

IV. Rebuilding the Goetheanum.

We request that working groups register their reports (especially on I and II) and any presentations by September 1 at the latest, so that they can be taken into account when finalizing the agenda. We also request that any other requests regarding the program be communicated to us as soon as possible. Anthroposophical Society in Germany The Executive Council:

Dr. Carl Unger.
Dr. W.J. Stein

To the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany!

Dear Friends!

We hereby invite you to a meeting of representatives that will precede our conference. On Thursday, September 13, 1923, at 10 a.m., we want to meet at the Gustav-Siegle-Haus in Stuttgart to discuss the goal of the conference. Only if the guiding idea is nurtured and supported by all the trusted representatives at this meeting will we succeed in holding a conference in which social consciousness is stirred. In the future, the board and extended board, together with the trusted figures, will have a lot to actively shape.

At this preliminary meeting, we plan to first constitute the two bodies of the extended board and the trusted figures. Each of these two bodies must see itself as a body and become aware of its task.

To create an awareness of the Society, it is important that the extended board members, who are spread throughout Germany, feel that they are fully acting representatives of their body and also express this to the outside world. There should be an awareness that the working groups (branches) are divisions of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, and that they are responsible for the inner work. They should not appear in public. All public events should be organized by individual members of the extended board on behalf of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Thus, the Society is representatively represented to the outside world by the board and extended board.

The trusted representatives accept the members. In doing so, they also develop an external effect. The person is accepted into the Anthroposophical Society (initially not into any branch). The Executive Council carries out the admission, and the person of trust proposes by signing the application for admission. So every member initially becomes a free-standing member, i.e. a member of the Society. Only then can they become a member of a branch, i.e. a member of an esoterically working group. This is just an example to show the nature of the person of trust's activity.

It is planned to have every membership card countersigned in Dornach (this suggestion comes from Dr. Steiner), so that ultimately every single member will feel that they are a member of the international society, which will have its center in Dornach. However, this will not be decided until the international society's conference at Christmas.

As you can see, it is important to prepare the national societies for this international merger. But these organizational matters, important though they are, will be of secondary importance. The most important goal of our conference is the discussion of the Society's goal and the revision of the three guiding principles contained in the draft principles.¹

These three guiding principles still contain some of the sectarianism of the Theosophical Society and are therefore not appropriate as guiding principles for a true world movement. If our Society is to expand in a way that is appropriate to its present task, then no one should be required to profess belief in the guiding principles. Instead, any person who has an interest in the existence of a Society that is legitimately seeking paths to the supersensible worlds in order to enrich life and its practical individual aspects through supersensible knowledge should be able to become a member. But there are many more people who want something like this than there are members of our society, and such a reorganization of society would therefore result in a very extraordinary expansion of it. In this expansion, however, everything will depend on the trust leaders' knowledge of human nature and on the help they receive from the entire membership. In the future, all kinds of sectarian measures for admitting members, such as demanding that they complete introductory courses, read certain books, etc., will have to be eliminated, and everything will depend on the knowledge of human nature. The trusted personalities will have to learn to seek and find people who belong to us by nature, not those who have belonged to a doctrine and now profess it. It will be necessary to overcome this tendency to develop the vestiges of a religious belief.

We will have to discuss all this and much more that the friends themselves will want to accomplish. But we hope that such a preliminary discussion can create a unity and warmth that will give the course of the whole conference anthroposophical warmth and youthful momentum.

Kind regards
I.A.: Dr. Walter Johannes Stein

---

• 1. From Rudolf Steiner's announcement of his journey to this conference after his lecture in Dornach on September 10 and the documents reproduced below, it is clear that this conference was understood as a “delegates' conference”.
• 1. See references below.

Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhans

report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (theosophischen Gesellschaft), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, Nr. 1/1913

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps I may say that at the present time we are at the starting point of a significant, not new work; but at the starting point of a significant effort to consolidate and expand the old work. I have already brought into what I had to say yesterday all the feelings that I would like to place in your hearts and souls as a new color of our work. I hope that we will find ways and means to cultivate what we have cultivated in the old form, not in a new form, but in this new coming time, even more strongly, even more devotedly. That which has been saved from such difficulties must grow close to your hearts, and it would be a beautiful thing if each of us could truly feel this, that we can grow together with what we actually want. If we feel how what we call anthroposophy is a necessity for our time, and feel it in the way it must flow into our present cultural life, so that it wants to become a ferment in all individual fields; if we feel that all this wants to be and can be anthroposophy, then we will find the possibility of working in the right way. And the best contribution we can make today is not words, but our feelings and perceptions, our intentions, the principles we take within us to develop our individual powers.

What is at stake is to find the right ways to allow everyone who wants to approach to find access to us. No one should or must be denied access to us, even if we must also carefully guard the sanctity and inviolability of our resolutions. Perhaps more than usual, it will be necessary for us to be able to fully rely on each other, for us to be sure that those who step onto our spiritual path will find the right thing from their hearts, and that those who do not want something for their soul will be deterred, so that all who come to us are really with us in some way. If we maintain a sense of seriousness and dignity in all our actions, we can be sure that we really have trust in each other, that we drop the personal everywhere, and that we look at people only from an objective point of view. It is not easy to let go of the personal. However, this should lead us not to be indulgent towards ourselves and others, but rather to examine ourselves again and again to see if this or that personal thing is not speaking after all. And we will find to a greater extent than we think how difficult it is for a person to go beyond what lives in his soul as personal. Many a person will be convinced that the judgment they had was based not so much on objective reasons as on sympathy and antipathy. Self-examination is part of it if you want to participate in a spiritual movement.

I would like to emphasize not so much what these words mean literally, but what they can become if they are taken up by your hearts as they are meant to be. Perhaps they can serve as a starting point for the path, for the use of the means we need if we want to progress along the path we have once set for ourselves.

Dr. Unger: As we are about to open the first General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, we would like to express our heartfelt thanks for the words of welcome that have just been spoken. It is my duty to inform you that Dr. Steiner has accepted the honorary presidency of the Society at the request of the Central Committee and with the unanimous approval and enthusiasm of the large committee.

If we now want to enter the General Assembly, it is only so that we can share some information about the current state of the Society. Today, I ask only to receive a few communications, and to see the value of this first meeting in the fact that, on the basis of these communications, we have proof that the work of the committee has since been applauded by our friends. It will now be my task to ask you at this opening whether you can give your approval to the actions of the Central Committee and the large committee.

Fräulein von Sivers: Although not all the applications for membership have arrived yet, the number of our members is already quite large. The society already has 2557 members. How the individual groups are distributed will only become clear over time.

I still have to read out a letter of welcome from the Anthroposophical Working Group in Sweden. The Scandinavian General Secretary, Lieutenant Colonel Kinell, has been forced to resign as a result of his experiences and has taken over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society in Sweden.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Swedish Section of the Anthroposophical Society, which has now been founded, presents its compliments and sends its greetings.

Stockholm, January 31, 1913.

Gustaf Kinell, Anna Wager-Gunnarsson, Gustaf Ljungquist.

Fräulein Marie von Sivers.

The newly formed Swedish Section sends its warmest greetings and best wishes for the future to you and to the first General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society.

Stockholm, January 31, 1913.

Gustaf Kinell, Anna Wager-Gunnarsson, Gustaf Ljungquist.

The following telegram of greeting has arrived from France:

Au nom des membres français de la Société Anthroposophique nous exprimons au docteur Steiner notre profond attachement et notre adhésion résolue au programme de la Société.

Edouard Schuré, Alice Bellecroix, Eugène Lévy.

From Prague:

The first General Assembly warmly welcomes the Prague Circle.

Krkavec.

From the remaining members of the Anglo-Belge branch in Brussels:

46a, Boulevard de la Cambre, Brussels, January 29, 1913.

The members of the Anglo-Belge branch in Brussels, who, obeying their duty, could not follow the impulse of their hearts to be among you today, send their most respectful greetings to the beginning of a new theosophical era - to the highly esteemed teacher and thinker Dr. Rudolf Steiner - to the courageously and faithfully tested board of the Anthroposophical Society!

The leaders of our study group present in Berlin will be able to tell you that under the pressure of the difficult circumstances here, our life force is strengthened by looking up to him who guides us so wonderfully through writing and word.

The greater the external challenge, the more intimate our intimate association becomes! Loving spiritually is life in the higher sense - we include the circle of anthroposophical friends in this bond - may the small seed unfold into a glorious flower!

With grateful devotion, the remaining members of the Anglo-Belge branch in Brussels:

Mathilde Schollmeyer, E. Kuneman,
E. Hagemann, R. H. Alexander, Cato Voûte,
for two members who are currently unavailable, Frau Lotsy,
Mrs. A. de Fritsch.
(E. Hgm.)

Weimar:

The Theosophical Society,
Anthroposophical Society

Weimar Branch.

Weimar, February 1, 1913.

To the esteemed board of directors of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, Berlin.

The Weimar branch requests that the honorable board of the German section of the Theosophical Society read the following statement at the general assembly:

"The members present at the meeting held on January 30, 1913, recognize the approach taken by the entire board of the German section against the president of the Theosophical Society, Mrs. Annie Besant, the only possibility to ensure the continued existence of the Society on the basis intended by its founders H. P. Blavatsky and H. S. Olcott. They consider it the President's duty to sacrifice Dr. Steiner, whose activities are opposed to the aims of the Society, in particular his leadership of the Order of the Star in the East, and to resign from the presidency as quickly as possible and voluntarily. Theosophical Society has become impossible, and to resign from the presidency as quickly as possible and voluntarily. They therefore fully support all the numerous protests by other domestic and foreign branches of the Theosophical Society against the attempts, which are incompatible with a love of truth and a theosophical attitude, to hinder and undermine Dr. Steiner's beneficial and self-sacrificing work, and consider membership of the Order of the Star in the East to be incompatible with membership of the Theosophical Society due to the unbrotherly antagonistic attitude towards the person and teachings of Dr. Steiner expressed in the aforementioned order, which contradicts the principle of true tolerance and honesty.

The members of the Weimar branch therefore agree in advance with all further measures of the executive committee of the German Section that are aimed at helping the truth to prevail, and express their full and unconditional confidence in the executive committee of the German Section and their warmest thanks for its courageous approach to date in this unfortunate crisis of the Theosophical Society.

Weimar, February 1, 1913,
the Weimar Branch
On behalf of
Horst von Henning, 1st Chairman,
Grand Ducal $ Court Concertmaster,
Arthur Rösel, 2nd Chairman,
Mrs. Lina Schliephak-Uttner, Secretary.

From the Bochum branch:

Warmest congratulations and blessings.

Bochum branch.

From the Paulus branch in Mulhouse:

The Paulus branch sends Dr. Steiner, the Executive Council and the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society our warmest greetings.

Two friends sent us the following telegram: Budapest.

Two members of the Anthroposophical Society living abroad, who unfortunately were unable to come to Berlin, ask the first General Assembly to express their warmest wishes for a dignified and uplifting course of the unspeakably significant assembly. May it always be possible for all members to maintain that attitude, even in the event of any unpleasant disputes that may arise, which alone is appropriate for those souls who want to devote themselves to truth, which is above partisanship, praise and blame.

Valborg and Louis Werbeck-Svärdström.

We have just received a letter from Moscow in which the working group there declares its affiliation with us. And, strangely enough, we received several warm letters of welcome from Spain, which had not previously been in contact with us, as a result of our “announcements”.

Dr. Unger: It should be noted that many questions will probably still arise, but that these will resolve themselves over time. It would be good if the individual groups were to register with Fräulein von Sivers in the near future in order to be recognized as branches of our Society. The other provisions are, of course, contained in the 'Draft Principles of an Anthroposophical Society'. There will be no difficulties if we stick to the fact that working is the most important thing. The goals we have had so far remain our goals.

It is planned to charter the individual groups so that, for the time being, we can have a full picture of the Society before us at the next General Assembly. We must all remember to ensure that messages about what has happened here, what the Anthroposophical Society wants and means, are disseminated as widely as possible. There are many people who are being deceived. Many have no idea where they are going when they pin on the asterisk, for example, out of good nature or other harmless considerations. Gradually, however, enlightenment must come.

My question is therefore whether the assembly agrees with the results that are available so far; whether the printed preliminary statutes meet with your approval.

Unanimous approval of the meeting.

Mr. Günther Wagner: I just want to make an announcement about the library. At the board meeting in December of last year, the board of the former Theosophical Society transferred the library to me as my property, with the purpose of saving it for those whose dues created this library and for the movement to which we remain loyal. What is at issue today has already taken place once, and has a precedent. In the Minutes No. 4, January 1907, it says:

Regarding Item IV: Final settlement of the matter of the library of the German Theosophical Society, the General Secretary reports that the matter has taken a gratifying turn; namely, that Graf Brockdorjf has transferred all rights to the library to Mr. Günther Wagner. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Günther Wagner in turn transfers these rights to the German Section.

The following resolution was adopted by the General Assembly: “The German Section takes over the library of the former German Theosophical Society on the basis of the transfer of the 'rights that Count Brockdorff held in it to Herm Günther Wagner. The Section's board of directors will consider itself the library commission and transfers Mr. Günther Wagner the measures for the desirable installation of the library and for its further administration.

At the request of Mr. Tessmar, Mr. Günther Wagner is appointed by the German Section as the lifelong custodian of the library in recognition of his generous actions.

I would just like to say that this case has already occurred once. The Society has now reimbursed me for the library, and I hereby transfer the library to the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Unger: We thank Mr. Wagner for his generous action. That was the only matter before me. Is there any other urgent matter? This is not the case.

So we may close the first General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society with the expression of our wish and hope that we may make progress in our work.

I hereby close the first General Assembly and hope that our anthroposophical affairs will flourish.

Memorandum

1. With regard to the outer constitution of the Free Anthroposophical Society, the aim should be to work towards this Society corresponding to the “Draft Statutes”. This makes it possible to unite people in a Society in which they can feel completely free individually without the Society being in constant danger of disintegration. Anyone who truly understands the 'Draft' in the right sense will have to find all this fulfilled in it.

2. First of all, it is necessary to bring together all those individuals who are already members of the Anthroposophical Society and who, in the opinion of the formed committee, have taken the points of view that legitimately necessitate the separation into two groups of the overall Society. Mere dissatisfaction with the old leadership is not enough; what is needed is a positive orientation towards an anthroposophical goal that must be assumed to be unattainable by the old leadership.

3. First of all, the circle of the Free Anthroposophical Society formed in this way is to appoint trusted individuals who are recognized by the committee. One should only appoint trusted individuals who have an interest in giving anthroposophy to contemporary civilization. Then, in addition to the personalities already in the Anthroposophical Society, there will be those who are only being accepted. But it is precisely with these that care must be taken to ensure that they have made the positive of the anthroposophical the basic direction of their own lives. People who have only a general social interest, without an intensive anthroposophical impact, should not be appointed as trusted personalities, even if they are accepted into the Society with the idea that they will grow into real anthroposophists.

4. For the admission itself, a certain degree of immersion in the anthroposophical worldview should be decisive. However, for the time being, a spirit of broad-mindedness must prevail in the Free Association. Strictness should only come into play when forming the narrower communities.

5. The Free Inc. should become a tool for spreading anthroposophy throughout the world. The lecture and other dissemination work would have to come from its bosom, and institutes and other organizations would also have to be formed from it.

6. Another is the general Free Society, and another is the communities to be formed within it. These - whether exoteric or esoteric - would bring together people who feel they belong together inwardly and who want to experience the spirit together. In addition to such communities, it is quite possible that branch life in the sense of the “Draft” will develop. The branches would then be groups of the Free AG in general. However, it is entirely possible for members of the Free Anthroposophical Society to join the branches of the AG and work together with the members of the latter.

7. The work in the life communities will be of a kind that is contained within them. It is directed towards the spiritual perfection of the united community. What a member of such a community does externally, he does as a representative of the general Free Company. Of course, such a community can still engage in a specific external activity; but it remains desirable that its individual members then act as representatives of the general Free Company. This does not, of course, require a bureaucratic administration of the association's activities, but can be a completely free fact of consciousness on the part of the individuals.

8. A committee of trust would be established for each of the two committees, one for the AG and one for the Freie AG. These two committees are responsible for the common affairs of the entire Anthroposophical Society.

9. All institutions of the overall Anthroposophical Society should fall within the sphere of interest of both the Anthroposophical and the Free Anthroposophical Societies. This can be very good if a central administrative office is created to manage the affairs of the overall Society on behalf of the two committees (mediated by their committees of trust). The division into two groups should not lead to a situation in which an anthroposophical institution, especially one that already exists, is regarded as the concern of only one group. Quotas of membership fees, to be determined by the committees, should be paid into the central fund so that the affairs of the whole society can be adequately provided for.

10. It should be understood that the two groups have come into being only because there are two distinct departments among the members, who both want the same anthroposophy but want to experience it in different ways. If this is properly understood, the relative separation cannot lead to a split, but to a harmony that would not be possible without the separation.

11. No attempt should be made by the Free A.G. to destroy the historical developmental forces of the Anthroposophical Society. Those who want freedom for themselves should leave the freedom of others completely untouched. The fact that there are imperfections in the old AG should not lead to further feuding of the latter, but to the formation of a Free Anthroposophical Society, which, in the opinion of the leading personalities, avoids these imperfections.

12. The separation means that all the conditions are in place for young people in particular to feel at home in the Free AG. This is because the life communities will be free groups of understanding people; and this will be able to form the basis for ensuring that no one in the general Free AG feels restricted in their freedom.

in view of the imminent founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas

(following Rudolf Steiner's evening lecture) Minutes taken by Helene Finckh

Albert Steffen greets Dr. Steiner and those present and says: Today's meeting is an assembly of delegates to which every member has been invited. He proposes the election of a committee of elders: Dr. Steiner, Mr. Geering, Dr. Grosheintz, Albert Steffen, Dr. Lagutt, and adds: “Now I would like to ask this committee of elders to discuss the question of how many delegates each branch should appoint.

Rudolf Geering comments.

Dr. Steiner: So now we will probably come to an understanding in the bosom of old age as to how many delegates each branch would like to nominate. And I will then take the liberty of asking the delegates themselves whether they will also give their consent. But I would ask you to bear in mind that if an elders' committee is elected, it is always elected on the basis that it is considered wise. So it is assumed that it has extremely good reasons for what it does. So it will simply be a matter of deciding how many delegates should be nominated by each branch.

Albert Steffen proposes allowing two delegates from each of the Swiss branches.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed to allow two delegates from each of the Swiss branches. This would mean that each branch represented here would have two delegate votes. So even if only one delegate is present from any one branch, he would also have two votes, including for this evening. However, if there is no delegate at all, I don't know who should cast the two votes.

Now I ask the most honored elders whether they agree with this proposal? (The answer is affirmative.) Since the elders agree, I now ask the delegates to express whether they have any objections or want to make a different proposal. — It seems that this is not the case. Then we would need to record the votes of the individual branches. We have the following branches: the branch at the Goetheanum. The two votes are present, but who exercises them?

Albert Steffen: We could do it this way, Doctor, that these two votes be represented by the whole working committee.

Dr. Steiner: So: the working committee! — Then there is the “New Generation” branch. Are these two votes represented? Who exercises them?

Answer: Mr. Stokar and Mr. Storrer.

Dr. Steiner: Basel branch: Dr. Lagutt, Mr. Geering; substitutes: Mr. Rudolf Hahn and Dr. Oskar Grosheintz. Bern branch: Miss Ramser, Miss Knüpfer. Zurich branch: Ms. Weiß, Dr. Hugentobler. St. Gallen branch: Mr. Dürler, Mr. Knopfli. Olten: Mr. Wulschleger is present and [probably Mr. Widmer]. Romanshorn:? Rorschach:? Neuchâtel: Mr. Hotz. Kreuzlingen: Miss Müller. Schaffhausen: Mr. Gnädinger. There is no one present from Lugano.

That makes 22 votes. So the simple majority: 12 votes, two-thirds majority: 15 votes. So the voting ratio would be: simple majority with 12 votes, two-thirds majority, if any comes into consideration, with 15 votes. The meeting is now constituted. And the next step would be for this meeting to elect its officers. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?

Albert Steffen: Perhaps I may propose Dr. Steiner himself as chair of this assembly of delegates?

Dr. Steiner: If there is to be a discussion about this, I would ask you to take the chair for a moment. (This happens. Mr. Steffen's proposal is accepted.)

Albert Steffen: So it is unanimously approved.

Dr. Steiner: Then thank you very much and I will try to lead the chairmanship. — There will then be further elections for a secretary and two assessors.

Willy Stokar would like to propose Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth as secretary.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that Dr. Wachsmuth be elected as secretary. If any of the delegates have any objections, I would ask them to raise their hands. – That does not appear to be the case. Then I would ask Dr. Wachsmuth to take on the role of secretary.

Now I would like to ask you to propose two assessors. Does anyone wish to comment on this? — Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz have been proposed. Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Dr. Grosheintz: Proposes Mr. Steffen. Dr. Lagutt: Proposes Mr. Steffen.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to make a proposal? — Does anyone wish to speak about the proposals? — If not, we will proceed to the vote. Shall we vote by acclamation? — I ask those friends who are in favor of voting by acclamation to raise their hands. — (The vote is by acclamation.) The following have been proposed: Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz.

Albert Steffen: I ask those friends who are in favor of electing the two gentlemen as assessors to raise their hands. (It happens.) – The two gentlemen have been elected as assessors.

We had actually intended that the delegates who have come from outside should be given the floor first, so that they themselves can speak about what we have recommended they study.

Dr. Steiner: So it has been suggested that the esteemed delegate friends express themselves about what they have brought with them from their branches. So I ask them to take the floor.

Edgar Dürler, St. Gallen, has a point of order: We have received an invitation in which two points are on the agenda. I would like to explain them in more detail and would like to mention that I am speaking on behalf of Neuchâtel, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, the “New Generation” and a working group in Winterthur. — He proposes as an agenda item that the only item to be discussed today should be the transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I would like to briefly explain the reasons for this: We are on the threshold of founding the International Anthroposophical Society. At this founding, the individual national societies, represented by their delegates, will have to declare their accession to the International Anthroposophical Society here at Christmas. It is necessary that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society also make such a declaration of accession. The fact is that we do not have a unified Swiss Anthroposophical Society. The new international society that is to be established will create a completely different situation. I believe that the Swiss Society must be able to take up a position corresponding to the particular position of the individual national societies. I would like to emphasize that the branch at the Goetheanum, which also belongs to the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, represents something very special and that this branch at the Goetheanum, which also has many foreign members, occupies a very special position. Just as there is an Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands, in England and so on, and these are members of the International Anthroposophical Society, there should also be a Swiss Anthroposophical Society, autonomous but with the same rights and the same duties. I would like to repeat the proposal: transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note, so that the discussion is not conducted in an erroneous way, that I am not interfering with the esoteric of the discussion, but I would like to note that it would be quite natural if an International Anthroposophical Society were founded at Christmas, that it would not be identical with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, but that the present Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, as it now exists, would then have the same relationship to the international society to be founded as, for example, the English or Dutch Anthroposophical Societies. That is one thing. — So there would be no ambiguity in this respect.

Of course, it is a different matter to discuss whether the branch at the Goetheanum – this one branch at the Goetheanum – will remain a co-branch of the – call it either the “Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland” or the “Swiss Anthroposophical Society” – because by its very nature it will always include members from all countries. That would be a different matter, that would be a different question. But as I said, it would not be the case that the International Anthroposophical Society would coincide with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If the International Anthroposophical Society were founded in Switzerland, it would have two completely separate administrations and so on, and would be two completely different things. I think the actual establishment of what you mean would have to be formulated in a different way, something like: one would have to be clear about how the branch at the Goetheanum should be treated. Just imagine: if the branch at the Goetheanum is eliminated, then you will immediately notice that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland has exactly the same position in relation to the International Anthroposophical Society as the Dutch or any other.

Walter Knopfli (St. Gallen) would like to add briefly: We believe that precisely this should be kept separate. If there is a Swiss Society that really exists independently, and a branch at the Goetheanum, then the Swiss Anthroposophical Society can also be better represented. There should be a truly Swiss General Assembly one day. We have never really had that; there have only ever been two or three delegates here who live around Dornach, and the actual Swiss part has not been represented. What happens here in Dornach has more of an international character, is more directed towards the general human. It is necessary that the Society in Switzerland be recognized as a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I therefore wish to see a separation of the Swiss Society and the branch at the Goetheanum.

Willy Storrer believes that the motion put forward by the representative of the St. Gallen, Mr. Knopfli, can also be justified by saying: It is important to us that an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland or a Swiss Anthroposophical Society exists not only in theory — the name is not important to us — but that such a society exists in practice, in reality. And that to this end, a further change is made on a larger scale. We thought that today would be a good opportunity for this. We wanted to propose that a general assembly of Swiss members take place as soon as possible, perhaps in Olten or Zurich, where it is more likely that members from all over Switzerland will be able to attend in larger numbers, and then use this opportunity to discuss the affairs of the entire Swiss Society in detail – not just after a lecture, but perhaps starting in the morning and continuing with discussions throughout the afternoon, as is the practice in the Netherlands and other countries. We believe that everything must be done to ensure that a concrete Swiss Society comes into being. This is also because the reconstruction of the Goetheanum is to begin soon, and safeguards for this reconstruction should be created here in Switzerland, where the Goetheanum is to be located, and this should be done now. We must, after all, reproach ourselves for not having such safeguards in place, for not having a real society around the Goetheanum in Switzerland, but only quite unconnected branches and individual members. We would now like to make certain proposals to change this.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to add: the things we regulate must be right inwardly. And there is no question that, for example, if the delegates agree, what you and the representative of St. Gallen understand by a Swiss Anthroposophical Society must come about. It goes without saying that this must come about if the delegates determine it. However, it must be clear that it is simply impossible in terms of the rules of procedure if we follow the path proposed by Mr. Storrer.

The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland currently exists, and includes the branch at the Goetheanum. So if a general assembly is convened, there is no way around the branch at the Goetheanum being represented at it. In its current constitution, there is no other option than for it to be represented! So if the matter is to be decided before the Christmas delegates' meeting, it would be necessary not to convene a general assembly – because it would then also include the members of the branch at the Goetheanum – but to convene an assembly, so to speak, a gathering of the Swiss members, and for these Swiss members to then decide to found a Swiss Anthroposophical Society without the branch at the Goetheanum. That is one thing. But that would initially be tantamount to a kind of exclusion of the branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, it would probably not be very well received. Of course, the other option would be to call a general assembly and, if the branch at the Goetheanum were to appear, to propose expelling the branch at the Goetheanum, and of course to expel it if the proposal were to be accepted. That would be the second way.

But the third, I think it is the most viable and the one that seems to me the most correct. The most opportune, it seems to me, would be if the Swiss members who believe that this should happen actually held a meeting and that the assembly, through its members or delegates or a number of delegates, would aim to achieve the following: the delegates' meeting at Christmas proposes to enable a Swiss Anthroposophical Society to consist of actual Swiss members, which means that the passage should be written that the branch at the Goetheanum should become an international branch, and thus be removed. If the Swiss members were to propose this at the Christmas assembly of delegates, I would consider that the best way forward: namely, to make the branch at the Goetheanum an international branch, if that is what it is all about. Then it is out. Then the question would be resolved – which I think is desirable for other reasons, quite apart from your proposal – by the fact that the branch at the Goetheanum is not a national but an international one. That is something that can be decided then. And then, on the basis of this decision, you would be able to found the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in whatever way you wish; the branch at the Goetheanum would no longer be involved because it would have become an international one beforehand. — Well, I would think that this would also be the friendliest way, it seems to me, simply because any other way looks as if the Swiss want to throw out those who are also members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland today. And, isn't it true, that would somehow leave a sting behind.

I do not want to make this a proposal on my part – otherwise I would not remain as chair but hand it over for the time being – but I just want to throw this into the discussion for the sake of clarification, so that the discussion is not based on false premises; because the proposal has been made that a general assembly should be convened. But a general assembly can only be convened with the members. So this is a simple explanation of the necessary management that I am making.

Albert Steffen says that two points are not quite clear to him: Is it impossible for a foreigner to join?

Will, Storrer: No, that's a misunderstanding. We did not mean that the Swiss Society would then consist only of Swiss people, but that it would be set up in such a way that the Swiss character of the Society would be expressed much better than has been the case so far. And we believe we can achieve this by actually holding the Swiss meeting in a place where we can all get to better than if it is in Dornach. Of course, I could well imagine that the members of the branch at the Goetheanum would also be present. I consider the second piece of advice from Dr. Steiner to be absolutely right. And the representatives of the various branches that Mr. Knopfli mentioned would also have understood that a general assembly of all Swiss members would take place, that is, of all members affiliated with the Swiss Society, regardless of whether they are French, Germans or Swiss – and that the organization of the Society would then be newly elected at this General Assembly from the majority of the members, and specifically as an organ of the Members' Assembly, the Assembly of Delegates, and then an actual active working committee. And we do not envision this as being identical to the already existing working committee, but rather it would have to be a new working committee, provided that it is elected.

Dr. Steiner (to Mr. Knopfli): Are the remarks of Mr. Storrer in line with yours?

Walter Knopfli: Not quite. I mean, the members of the branch at the Goetheanum should have the feeling that they are something different than, say, the members of the St. Gallen branch, because we in St. Gallen have different tasks. Of course one can be a member of both places, but then one has to pay the dues twice. It is not a matter of personal mistrust, but only a legal question, that one keeps it separate. I think it is good when a society is properly there with a seat, in legal registration, so that it can act as something that exists and is recognized. And that is what we want. It will only be properly recognized if it comes from the Swiss and if the headquarters of the new Anthroposophical Society is not here in Dornach but somewhere in Switzerland, in Zurich for example. It would be a better solution and would lead to much better collaboration.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note: This proposal to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum will come in any case, because it would actually be out of character if Dornach were to become an international center and not have an international branch here. I think the possibility of achieving what you want will actually be better achieved if this branch is internationalized. But that does not, of course, prevent a kind of founding meeting from being convened now, in Zurich or as far away as possible from Basel, from Dornach, if you like, which then decides on something or other in its nature. — But that is not true, you do not have to do such things in such a way that you think: just by convening a meeting in Zurich, it will then already have a Swiss character! What would you do if the people of Dornach all decided to go there? There is no difference at all! I believe that the question can only be resolved - and I have also gathered this from your discussion - if the branch at the Goetheanum is executed and

comes out of the matter. Then it will already be a Swiss matter.

Albert Steffen: But I still don't see how this society can have a Swiss character when there are so many foreigners in it. For example, all the members of the “New Generation” are in this society, and a fairly large percentage of the members are foreigners. So how is this branch Swiss then?

Walter Knopfli: We are 40 members in St. Gallen and have at least 5 foreigners. That does not matter. The delegates of the Swiss branches should express whether they might agree in principle to establish a Swiss society and in principle agree to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum. Then, as Dr. Steiner suggested, we could convene a founding assembly of these members and decide on the founding of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society from the bosom of this founding assembly and then come here at Christmas with a proposal: that on the one hand there is the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and on the other hand the branch at the Goetheanum is an independent branch at the Goetheanum, with the same rights. And that from the outset it is made clear at a founding meeting: this is not a general assembly, but a founding meeting. Those who are at the Goetheanum will of course want to belong to this branch at the Goetheanum, I am completely convinced of that. Very few will want to pay twice.

Albert Steffen: I fear only that the branch at the Goetheanum will no longer be supported by the Swiss and that it will have a harder time with the authorities than it does now.

Dr. Steiner: That is a point of view that will be very much in question.

Dr. Emil Groshbeintz: As far as I understand, you want to give Swiss society a special task, a task that is different from the one represented by the Goetheanum branch, for example. Isn't it clear that nationality cannot play a role on Swiss soil, but different countries can set themselves different tasks? And for Switzerland it is a question of opportunity, whether it should be done in such a way that there is a Swiss Society in Switzerland in general and an international branch at the Goetheanum on top of that.

Dr. Steiner: The form must then be found. And I am convinced that, for example, today's applicants would not object to the mode that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is formed and that the branch at the Goetheanum nevertheless belongs as a branch of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but without voting rights and without representation at the general meetings. Then the concerns you have would be eliminated. — So it would be necessary to find a way to do it, wouldn't it? There is a difference between how the administration is within the Anthroposophical Society itself and how it is externally. To have a completely separate branch at the Goetheanum on the outside, that is, a directly international branch on Swiss soil, would not be advisable. But your request is fully met if the branch at the Goetheanum is merely a member of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but does not have a seat and voting rights at the general meetings of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. Because if I understand you correctly, you are merely concerned that the Swiss character in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society should come to the fore, which you see as being endangered if the Society consists only of a few Swiss people who are outside Dornach, and then of the majority of those who are in Dornach at the time. Because those who are only temporarily in Dornach do not allow themselves to be taken, even if they are there. And that is what — if I understand you correctly — is embarrassing about the whole thing.

Willy Storrer: This would mean that the Swiss members would lose their voting rights, and there are quite a few of them.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible at all. Willy Storrer: Since they live in Switzerland, it is probably the right thing to do.

Dr. Steiner: They can join the Swiss Anthroposophical Society if they want to have voting rights!

Dr. Lagutt: I would like to ask Mr. Knopfli if there are any regulations for the five members of other nationalities? If there are 20, for example, would you still accept the 21st? Assuming you get 21, would you still accept the 21st? Do you have any regulations about that? Or would you accept him too?

Walter Knopfli: Yes.

Dr. Lagutt: I don't understand why the Swiss branch at the Goetheanum cannot be included! If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to insist that you absolutely could not have a majority of foreigners over the Swiss in St. Gallen.

Rudolf Geering: I was pleased today that right from the start the delegates were counted and the voting rights distributed. That is progress. I believe that if this is done in future at the delegate meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, then all the deliberations about what has been proposed here will become unnecessary. Today we see the fruits of something that has occurred at the last few delegates' meetings in Switzerland: that actually no one knew who was actually a delegate and had a say in the voting. Proposals have been made by all kinds of people who have nothing at all to do with Switzerland and who were purely business-like. This gave the impression throughout Switzerland: When we meet in Dornach, we are not a Swiss society at all, but an international society. We are simply at their disposal. And if we continue to act as we are doing today, we can remain in the old circumstances.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to say one thing about this. Switzerland is naturally in a somewhat different position to the Anthroposophical Society, to the world society that is now to be founded, than the other countries. And every country where the Goetheanum stands would be in the same relationship to it as Switzerland, because the Goetheanum is to become a kind of center for the world society. So of course Switzerland has a special relationship to what is now being formed as the Goetheanum. And I could imagine that there might be more will than there is now to support the Goetheanum if the Swiss Anthroposophical Society felt homogeneous – I could imagine that – if it knew where the boundary is between the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and the Goetheanum, which of course belongs just as much to the Swiss Society as it does to the Dutch Society, and so on. But they are simply protected by the fact that they are further away. And now the Friends want to erect a wall that puts Switzerland in the same position in relation to the Goetheanum as the Netherlands or England. I can well imagine the motives behind this proposal, and I think it will only be a matter of finding the right way to do it. Because members from all over the world will always meet here for shorter or longer periods of time. So it will have to be negotiated on the basis that it is desirable to simply create a proper boundary here between Swiss members and those who may only be here by chance. It's not an easy matter!

You see, if a general assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is convened in Dornach, the guests from all over the world who happen to be present will of course not be there, but there will always be a place in the branch at the Goetheanum where they can meet again – that is desirable – and where they can also meet with Swiss friends. Isn't that right? Clearer conditions can be created than they are now. And precisely what you have now criticized is, of course, something that has come about, like so much in the Anthroposophical Society unfortunately comes about: namely, much comes about simply because people do not feel bound by the practices that arise naturally for our meetings. It cannot happen anywhere else in the world that you actually do not know who belongs to a meeting. At the meeting you just mentioned, no one knew – in practice, of course – who belonged to the meeting, because everyone who was there spoke, and the whole thing was an absolutely heterogeneous mass. But everyone felt they had equal rights, everyone voted and so on. After all, no one knew who was entitled to vote, what a majority was, and so on. Today it was only abandoned because yesterday I proposed that it be done so that people know who is actually in the assembly.^{2Apparently there was a preliminary discussion on December 7, but there is no report of it.} So today it is only different on the basis of a precise understanding of the facts. But if you do not do something that clarifies the situation, who can guarantee that you will not have meetings like the last ones again in the future?

Walter Knopfli believes that when something happens here at the Goetheanum, a course or a lecture event, then every member has access, whether they are from Holland or Switzerland; there is no difference. But when it comes to other questions, such as contributions and so on, business to be done, then it is done separately in Holland, and Switzerland also has to do it for itself. Many more people will settle here, and he takes it for granted that the branch at the Goetheanum must take on a different position because mainly foreigners are here. If this branch becomes independent and international, then cooperation can still take place.

Dr. Steiner: That is quite right. It will then also turn out that this Swiss Society will preferably have Swiss representatives on its board, or at least representatives of the Swiss branches. So an office will emerge that has the character you want, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, the matter has now been taken over by an office that consisted largely of non-Swiss, except for Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: The board members of the branches were always the same.

Dr. Steiner: I mean the office that convened the meeting. Of course, Mr. Steffen is signed here. But the conveners, apart from Mr. Steffen, are they all Swiss?

Albert Steffen: Not all of them, but Mr. Storrer, Mr. Stokar and Dr. Grosheintz.

Dr. Steiner: Do you now wish to make a specific proposal that can then be voted on?

Walter Knopfli: I would first like to propose a vote on whether, in principle, a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be considered in this way and should be established in the future, and whether the branch at the Goetheanum should become international in this sense.

Dr. Steiner: The proposal has been made. — I now just have to ask: Does anyone wish to propose a differently formulated proposal on the same subject?

Rudolf Geering: I would just like to request, in the interest of the Goetheanum itself, that, after all, the branch at the Goetheanum belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in relation to the outside world. I believe that this is necessary for the sake of the branch's security, for the sake of the reputation it is to enjoy in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: That's right, we can find a way to do this, since what you actually want does not exclude the proposal. We can find a way to do this. And it will be easy to find: the Goetheanum branch belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society without having a seat and vote there. Now Mr. Knopfli has proposed a motion to vote on whether to continue negotiations in principle on a demarcation between those present here and members who are permanently present but represent Switzerland to a lesser extent. I would now vote on this motion if a specially modified motion were not submitted.

Albert Steffen: We are all here quite unprepared, so that the matter should be thought through a little better and this motion should not be submitted until Christmas. I do not yet see the pros and cons clearly, I do not yet understand them completely.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to join Mr. Steffen because she believes that for most people this proposal comes as a bit of a surprise, so that they need time to think about it.

Dr. Steiner: I think that is not excluded, because the motion is to be put as to whether this question of founding a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be approached or whether it should be negotiated. I think it does not exclude that. — Nor does it exclude yours! The proposal is not being made now to do this or that, but only to approach the question of whether a proposal to that effect should be made at the delegates' meeting. - If someone would like to make a modified proposal to that, I would ask them to do so.

Dr. Lagutt would like to propose that we only establish a Swiss Society and leave it to the branch at the Goetheanum to decide whether it wants to join the branch or not. So not that we decide to exclude a branch, but leave it to the branch. Because depending on how it corresponds to the statutes, this will become possible or impossible.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, even according to the rules of procedure, because the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists. So you can't establish it, you can only change the name. Whether it is called the “Swiss Society” or the “Society in Switzerland” is a mere name change. Something must therefore be done in the direction that the branch at the Goetheanum does not participate in the negotiations of the Society, which is supposed to represent what is meant here. — One must feel this more, it is not so precisely defined — I cannot say how it should be named. But otherwise it would only be a matter of a name change.

Dr. Lagutt: I believe that it will basically only be a name change.

Dr. Steiner: But if it is only a name change, it is immediately somewhat different. If a Swiss Anthroposophical Society is established that has the branch at the Goetheanum as a co-branch, but this branch in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society does not have a seat and vote, whereas the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is represented in the international society just like any other national society, I think that would be a very clear fact! And then the only question would be whether this would be opportune in terms of external representation. Because I could well imagine that this, just as it might complicate dealings with the authorities on the one hand, could also facilitate them on the other. So if we say to the authorities: We have a Swiss Anthroposophical Society — and those who are not Swiss, who are international, we want to avoid the word international altogether — do not have a seat and vote in the Swiss Society. That could also make a favorable impression, could it not? Isn't it true that things are always more to be weighed than to be discussed? Don't you agree, Dr. Lagutt?

Dr. Jan Lagutt is somewhat reluctant to the idea that one should exclude a branch. That should be left to that branch.

Rudolf Hahn believes that if a Swiss national association is formed without the association at the Goetheanum, then the association at the Goetheanum will carry more weight with the Swiss authorities, otherwise the authorities will regard the association at the Goetheanum directly as a foreign organization. And then our opponents will have a very strong weapon, namely to say: “These foreign Fötzel should get out!” — These expressions are already heard a lot in our country. — If, on the other hand, the association at the Goetheanum remains in the national society, then the latter may have a somewhat more difficult position vis-à-vis the authorities, but at the same time it protects the branch at the Goetheanum. I believe it needs this protection! I believe that this is worth more than if the Society in Switzerland were to face its authority without a branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, I believe that the branch at the Goetheanum should remain inside, so that it has the support it needs from Swiss society.

Dr. Steiner: But would that not also be the case if this branch at the Goetheanum - it will not be an association, only a branch - had no seat or vote in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society? Rudolf Hahn: That would of course be correct.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, the way the gentlemen here see it, they would have to agree if this branch at the Goetheanum were a “co-branch” and only had no seat or vote in the Swiss Society.

Rudolf Hahn has not yet heard that this has been discussed. Dr. Steiner asks: Have you not done that?

Albert Steffen: It is perhaps possible that Swiss people, precisely because they are anthroposophists, no longer feel so nationally. And is it not perhaps conceivable that such Swiss people would want to join the branch at the Goetheanum in the event of such a separation? That is quite conceivable, namely — - so that this branch would grow very much. And then, under certain circumstances, the Swiss Society as such could also

be damaged and might lose a certain spiritual weight.

A gentleman proposes that Mr. Knopfli's proposal not be considered. If this proposal is not necessary, then it is a matter for the assembly itself, and then a general assembly of the Swiss should be convened, and the matter should be discussed and voted on in this general assembly of the Swiss. The proposer believes that Mr. Knopfli's view is certainly not shared by all anthroposophists, but only by some of them. He believes that Mr. Steffen tends to think much too internationally rather than having a character that is too strongly chauvinistic.

Dr. Steiner: If I understand this correctly, is this a motion to move on to the agenda? Does anyone wish to speak about this?

Willy Storrer: I would like to speak again and emphasize that he finds Dr. Steiner's advice Steiner as the real solution, and this is also the opinion of his friends: that the branch is internationalized in fact, but formally belongs to the Swiss Society; but then the members of the branch at the Goetheanum have no voting rights in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but Swiss members of that branch should then have the option of becoming members of another branch with a more Swiss orientation. And because many do not have the option of paying contributions twice, they should be allowed to be members of the other branch without paying contributions. But what matters is: We regard the present form and organs of the Society as provisional, and our proposal is that a general assembly of Swiss members should take place somewhere, in Olten or Zurich, and that the organs of a Swiss Society be elected there – that is, the delegates and the actual leadership of the Swiss Society, a kind of working committee – so that a strong Swiss Society will exist in public view as the Goetheanum is being rebuilt, and that it will have the possibility, through its organs, through its active leadership, to confront all the obstacles and opposition that exist in Switzerland with strength. We believe that this is not as possible with the previous forms as it would be in the future if the proposals and motions we are about to put forward are implemented.

Dr. Steiner: As far as I know, no one else has come forward? — We now first have to discuss the motion to move on to the agenda. Does anyone wish to speak on this motion?

Walter Knopfli would like the motion of principle questions to be voted on first: whether the question of principle should be approached.

Dr. Steiner: If a motion is made to move on to the agenda, then it must be dealt with first and voted on. There is no other way. Of course, if the transition to the agenda is accepted, it would mean that things would simply be pursued in a different way. There is no other way. But of course the motion to move on to the agenda can be discussed.

Willy Storrer proposes that we vote on this motion to move on to the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: That goes without saying! But if no one else wishes to speak, then I ask those delegates who are in favor of moving on to the agenda to represent the two votes, to raise both hands. Those who only have one vote, raise one hand. - (It happens.) 13 votes in favor of moving on to the agenda. A simple majority would be 12 votes. The request is accepted, so nothing can be done. The next point would be ——

Albert Steffen: Yes, there is something that is closely related to this question. We had intended to bring a resolution or to propose to the delegates, which reads something like this:

"On the day of the inaugural meeting of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland would like to express its gratitude and enthusiasm that the Goetheanum, which serves the cultural life of all humanity, may once again be built in Switzerland. It sees this as a good fortune and a great honor for its country. She wishes to express her determination to do everything possible to transmit from here to the whole world the inexhaustible wealth of spiritual impulses that Rudolf Steiner's work brings to the world. She is pleased to be able to work together with the other national societies to help ensure that this pure and healing source is accessible to all who seek it. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Since my name appears in this motion and Mr. Steffen is the proponent, I will ask Dr. Grosheintz to take the chair.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone wish to speak on this motion? Rudolf Geering thinks that this resolution should be accepted without further ado.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: It has been proposed that this resolution be adopted.

Willy Stokar: Excuse me, but I would like to ask you to state the purpose of the resolution again.

Albert Steffen: The purpose of the resolution is precisely that our Society in Switzerland has an easier time dealing with the authorities if, for example, our Society shows that it has a certain standing in Switzerland and that we stand up for it, so that it is recognized that we mean something as an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Is it intended to be published? Albert Steffen: Yes.

Willy Stokar: In that case, if it is to be done, I would at least like to wish, from my own feelings, that it should only happen when the whole founding story is behind us, when we can present ourselves as a society that is really capable of emphatically representing something like this as a resolution, and that it should only happen after Christmas, when we are over the hill.

Albert Steffen: I have actually considered this too, since I started like this: “In the days when the founding meeting of the Anthroposophical Society took place in Dornach...” So I don't think it will be published now, but around Christmas.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: I would like to say that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! A decision may be taken to transform it into something else, but for the time being it still exists and could adopt the resolution. And it can then perhaps proclaim this once more in its last days or hours. The new society can adopt and proclaim the resolution again. But the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! I think it is a resolution that could find a little more approval and enthusiasm.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: So it is a matter of whether you want to agree to this resolution or reject it. Those in favor, please raise your hand. — It is the vast majority.

Dr. Steiner: Now, the next item on the agenda, which would be the point listed in our report in the July session of the ^{3rd International Delegates' Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach from July 20-23, 1923, see page 557.}.

Albert Steffen: It would be particularly important, Doctor, that the delegates now tell us who will speak at the relevant morning discussions on the areas related to anthroposophy, and who will report on the school or on medical achievements and so on, as it is stated here in the program.

Dr. Wachsmuth: May I say a few words about this? It says something like this: We will now appoint a person who will report, let's say, on education, medicine, literature and so on. First, let's say what has been reported in the Netherlands or England or somewhere else in the field of education, school studies or the preparation that has now been made in England in the field of schools. Secondly, what is planned for the future in the subject. And thirdly, what is expected from the international society for help. Another speaks more about the medical, founding of the clinic in Holland or report on this work in England. Another more about the literary work.

It would be conceivable that on the days set aside for discussion, one speaker at a time, also in Switzerland, would report on what has been achieved so far and what can be expected in the future, so that a picture of the international work can emerge.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak on this? Then it could only be a matter of whether someone from the assembly of delegates has something to announce for these topics, whether they have something to report.

Willy Storrer would like to register a short presentation about the work on the weekly journal “Das Goetheanum” for the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to register a topic? It seems not. Then we come to the next item on the agenda: the 12 points listed in our report on the July conference. Does anyone wish to say anything about them? Does anyone have a specific suggestion regarding them? (To Mr. Steffen:) Would you like to make a suggestion regarding them?

Albert Steffen: I expect these from the ranks of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish these 12 points to be read out? ^{4See page 571 ff.}

Willy Storrer would like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Steffen could indicate a few of these 12 points that should be discussed, because it is only a few points that can be discussed here.

Dr. Wachsmuth: Item 8 is the following: It has been discussed in the Netherlands: statement of the Secretary General. - Then there are some things regarding the admission of new members; an extremely important point. You know that it was proposed that the members, i.e. new members, be admitted by the Secretary General of the country and that then these membership cards be countersigned by the international chairman or the official. This was proposed in Holland at the time, also in England, and will be proposed here at Christmas, purely formally. Now it will be necessary' to ask whether this is also to be the practice in Switzerland or whether it is to be left to the meeting.

The tenth point: fending off opponents.

The eleventh point: collaboration of members in all countries in supporting the initiatives launched by the Anthroposophical Society.

The twelfth point is the rebuilding of the Goetheanum and whatever can be done for it.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to address any other points?

Albert Steffen: A manuscript has arrived here regarding a proposal for regulating the financial capacity of the Society. I don't know whether it should be read out; it is from Mr. Hahn. Would you like to read it yourself, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn reads out the proposal. He recalls that Dr. Steiner once mentioned that not the tax on income but the tax on expenditure would be the right thing to do to bring in money. He proposes that the members pay a tax on expenditure.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note that the sentence that was in it, in which I spoke of “taxation of expenditure”, did not refer to taxation on the part of anthroposophical members of the Society. — It could very easily give rise to the opinion that I had somehow spoken of such taxation before, but that is not the case at all. I have only said that when public taxes, state taxes, are levied, a calculation cannot, in all fairness, be made according to income, but according to expenditure. I say this so that the opinion does not arise that I had something to do with the request or had said this before.

Rudolf Hahn says that he proposed it entirely on his own initiative.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak about points 8, 10, 11, 12, or about Mr. Hahn's proposal?

Mrs. Weiss (Zurich) cannot, however, represent the branch's view, but only speak personally, because the branch was not yet aware of the proposal. But she would just like to say that she personally does not like this proposal from Mr. Hahn at all. It would look very much like coercion if taxation were to be introduced as it is otherwise in churches, as a poor tax, as a school tax. She would really not welcome such taxation based on income and wealth for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. This should be left to the freedom of the individual.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak? — Are you putting this forward as a proposal, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn proposes to see to it that money is raised in some way in order to increase the financial capacity of the Society. He sees this as a possibility for improvement. And we need to have money; we can't survive on our current income. Perhaps someone has another idea? — He doesn't see why we have to talk about taxation. We contribute 24 francs, which is not enough. But we have a large number of members who can't contribute any more. It has been suggested that voluntary contributions should be made, but nothing comes of that.

Walter Knopfli cannot agree with this proposal either. He believes that one must distinguish between membership fees of an association and donations made available to the institution. Contributions are necessary for management, administration and so on. What one gives for the Goetheanum or for the school is something else, that is, donation money. And here the freedom of the individual should be preserved.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Walter Knopfli: The contribution of 10 francs should actually suffice. It will then be up to the international society to decide how much the members of the foreign societies contribute to the central office of the international society. I believe that these contributions will then make it possible to manage the business.

Dr. Steiner: So you think that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should propose that the international society determine what the individual national societies should contribute? Of course, there is also the difference between having a fixed amount delivered or a certain percentage of the membership fee of the respective national societies. I don't think it would be possible to introduce such a measure in the Anthroposophical Society. I believe that the antipathy to a taxation system, quite apart from how it is to be carried out in practice, would be extremely great. But that is not true. A society like the Anthroposophical Society in its present form should really be based on the freedom of its members with regard to membership fees and payments in general. It cannot be said that setting a fixed membership fee goes against the principle of freedom, because those who do not want to pay do not join in the first place, or they leave if they are already members. It is up to each person to pay the membership fee if it is not too high for them. But if you introduce a paragraph, a tax, I believe that would make us appear in a very strange light. And finally, I must say: the things that are mentioned here in point 11 will hardly flourish if that is the only way they are solved. The individual branches can of course dispose of their membership fees or decide from the bosom of their members what they like. But for all these special movements such as Waldorf schools, medicine and so on, it will always be necessary that special contributions be made, which will be made by those who can afford them. One can really only appeal to goodwill here. To exert any kind of compulsion there – which would only be possible with some members who are already inside the society – such a measure in the statutes would, of course, erect a fortress wall around the society, and no one, or very few people, would join. It's a bit strange, but I would still like to say: after all, you can't base the payment of contributions on making people look into their wallets.

Rudolf Hahn says that this was not meant. If you say that it is desirable to give 1 or 1% of your income, it is entirely left to the freedom or conscience of the individual. We have to have the money anyway!

There will be further negotiations.

Dr. Steiner: What is the difference in terms of merit between what you are talking about here and what the association actually charges? If, for example, the membership fee is set at a certain amount and people who cannot afford it are exempt, but people are free to pay a higher membership fee? We have a paragraph that says: ...can pay more! What is the difference?

Rudolf Hahn: The suggestion that perhaps more should be paid. It is just possible that no one pays 100 or 200 francs; but there are members who could afford that. On the other hand, there are members who could be forgiven a waiver of the contribution.

Dr. Jakob Hugentobler: Mr. Hahn has actually only mentioned a single example where the contributions are insufficient. He spoke of the library. It is his opinion that the contribution should not be used to finance the other purposes of the Society, but that the 24 francs should be sufficient for the actual business. Mr. Hahn should try to work in his branch in Basel in such a way that he receives his contributions for these special purposes from case to case. He will certainly succeed, as in other branches.

Rudolf Hahn says that in Basel you can have bad experiences with this.

Dr. Steiner: But this is not even a suggestion. One must, I would say, bring a moral impulse into it. I do not mean that it is immoral, but I do mean that one must think of more moral impulses than that. For you see, it is not possible for anyone to be asked to calculate something like a membership fee for the Anthroposophical Society according to their income or even according to their livelihood! Because it does come into consideration how much he is able to make deductions from a real income. Just imagine: if someone has an income of 1,000 marks a month and he is a single bachelor, and another has just as much and has ten children: how can one think of proceeding there?

Rudolf Hahn: Perhaps through a special commission?

Dr. Steiner: I think that would be the most dangerous thing. Apart from the fact that I already feel that the tax commission is sufficiently dangerous – do we then need another tax commission in the Anthroposophical Society? I cannot imagine that this would give us any special prestige.

Ms. Weiß asks whether the question was not completely settled at the last meeting, so that the office is submitting the proposals.

Dr. Wachsmuth says that he would like to mention that the proposal does not come from the office.

Rudolf Hahn: Dr. Blümel said that not 10, but 20 percent was needed. I, for one, already know what I have to do with the money.

Dr. Steiner: I am even convinced that you will not use it for yourself, but for society. But I don't know – it's really not appropriate to have a paragraph or a statute or something like that worded that way. Because it would actually have a deterrent effect on those people who want to become members first.

Question: Can't Dr. Steiner put this motion to the vote on a trial basis?

Dr. Steiner: But that would only mean that it is the motion to end the debate. The motion has been put. — Please raise your hand! Please raise your hand! It is adopted. — Then the motion is put to the vote. I therefore put Mr. Hahn's motion to the vote and ask those in favor to raise their hands. — It is unanimously rejected — by one vote, I think. |

Isn't it the case – I'm really not being pedantic, but I would like to point this out – that it is best to follow these small nuances during the proceedings: There will be an immediate vote if someone proposes to end the debate. So those things that have already been properly introduced into parliamentary life contribute greatly to the meeting running in a proper manner. Does anyone have anything to add to any of these points? I think that the esteemed delegate friends will be a little unprepared to speak about these 12 points right now, because they probably haven't thought about them yet. It is probably in the invitation, but these things can only be fruitfully discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. If anyone has any further suggestions, I would ask them to do so.

One gentleman is not clear about why the admission of a new member should be countersigned by the international secretariat regarding point 8. What value should this have?

Dr. Steiner: This does have a certain value. I must say, however, that it is not made clear enough in point 8. But this point will, of course, be discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. It does have a certain value. It would be significant if all membership cards issued for the Anthroposophical Society had a uniform signature. As I said, it would have a value. And won't the responsibilities arise from the way in which the office of the international society is organized at Christmas? I cannot imagine that this responsibility arises in any other way than by the responsible officials here in Dornach having the necessary trust for the international society in the officials present in the individual countries: For example, where general secretaries have been appointed, as in Norway, England and the Netherlands. Of course, the person who is responsible for the Society here must have confidence in the respective general secretaries there. Only in this way can there be mutual responsibility. This was also recently established at the meeting of delegates of the Dutch Society, where it was stated: The founding assembly elects a general secretary. He has been elected. And now, isn't it true, of course, that this is subject to the proviso that the official in question, who will be at the head of the international society, gives his consent afterwards and that, if there is a change in the society - the Dutch society has decided this - then the question is put to Dornach as to whether they agree with it. Of course, that would not prevent the board of the respective national society from feeling completely autonomous. But those officials of the national society who mediate the contact with Dornach must somehow be designated or elected in agreement with Dornach, must they not? Otherwise we would not have the international society if something like that were not established.

Walter Knopfli would like to hear more about the first point of these 12 provisions, which has not yet been discussed at all. He says: We are here now as delegates of the Swiss Society and should be able to summarize what the Swiss Society is representing at this international conference. But if we now close the assembly of delegates and I have to report to my branch on what has just happened, I would have nothing to report. There has been some discussion, but a request has been made for the debate to be closed. It is precisely this point 1 that was declared necessary to discuss at the beginning of the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that item 1 be discussed. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this?

Willy Storrer: We would like to repeat our proposal regarding this point: the previous form of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be regarded as provisional, and perhaps a founding, a primal assembly of Swiss members should be held next Saturday or Sunday in Zurich or Olten, at which the organization of the Society should be decided and those should be elected who are then to be represented at the Assembly of Delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Edgar Dürler would just like to strongly support Mr. Storrer's request and hope that it will not be destroyed again with buzzwords like “chauvinism”.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to request that this be postponed until after Christmas. She also thinks it necessary to discuss this thoroughly. There seems to be a lot of opposition to the current company. The reasons for the formation of a new Swiss company will then become clear. But in any case, the time before Christmas is too short to organize everything.

Miss...? says that if every delegate here reports back home, then at Christmas the delegates can also report on how the branch views this question.

Mrs. Weiss also thinks that this meeting should take place before Christmas so that everyone will know how to join the international society.

Albert Steffen: I don't see any reason why the Swiss members shouldn't gather. They should really gather.

Willy Storrer: I also don't see why this shouldn't be done. After all, the delegates and members of the surrounding area have also been invited to attend the meeting in order to carry out all the preparations for the delegates' meeting, and this invitation has been issued for a time that does not actually allow for such a discussion, namely at 10 o'clock at night. If it was thought that the matter could be dealt with in this relatively short period of time, a whole week should be allowed for the members to express their views. He thinks there is enough time, especially if a Saturday or Sunday is chosen as the meeting date.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but who should call the meeting? The matter is this: at present the Anthroposophical Society exists in Switzerland. It is represented today by its delegates. So far we have counted on them when it was a matter of bringing together the individual national societies. So formally everything would be in order for the Christmas Conference, and the suggestion that Mr. Knopfli first made can certainly be made at the Christmas Conference. So there are only two possibilities: either the same body could convene another meeting like the one today, or, for all I care, a meeting of Swiss members, or else a general meeting would have to be convened. And that can only be done if someone calls it.

Willy Storrer believes that this question could be resolved by saying: the previous delegates of the Swiss branches go home and call a general meeting and inform this general meeting that the previous delegates have decided to hold a meeting in Zurich for the individual members, who will then join. The secretariat could take care of this.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, of course, from a formal point of view. The delegates who are here now are delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. They cannot decide to convene a general assembly. They can only decide to convene a meeting of those who are now members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. A general assembly can only be convened by someone who does so, well, from the original state. An original assembly can only be convened by someone taking responsibility – alone or with a number of comrades whom they elect themselves with – to issue a call to all those members whom they want and with whom they intend to hold an original assembly; and this assembly can then bring a proposal to the delegates' assembly at Christmas. But the Society's Assembly of Delegates cannot in any way propose the convening of a general assembly, because there is no such thing as a “general assembly” of an existing society.

Willy Storrer: In this case, we, that is, the representatives of the St. Gallen, Neuchâtel, Schaffhausen and “New Generation” branches who are present here, would convene this original assembly.

Dr. Steiner: Then you can convene it from these branches, but you must also create an independent office out of yourselves, out of your idea. But an “original assembly” cannot be convened from something that already exists. It can be decided to convene a second assembly, somewhere for my sake, but not an original assembly.

Walter Knopfli: A decision should not be made here, but the procedure should be followed in such a way that the branches agree among themselves on who wants to take charge of the matter. Then the person concerned, outside the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, outside the Assembly of Delegates, will issue this invitation and then convene it outside, in a completely neutral way, based entirely on the original state. Those who wish to do so can no doubt agree among themselves on who will do this. In the meantime, the delegates who are here can be asked to invite their members at home to take a preliminary position on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: That can certainly be done, but no resolution can be passed on it. Don't you see that? It is not possible to pass a resolution on it!

Walter Knopfli: Yes, that is a point that is very important to me regarding point 1: reporting on the national associations. There is a certain mood in favor of it.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but is it really the case that so little is known about this intention to found an international society here? Is it really the case that so little is known about it?

Walter Knopfli: The intended founding of the international society is of course known to all members, but the question is how we as the Swiss society relate to it. The question is –

Dr. Emil Grosheintz (interrupts): But you are now opposing the Swiss Society! What you are asking for here is quite impossible. We are the delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. Now you do not like this Society and you are saying: We want to strangle ourselves by convening another assembly or by doing something else with the Society. It is simply that the present form of the Society does not suit you! Do you want us ourselves to strangle ourselves, as I can't say it any other way, to decide to form a primary assembly and start again immediately? And then it is impossible to understand how Mr. Storrer can say that this Society, as it now exists, is a provisional arrangement. It is not a provisional arrangement, it exists! And I believe that if something else is to happen in society, if it is to modify itself in such a way that the Swiss members join together more closely, then the group here, because it has an international character, this character of internationality, as it naturally exists in Dornach, this character is best expressed when an international branch is formed at the Goetheanum. If it can be done in the way Dr. Steiner has suggested, that is the very best and most natural way. I don't know why you are now pushing and insisting on bringing about this revolution before Christmas.

Dr. Steiner: But earlier it was quite possible to discuss the matter! Everything was absolutely clear, and in fact there was no reason to come back to the proposal again. It even seems — since it is being revisited — that ulterior motives are still at play that one does not want to express. Because now we are at a point where it is actually no longer possible to understand what is wanted. For example, I don't understand what Mr. Storrer wants.

Willy Storrer: All we want is for a members' meeting to take place.

Dr. Steiner: But a members' meeting can only be decided here by the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Willy Storrer: That is what we want, Doctor! It is immaterial to us whether the meeting is an ordinary or an extraordinary one. The branch at the Goetheanum is represented here by Dr. Grosheintz and someone else. For example, I have not heard that it has been carried out that these representatives of their members are now taking a stand.

Dr. Steiner: You can of course decide here that a general meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be convened.

Martha Schelling says that she believes that only a few members will be able to respond to the call, because they cannot come twice in the short time available.

Dr. Steiner: We really ought to speak objectively on this question. Now that we have already elected the chairmen of the meeting, I would like to point out that it would be really necessary to give reasons for things when discussing such matters. Simply saying that we want this and that is not really a statement of reasons. I believe that now – today is December 8, and the delegates' meeting begins on the 24th – that calling a members' meeting in Switzerland in some place is such a drastic measure, something so incisive, that one should of course consider it very carefully. And above all, I believe that one should not proceed carelessly in such a matter. Because it is quite absolutely this to consider that every choice of a place that you make today can be made in such a way that a group can outvote the whole of Switzerland and the whole Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. You simply choose the place accordingly. You know, in some place nearby, there are members who want something specific. They want to create a majority for themselves, and to do that they choose a location. They know: if we choose St. Gallen, we have the majority there; if we choose Olten, we have the majority there, and so on. These things are of such importance that they must be considered in the face of the other point, which should actually be brought forward. Is there really such widespread dissatisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland that an extraordinary general meeting should be convened at such short notice? Is this dissatisfaction really so great? Or can what Mr. Knopfli has put forward, which I very much understood, simply be introduced in the form of a proposal put forward by those members who consider it necessary? — It can very well be put forward in the form of a proposal by individual members, then you have a very clean thing. Then there is a motion, which, for my part, is supported by 30 or however many members. There is a proper motion, and you do not now call a meeting with some ulterior motive through the will of an unequal majority, the will of individual members, that is, a vanishing minority! You have to take all that into account! Of course I have no right to interfere in this matter in any way. But I think it is absolutely dangerous if, after nothing has been said about the matter so far, after a long period of satisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, a meeting is now to be convened from December 8 to December 24 with no explanation. At the very least, they should explain why they need a general meeting. Because they don't need a general meeting to make the request that Mr. Knopfli has made. I am completely convinced that - Walter Knopfli says he can agree to this. He thinks that individual representatives will also take a stand at Christmas - the delegate of the branch at the Goetheanum has taken a stand. If the decision is then made to establish the new Anthroposophical Society, as assumed, and to join the international Society, then the existing Society in Switzerland will formally give its consent, and only after that should the change take place.

Dr. Steiner: You see, something will be done about this at Christmas. A certain internationalization of the branch at the Goetheanum would take place, and in my opinion, conditions will then be created with which you can be satisfied. I do believe that in general – whether you change the name or not, that is really a secondary question – I do believe that you can have what you want, if there is no ulterior motive! What you say you want can certainly be achieved with the resolutions that deal with the right things.

Miss Emma Ramser: The gentlemen have stated that if their proposal is accepted, they will make specific proposals. If the proposal is accepted in such a way that the separation is addressed, they would like to make specific proposals.

Dr. Steiner: But you can't address the separation! That's quite impossible.

Miss Emma Ramser: Could the gentlemen not perhaps communicate what they have to say to the branches point by point over the next week, so that it can be discussed, so that the delegates are not, so to speak, faced with a fait accompli again, I don't want to say taken by surprise. But if the number of members cannot come at Christmas... so that we know what is to be discussed...

Dr. Steiner: It would have been quite good if the opinion had been expressed that, apart from what has been said, there are still some deficiencies in the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, it could have been brought up today!

Walter Knopfli: It was not meant as a vote of no confidence, I only said what had been said. And the specific proposals were to consider something like a primeval assembly and how society has to be reconstituted, how to do that to avoid misunderstandings. There are no hidden agendas

. Willy Storrer requests the floor.

Dr. Steiner: What you have proposed can indeed be arranged in the simplest way, also with regard to point 1. It is true that I have read this abbreviated report of the International Assembly of Delegates in Dornach with this appendix on the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach [see $. 557]; but I must say: these 12 points look terrible, of course! And if we continue to debate this in the same way as now, we will not be finished by tomorrow morning. We will have to discuss the merger of the individual national societies that have already been founded. This first point can be dealt with in five minutes at the delegates' meeting. It just doesn't look like that, because there are four lines here; but all that is needed is to express the will to found this international society. And the reports on the various forms taken by the societies in different countries will not take up much time either. If there is the will to found this International Anthroposophical Society, then I believe we should not talk much about the formalities at all, but should find the transition to talking about a number of really important things in the anthroposophical field, which should then be discussed. I do not think it would be good to talk at length about these questions at all during this meeting at Christmas, questions which have been bandied about so much this evening and about which one usually does not know what is actually wanted. Isn't that right? According to the rules of procedure, I didn't even have to allow the motion to be discussed again. It was a concession that I allowed it to be discussed again, but then the reasons should have been presented.

Willy Storrer: Yes, Doctor, we have presented these reasons! Because we believe that it is necessary for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland to re-establish itself, that it must do so, and we wanted to make proposals in this direction. We wanted this general meeting to express its opinion on this.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Mr. Storrer! We are now at a meeting of delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If you make the request that this society should reconstitute itself - do not say “must”, it must re-establish itself - but then say the reasons why you believe that this should happen and what its shortcomings and damages are, other than those that have already been mentioned.

Willy Storrer says that Mr. Knopfli, Mr. Stokar and he agree that it would be better for the effect on the outside world if the leadership of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society consisted more of Swiss members, if there were another working committee instead of the working committee, which could still exist quite well at the Goetheanum, perhaps even composed of the individual branches in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Please, then nominate other people at the next meeting where there is an election. That is not an item for discussion. You can't just make a request at any old time!

Willy Stokar: I request that the debate be closed.

Dr. Steiner: The motion to end the debate has been made. I ask those delegates who are in favor to raise their hands. - I now ask those who are against it to raise their hands. — The motion to end the debate has therefore been adopted.

Is there anything else? That does not appear to be the case. Then we come to the end. I thank the honored friends for attending this meeting of delegates. I hope that, despite the fact that we have spoken a little “opaque” about many things, that nevertheless what we have spoken about will bear good fruit at the very important meeting of delegates at Christmas.

Circular letter from Carl Unger, Stuttgart, [July 13, 1920]

Dear friends!

A few weeks ago, you received a circular letter informing you of the plan to hold a General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society. This was accompanied by a request to indicate the likely number of participants in a non-binding way and to make suggestions for the proceedings. Today, I regret to have to inform you that this plan has had to be abandoned because the circumstances do not allow it to be pursued at present. It cannot be the intention of the Anthroposophical Society to convene a meeting that consists of the few members who “can just come” under the current difficult circumstances; our cause is too serious for that. An effective meeting is not to be hoped for under the present conditions. However, it is very important to me to take this opportunity, and precisely in view of the current circumstances, to address the situation of the Anthroposophical Society, even if only briefly today, and I ask that the following be communicated to the members of your working group, and only to them.

On various occasions during his presence in Stuttgart in June, Dr. Steiner pointed out that the work of our movement has entered a new phase of development for some time now, and that this is entirely in the closest connection with the present world situation. The Anthroposophical Society was founded on purely spiritual goals, encompassing a movement without a fixed organizational form, burdened with all kinds of legacies from the former Theosophical Society. In the period immediately following the founding of the Society, we found ourselves still in the midst of discussions about the aims and paths of the Anthroposophical Society for quite some time; even the two general assemblies that had so far been held had to serve these discussions,

but they did not come to a conclusion, and indeed it was advisable to keep these matters in a certain fluidity. I myself was able to travel around a lot at the time and discuss the aims and ways, many of my lectures at that time dealt with the draft of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society written by Dr. Steiner, in which the indications of the ideal cohesion of the members are given. Unfortunately, I had to leave this preparatory work, which was intended to help prepare a healthy foundation for the Society, unfinished after the 1914 General Assembly for the sake of other work, and the affairs of the Society had to be suspended during the long war, if only for the reason that the Anthroposophical Society is only justified on an international basis.

Since then, the world situation has changed fundamentally, and the fact that it is still not possible to hold an international general assembly of our society today, 20 months after the armistice, can be seen as a characterization of the situation in a certain direction. If Stuttgart were chosen as the venue for the General Assembly, a considerable number of our German members would come together, but the members from non-German countries would be underrepresented. If, however, Dornach were chosen as the venue for the meeting, where the spiritual center of our movement is located at the Goetheanum, then, with a few negligible exceptions, the German members would be excluded. The only remaining option would be to invite the German members to Stuttgart and to organize a corresponding event in Dornach. But there are very important reasons against such a plan, which are again related to the world situation.

From the very beginning of our movement, Dr. Steiner repeatedly pointed out in his lectures that the time would come when it would be necessary to use anthroposophy to exert our full influence on practical life. The harrowing events of our time have precipitated this point in history more quickly than we could have imagined, and the circumstances are laden with such terrible tragedy that the responsibility is growing to gigantic proportions. From the real life of our movement, forms are beginning to emerge that are turning outward with all their might. Here, above all, the Goetheanum in Dornach must be mentioned, with its various societies: the “Verwaltungsgesellschaft des Goetheanum Dornach”, the “Treuhandgesellschaft des Goetheanum Dornach, Sitz Stuttgart” , the “Verein Goetheanismus Dornach”. The Goetheanum attracts the greatest attention of the thousands of visitors who come from all directions, and as the spiritual center of the movement it begins to radiate its strong forces; but it also has the effect of arousing bitter opposition, for which any means are justified in order to destroy the spiritual movement. Officially, however, the Goetheanum is not yet appreciated for its significance, and distressing evidence of this is coming from many sides. If this were different, many things could indeed be undertaken in Dornach that cannot be undertaken at present. Every effort would have to be directed towards completing the Goetheanum, which unfortunately the Mittelland members, who have largely supported the construction up to now, are no longer able to do; they are virtually excluded from visiting the construction site.

The “Federation for the Threefold Social Organism” turns completely outward, and does so on an international basis, although for the time being it still has to work from different centers. The idea of the threefold social order, as presented by Dr. Steiner in his 'Key Points of the Social Question', is drawn entirely from the sources of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, and the members of our movement feel responsible for ensuring that the threefold movement is fed by the life of spiritual science. It is all the more surprising when one hears from time to time that individual members of the Anthroposophical Society want nothing to do with the threefold social order, although it should be clear that if the ideas of the threefold social order are not implemented in the spiritual, political and economic institutions in the near future, there will soon be no opportunity to pursue anthroposophy at one's own convenience. Conversely, there are also people who profess to appreciate the ideas of threefolding but want nothing to do with spiritual science. But of course you cannot expect to draw from a stream if you deny its source. We are fully open to public criticism regarding the threefolding, it must be propagandized so that a sufficiently large number of people are seized by this idea. The anthroposophical movement must supply it with strength, and everything must be avoided that could compromise this idea in public from within the Anthroposophical Society.

The Waldorf School, an initiative of our friend Emil Molt, now offers the long-awaited opportunity for a larger number of teachers from among our members to apply the educational principles in the manner of an art under the direct guidance and instruction of Dr. Steiner. These principles are designed to educate people who can truly rise to the great challenges of the future. The Free Waldorf School has already gained a certain amount of respect from the public, but of course it will also face hostility, especially when it proves its spiritual significance. This is already becoming clear. The newly founded Waldorf School Association has made the support of the school its special task, but it has also set itself further goals. The Waldorf School calls for its continuation up to the university level. It will connect with research institutes that have also been set up. Since eurythmy is used in a pedagogically hygienic way at the Waldorf School, the urgent necessity is already emerging for the school, as well as for our movement in general, to provide a place for the cultivation of this universal art as a 'Eurythmeum'. The archives that are being set up in Dornach and Stuttgart are also part of our spiritual arsenal. It is hoped that spiritual impulses will be provided from such spiritual centers for humanity, which is rushing towards the abyss, and which it needs to bring about a possible future.

The necessity to safeguard such spiritual centers and at the same time to show practical ways of implementing the threefold social order led to the decision to found the “Kommenden Tag, Aktiengesellschaft zur Förderung wirtschaftlicher und geistiger Werte” (a joint-stock company for the promotion of economic and spiritual values). With this, however, we are beginning to work from the spiritual science into the most practical of circumstances, which have their significance in everyday life. A prospectus to be published soon will provide more details about the current situation of this joint-stock company. Here, of course, any possibility of shyness in public must be completely abandoned, and we find ourselves in the most real relationships with our environment; indeed, we must strive to expand the influence of these enterprises as far as possible.

The Anthroposophical Society has always been a purely spiritual movement and within such a movement many things can be tolerated because the purely spiritual has its own laws for enforcement. But now that we are going public in a wide variety of directions, we are not allowed to embarrass ourselves in any way or to be embarrassed by dilettantism and cliquishness, or by sectarian desires. Everything the Anthroposophical Society wants to undertake must be considered from the point of view of how it will be received by the public. But such actions must not fail or fizzle out. Even a general assembly of the Anthroposophical Society must be an action that commands respect, and therefore all possibilities must be carefully considered in advance. But such a success, as we absolutely need it, could not be safely anticipated for this time, so, quite apart from the reasons given above, the holding of a general assembly had to be postponed for the time being. However, every effort should be made to work towards the goal of holding such an assembly as soon as possible, one that can negotiate on a very serious basis.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, I felt compelled to go into all these matters in some detail. Unfortunately, there is no possibility of visiting the working groups in the near future to discuss these matters; but I will try to establish a connection between the working groups through such reports. If this letter gives rise to any questions or comments, I will be happy to answer them after discussing them with a trusted group of colleagues.

With warmest anthroposophical greetings, Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger. Correspondence to Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger, Stuttgart, Werastraße 13.

[The meeting, to which all non-resident members were invited as guests (without voting rights), was opened at 10:30 a.m. by the General Secretary Albert Steffen. The morning discussions, which were devoted to questions of the Society and to the question of reconstruction, were recorded by Helene Finckh but not reported. The following report, sent out officially, is available from H. J. Heywood-Smith. Rudolf Steiner was unable to attend the morning session as he had to give the last lecture of a current pedagogical course (GA 306). For information on the lecture tours of Rudolf Steiner mentioned in the report, see: “Übersichtsbände zur Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe, I: Bibliographische Übersicht”, Dornach 1984; “Das Vortragswerk Rudolf Steiners”, Dornach 1978; “Rudolf Steiner - Eine Chronik”, Stuttgart 1988.

Mr. Albert Steffen, as Secretary General of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, opened the meeting by welcoming Dr. Steiner, his co-workers and the members present. He reported on the activities that had originated at the Goetheanum as the center of the Anthroposophical movement. The Goetheanum was provisionally opened in the fall of 1920 with a three-week course at the School of Spiritual Science. Dr. Steiner spoke about Anthroposophy and specialized sciences. Since that time, the whole world has looked to Dornach. With love, but also with hatred. In the wake of a hostile discussion of this event, the words were printed by the enemy side: “Spiritual sparks of fire, which hiss like lightning after the wooden mousetrap, are thus sufficiently available, and it will take some cleverness on Steiner's part to work in a conciliatory way so that one day a real spark of fire from the Dornach glory does not bring about an inglorious end.”

A second course followed in April 1921 as a supplement to the first. Then the summer course was held by Baron Rosenkrantz for English artists. Professor Mackenzie and his wife attended it and gained deeper insights into Dr. Steiner's spiritual science. They returned to Dornach at Christmas with about 40 teachers and took a course in education from Dr. Steiner, which Mr. Steffen reported on in detail in the Goetheanum. These essays were collected in a book and translated into various languages. The Swiss School Society was also founded around this time.

Another consequence of these visits by English personalities was that Dr. Steiner was invited to the Shakespeare celebrations in Stratford from April 17-24, 1922, where he gave several lectures on art and education. It was significant that a central European thinker was at the center of a celebration held in honor of the greatest English poet.

In mid-August, Dr. Steiner was invited to England for a second time to give a vacation course at Oxford on “Spiritual Values in Education and Social Life”. The Minister of Education, Mr. Fisher, took the nominal chair and had a speech read. He was unable to attend in person. The International World Association for Educational Questions, which has set itself the task of spreading anthroposophical education, was founded during this time.

A third journey by Dr. Steiner took place in November 1922, and a fourth will follow this summer.

Thus a mighty spiritual current flowed through Dr. Steiner to the West. But not only to the West, but to all directions in Europe. In the spring of 1921, Dr. Steiner traveled to Norway. In January 1922, a lecture tour throughout Germany took place. He spoke in 12 cities to over twenty thousand people. In March, he gave his help to a college course in Berlin, in April to one in the Netherlands. In May, a lecture tour through Germany took place, where the incident in Munich occurred, where an attempt was made on his life. In the harsh light of day, the intentions of his opponents to prevent his activities became apparent.

From June 1-12, the West-East Congress met in Vienna, where Dr. Steiner spoke about the current scientific and social state of Europe. Much of what he and his colleagues said in important lectures there was taken up by the public. As a result of this conference, the antagonism between Western and Eastern ways of thinking was understood by countless people as a burning problem.

In many cases, non-anthroposophical people have since stated that the anthroposophical movement is the most important spiritual movement of our time. It is indeed the only one that has a future. It has a tendency to unite peoples.

But this in no way characterizes all of Dr. Steiner's work that emanated from the Goetheanum. In addition to the already mentioned teacher training course, other courses also took place. Among other things, two medical courses, which led to the founding of the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute in Arlesheim by Dr. Wegman. Furthermore, there was the economics course (from 24 July to 6 August 1922, which Mr Leinhas reported on in the 'Goetheanum'), the French Week, a cycle on cosmogony, philosophy and religion (which Dr Jules Sauerwein translated into his brilliant French for the French guests and which Dr Steiner himself reported on in the 'Goetheanum'). At the same time, a similar course was held for German theologians. They had approached Dr. Steiner with the request that he provide them with insights into the nature and significance of religion. They had then, under their own responsibility and led by Dr. Rittelmeyer, launched a movement for religious renewal, which, however, initially remained limited to Germany. At the end of the year, a scientific course followed, organized by the circle of natural scientists at the Goetheanum, in the midst of which the catastrophe of the fire occurred.

This was not able to interrupt the work of Dr. Steiner and his colleagues. Never before had the members of the Society heard Dr. Steiner speak more powerfully.

The indomitable force of his spirit also became apparent to the public when he went on a lecture tour of Switzerland (mid-April) and spoke about the tasks of anthroposophy in Bern, Basel, Zurich, Winterthur and St. Gallen.

Even with these data, however, Dr. Steiner's work is only partially outlined. When he was not traveling, he gave lectures in Dornach every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, in which he taught the audience about the deepest problems. He showed nature and history in a light that shines nowhere else. Where could such insights be gained as he gave about the nature of color, sound and movement! Where can the religious impulses of the present and the past be more deeply grasped! He gave, to mention just one example, a cycle on Catholicism, especially on Thomas Aquinas [GA 74], in which he presented the school of thought that our opponents claim as their own in a positive way, thus fulfilling the word: “Love your enemies”.

The lectures presented the world differently to the audience, and they saw themselves differently too. In the midst of the disintegration of contemporary Europe, Dr. Steiner has brought the inner human being of most of them back into relationship with the true, the beautiful and the good, and in this way saved them.

We were able to admire this higher human nature as embodied in the art of eurythmy. Dr. Steiner raised this art to the highest level of education through many years of struggle. With her students, she has made a triumphant advance through all European countries, through England, Holland, Scandinavia and Austria, always holding high the banner of the beautiful soul. This art was cultivated in Dornach at great sacrifice. It is one of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society to pave the way for it in Switzerland as well. It is part of the flow of life within our Society.

One beneficial effect of spiritual science impulses lies in the field of medicine. As already indicated, the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Arlesheim owes its creation to the initiative of Dr. Wegman, who has put rare energy into putting into practice the insights and impulses that Dr. Steiner gave in the medical courses of spring 1920 and 1921. After only a short time, the clinic was always full, so the Suryhof had to be acquired and set up as a branch. Significant work was done in diagnosis and therapy. A range of excellent remedies were produced in the associated laboratories.

Eurythmy therapy should also be mentioned here. Supporting this promising approach so that it can have a healing effect is undoubtedly one of the most important tasks of the Anthroposophical Society. Our members should feel a special connection to the Clinical Therapeutic Institute by virtue of their destiny.

In the summer of 1921, the journal “Das Goetheanum” was founded. Albert Steffen was entrusted by Dr. Steiner with the editorial work. Dr. Steiner sacrificed many an hour, indeed many a night, to this new undertaking. His contributions would fill a strong book. They are gems of prose art. Readers were informed about the situation in Europe and about leading thinkers of the past and present in a unique way.

Albert Steffen reported many of Dr. Steiner's most intimate lectures in the carpentry workshop. Those who read these reports are left with the impression that Dornach is an unparalleled spiritual center. Probably no one who is accustomed to reading the journal would want to do without it in the future. However, in order to continue publishing it, the Society needs the support of the friends of our movement. This, again, indicates an important task for the Society. I only wish that all members would become subscribers.

Finally, Mr. Steffen spoke of the enemies. He quoted two passages from “Protestant” criticism to show how little these enemies care about the truth. The first was by Pastor Frohnmeyer, which read: “A statue of nine meters in height is currently being sculpted in Dornach, showing a ‘Luciferian’ face at the top and animalistic features at the bottom. “This ideal man,” said Steiner to the visitors present, ‘must necessarily be the true image of Christ!’

Of course, this statue has neither a luciferic feature nor an animalistic trait. Anyone who has seen it will attest to that. But countless people who have not seen it now carry this distorted image within them as a result of Frohnmeyer's distorting words. How distressing that they were uttered by a pastor.

The other passage is from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung [of April 15, 1923], on the occasion of Dr. Steiner's last lecture [in Zurich on April 10, 1923]. It is signed A.B.E. “It was also a gross misrepresentation to assert that anthroposophy is neither a philosophy nor a religion,” he writes. Anyone who has heard Dr. Steiner's lecture must say that he never claimed this. What A.B.E. says about “a kind of anthroposophical church” “with fifty branch communities where prayers are murmured into rising clouds of incense” is a gross distortion, unworthy of a pastor. Quite apart from the fact that the “Religious Renewal” to which this is alluding is a movement that is perfectly capable of acting on its own responsibility.

Finally, in order to give an idea of how much the opposition is forgetting itself and drawing inspiration from the sewers, Albert Steffen quoted a defamatory poem by a certain Mr. Theodor Rubischum in Dornach, who is in extensive correspondence with the enemies of anthroposophy and provides them with all kinds of untrue gossip. In the face of such ghastly fantasies, Steffen called for the development of a stronger sense of belonging and pointed to the greatest task of the society: to rebuild the Goetheanum.

After him, Dr. Blümel took the floor and vividly outlined the development of the anthroposophical school movement in Switzerland. He described how the desire for a school in which teaching would be based on anthroposophical knowledge of man was growing ever stronger among both parents and teachers, referring to the recently concluded pedagogical course for Swiss teachers. He presented it as the task of the Anthroposophical Society to support the school association, which already has over 600 members. The aim of the association is to establish such a school.

Dr. W. J. Stein, the next speaker, powerfully pointed out the methods of our opponents, their excellent organization and their extensive connections: They even place advertisements in the newspapers offering to provide anyone with the relevant material from which he can draw data if he intends to denigrate Dr. Steiner (be it in the theological, literary or social field). It is a campaign of lies of the worst kind, the origin of which the outside world has little idea about. The speaker pointed out that we should make it our task to relieve Dr. Steiner of the need to respond to each of these defamations. The aim of the enemies would be to take up Dr. Steiner's time and energy entirely with this polemic, so that his spiritual work for the anthroposophical movement would be lost.

[The afternoon session began at 2:30 p.m. This part of the protocol has been transcribed. Accordingly, at the request of those present, Rudolf Steiner introduced the meeting under the aspect: the Anthroposophical Society as such must set itself a positive task.

Dr. Steiner: I do not want to engage in a long discussion, but just say a few words that are not even intended to explicitly tie in with what has already been said today, but only, I would like to say, in terms of feeling.

The assembly in Stuttgart, which took place recently ¹ and the one here today - and I hope that in other countries there will be follow-up meetings - were, in view of what has been said here today, in particular by Dr. Stein, has been said here today, that they should proceed in a certain positive way, so that something positive really does arise out of the will of the meeting and that means, in this case, the individual Anthroposophical Societies, so here the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, that something positive arises out of the will of the meeting.

Attention has already been drawn to the way in which the opposition is organized. Now it must be said that the Anthroposophical Society is distinguished precisely by the fact that it is not organized, not organized at all, and that the majority of the membership has so far wanted nothing to do with any kind of human organization.

Now this was possible to a certain extent until a certain point in time. But in view of today's conditions, it is impossible for it to continue. It is necessary that something should actually happen in the Anthroposophical Society that can be taken as a sign that at least for the most part the Society's affairs are also being positively represented by the members, or at least are being followed with interest, at least to begin with. Even the latter is basically not there to any significant extent. And when I was asked recently what I myself expected of this meeting, I had to point out that it is necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to set itself a real task so that it is there as a society, so that it is still something special in addition to the anthroposophical movement; in other words, the Society must set itself a task. Because as long as this task is not there, the conditions that have been discussed today will never change; on the contrary, they will get worse and worse. Because the opponents, for example, think quite differently – Dr. Stein has already characterized some of this – than the members of the Anthroposophical Society think; with regard to the Society, of course, I am only speaking in relation to the Society today.

The organization of the opposition exists for the opponents, it is a reality. But the Anthroposophical Society is not a reality for the majority of the membership, because there is no positive task that could arise from a positive resolution of will. And that is why these negotiations were held in Stuttgart and here. In Stuttgart, because the delegates' meeting could not decide to set the Society such a task, to a certain extent to resort to the expedient of leading the membership to split into two memberships for the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, so that one could hope that the mutual relationship between these two societies would gradually develop what had not emerged from the delegates' meeting.

So that today's meeting here can have the great and beautiful goal of setting an example of how to give the Anthroposophical Society as such a positively effective task that can command the respect of people outside as well. So, something great can happen here today, if we not only listen to what individual personalities express in such a beautiful way, as has happened today, but if a common will actually emerges from the Society itself, from the whole of the Society. This could actually be the case. Otherwise this meeting will also be fruitless and inconclusive. So some kind of result must come out of this meeting.

I am saying these few words now because I think that everything that is heard in the reports should be taken in for personal knowledge from the point of view of such an aim, that everything should actually be put into this perspective. For you see, Dr. Stein once said: If it should really become necessary for me to concern myself merely with repelling the opponents — which could indeed become necessary — then that is of course a task for me that is infinitely more difficult than repelling the opponents by positively taking on a task on behalf of the Anthroposophical Society. But the decision to go about repelling the opponents myself, the decision to draw a conclusion myself from the lack of results of further anthroposophical negotiations, would of course first of all necessitate that I would have to cease my work for the Anthroposophical Society, would have to withdraw to merely personal work, so that I could no longer make the Anthroposophical Society, which is simply unable to decide on a task for itself, my field of work. This would be absolutely necessary if I were forced to take on even those tasks that Dr. Stein has just mentioned today. For the two things cannot be combined. And the fact that the opponents are clever enough to understand this has been proven to them today.²

Now I would really ask my dear friends to also realize that this is absolutely what can become a reality overnight. Things can no longer be taken for granted, they must be taken seriously. The situation is a very serious one. And the situation of the Anthroposophical Society cannot continue to tolerate the fact that we always come to a deadlock at all our meetings.

So, I do not want to say anything other than what I wanted to illustrate with these few words. I ask you, my dear friends, not to go away today without results, but to set the Anthroposophical Society as such a task that people can have a certain respect for and not always think: “The Anthroposophists let everything be done to them”.

Albert Steffen: Dear attendees! Dr. Steiner has said quite clearly here that if we do not take on the task of conquering our opponents, then he will not have the opportunity, will not have the time, will no longer be able to find the time for us, but that he wants to withdraw from us, from our society. So we have to be clear about how we are going to do this, and I would now ask that perhaps individual suggestions be put forward.

Now the business report must be dealt with first. Mr. Storrer hands over the business report.

Various speakers: Mr. Geering, Dr. Hugentobler, Mr. Stokar, Mr. Leinhas, Mr. Widmer, Mr. Rietmann, Dr. Stein, Dr. Dr. Vreede, Dr. Grosheintz, Dr. Lagutt, Dr. Usteri, Mr. Imrie, Mr. Steffen, Mr. Pfeiffer, Dr. Blümel, Dr. Wachsmuth, Mr. Vett, Mr. Gnädinger, Mr. Ebersold, Mr. van Leer, Ms. von Vacano, Ms. Hauck, Dr. Unger, a teacher from Strasbourg.

The lady from Strasbourg: There is an intention in France to found a special Anthroposophical Society. It would now be desirable to find out whether anything is already being done officially in Dornach and whether, as is being said, a secretary has been appointed by Dr. Steiner so that, if something is to happen from Strasbourg, people are aware of the matter.

Dr. Steiner: As I indicated earlier, the fact that Stuttgart is no longer seen as the center for the entire Anthroposophical Society has led to the situation that efforts are now being made in the various countries to form groups of Anthroposophists who want to have a direct connection to Switzerland, to Dornach. In order to carry out the organizational work, it is perhaps very possible that national Anthroposophical Societies will be formed in the various countries, let us say. And now, as far as I know, Mlle. Sauerwein is the one — Mlle. Sauerwein has actually offered to take over the general secretariat for France. It would be highly desirable for our French friends in particular, and of course also the people of Strasbourg, who now belong to France, to support Mille. Sauerwein in every possible way and not to view her with scepticism.

The lady from Strasbourg makes a few interjections that are not noted.

Dr. Steiner: In these matters, of course, it is important to have the right form so that people know what is going on. We cannot say that Mlle. Sauerwein has taken on this role. Because then the further question would arise as to who gave her this office and so on. In a society based on real freedom, it can only be a matter of completely different forms. Isn't that right, Mille. Sauerwein has declared herself willing to do everything possible in France to bring an Anthroposophical Society into being there. And from what I know about Miss Sauerwein, I was able to issue her with a document — and this is what you are talking about now — which states that, for everything that is required of me for an Anthroposophical Society in France, I recognize Miss Sauerwein as the General Secretary of the French Anthroposophical Society, for whom I will do what is required of me. ³ So if you see the crux of the matter in the fact that something like this can be done with absolute freedom in all directions, then the situation is as follows: if someone does not want to recognize Miss Sauerwein, they do not have to do so; it is just that in the future, Miss Sauerwein will be the one for whom I have now agreed to do what is required of me.

You just have to pay attention to the circumstances in all these matters and study them. Sauerwein will in future be the one for whom I have now declared myself willing to do what is required of me.

You just have to pay attention to the circumstances in all these matters and study how they have to be carried out in practice in the Anthroposophical Society so that you can really be free in all respects. But that has been avoided so far. These sentences, which I believe were worked out in the “Principles” of 1913, show how the Anthroposophical Society was founded on absolute freedom in all respects. If a positive task is to emerge in any way, it can only come out of such freedom.

So the thing is, if an Anthroposophical Society is formed in France and wants to work with me, I will only do what I will do in confidence with Mlle. Sauerwein. That's the way it is. Everyone is free to do something for nothing other than what they want to do.

Teacher Wullschleger talks about school issues. He thinks Baravalle's “Pedagogy of Physics and Mathematics” is excellent; about 60 teachers have come together for a course.

Mr. Storrer, Mr. Blümel, Mr. Steffen and Mr. Müller ask questions about member admissions and the associated responsibilities.

Dr. Steiner: After all, the admission of members has always been taken care of, and the fact that mistakes are made from time to time will continue to happen in the future. I think the discussion is being diverted from the main point if we deal with these questions too early, when we are actually only really dealing with them once we have a good basis for discussing the consolidation of the Society, and this may lead to the opinion that enough has been said about the consolidation itself.

I would therefore like to express what I have said in a little more concrete terms. The actual purpose of such a discussion at an Annual General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society should really only be discussed at a later date. Think back to the times when the Anthroposophical Society presented itself to the world with its own content and basically had no need to concern itself with anything other than spreading anthroposophy within a certain circle of people. We could, if nothing else had been willed, still stand on this basis in the bosom of the Anthroposophical Society today. “Theoretically, hypothetically, that would be quite possible. But we cannot do it in reality, simply because — let us say — the very praiseworthy endeavor to build a Goetheanum was born out of the bosom of the Society. The Goetheanum was just there. As a result, the Anthroposophical Society itself has become something quite different from what it was before such a Goetheanum was built.

It does not matter whether one or the other reason, which emerged from the Society, was given with more or less good luck; but it is a fact that in a certain period of time the impulse arose within the Society to do this or that. As a result, the world has been led to form very different judgments about things related to anthroposophy than would have come about if the Anthroposophical Society had remained as it was before these things, which, so to speak, outwardly formed a revelation of the Anthroposophical Society in a very visible way. The individual things can indeed be very, as is the case with the Goetheanum, extraordinarily significant. The Goetheanum itself and other justifications that have been made – even the justifications of such journals as the Stuttgart weekly “Anthroposophie” and the earlier Dreigliederungszeitung or “Kommende Tag”, the “Futurum”, the clinics and so on – have been created out of the bosom of the Anthroposophical Society. Today, individual members might say: We didn't participate in that, we are not responsible for it. Yes, that would prove that the Anthroposophical Society does not step before the world with a common will, not as a distinct body with what it has within itself. So today it is necessary that the Anthroposophical Society's common will should accomplish what we would not have needed if we had remained in the old position. But we are no longer on the old standpoint. And so it is necessary that the Anthroposophical Society simply take on the other task of presenting itself to the world in such a way that people have a certain respect for it.

Of course, for this to happen, there must be matters concerning the Anthroposophical Society in the first place. You see, today there are matters concerning the rebuilding of the Goetheanum, there are matters concerning the Coming Day, the clinics and so on, but there is actually — as today's discussion has shown once again — extremely little that one can talk about when speaking of the Anthroposophical Society as such; at most, membership fees and so on. But the Society must give itself such a content that it is impossible for the most untrue stuff about Anthroposophy to be constantly being put into the world without the Anthroposophical Society in some way considering it its business. It would not need to consider it its business if it did not exist. But it does exist. It exists in history with what has come about over the years. And further debates should now be held on how it is possible to consolidate the Anthroposophical Society in such a way that it acquires real substance as a society.

Now, of course, individual tasks have been very well characterized; but these individual tasks do not make it up for the time being. The way the question of opponents has been dealt with shows that there is no awareness that something like this has to be raised to a much higher level. It really has to be raised to a much higher level. The way people have been talking about their opponents here reminds me of someone who has an opponent firing cannonballs at them, so they go and set up their own cannon and start firing at the cannonballs that have fallen from their opponent's side. That is how people are talking. It is as if the point were merely to take up a defense and continually refute only the opponents' writings, which they chose to write, in the usual polemical manner. This would lead us to nothing but a regressus in infinitum. For it is self-evident that whatever we reply to a refutation, the opponent replies to our reply, and so on ad infinitum. We gain nothing by firing cannonballs! Take this last writing by the Sichler in Bern. There is actually no point in refuting it, because it only contains nonsense about anthroposophy, of course. If you refute the nonsense, then of course the person who is being stupid refutes the cleverness that you have put forward from his stupid point of view, and you are immediately caught in a regressus in infinitum. Likewise, if you refute Ragaz's writing in the usual way. You see, the point is not to refute a piece of writing like the Sichler, but to show what is behind it in terms of science and method of knowledge, that behind the appearance of science there is a very ordinary, trivial dilettantism. So you have to look directly at what is behind it. In Stuttgart, they have always tried to refute the claims of General von Gleich. But it is not a matter of refuting them, but of what kind of person is behind them. The fact that the whole scientific basis from which such things are written is not scientific at all is what it is about. So we have to get used to bringing things to a completely different level.

That is one example. But in general, if the Anthroposophical Society is to take on the task of representing anthroposophy, we have to take the whole thing to a completely different level. It has to be conceived on a grander scale than has been the case so far. Not that I would demand that! It would not even occur to me to demand that of myself. I would be satisfied if it remained at the point of view at which it now stands. But that is not possible; for the reason that the Anthroposophical Society today represents anthroposophy as it represented it when there was no Goetheanum; it represents it as if there were no Goetheanum, no such foundations as the Federation for Free Spiritual Life and so on. I would say that all this has provoked the judgment of the world. And now the anthroposophical members long for “peace”; they do not want to know about any of this. That is not possible today. I would be satisfied if it were. But then we should not have had to make all these justifications. Now that society has declared its agreement, a certain reputation must be created for society. One could say: I don't care about this reputation, it's all the same to me. — But work cannot continue if this reputation is not created, if it is always done in such a way that people rightly say: Yes, what is this Anthroposophical Society? There people come together, read lectures to each other and so on; that is just a bunch of weirdos!

So that the Anthroposophical Society at least stands as other societies that do something similar do, that is what we need. But that is usually not talked about at all. And I myself can talk my lungs out about it – people simply do not address the fact that the Anthroposophical Society takes on such a physiognomy in the world that it can exist alongside its deeds, namely, that it has built a Goetheanum. It was there! A society that brings a Goetheanum into the world must itself resemble a Goetheanum, at least to a certain extent. But compare what the Goetheanum was and what the Anthroposophical Society is. I am not saying this to give anyone a hard time, because I would be quite happy with the Anthroposophical Society if it had not built a Goetheanum, had not founded a Futurum, had not published magazines. Isn't it true that when the magazine Luzifer-Gnosis appeared, it was left to me to publish it. But gradually these things have become matters for society, and so society must be there too, so that society has the same face. Today, however, society does not have the same face as its institutions have, even the unfortunate ones that have perished. Yes, the judgment of the world is there after all! That is what it is all about. We should talk about how to give society a relief! It is a terrible thought, but it can also be understood in the very best sense. But then the points of the agenda must really be grasped by the scruff of the neck. We must not talk about things that are not really there. We must look at things as they really are.

Yes, my dear friends, the Goetheanum will be rebuilt under two conditions. Firstly, if we are allowed to build here. Well, we will have to see about that, we cannot negotiate about that today. But we can negotiate about whether we can bring the Anthroposophical Society to such a relief that it cannot be denied. So we do not have to negotiate the second before we have negotiated the first.

And the other thing, my dear friends: Yes, I am completely convinced that the people we will need to build the Goetheanum, the artists and other workers, will be there when the foundation is in place. Please excuse me for having to use the word again: the Goetheanum building fund is the foundation. There is no need today to talk about making forces available or anything of the sort; that will happen the moment the building fund is in place. But really, one question leads to another. And it is necessary that finally a meeting is held somewhere in an Anthroposophical Society that really talks about these fundamental conditions. Not only the Stuttgart meeting should talk about it; it did not talk about it; hardly anyone spoke about the main issue. It was hinted at in the lectures that were given, but the assembly was not interested in these hints. They may have been given more or less unhappily; the question of opponents, for example, was treated very peculiarly. It was actually treated in such a way that a motion was made to move on to the agenda so as not to have to hear any more about the opponents. And that would have been the right moment for me to say: I am giving up the company that adopts such agendas! But one must just stick to what one has committed to. And it is indeed the case that we have to come back to the point where every single member knows that they have to do something as a representative of the company, otherwise we will not make any progress, otherwise all the meetings are unnecessary.

In Stuttgart, it was expected that if the two societies are now together and, I do not want to say, mutually abrasive, but mutually stimulating, something will happen as a result of the delegates' meeting, but that did not happen at the delegates' meeting. Now we will continue to wait for Stuttgart. But that is not what we are here to talk about. But as I said, this meeting here could set an example. Really, it would depend on whether, in addition to all the things for which one has taken responsibility and what stands there with a certain history, for my sake perhaps sometimes with a very bad one – at the Goetheanum it was certainly not the case and certainly not in the other endeavors either – that society now decides to become something other than what it was allowed to be, rightly was allowed to be, for the conditions in the period up to 1918. At that time the Goetheanum had not yet reached the point where it could present itself to the world. Since then, however, very significant changes have taken place. But today the Anthroposophical Society cannot say: We want to remain at the earlier point of view, it does not suit us to become a society like this, as it is necessary now that these reasons are there. — But the majority would like to remain at this point of view.

Then again, people come who demand closer communities. Of course, such a demand may be perfectly justified, but it remains a mere expression of personal egoism as long as society does not respond to what I am now trying to say, as I did earlier this afternoon, only more specifically. Today, it is almost irresponsible not to meet the demand for closer communities. But one cannot accommodate this will if, on the other hand, one repeatedly encounters the most absolute lethargy with regard to the affairs of society. Yes, sometimes it happens that people come forward with the pretension: We do not care about the Anthroposophical Society, we are now forming this narrower circle of anthroposophical souls! – Yes, that is selfishness of soul! It should be of the greatest concern to everyone when, for example, we come together to discuss the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society, when we talk about consolidation, about how the Society can acquire content, active content, so that it stands in the world as such and the world finally knows what the Anthroposophical Society as such wants. Otherwise there would be no need for an Anthroposophical Society with the pretensions it now has. Other societies could be founded, not even a society would be needed, but something could be undertaken in some field where a number of people are together who have no other tasks than to listen to lectures or to receive exercises. These are not the tasks of the society. But the society should have a task. I ask you to consider all this.

I just wanted to say these few words to draw attention to this again.

Albert Steffen: I see no other social issue than that we try to be more fraternal with each other, that one helps the other.

Dr. Steiner: You should just grasp what I mean. Take, for example, the Clinical Therapeutic Institute [in Stuttgart]. That did come out of the Society. But the members of the Society — I mean the majority, there are very few who see it differently — they see it as a place where they might go to be cured. But they should see it as their own affair — ideally, of course — and that is what should be there, so that they stand up for the cause. You don't stand up for anthroposophy. You don't need to do it for the individual; the individual may of course not please one or the other. There may be so many members who hate the Clinical Therapeutic Institute; they don't need to stand up for it, but they will be able to stand up for something else. But this tendency to really stand up for the Society is what matters.

Hedwig Hauck proposes collecting signatures for Mr. Steffen's article, which is very well written.

Albert Steffen: I think you misunderstand the nature of a writer. He writes more heavily than other people. It is not good to write too much, because then the word simply loses its effect.

Willy Stokar proposes forming a board of directors for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland from the Swiss branches.

Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth replies that this board could not be elected, but only supplemented by Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen's proposal.

Albert Steffen: It is necessary for each individual to think through the matter again and again, so to speak, the fate of the whole movement, and that it is also thought through in groups, that the whole society lives in it; but it must also come from within. I myself have always tried to do that. I don't know how to act differently.

van Leer thinks that it is a matter of principle for each individual to look at the enterprises as if they were his own, which he finances himself. Dr. Steiner only hinted at this.

Dr. Steiner: And yet something can be achieved if people discuss things, so that one person tells another what they know, and that person then tells another what they know.

We really have to think about things in much more concrete terms. Sometimes it seems to me as if the Anthroposophical Society is just a big hole, as if there is nothing in it at all. Please forgive me for saying something quite concrete. You will not expect me to start throwing flattery into the debate from some underground lair. But you see, this Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland once had the great good fortune to have Mr. Steffen as its General Secretary. Yes, almost to this day I have never heard anyone express an opinion about this extraordinary fact. Today, Mr. Leinhas said that we are dealing with a personality who probably writes the best German in the world. One would think that something like that would mean something to the Anthroposophical Society. That one does not just hear a judgment here and there at most: “It's good that we have Steffen, because when he signs our appeal and so on” — and then behaves in such a way that we also lose our reputation as a society. That's of no use; but that we point out the things we have in the strongest way — and we do have the things — so that people become aware of them! I have pointed this out at every opportunity. But it is really the case that no one had any idea what kind of historical fact this is in the development of the entire Anthroposophical Society, that one of the general secretaries in one of the societies is the man about whom one could say many other things than what Mr. Leinhas said today. But such a person must live in the Society if it wants to live itself. And not only that, forgive me, I know that there are also choleric people in the Society for other matters that do not directly belong to the Society, sanguine and melancholic people; but in matters concerning the Society, it often seems to me as if there were no other temperament than the phlegmatic one. This fact, that Mr. Steffen is the General Secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, has so far been received with such phlegm, has been considered in such a way, that one does not notice any life force. All that can be felt is phlegm, phlegm. If such things are simply allowed to happen – some time ago I emphasized the story with the Baltz brochure and so on – if such things are simply allowed to happen, if nothing happens in the Society, then we will no longer be alive in a very short time. We start by setting an example of disregarding achievements. How can they possibly evaluate the achievements of society in the world if it does not happen within society itself?

You have the strangest experiences. It's almost stupid that you have to mention things, but it's still strange. I wrote an article about Albert Steffen's poetry out of the deepest need of my heart. The Anthroposophie prints everything from the Goetheanum; it just did not print this article. One has no idea that this is connected with an important fact about society. Yes, the ability to assess things, to form a judgment about what is present in society, that is what matters; not to accept everything with tremendous phlegm, with tremendous matter-of-factness. Isn't it true that people don't understand what I mean when I talk about society having a content. What it really comes down to is not just saying that each individual should now look within themselves, but that they should tell each other things. What one person doesn't know, the other person knows, and what the other person doesn't know, right, the first person knows. If a meeting like this goes so that you feel just as much like talking about these things as you feel like talking about the differences between four or five people, then something has been done. Today not much has been done. But you can be sure: once this interest is awakened, society will change completely. In just a year and a half, society will have changed completely if only these things, which are of such a nature, are approached in a very serious way. Then it will not happen that on the other hand people can say: There is someone who has been in the Society for years, he has become a fierce opponent; why? Yes, they just idolized him while he was in the Society because they have no judgment of the true achievements within the Society. How many people have been in society to whom, because one could not say very much about this earth life, I don't know what was attributed in the previous earth life. Isn't it true that this constant missing the point is what should be seriously combated by such a gathering. Then the positive will emerge.

So please do not think that I wanted to flatter Mr. Steffen. I just wanted to present you with objective facts. This is necessary to make it clear what is meant by linking to such positive things. It is really the case that one should start here. I could say many other things about this, but I really only want to give suggestions. I did not want to speak at all at today's meeting.

Albert Steffen: You have somewhat shamed me and yet not shamed me, in that I must say that I have actually become a [good] writer or at least a writer at all, because I have always been concerned with your writings. I have actually read your writings since I was twenty years old, I can say every day, and that is how I have developed my style, as far as it was possible for a person of my lack of talent. But I think that is not so much to my credit. I have to say, it is better – I don't know – it is better to treat it with silence.

Dr. Steiner: You may treat it with silence, but the Society cannot treat it that way.

Emil Leinhas: It is somewhat depressing to hear something like that again and yet it has to be said to the Society that it is asleep, not interested in anything, when on the one hand you have so many wonderful people, a selection, so to speak, because not just anyone can approach anthroposophy – and yet the fact exists that it is the same people who have to be told again that they are not doing their duty towards society. As a society, we have a spiritual abundance, but not enough interest in society. In Stuttgart, too, the accusation has been made again that society is asleep, not taking enough interest, and that is fully justified. But we should not let ourselves be weighed down. Instead, despite this abundance, we should find the strength to awaken interest and attention to the things that are there... not just saying: They are doing everything wrong in society, but: What can I do for the cause, for the newspaper 'Goetheanum', for the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, etc., whatever it may be. That we may kindle the will in us so that we can also do what we recognize as our duty. This applies to everything: that there is a living development of the will.

Dr. Steiner: Not true, the matter will have to come to an end anyway. — There is already a great longing to leave the hall before the discussion continues. I would just like to say a few more words, which are necessary, and say in advance, my dear friends, that I would like to go much further than Leinhas. I would not just like to say: there are a great many magnificent people in society, but almost all of them are magnificent people. — But that is not the point. Let me just say it dryly: I have been with these magnificent specimens of humanity at all sorts of, shall we say, lunches, dinners, suppers and the like – yes, they are truly magnificent there. They have interests that arise even in the moment; they know how to talk, they are so passionate about one thing or another. And the society that arises in this way is also quite magnificent. But I have also been to anthroposophical general assemblies or assemblies in general, where the same people are not like that at all, where they are – forgive me – phlegmatic! They are phlegmatic about the affairs of the society, and that is what must bring the society to ruin. People are really magnificent, almost all of them, but they don't show it, especially when the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society are at stake. You can't expect anyone to have a greater interest in anthroposophy than they already have, because that is connected with the innermost part of the human being. But if a society exists and one is a member, then one must feel and act as a member. This is required by the social nature of the matter. It is not possible to feel the same obligations as one does, for example, at a dinner when one is present.

So it is absolutely necessary to take an interest in the affairs of society. I have also mentioned a few things that one could take an interest in. I am not saying that I would be compelled, for example, to criticize this phlegm in the same way in another field among the magnificent people, of whom we are almost all now. But here it is necessary. So, it is really not about the individual person. I speak, while speaking here – don't believe that – not to the individual person at all, but I speak to society as such, as it behaves. And that is actually already the case, so that one should reflect on how it should become different.

Now there is a special matter. I don't know how the Society feels about it – but this special matter can only be dealt with here in the Society. This is the case: in view of the Goetheanum fire and after it, a Swiss personality, Colonel Gertsch, approached Mr. Steffen and me with the suggestion that his country estate near Winterthur, which includes a castle, to the Society, because he believes that the Anthroposophical cause would be better served there, in a different environment, and that a Goetheanum could be built there better than here, where we have had these experiences.

So now this offer has been made. The estate is about 110 Jucharten ⁴ in size, including this castle, which is of course quite unsuitable as a representative of the anthroposophical cause. And naturally this raises the question of how one should react to such an offer. The offer has been made. I believe that neither Mr. Steffen nor I can take it upon ourselves to act either positively or negatively, but rather that it must be considered from the point of view that Dornach also has a history, that if we were to leave Dornach, there are so and so many people there who have really been very involved with Dornach, and also from the financial point of view: houses have been built, people are connected with the whole thing here. It must be considered that on the one hand, numerous circumstances within the membership make it necessary, if there is just any possibility that building can take place, that it should take place here.

On the other hand, the offer is on the table. We have been offered this property there – I am of course unable to judge at the moment whether it is relatively cheap or expensive – which we could have for 130,000,000 Swiss francs. As I said, 110 Jucharten; a large part of it is covered with vineyards. There are also some outbuildings next to the building. In short, the offer has been made. And I would ask, so that a statement from the company is available, that the company itself decides whether it wants to make a provisional or a definite decision in this regard. I request that you express yourselves frankly on this matter, for it is of course unnecessary, also in view of such things, for the individual members to serve as scapegoats, so to speak, but rather that the Society come to a conclusion on this. If anyone wants to know more about it, they can of course have information. But the most important thing seems to me that through everything that has happened since 1913, there is a connection with Dornach; so that one is not really allowed to leave here without being thrown out; and on the other hand there is the fact of this offer.

Albert Steffen: Yes, I myself cannot express an opinion on this matter, neither positive nor negative, as you said yourself, Doctor.

Emanuel van Leer is against leaving Dornach, even if many difficulties were to arise. He would like to propose a rejection in principle for the time being.

Rudolf Geering believes that everyone would agree with Mr. van Leer and that there would be little need for a great discussion on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: It would, of course, be desirable if a resolution along these lines were adopted and that this resolution - yes, forgive me, I don't know if the stenographer of the opponent is there - that this resolution is sensible. So, the resolution should be formulated and pronounced with all the severity, if that is the opinion of society. But it would be worth considering whether the subordinate clauses of this resolution are also important, whether it could be significant under certain circumstances if it were to be said: Because we absolutely want to hold on to the idea of rebuilding here, we are unfortunately prevented from responding to such a proposal from outside. Wouldn't it, then perhaps one way or another one could say: We must see that they can build in Dornach, otherwise — —

Emanuel van Leer: Yes, these are the gloves I was talking about.

Dr. Steiner: Oh no, those are not the gloves! Isn't it true that there are many people outside the Anthroposophical Society who would very much like us to build here; and if it were made known that we could build elsewhere, it could be quite useful under certain circumstances, if it were mentioned in a subordinate clause of the resolution. Isn't it true that there is a difference between telling the world that we may have the opportunity to build somewhere else and still build here! I don't know if this is understood here?

Emil Leinhas asks whether only the Swiss Anthroposophical Society should speak on this matter or whether it would also be possible for the entire Anthroposophical Society to issue the resolution.

Dr. Steiner: It would be good if the Swiss members gathered here and the non-Swiss members, that is, all the members here, could decide on this matter. It is, of course, a matter for the Society. We can't get the whole Society together anywhere, but what we have together can pass the resolution.

Dr. Steiner: Well, well, in Switzerland, the economy is cantonal.

Willy Storrer: In Switzerland, every canton is already part of a foreign country for the other.

Dr. Unger points out that Stuttgart authorities are considering making appropriate offers to attract the Goetheanum to Stuttgart. A building councilor called a few days ago with a suggestion along these lines, but he did not elaborate.

Dr. Steiner: If we knew more about it, that would of course be a wonderful development.

Dr. Unger says that nothing is definite yet; but the fact is that the Stuttgart building authorities are interested.

Dr. Steiner: Well, then perhaps the general directive will only be given in general terms, only in the sense that it has been discussed now, and it will be left to Mr. Steffen to formulate the corresponding resolution. I would be quite happy to do that with him. This is not a proposal, but just

advice. — Does anyone else wish to speak?

One speaker thinks that we should listen to all offers, buy the estate in Winterthur and then still build in Dornach, so that we have an alternative in case of difficulties.

Dr. Steiner: So you think we should buy the estate? Yes, you see, if someone buys it in order to have it up their sleeve for this eventuality, then you can't have anything against it. But we could not risk it from the Society's funds, because you have to be able to get rid of it if you buy it. I have every confidence that if we have the money we can buy it, but I don't have the confidence that we can get rid of it at the right moment when we have no more money.

Rudolf Geering would like to formally propose to the Society that we accept the matter, namely that Mr. Steffen should draft a resolution along the lines of the proposal as soon as the right moment arises – that is, after we have received more precise information from Stuttgart. Albert Steffen: I don't think we can afford to wait for this information. Mr. Gertsch is impatient and is pushing for an answer.

Dr. Steiner: They are here. I could easily wait for the answer, because I won't be here for the next few days, but Mr. Steffen is still here, so he's the poor victim. I suggest we adopt this resolution immediately in the sense we have discussed and entrust it to Mr. Steffen. And then when Stuttgart makes an offer, we'll simply repeat this process.

Albert Steffen: I can also do it so that I write to Colonel-General Gertsch first and then send the resolution afterwards. — Time is very advanced. No one else is speaking?

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to say that the main questions would still have to be discussed further and that the meeting would have to reconvene very soon here in Switzerland. Because it seems to me to be of the utmost importance that something decisive be done here in Switzerland in the Anthroposophical Society. I have been saying for many years that if something were to be done here in Switzerland for the Anthroposophical Society, it would be of very special, even spiritual, importance. And that is why I had great expectations of today's meeting.

But now it may well be that these expectations will be exceeded by a continuation as soon as possible ⁵! And so we will probably not be able to debate this further today. And now I have to tread lightly: I will therefore wait until you have had supper before beginning my lecture. Perhaps we could start the lecture at a quarter to nine?

Mr. Storrer: The collection we organized for the deficit of the Anthroposophical Society has so far amounted to CHF 459.50.

• 1. Refers to the delegates' meeting at the end of February.
• 2. In the morning lecture by Dr. W. J. Stein.
• 3. The document, see the following page.
• 4. 1 Jucharte = 36 Aren
• 5. See the meeting of June 10, 1923, page 512 ff.

Today we will have to reach some kind of conclusion in our deliberations. Clearly that will have to include drawing the consequences which arise for the future action of the Anthroposophical Society. In order to gain a better understanding of what this action might be, let us take another look at the way anthroposophy emerged in modern civilization.

From the reflections of the last eight days, you will have realized how an interest in anthroposophy was at first to be found in those circles where the impulse for a deeper spiritual understanding was already present. This impulse came from all kinds of directions. In our context, however, it was only necessary to look at the way homeless souls were motivated by the material which Blavatsky presented to the present age in the form of what might be called a riddle.

But if the Anthroposophical Society can be traced back to this impulse, it should, on the other hand, also have become clear that this material was not central to anthroposophy itself. For anthroposophy as such relies on quite different sources. If you go back to my early writings, Christianity As Mystical Fact and Eleven European Mystics, you will see that they are not based in any way on material which came from Blavatsky or from that direction in general, save for the forms of expression which were chosen to ensure that they were understood.

Anthroposophy goes back directly to the subject matter which is dealt with in philosophical terms in my The Philosophy of Freedom, as well as in my writings on Goethe of the 1880s.¹ If you examine that material, you will see that its essential point is that human beings are connected with a spiritual world in the most profound part of their psyche. If they therefore penetrate deeply enough, they will encounter something to which the natural sciences in their present form have no access, something which can only be seen as belonging directly to a spiritual world order.

Indeed, it should be recognized that it is almost inevitable that turns of phrase sometimes have to be used which might sound paradoxical, given the immense spiritual confusion of language which our modern civilization has produced. Thus it can be seen from my writings on Goethe² that it is necessary to modify our concept of love, if we are to progress from observation of the world to observation of the divine-spiritual. I indicated that the Godhead has to be thought of as having permeated all existence with eternal love and thus has to be sought in every single being, something quite different from any sort of vague pantheism. But there was no philosophical tradition in that period on which I could build. That is why it was necessary to seek this connection through someone who possessed a richer, more intense life, an inner life which was saturated with spiritual substance.

That was precisely the case with Goethe. When it came to putting my ideas in book form, I was therefore unable to build a theory of knowledge on what existed in contemporary culture, but had to link it with a Goethean world conception,³ and on that basis the first steps into the spiritual world were possible.

Goethe provides two openings which give a certain degree of access into the spiritual world. The first one is through his scientific writings. For the scientific view he developed overcomes an obstacle in relation to the plant world which is still unresolved in modern science. In his observation of the vegetable realm, he was able to substitute living, flexible ideas for dead concepts. Although he failed to translate his theory of metamorphosis into the animal world, it was nevertheless possible to draw the conclusion that similar ideas on a higher level could be applied. I tried to show in my Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethes World Conception how Goethe's revitalizing ideas made it possible to advance to the level of history, historical existence. That was the one point of entry.

There is, however, no direct continuation into the spiritual world, as such, from this particular starting-point in Goethe. But in working with these ideas it becomes evident that they take hold of the physical world in a spiritual way. By making use of Goethe's methodology, we are moving in a spiritual environment which enables us to understand the spiritual element active in the plant or the animal.

But Goethe also approached the spiritual world from another angle, from a perspective which he was able to indicate only through images, one might almost say symbolically. In his Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily,⁴ he wished to show how a spiritual element is active in the development of the world, how the individual spheres of truth, beauty and goodness act together, and how real spiritual beings, not mere abstract concepts, have to be grasped if we want to observe the real life of the spirit.

It was thus possible to build on this element of Goethe's world view. But that made something else all the more necessary. For the first thing we have to think about when we talk about a conception of the world which will satisfy homeless souls is morality and ethics. In those ancient times in which human beings had access to the divine through their natural clairvoyance, it was taken for granted that moral impulses also came from this divine spiritual principle. Natural phenomena, the action of the wind and the weather, of the earth and of mechanical processes, represented to these ancient human beings an extension of what they perceived as the divine spiritual principle. But at the same time they also received the impulses for their own actions from that source. That is the distinguishing feature of this ancient view of the world. In ancient Egyptian times, for example, people looked up to the stars in order to learn what would happen on earth, even to the extent of gaining insight into the conditions which governed the flooding of the Nile to support their needs. But by the same means they calculated, if I may use that term, what came to expression as moral impulses. Those, too, were derived from their observation of the stars.

If we look now to the modern situation, observation of the stars has become purely a business in which physical mathematics is simply transferred into the starry sky. And on earth so-called laws of nature are discovered and investigated. These laws of nature, which Goethe transformed into living ideas, are remarkable in that the human being as such is excluded from the world.

If we think in diagrammatic form of the content of the old metaphysical conceptions, we have the divine spiritual principle here on the one hand (red). The divine spirit penetrated natural phenomena. Laws were found for these natural phenomena, but they were recognized as something akin to a reflection of divine action in nature (yellow). Then there was the human being (light colouring). The same divine spirit penetrated human beings, who received their substance, as it were, from the same divine spirit which also gave nature its substance.

What happened next, however, had serious consequences. Through natural science the link between nature and the divine was severed. The divine was removed from nature, and the reflection of the divine in nature began to be interpreted as the laws of nature.

For the ancients these laws of nature were divine thoughts. For modern people they are still thoughts, because they have to be grasped by the intellect, but they are explained on the basis of the natural phenomena which are governed by these laws of nature. We talk about the law of gravity, the law of the refraction of light, and lots of other fine things. But they have no real foundation, or rather they are not elevating, for the only way to give real meaning to these laws is to refer to them as a reflection of divine action in nature.

That is what the more profound part of the human being, the homeless soul, feels when we talk about nature today. It feels that those who talk about nature in such a superficial way deserve the Goethean—or, actually, the Mephistophelean—epithet: and mock themselves unwittingly.⁵ People talk about the laws of nature, but the latter are remnants from ancient knowledge, a knowledge which still contained that additional element which underlies the natural laws.

Imagine a rose bush. It will flower repeatedly. When the old roses wither away, new ones grow. But if you pick the roses and allow the bush to die the process stops. That is what has happened to the natural sciences. There was a rose bush with its roots in the divine. The laws which were discovered in nature were the individual roses. These laws, the roses, were picked. The rose bush was left to wither. Thus our laws of nature are rather like roses without the rose bush: not a great deal of use to human beings. People simply fail to understand this in those clever heads of theirs, by which so much store is set in our modern times. But homeless souls do have an inkling of this in their hearts, because the laws of nature wither away when they want to relate to them as human beings.

Modern mankind therefore unconsciously experiences the feeling, in so far as it still has the capacity to feel, that it is being told something about nature which withers the human being. A terrible belief in authority forces people to accept this as pure truth. While they feel in their hearts that the roses are withering away, they are forced into a belief that these roses represent eternal truths. They are referred to as the eternal laws which underlie the world. Phenomena may pass, but the laws are immutable. In the sense that anthroposophy represents what human beings want to develop from within themselves as their self-awareness, natural science represents anti-anthroposophy.

We need still to consider the other side, the ethical and moral. Ethical and moral impulses came from the same divine source. But just as the laws of nature were turned into withering roses, so moral impulses met the same fate. Their roots disappeared and they were left free-floating in civilization as moral imperatives of unknown origin. People could not help but feel that the divine origin of moral commandments had been lost. And that raised the essential question of what would happen if they were no longer obeyed? Chaos and anarchy would reign in human society.

This was juxtaposed with another question: How do these commandments work? Where do we find their roots? Yet again, the sense of something withering away was inescapable. Goethe raised these questions, but was unable to answer them. He presented two starting-points which, although they moved in a convergent direction, never actually came together. The Philosophy of Freedom was required for that.

It had to be shown where the divine is located in human beings, the divine which enables them to discover the spiritual basis of nature as well as of moral laws. That led to the concept of Intuition presented in The Philosophy of Freedom, to what was called ethical individualism. Ethical individualism, because the source of the moral impulses in each individual had to be shown to reside in that divine element with which human beings are connected in their innermost being.

The time had arrived in which a living understanding of the laws of nature on the one hand and the moral commandments on the other had been lost; because the divine could no longer be perceived in the external world it could not be otherwise in the age of freedom. But that being so, it was necessary to find this divine spiritual principle within human beings in their capacity as individuals. That produced a conception of the world which you will see, if you only consider it clearly, leads directly to anthroposophy.

Let us assume that we have human beings here. It is rather a primitive sketch but it will do. Human beings are connected with the divine spirit in their innermost selves (red). This divine spiritual principle develops into a divine spiritual world order (yellow). By observing the inner selves of all human beings in combination, we are able to penetrate the divine spiritual sphere in the same way as the latter was achieved in ancient times by looking outward and seeing the divine spirit in physical phenomena, through primitive clairvoyance.

Our purpose must be to gain access to the spirit, not in an outer materialistic way, but through the real recognition of the essential human self.

In fact The Philosophy of Freedom also represents the point when anthroposophy came into being, if our observations are guided by life rather than by theoretical considerations. Anyone who argues that this book is not yet anthroposophical in nature is being rather too clever. It is as if we were to say that there was a person called Goethe who wrote a variety of works, and this were then to be challenged by someone claiming that it was hardly a consistent view, on the grounds that a child was born in Frankfurt am Main in 1749 who was blue at birth and not expected to live, and that Goethe's works had no logical connection with that child. That is not a particularly clever standpoint, is it? It is just as silly to say that it is inconsistent to argue that anthroposophy developed from The Philosophy of Freedom. The Philosophy of Freedom continued to live, like the blue baby in Frankfurt did, and anthroposophy developed from it.

Those who are involved in the contemporary development of so-called logic and philosophy have lost the capacity to include real life in their considerations, to incorporate what is springing up and sprouting all around them, what goes beyond the pedantic practice of logic.

The task, then, was to make a critical assessment of those representatives of contemporary life who were endeavouring to bring progress to human civilization.

As you are aware, I concentrated on two important phenomena. The first was Nietzsche, who, in contrast to everyone else, was honest in his response to the direction in which modern thinking was developing.

What was the general verdict in the 1890s? It was that natural science was, of course, right. We stand on the terra firma of science and look up at the stars. There was the instance of the conversation between Napoleon and the great astronomer Laplace.⁶ Napoleon could not understand how God was to be found by looking at the stars through a telescope. The astronomer responded that this conjecture was irrelevant. And it was, of course, irrelevant when Laplace observed the stars with a telescope. But it was not irrelevant from the moment that he wanted to be a human being. Microscopes allowed the investigation of micro-organisms and the smallest components of living things. You could look through a microscope for as long as you wished, but there was not the slightest trace of soul or spirit. The soul or the spirit could be found neither in the stars nor under the microscope. And so it went on. This is what Nietzsche came up against.

Others responded by accepting that we look through a telescope at the stars and see physical worlds but nothing else. At the same time they said we also have a religious life, a religion which tells us that the spirit exists. We cannot find the spirit anywhere, but we have faith in its existence all the same. The science which we are committed to believe in is unable to find the spirit anywhere. Science is the way it is because it seeks reality; if it were to take any other form it would be divorced from reality. In other words, anybody who undertakes a different type of research will not find reality! Therefore we know about reality, and at the same time believe in something which cannot be established as a reality. Nevertheless, our forefathers tell us it should be reality.

Such an attitude led to tremendous dilemmas for a soul like Nietzsche's, which had maintained its integrity. One day he realized he would have to draw the line somewhere. How did he do that? He did it by arguing that reality is what is investigated by natural science. Everything else is invalid. Christianity teaches that Christ should not be sought in the reality which is investigated with the telescope and the microscope. But there is no other reality. As a consequence there is no justification for Christianity. Therefore, Nietzsche said, I will write The Anti-Christ.

People accept the ethical commandments which are floating around or which authority tells us must be obeyed, but they cannot be discovered through scientific research. Under his Revaluation of Values Nietzsche therefore wished to write a second book, in which he showed that all ideals should be abandoned because they cannot be found in reality.

Furthermore, he argued that moral principles certainly cannot be deduced from the telescope or the microscope, and on that basis he decided to develop a philosophy of amorality. Thus the first three books of Revaluation of Values should have been called: first book, Anti-Christ; second book, Nihilism or the Abolition of Ideals; third book, Amorality or the Abolition of the Universal Moral Order.

It was a terrible stance to adopt, of course, but his standpoint took to its final and honest conclusion what had been started by others. We will not understand the nerve centres of modern civilization if we do not observe these things. It was something which had to be confronted. The enormous error of Nietzsche's thinking had to be demonstrated and corrected by returning to his premises, and then showing that they had to be understood as leading not into the void but into the spirit. The confrontation with Nietzsche⁷ was thus a necessity.

Haeckel, too, had to be confronted in the same way.⁸ Haeckel's thinking had pursued the approach of natural science to the evolution of physical beings with a certain consistency. That had to be utilized in my first anthroposophical lectures with the help of Topinard's book.⁹ This kind of procedure made it possible to enter the real spiritual world. The details could then be worked on through further research, through continuing to live with the spiritual world.

I have said all this in order to make the following point. If we want to trace anthroposophy back to its roots, it has to be done against a background of illustrations from modern civilization. When we look at the development of the Anthroposophical Society we need to keep in mind the question: Where were the people who were open enough to understand matters of the spirit? They were the people who, because of the special nature of their homeless souls, were prompted by Blavatsky and theosophy to search for the spirit.

The Theosophical Society and anthroposophy went alongside one another at the beginning of the twentieth century simply because of existing circumstances. That development had been fully outgrown in the third stage, which began approximately in 1914. No traces were left, even in the forms of expression. Right from the beginning the thrust of anthroposophical spiritual work included the aim of penetrating the Mystery of Golgotha and Christianity. The other direction of its work, however, had to be to understand natural science by spiritual means. The acquisition of those spiritual means which would once again enable the presentation of true Christianity in our age began in the first phase and was worked on particularly in the second one.

The work which was to be done in a scientific direction really only emerged in the third stage, when people working in the scientific field found their way into the anthroposophical movement. They should take particular care, if we are to avoid the repeated introduction of new misunderstandings into the anthroposophical movement, to take full cognizance of the fact that we have to work from the central sources of anthroposophy. It is absolutely necessary to be clear about this.

I believe it was in 1908 that I made the following remarks¹⁰ in Nuremberg, in order to describe a very specific state of affairs. Modern scientific experimentation has led to substantial scientific progress. That can only be a good thing, for spiritual beings are at work in such experimentation. The scientist goes to the laboratory and pursues his work according to the routines and methods he has learnt. But a whole group of spiritual beings are working alongside him, and it is they who actually bring about results; for the person standing at the laboratory bench only creates the conditions which allow such results to emerge gradually. If that were not the case, things would not have developed as they have in modern times.

Whenever discoveries are made they are clothed in exceedingly abstract formulae which others find incomprehensible. There is a yawning gap today between what people understand and what is produced by research, because people do not have access to the underlying spiritual impulses.

That is how things are. Let us return once more to that excellent person, Julius Robert Mayer.¹¹ Today he is acknowledged as an eminent scientist, but as a student at Tubingen University he came close to being advised to leave before graduating. He scraped through his medical exams, was recruited as a ship's doctor and took part in a voyage to India. It was a rough passage; many people on board became ill and he had to bleed them on arrival.

Now doctors know, of course, that arterial blood is more red than venous blood which has a bluer tinge. If one bleeds someone from the vein, bluish blood should therefore spurt out. Julius Robert Mayer had to bleed many people, but something peculiar happened when he made his incisions. He must have cursed inwardly, because he thought he had hit the wrong place, an artery, since red blood appeared to be spurting out of the vein. The same thing happened in every case and he became quite confused. Finally he reached the conclusion that he had made his incisions in the right place after all but, as people had become sick at sea, something had happened to make the venous blood more red than blue, nearer the colour of arterial blood.

Thus a modern person made a tremendous discovery without in any way seeking the spiritual connections. The modern scientist says: Energy is transformed into heat and heat into energy, as in the steam engine. The same thing happens in the human body. Since the ship had sailed into a warmer, tropical climate, the body needed to burn less oxygen to produce heat, resulting in less of a transformation into blue blood. The blood remained redder in the veins. The law governing the transformation of matter and energy, which we recognize today, is deduced from this observation.

Let us imagine that something similar was experienced by a doctor not in the nineteenth, but in the eleventh or twelfth century. It would never have occurred to him to deduce the mechanical concept of heat equivalence from such observations. Paracelsus,¹² for instance, would never have thought of it, not even in his sleep, although Paracelsus was a much more clever, even in sleep, than some others when they are awake. So what would a hypothetical doctor in the tenth, eleventh or twelfth centuries have said? Or someone like Paracelsus in the sixteenth century?

Van Helmont¹³ speaks about the archeus, what today we would call the joint function of the etheric and astral bodies. We have to rediscover these things through anthroposophy, since such terms have been forgotten. In a hotter climate the difference between the venous and the arterial blood is no longer so pronounced and the blue blood of the veins becomes redder and the red blood of the arteries bluer. The eleventh or twelfth century doctor would have explained this by saying—and he would have used the term archeus, or something similar, for what we describe as astral body today—that the archeus enters less deeply into the body in hot climates than in temperate zones. In temperate climates human beings are permeated more thoroughly by their astral bodies. The differentiation in the blood which is caused by the astral body occurs more strongly in human beings in temperate zones. People in hotter climates have freer astral bodies, which we can see in the lesser thickening of the blood. They live more instinctively in their astral bodies because they are freer. In consequence they do not become mechanistically thinking Europeans, but spiritually thinking Indians, who at the height of their civilization created a spiritual civilization, a Vedic civilization, while Europeans created the civilization of Comte, John Stuart Mill and Darwin.¹⁴

Such is the view of the anthropos which the eleventh or twelfth-century doctor would have concluded from bleeding his patient. He would have had no problem with anthroposophy. He would have found access to the spirit, the living spirit. Julius Robert Mayer, the Paracelsus of the nineteenth century if you like, was left to discover laws: nothing can arise from nothing, so energy must be transformed; an abstract formula.

The spiritual element of the human being, which can be rediscovered through anthroposophy, also leads to morality. We return full circle to the investigation of moral principles in The Philosophy of Freedom. Human beings are given entry to a spiritual world in which they are no longer faced with a division between nature and spirit, between nature and morality, but where the two form a union.

As you can see, the leading authorities in modern science arrive at abstract formulae as a result of their work. Such formulae inhabit the brains of those who have had a modern scientific training. Those who teach them regard as pure madness the claim that it is possible to investigate the qualities of red and blue blood and progress from there to the spiritual element in human beings.

You can see what it takes for real scientists who want to make their way into anthroposophy. Something more than mere good intentions is needed. They must have a real commitment to deepening their knowledge to a degree to which we are not accustomed nowadays, least of all if we have had a scientific training. That makes a great deal of courage essential. The latter is the quality we need above all when we take into account the conditions governing the existence of the Anthroposophical Society. In certain respects the Society stands diametrically opposed to what is popularly acceptable. It therefore has no future if it wants to make itself popular. Thus it would be wrong to court popularity, particularly in relation to our endeavours to introduce anthroposophical working methods into all areas of society, as we have attempted to do since 1919.¹⁵ Instead, we have to pursue the path which is based on the spirit itself, as I discussed this morning in relation to the Goetheanum.¹⁶

We must learn to adopt such an attitude in all circumstances, otherwise we begin to stray in a way which justifiably makes people confuse us with other movements and judge us by external criteria. If we are determined to provide our own framework we are on the right path to fulfilling the conditions which govern the existence of the anthroposophical movement. But we have to acquire the commitment which will then provide us with the necessary courage.

And we must not ignore those circumstances which arise from the fact that, as anthroposophists, we are a small group. As such we hope that what is spreading among us today will begin to spread among a growing number of people. Then knowledge and ethics, artistic and religious development will move in a new direction.

But all these things which will be present one day through the impulse of anthroposophy, and which will then be regarded as quite ordinary, must be cultivated to a much higher degree by those who make up the small group today. They must feel that they bear the greatest possible responsibility towards the spiritual world. It has to be understood that such an attitude will automatically be reflected in the verdict of the world at large.

As far as those who are not involved with anthroposophy are concerned, nothing can do more profound harm to the Anthroposophical Society than the failure of its members to adopt a form which sets out in the strictest terms what they are trying to achieve, so that they can be distinguished from all sectarian and other movements.

As long as this does not happen, it is not surprising that people around us judge us as they do. It is hard to know what the Anthroposophical Society stands for, and when they meet anthroposophists they see nothing of anthroposophy. For instance, if anthroposophists were recognizable by their pronounced sensitivity to truth and reality, by the display of a sensitive understanding to go no further in their claims than accords with reality, that would make an impression! But I do not want to criticize today but to emphasize the positive side. Will it be achieved? That is the question we have to bear in mind.

Or one might recognize anthroposophists by their avoidance of any display of bad taste and, to the contrary, a certain artistic sense—a sign that the Goetheanum in Dornach must have had some effect. Once again people would know that anthroposophy provides its members with a certain modicum of taste which distinguishes them from others.

Such attitudes, above and beyond what can be laid down in sharply defined concepts, must be among the things which are developed in the Anthroposophical Society if it is to fulfil the conditions governing its existence.

Such matters have been discussed a great deal! But the question which must always be in the forefront is how the Anthroposophical Society can be given that special character which will make people aware that here they have something which distinguishes it from others in a way which rules out any possibility of confusion. That is something anthroposophists should discuss at great length.

These things are a matter of conveying a certain attitude. Life cannot be constrained by programmes. But ask yourselves whether we have fully overcome the attitude within the Anthroposophical Society which dictates that something must be done in a specific way, which lays down rules, and whether there is a strong enough impulse to seek guidance from anthroposophy itself whatever the situation. That does not mean having to read everything in lectures, but that the content of the lectures enters the heart, and that has certain consequences.

Until anthroposophy is taken as a living being who moves invisibly among us, my dear friends, towards whom we feel a certain responsibility, this small group of anthroposophists I must say this too will not serve as a model. And that is what they should be doing.

If you had gone into any of the Theosophical Societies, and there were many of them, you would have encountered the three famous objects. The first was to build universal fraternity among mankind without reference to race, nationality and so on. I pointed out yesterday that we should be reflecting on the appropriateness of setting this down as dogma.

It is, of course, important that such a object should exist, but it has to be lived. It must gradually become a reality. That will happen if anthroposophy itself is seen as a living, supersensory, invisible being who moves among anthroposophists. Then there might be less talk about fraternity and universal human love, but these objects might be more active in human hearts. And then it will be evident in the tone in which people talk about their relation to anthroposophy, in how they talk to one another, that it is important to them that they too are followers of the invisible being of Anthroposophia.

After all, we could just as well choose another way. We could form lots of cliques and exclusive groups and behave like the rest of the world, meeting for tea parties or whatever, to make conversation and possibly assemble for the occasional lecture. But an anthroposophical movement could not exist in such a society. An anthroposophical movement can only live in an Anthroposophical Society which has become reality. But that requires a truly serious approach. It requires a sense of alliance in every living moment with the invisible being of Anthroposophia.

If that became a reality in people's attitude, not necessarily overnight but over a longer time-span, the required impulse would certainly develop over a period of perhaps twenty-one years. Whenever anthroposophists encountered the kind of material from our opponents which I read out yesterday, for example, the appropriate response would come alive in their hearts. I am not saying that this would have to be transformed immediately into concrete action, but the required impulse would live in the heart. Then the action, too, would follow.

If such action does not develop, if it is only our opponents who are active and organized, then the right impulse is clearly absent. People clearly prefer to continue their lives in a leisurely fashion and listen to the occasional lecture on anthroposophy. But that is not enough if the Anthroposophical Society is to thrive. If it is to thrive, anthroposophy has to be alive in the Anthroposophical Society. And if that happens then something significant can develop over twenty-one years. By my calculations, the Society has already existed for twenty-one years.

However, since I do not want to criticize, I will only call on you to reflect on this issue to the extent of asking whether each individual, whatever their situation, has acted in a spirit which is derived from the nucleus of anthroposophy?

If one or another among you should feel that this has not been the case so far, then I appeal to you: start tomorrow, start tonight for it would not be a good thing if the Anthroposophical Society were to collapse. And it will most certainly collapse, now that the Goetheanum is being rebuilt in addition to all the other institutions which the Society has established, if that awareness of which I have spoken in these lectures does not develop, if such self-reflection is absent. And once the process of collapse has started, it will proceed very quickly. Whether or not it happens is completely dependent on the will of those who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.

Anthroposophy will certainly not disappear from the world. But it might very well sink back into what I might call a latent state for decades or even longer before it is taken up again. That, however, would imply an immense loss for the development of mankind. It is something which has to be taken into account if we are serious about engaging in the kind of self-reflection which I have essentially been talking about in these lectures. What I certainly do not mean is that we should once again make ringing declarations, set up programmes, and generally state our willingness to be absolutely available when something needs to be done. We have always done that. What is at stake here is that we should find the nucleus of our being within ourselves. If we engage in that search in the spirit of wisdom transmitted by anthroposophy then we will also find the anthroposophical impulse which the Anthroposophical Society needs for its existence.

My intention has been to stimulate some thought about the right way to act by means of a reflection on anthroposophical matters and a historical survey of one or two questions; were I to deal with everything I would run out of time. And I believe these lectures in particular are a good basis on which to engage in such reflection. There is always time for that, because it can be done between the lines of the life which we lead in the everyday world.

That is what I wanted you to carry away in your hearts, rather like a kind of self-reflection for the Anthroposophical Society. We certainly need such self-reflection today. We should not forget that we can achieve a great deal by making use of the sources of anthroposophy. If we fail to do so then we abandon the path by which we can achieve effective action.

We are faced with major tasks, such as the reconstruction of the Goetheanum. In that context our inner thoughts should truly be based on really great impulses.

• 1. Goethe the Scientist. Translated by O. D. Wannamaker. Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1950. See also Rudolf Steiner. A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethes World Conception (1886). Translated by O. D. Wannamaker. Anthroposophic Press, New York, 1940.
• 2. See, for example, Goethean Science. Translated by W. Lindemann, Mercury Press, New York, 1988. Chapter XI: Relationship of the Goethean Way of Thinking to Other Views.
• 3. Note 1 above.
• 4. See Lecture One, Note 6. See also Goethes Marchen von der grunen Schlange und der schnen Lilie with nine drawings by Assia Turgenieff, drawn according to a chiaroscuro technique set out by Rudolf Steiner. Dornach, 1929.
• 5. Faust I, in the scene of Faust's Study. In the Penguin Classics edition of Faust/Part One, Philip Wayne translates the relevant passage as follows:
  
  To docket living things past any doubt
  You cancel first the living spirit out:
  The parts lie in the hollow of your hand,
  You only lack the living link you banned.
  This sweet self-irony, in learned thesis,
  The chemists call naturae encheiresis.
• 6. Could not be traced.
• 7. Rudolf Steiner. Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. Translated by M. Ingram de Ris. Rudolf Steiner Publications, New Jersey, 1960.
• 8. See Rudolf Steiner's essay and lecture of 5 October 1905 in Two Essays on Haeckel. Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co. and Anthroposophic Press (undated), GA 54 and GA 30.
• 9. See also Lecture 2, Note 10.
• 10. In 1907 and 1908 Rudolf Steiner delivered public lectures in various cities on the subject “Natural science at the crossroads”. The one in Nuremberg took place on 1 December 1907. The reference could not be traced more precisely.
• 11. See Lecture 3, Note 5. cf. Kleinere Schriften und Briefe von Robert Mayer nebst Mitteilungen aus seinem Leben. Ed. Weyrauch. Stuttgart, 1893. Also Weyrauch. Robert Mayer. Stuttgart, 1890.
• 12. Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus von Hohenheim, 1493–1541. cf. Rudolf Steiner's lecture in Berlin on 26 April 1906, “Paracelsus”, in GA 54; typescript (NSL 154) in Rudolf Steiner House library, London. Also Eleven European Mystics, pp. 100ff.
• 13. Johann Baptist van Helmont, 1577–1644. Great Dutch doctor and philosopher. His works appeared under the title Ortus medicinae, Amsterdam 1648, and Opuscula medica inaudita, Cologne 1644.
• 14. Auguste Comte, 1798–1857. Positivist philosopher. John Stewart Mill, 1806–1873. Philosopher who attempted to provide the logical justification for the positivist method. Charles Darwin, 1809–1882.
• 15. A detailed list of the institutions in the fields of science, education, curative education, medicine, publishing, the economy, and theology which were established on the basis of anthroposophy can be found in GA 37/260a, pp.712–724. cf also the lecture in Dornach on 2 March 1923 in Awakening to Community.
• 16. At the tenth general meeting of the Goetheanum Association on 17 June 1923 in Dornach. Reproduced in Aufbaugedanken und Gesinnungsbildung. Dornach, 1942.