The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Rudolf Steiner: We have now reached the point where at least a draft of a circular letter to the Anthroposophical Society has been made. This has created a kind of basis on which negotiations would be possible. I believe that it would perhaps be good now if you were to negotiate what you yourselves want in joint negotiations with the committee that will be in place until the delegates' assembly. This committee has been put together purely on the basis of the issues, so purely that, unlike the 30-strong committee you are familiar with, it is not made up of members of the individual institutes but of those who represent the existing institutions. This committee is composed in such a way that of the old central board, Mr. Leinhas for the “Kommenden Tag”, Dr. Unger as the rest of the old central board, Dr. Rittelmeyer as a representative of the movement for religious renewal, then Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Mr. von Grone, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko, Miss Mücke for the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press and Mr. Werbeck of Hamburg for the remaining external interests. I have asked the seven people from Stuttgart to take the steps you have in mind together with you. I myself have to leave for Dornach tomorrow morning and will be back on Monday. I regret that I will not be able to attend the next meetings. I now believe that it is best, since there can be no difference between us, that you conduct the negotiations with these people on your own initiative. As things stand, these personalities are the ones given, since all shades are represented among them; the youthful ones through the presence of Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth - I am leaving it to you to decide whether you find these two likeable - who are completely inexperienced in terms of all board work. Furthermore, Dr. Palmer has declared that he wants to build every possible bridge to young people.

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

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

Rudolf Steiner: What you said about the wall that has arisen in connection with the first, second and third phases of the movement, which can be very clearly distinguished from one another, is correct. We have to bear in mind that the individual phases lasted for about seven years, and that the Society itself is now about 21 years old. What is true is this: the impulses for entering and participating were actually different for the earlier members than they are now for the essentially academic youth groups. They are different in that the people who came during the first phase came with the whole complex, admittedly from today's contemporary conditions, but with completely unconscious longings; they did not know themselves in connection with any contemporary conditions and were at an age at which one does not give a clear account of one's relationship to time. They came with very general human interests that are related to time, but people did not account for it. It was almost the same in the second phase. Anthroposophy came a lot further, but the Anthroposophists, with exceptions, were less interested in the questions related to the contemporary. The third phase was creepy for those who had joined earlier. They came together with all those who were dissatisfied – not with the general conditions of the times, but in a very specific way with what these people had experienced in today's educational institutions. They would not have come to anthroposophy if they had not felt a strong contrast to today's educational institutions. They came with different impulses than those who had actually seen anthroposophy in relation to time. I myself had to speak about this. What I said about the relationship between Anthroposophy and time has actually been taken in very little. But strangely enough, they came with a longing that actually goes to the heart of Anthroposophy.

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

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

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

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

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

Rudolf Steiner: You just have to bear in mind that in the case of old cultural movements that have already come of age in world history, there were very different attitudes of the soul than in the case of those that are historically very young. Today, people simply no longer have any idea how difficult it was to be a Christian in the first centuries of Christianity. Today it is easy to be a Christian. In the early days it was not the external difficulties of martyrdom, but the internal difficulties of the soul. It was difficult to be a Christian in one's own eyes. Today it is difficult to be a true anthroposophist. In a sense it is difficult. Those who have been Anthroposophists for a long time carry within themselves, in their whole soul attitude, the whole difficulty of being connected with the first appearance of a spiritual movement; in them, the understanding for certain phenomena of life is not so strong. Those who have been Anthroposophists for a long time, longer than the young ones, sometimes talk past each other. Just recently, I came across a very striking example. These friends had a meeting; the mood there was that the belief was there, now all bridges have been built, now they understand each other. They were quite honest. On the other hand, I was confronted with the mood that one had to organize the opposition; they did not find each other at all. This certainly reflects the slight tendency to be under illusion about the conditions of life when one is in a certain attitude towards life, which I have characterized. It is hard to be an anthroposophist; it is not easy to overcome a certain rigidity. The illusionists are honest. They come with the freshness of soul, and therefore you, as one who has not yet grown tired, are less inclined to have these illusions than a tired person. Many have grown tired and weary due to the difficulties we have faced. Therefore, there has been a lot of talking past each other these days as well.

One participant talks about his original plan to redirect the energies of the youth and organize them in a fruitful way for the opposition.

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

One participant points out how a university was created by the prisoners in the prison camp where he worked, and presents this as an example of how a university for the humanities can be created.

Rudolf Steiner: You can't create a university today because the first prerequisite is that the individual scientists are available. Ideas and approaches are already available. But as long as the people who are to work within the movement can only be had as starving students, to put it bluntly, it will be difficult. This is becoming more difficult every day because the time is approaching when it will hardly be possible to think that the preceding period will provide the subsequent one with scholarships. The possibility of bringing about a completely new education in a different way is becoming more difficult every day. I must emphasize two things at every opportunity for purely spiritual reasons: first, to strive with all intensity to become as strong as possible; second, to devote all energy to expanding the circle of friends; it would not be necessary to look at the number, only in view of the time conditions. In the spiritual, the opposite must be true, but in view of time it is so. The widening of the circle need not be at the expense of shallowness, but efforts must be made in that direction in order to maintain a large number of friends. Otherwise the downfall of the individual and of the movement as such is more likely. It is already so. But you must not be afraid to be strong as a youth in order to achieve outward expansion.

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

Rudolf Steiner: Apart from judgments, it is, however, in a sense the case that the lack of understanding is mutual! The situation of old age is such that one can say: the way it is, it is not his fault, but his destiny. But the resistance of youth against old age is both a means of protection and a weakness!

Become interested, become geniuses!

The Executive Council would like to make the following comments regarding the implementation of the statutes:

1. Membership begins at the moment when the leader of the Anthroposophical Society signs the membership card submitted by the group officials.

Members are asked to notify the secretariat of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach immediately if they lose their membership card. The secretariat will then replace the lost card with a duplicate and declare the original invalid.

2. The group officers are requested to maintain a permanent directory of the names and addresses of the members belonging to their groups and to send a copy to the secretariat in Dornach.

The Executive Council also requests the general secretaries or executive councils of the individual national societies and of those groups that are not integrated into such, to send a report on January 1 each year on membership changes in the past year. (Admission of new members, transfer to other groups, etc.)

3. All correspondence should be addressed as follows:

To the Secretariat of the Anthroposophical Society
Dornach b. Basel
Friedwart House, 1st floor.

Please do not address correspondence to individual members of the Executive Council, as delays may occur if they are absent.

Members will generally be notified through the Society's journal. In special cases, the group functionaries will receive the messages with the request that they be forwarded to the individual members.

(Further information in the next issue.

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society.

Motto: Wisdom is only in truth.

To lead a satisfying and healthy life, human nature requires the knowledge and cultivation of its own supersensible essence and the supersensible essence of the extra-human world. The scientific research of recent times cannot lead to such a goal, although within their tasks and their limits they are called upon to achieve unspeakable things for human culture. The Anthroposophical Society will pursue this goal by promoting genuine and healthy research directed towards the supersensible and by cultivating its influence on human conduct. True spiritual research and the attitude that follows from it should give the society its character, which can be expressed in the following guiding principles:

1. All those people can work together fraternally in the society who, as the basis for a loving cooperation, consider a common spiritual element in all human souls, however these may differ in terms of faith, nation, class, gender, etc.

2. The study of the supersensible hidden in all that is sensual is to be promoted and the dissemination of genuine spiritual science is to be served.

3. The recognition of the kernel of truth in the different world views of peoples and times is to be cultivated.

The first of these three guiding principles is necessary for the Anthroposophical Society because lofty spiritual goals can only be pursued together by people if a spirit of brotherhood bridges the differences that all too easily arise from what separates people in their thinking, their beliefs, and their particular interests in life. These differences will never interfere with the cooperation if the basis of the latter is the common spiritual in all human souls and therefore the differences remain untouched and fully respected in their individuality within society. In this way, society will be characterized by the attitude that is necessary for it to strive for the ideal of human coexistence, which, with complete appreciation of the thoughts and feelings of the individual, will find the soil in which mutual love and brotherhood can flourish. Society will only be able to achieve its spiritual goal if its members dedicate themselves to an ideal of life that can be a universal human ideal of conduct. The Society must have absolutely nothing to do with working for or against this or that religious belief, since it is dedicated to spiritual research, not to any particular confession. Therefore, any religious propaganda is completely alien to it. But it will also never fight against any. Likewise, all kinds of political or socio-political activity are strictly excluded from the Society's activities.

Its work is devoted to ways and means that can serve man in the sense of the development of our time, to lead the great riddles of human existence to such a solution that expands research beyond the sensual into the supersensible, without going astray, which cannot satisfy the genuine sense of truth. It will show that humanity in the present time possesses such spiritual research that it leads into the supersensible world and that its cultivation and dissemination can be just as much a task for a society as any other science.

The noblest fruits of human spiritual development, the various world views and creeds of peoples and times, are not considered by this spiritual research in terms of their confessional value, but rather in so far as they express humanity's struggle for the great spiritual questions of existence. Therefore, the basic character of society cannot be given a name that is taken from a specific confession. If, for example, the research of the Christ impulse within the development of humanity is cultivated through spiritual research, this is not done in the sense of a religious confession, but so that the adherent of any religious direction can relate to the corresponding spiritual-scientific result, just as the adherent of the Hindu religion or of Buddhism relates to Copernican astronomy, despite the fact that Copernicus is not mentioned in its religious texts. The Christ Impulse is presented as a result of research in such a way that it can be accepted by every follower of a religious creed, not just by the Christian confessor. The founding of the Society has been carried out by a committee of three individuals, namely Dr. Carl Unger, Fräulein Marie von Sivers and Michael Bauer, who have initially taken over the overall management of the Anthroposophical Society. They are supported by an executive council, which is initially considered to be the founding council.

The members of the founding committee will appoint trusted individuals who will be responsible for accepting applications from members and who will guarantee to the board the members they propose.

The appointment of a trusted person will either be made on the initiative of the founding committee or by a member being designated by seven other members or personalities seeking admission as their representatives and being recognized as such by the central committee.

Membership is acquired by notification either directly to the board or to one of the trusted individuals. Membership is only recognized by the central board of directors prior to the designation of the three founders.

The board or committee itself is responsible for co-opting new members, and proposals for this can be made at the annual general meeting.

The work of the Society is carried out in free groups that can form independently in any place in any country in the world. These groups will be able to form individually or join together, will be able to form associations or loose federations, etc., depending on the circumstances of the respective areas in which they form. The Anthroposophical Society is not an association as such; its cohesion is not based on an association organization or the like, but on the cultivation of spiritual science as such, and membership does not imply anything association-like, but for example the right to obtain certain spiritual-scientific writings that are intended only for members, and the like. In the external sense, therefore, the bond of the Anthroposophical Society will be no different than it would be, for example, for an anthropological or similar society.

Each working group forms its own statutes, etc. and elects its own board. The general membership, which must be acquired individually by each member, means that the central board recognizes an individual as belonging to the Anthroposophical Society.

The permanent seat of the Anthroposophical Society will be Berlin for the time being. The business management will be the responsibility of the members of the Central Executive Council resident in Berlin. This business management consists of nothing other than measures that can serve the spiritual goals stated above.

Each member shall pay a one-time entrance fee of five marks and an ongoing annual contribution of six marks for the administration of the Anthroposophical Society. In special cases, the annual contribution may be reduced.

Dear Friends.

Unfortunately, the Central Board has been obliged to state, for the protection of the spiritual property of our movement, that a longer stay of Mr. Haugen in the Anthroposophical Society is not compatible with the principles and aims of our movement. Anyone who is truly willing to embrace the teachings of our movement knows that one cannot rely on purely psychic powers today.

Of course, the Anthroposophical Society will never feel called upon to sit in judgment on the behavior of its members, which it must respect as a private matter in the strictest sense of the word. Such was not the case with Mr. Haugen. The measure that was taken had to be carried out because his behavior, stepping completely out of the sphere of the private, took on the character of psychic acts that are in contradiction to the basic principles of the Anthroposophical Society.

Even if the Society always refrains from observing such behavior in narrower circles, it could not remain silent in this case, because Mr. Haugen's behavior took on such proportions that it gradually gave the entire Society a contradictory character and could have a highly detrimental effect. Mr. Haugen was using the framework of the society for practices that are not compatible with it.

One cannot blame the members if they do not always immediately see the full significance of such behavior; however, the leadership of the Society must endeavor to express its will unequivocally in such cases, so that members are not hampered in their judgment by the Society seemingly condoning the behavior by tolerating what is incompatible with it. To accomplish this, there was no other way than for the Central Board to declare that a personage acting as Mr. Haugen does could not be a member of the Society. Such a measure is not considered a punishment, but only a detailed statement of the fundamental principles of the Society in a particular case. It is necessary to realize that any other measure would truly be a penalty; this, however, is nothing more than a declaration by the Society of its recognized principles.

The Central Committee hopes that this highly unwelcome measure will be spared it in the future, because if members become more careful in their judgments on such matters, the Society will be what it should be: a place where personalities like Mr. Haugen can develop quietly as ordinary members, without being driven to acts that cannot be approved by the nimbus that a false judgment casts around them.

With warm regards
the Central Board
of the Anthroposophical Society.

Report on the First Public Anthroposophical Congress in Stuttgart

My dear friends!

As I said yesterday and the day before, I will not be giving a regular lecture today, but intend to speak about what has happened in Germany in relation to our Anthroposophical Movement. Above all, I have to report on the Stuttgart Anthroposophical Congress.

This Stuttgart Anthroposophical Congress is indeed a milestone for our Anthroposophical Movement. It has shown that today we can speak of an Anthroposophical Movement that is desired by the world and that fully corresponds to certain longings that exist in the world. This Anthroposophical Congress was entirely the sporadic idea of the leading personalities in Stuttgart. I myself had very little to do with this Stuttgart congress, its intention or its overall organization. With the exception of being present at an initial consultation and having individual aspects of the program discussed with me, the congress was entirely the initiative of the Stuttgart leaders, above all Ernst Uehli. The point was that for Ernst Uehli and those who joined him in holding the congress, the main thing was to first hold a kind of examination to determine the extent to which the anthroposophical movement as such can take root in our time, in the consciousness of people of our time. And I myself, as you may know, was not even present in Stuttgart at the very beginning of the congress. I only arrived on the evening of the second day, when I was to give my own first lecture there. So everything concerning the organization of this congress was taken care of in Stuttgart. And it turned out that this congress really did become a kind of milestone for our anthroposophical movement, because it was attended by far more people than we had expected. 1600 people took part in this congress.

Now, my dear friends, try to find a conference these days that 1600 people attend! From the outset, the conference was not just intended for members of the Anthroposophical Society, but was intended for a broad audience, for all those who are currently interested in the anthroposophical movement. And so this conference is a kind of milestone because it has brought together people who are interested in the anthroposophical cause in general, and because it was not just held for the members of the Anthroposophical Society.

It has become apparent in the most eminent sense that the interest that exists today in anthroposophy extends far, far beyond the membership of the Anthroposophical Society, which has now grown to over eight thousand members. But, as I said, this is about the anthroposophical movement as such. I ask you to bear this in mind, especially in connection with some things that I will have to say later.

When I came to Stuttgart, I was informed that the beginning of the congress had been promising in terms of content, that a lecture by Dr. Unger, in particular, had been extremely well received, and it was clear that there was not just a general sensational interest in what was to come to light at the conference, but that people really did have an inner relationship to what was presented. In particular, it was clear that the majority of those present took the endeavors seriously that aim to truly introduce anthroposophy into contemporary scientific life.

But one has only to imagine how difficult this task is. Nowhere is there more aversion to - if I may put it this way - an invasion of something new than in scientific circles. Nowhere is there more talk of dilettantism and amateurism than in these scientific circles. Nowhere is there more reluctance to allow a voice to anything that cannot prove its right to be heard by its own qualities than in these circles. Whether this reluctance is justified or not is not what we want to discuss today; today we just want to point out the fact. But one can say: If it were possible to get more and more positive collaborators, people who, with a completely scientific training, can bring the cause of anthroposophy into the world, then the situation is such that one can say that anthroposophy has the potential to achieve this goal of penetrating into the individual sciences and being taken seriously in them.

We must also be clear about how those who, in the usual sense, practice criticism or want to pass judgment on something like what took place in Stuttgart are completely at a loss and deeply hostile to such a thing. The benevolent assessments were those that actually remained silent. The others have continued to put forward all sorts of things from their unobjective, untruthful bases, which basically had nothing at all to do with what was discussed at this congress.

At this congress, a lecture activity was initially developed in a very serious way. In the mornings, lectures were given on the various branches of science from an anthroposophical point of view. Philosophical, scientific, medical and historical problems were discussed, as were economic, linguistic and historical-philosophical problems. And it is fair to say that the seriousness with which the issues were treated here must have made a serious impression on 1600 people. In this respect, the fact that 1600 people were simply brought together was something eminently significant.

Just imagine what the helpless journalists – I mean the helpless journalists in the face of such a thing – would have done if a congress had taken place under some old flag, in whatever field, at which 1,600 people were present!

We then organized the matter in such a way that in the morning the positive lectures on the most diverse branches of scientific life were held. The afternoon lectures were arranged in a special way, in such a way that one imagined that one of the luminaries of contemporary science had given a lecture or written a book here or there, and that a counter-presentation from an anthroposophical point of view should now be given against this lecture or this book. These counter-lectures were held in the afternoons. So, the idea was not to speak in some kind of theoretical way from some kind of background, but to introduce oneself in a very specific way: from this or that direction of contemporary science, this or that would have been discussed by very specific representatives, and one would have had to comment on it.

These co-presentations were, I believe, an especially good idea. And above all, these co-presentations have given us all sorts of extraordinary things worth listing. I leave it to others to judge other co-presentations; I would just like to mention two of these co-presentations here, as I have already done in other places.

First, there was a lecture by Dr. von Heydebrand. This lecture was directed against something that has been advocated by so-called experimental psychology and pedagogy of the present day. This is something that almost dominates today's pedagogical direction: experimental pedagogy, experimental psychology. And Dr. von Heydebrand had set out to give a counter-lecture. This counter-lecture – I do not shy away from making such judgments because it is necessary to make such judgments in the present – was indeed an epoch-making act. In this counter-presentation, we were dealing with a complete destruction of what is unjustified in experimental psychology and experimental pedagogy; of what is currently occupying all pedagogical circles so much and which, basically, is only proof of how the human soul has become inwardly alienated from the human soul, and how one wants to get at the child's soul through all kinds of external machinations, because the human soul is so alien to the child in teaching. It is no longer possible to approach it inwardly; man has gradually acquired an intellectualistic soulless nature; therefore, by experimenting on the child externally — which, in fact, in individual cases, it should not be denied, bears good fruit, especially when it is immersed in anthroposophy. We try to achieve what we can no longer achieve inwardly in an outward way, and we do not even know how to put the useful results of experimental education and experimental psychology into the right perspective.

My dear friends, if Dr. von Heydebrand had given this lecture at a teachers' conference, or even at a teachers' club, it would have been discussed at length in all the teachers' journals. The pros and cons would have been debated at length. This is the kind of judgment that one has to form at some point. We must be clear about one thing: what has emerged from earlier times, what was still significant just a few years ago, what was still a matter of time, must be replaced by something else; and we must decide to recognize where there is recognition to be had. We will not make progress in our movement, my dear friends, if we move forward in isolation from the world and do not consider what our movement can actually be in the here and now. We must be clear about the fact that it is of great significance that such an achievement is being brought into the world by the Waldorf teaching profession. That is what characterizes anthroposophy and the anthroposophical movement today. Anyone who today tries to find something radical in what is recognized as spiritual life will not be able to find it, and we must have the courage to make initial judgments.

My dear friends, if the Anthroposophical Society wants to fulfill its task, it must not limit itself to engaging in sectarianism in small circles here and there, but must go with the great tasks of the time. Then, however, this Anthroposophical Society must decide to offer disinterested recognition – not of the person, but of the matter – where such disinterested recognition is justified. And one must also have the courage to say: Here is an epoch-making achievement! That is what I wanted to mention as an aperçu emerging from the Stuttgart conference.

My dear friends, it cannot be the sole task of an Anthroposophical Society to hold introductory courses; they must be held, of course; everything that is customary must be done; but it cannot be the only task to do such things, but the task is to keep an open and alert eye for what is really emerging from the bosom of the anthroposophical movement and what is happening that fits into the overall spiritual movement of the present day. And only when we do not just sit down at such a congress and listen, sleepily listen, as if it were taken for granted, when we then go away and in our branches begin to , but if we actually spread the possibility within the entire Anthroposophical Society of bringing what is happening to direct consciousness, then the Anthroposophical Society fulfills its real task in relation to the present-day Anthroposophical Movement. It is not only important that we read books, not only that we pass on what is in the books, but that we grasp the movement as a living one, that we become aware that something like this lecture has happened; that we have to be a living work, that we have to come to such an understanding of the anthroposophical movement as an immediate reality, as something living.

And I would like to mention a second lecture. This is the one that Emil Leinhas gave in response to Wilbrandt's latest book “Economics”. I would like to say that this lecture by Emil Leinhas on Wilbrandt's “Economics” needs to be discussed from a wide variety of perspectives. You see, in Robert Wilbrandt we are dealing with a university political economist who is perhaps the most amiable and likeable of this body of political economists at the university, and his book “Oekonomie” is, after all, something that, in addition to the theoretical discussions, also contains many human nuances. Therefore, it is a book that is characteristic in the best sense, not in the worst sense, of contemporary university economics. But precisely by giving the counter-lecture against this book, Emil Leinhas was able to show how this whole economics, which even appears in an amiable way in one respect, how this whole economics is absolutely useless for anything alive. Our universities reflect on economic matters. These reflections seep out until they shape the popular lay theories that then take hold of millions and millions of people, who are now pouring over the civilized world in a destructive manner. The whole hollowness, the whole uselessness of this national economy has been exposed here, and indeed by a man who has spent his whole life immersed in the living economy, who always emphasizes, when asked, that he never actually attended a university, but who has gained all that he has gained from direct practice; a practitioner who, however, through his practical genius, has understood that which is contained in the “key points of the social question” and is inaugurated with it, to consider it with full seriousness; he has succeeded in delivering something in this co-presentation - I would characterize it as follows: If this had been said at any other congress, even in a restricted assembly for my sake, the first columns of all the major newspapers would have been talking about it for weeks, and then only further weeks with many pros and cons would have come. Because in fact, the whole university economics will be destroyed on the ground if what has come to light in this co-lecture is further developed.

My dear friends, if things are taken as they have often been spoken of here, then one must say: the courage must be mustered within the Anthroposophical Society to take a stand on such things, to make an initial judgment, to immediately recognize the value of such a thing, in order to feel in the Society as in such a community where something like this happens. Because it is not just a matter of developing theories, but of shaping a very specific life. We must have the courage to say what is and what is going on within the Anthroposophical Society. As I already indicated, the whole Corona cannot just sit there and then endure these things and afterwards take it for granted that two epoch-making deeds have occurred at such a congress. If we sleep through this as something self-evident, then, my dear friends, little by little the Anthroposophical Society will prove to be something that will gradually become a serious obstacle to the spread of the anthroposophical cause. This Stuttgart Congress must at least teach that the Anthroposophical Society must not be an obstacle to the spread of the anthroposophical movement. Today we can say that the anthroposophical movement is here, in the world. The Anthroposophical Society has been here for decades. Today it must grow into the anthroposophical movement. In a sense, it has seen the anthroposophical movement growing beyond it. It must grow into it, and it can only do so if it finds the courage to really recognize the things that need to be recognized. I consider myself particularly fortunate that we now have Emil Leinhas as managing director at the head of the “Kommender Tag” in Stuttgart - this has come about through various circumstances. After my return from Berlin, it was my task to assist in the appointment of Emil Leinhas as General Director of “Kommender Tag.” It must be considered a significant matter that this could happen immediately after this epoch-making “act” had been performed. But it must be said again and again about such things: What can the individual do when the sounding board is not there?

These things must be understood, because only when they are understood will they be met in the right way. And then the help will be there that even the most capable person needs if they are to apply their abilities in a single place. But at any rate, it should be clear in the souls of anthroposophists that it means something that a personality is now at the helm of the 'Der Kommende Tag' enterprise, whose capacity for such a task is to be discussed in the way that I have tried to do here tonight. I am reporting in this way, my dear friends, because I see the necessity for the Anthroposophical Society to grow into its necessary task, to grow into what the Anthroposophical Society can become when its stars are seen in the right way. The anthroposophical movement, by virtue of what it has been from the very beginning, tolerates no kind of sectarianism, no kind of obscurantism; it tolerates only an open, truthful, honest effort to work into the civilization of the present. But for this it is necessary to have the courage to fully recognize human values.

That, my dear friends, is what I would like to say in this regard. The Anthroposophical Congress in Stuttgart showed that anthroposophy can indeed have a broad cultural impact, and so it was not only our task to give two very well-attended eurythmy performances at the “Wilhelma Theater” in Stuttgart, but we also followed up the lectures presentations with short satirical and humorous eurythmy performances, in such a way that the mood that had developed in response to the serious presentations could continue during the short eurythmy performances that followed immediately.

So, what might it have been like? First came the serious lecture, where each afternoon we dealt with contemporary spiritual currents. One could be outraged by what was unhealthy, or perhaps even see the humor in what was coming out of this or that corner. When the eurythmic-satirical performances followed after a quarter of an hour's break, one could simply continue in this mood, but it then just erupted into laughter. It is always a very beautiful continuation when something that must be taken seriously can continue in laughter in a very dignified way. And from the mood with which 1600 people received all these things, one could see that strings in the soul are actually struck when the arrangements are made in just such a way - if I may use the philistine expression.

Then the intervals between the lectures were filled with negotiations: negotiations among the students, negotiations among the medical doctors, and so on, and so on, among the natural scientists, among the teachers. I could not be present at these negotiations because I was always involved in eurythmy rehearsals during this time. This is often overlooked, that things also need to be prepared. But overall, it seems that these discussions also took place in an extremely objective and animated manner.

During the course of the conference, we also had an anthroposophical assembly. Of course, the actual General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society still cannot be held due to the current circumstances. So, in a sense, we had an independent anthroposophical assembly that was only open to members of the Anthroposophical Society. The living conditions of the Anthroposophical Society were discussed at this assembly. It became clear that the Central Board had to reorganize itself. I say had to reorganize itself because those who know the principles of the Anthroposophical Society as I drafted them at the time will already know that this is the right expression. The Anthroposophical Central Council is not based on election, but on the fact that the first three members of the Central Council simply went public and asked for members, so that those people who wanted to come did come and joined the Central Council of their own free will. I recall the words of our friend Michael Bauer, who said at the time: We are standing here, and anyone who wants to join, may do so! It is therefore something that is based on freedom in the broadest sense, but which should prevent impossibilities from occurring with regard to the composition of such a central committee.

You know that the first members of the central committee were: Dr. Unger, Dr. Steiner and Michael Bauer. Michael Bauer was sickly and for a long time was unable to fully perform the duties of a member of the Executive Council. Dr. Steiner resigned earlier because from a certain point on she did not want to associate matters of a purely business nature with my name, because everything concerning the Anthroposophical Society must be done independently of me. I have always emphasized that I attach a certain importance to the fact that I myself am not a member of the Anthroposophical Society. So Dr. Steiner resigned years ago, and she requested Mr. Walther in Berlin to manage the business until such time as the central board could be reorganized, so that Dr. Unger was left alone on the central board, so to speak. When the Stuttgart conference approached, Mr. Walther resigned his office into the hands of the central committee, namely into the hands of Dr. Steiner, who had entrusted it to him as her successor. The problem was that Dr. Unger was now actually alone and had to co-opt the other two members. And of course something like that has to happen – I would like to say – with the consent of a certain majority, but they don't need to be elected in a certain philistine sense. And so the Stuttgart Central Council came about – it is called the “Stuttgart” because it has to be together if it is to be effective – so the Stuttgart Central Council came about through Dr. Unger, Emil Leinhas and Ernst Uehli. These personalities are, in their work, a sufficient guarantee that everything that must lead to certain results, which are necessary today for the anthroposophical movement, but can also lead to them if the necessary support is provided by the membership, will now happen from the center of the Anthroposophical Society.

I was then asked to say my piece at this anthroposophical meeting; but I had to point out precisely those things that are connected with what I have already said here today: that a living life must actually come about within the Anthroposophical Society, such a living life that what is happening is really seen and presented to the world everywhere. There will be enough to present to the world if the individual branches really take up what the central committee approaches them with, since it is the central committee's responsibility to ensure that this vibrant life reaches every single member. But that must happen. I can say: my speech, which I was asked to give, became a kind of diatribe; but that is what was expected of me after some of the things I have said over the years. Because, my dear friends, there has not always been enough preparatory work for what needs to be demanded. This unsparing, uncompromising recognition of what is happening, and above all the effort to judge when such things happen, as in the case of Miss Doctor von Heydebrand or Emil Leinhas, that, that is not sufficiently widespread. We will first have to get used to these things, because they cannot rest on that eye-rolling following, which has always formed out of a certain nebulous mysticism, and which works in small circles here or there or also in larger circles; these things have no real significance for the seriousness of the anthroposophical movement. What is to be recognized in the anthroposophical movement must be based on sound judgment and, above all, on something that is viable in the present state of the world.

So the tenor of the anthroposophists' assembly was actually that the anthroposophists were asked to take on the anthroposophical movement, to not lose this anthroposophical movement out of their hands, so to speak. To do that, the Anthroposophical Society needs to be reformed. And there is every reason to hope – and the names vouch for this – that the present central council will indeed leave all the drivel and ramblings unconsidered. : disregarded; of course it cannot be forbidden, that goes without saying - disregarded all the prattling and rambling in order to devote itself to the serious great tasks that really exist in all areas of life. But he must also find a willing response. And just as little as the individual can do anything, so three wise men can do something if the others do not exceptionally accommodate them and, above all, join in. It is this living interaction that must come into the anthroposophical movement as a reform before anything else.

The Stuttgart Congress, which was also dedicated to the memory of Goethe, took place in just such a way. I would like to mention only what, so to speak, was a kind of underlying theme running through the discussions at this congress.

My first lecture, which I gave on Monday, August 29, immediately after my arrival in Stuttgart, started with a description of the prevailing agnosticism of our time. What actually prevails in the present is a worship of agnosticism. You find it in the natural sciences, you also find it in the historical sciences, in the economic sciences, you find it in art, you find it in religion – you find this agnosticism everywhere. And it is only in the last third of the nineteenth century that a person who was a serious thinker was actually only considered to be one who was an agnostic, who said: It is right to observe the world of phenomena, to abstract the laws of nature from this world of phenomena, but for knowledge to renounce both what the phenomenon is in the world of external phenomena and what is deeper in the world. No Gnosticism, Agnosticism, that is what has emerged in all fields. One need only mention two pillars of agnosticism in Central Europe, as has already been mentioned here: the lecture given forty-nine or fifty years ago in Leipzig by the natural scientist Du Bois-Reymond, who concluded with the now famous words “Ignorabimus”, “We shall not know”, namely, we shall know nothing about that which is behind the external phenomena and which we call matter, and we shall know nothing about what is in the depths of human nature itself. That was the proclamation of agnosticism for Central Europe. For the West, Spencer and others have done it.

In the present day, all life is fundamentally dominated by this agnostic mood. In the field of history, this agnosticism found expression in the person of Leopold von Ranke, who said that one should follow the phenomena of history from the oldest times, as far as records are available, to the present day; but then there is the phenomenon of Christ Jesus; as Ranke says, he belongs to the “primal elements”. Here history cannot set about it, here history must pronounce its “Ignorabimus”, here we will never know anything.

Thus, in the face of that which, according to our anthroposophical view of all historical development on earth, basically stands as the primal factum on which all others depend, in the face of this primal factum, one of the greatest historians, Leopold von Ranke, “Ignorabimus,” as one of the greatest naturalists of modern times, Du Bois-Reymond, would say when he raised himself to the level of the essential entities that are active in the workings of nature, as the former said, “Ignorabimus”.

This agnosticism was not opposed by the work of the entire Stuttgart congress, not by the old Gnosticism, as slanderous people say, not by anything old at all, but by something completely new, something that has flowed from the spirit of contemporary science, that does not tie in with old traditions, which is thoroughly the spirit of the present, which must not be confused with all the mumbo jumbo and drivel that is constantly linked to ancient Egyptian and Oriental, but which is directly from the present, but which is a gnosticism against agnosticism.

And now, my dear friends, if I turn to the content of the Stuttgart conference, I would say that the general mood of the conference showed that the people who, for decades, have been the sign [gap in shorthand] that these have representatives among them again, have people within them who accept a new Gnosticism, who have an understanding for it, an understanding for the word: Man is there to know – and to act fully consciously and deliberately out of this knowledge. Gnosticism, in turn, has land in the world. This should be the conclusion drawn from what came to light in Stuttgart, for the reason that, although Gnosticism is also discussed elsewhere, it is done in an unscientific way; in Stuttgart it was done in a strictly scientific way, and not only in an abstract-general but in a strictly scientific way, in the most concrete fields of medical science, psychology, philosophy, linguistics and so on. So this Stuttgart congress was held under the sign of asserting Gnosticism against agnosticism.

I believe, my dear friends, that after what had preceded it, those who had not yet seen the Goetheanum in Dornach, when I presented the pictures of the Goetheanum in a slide lecture, could feel that these people were already in the right mood to sense what is actually wanted here in Dornach for contemporary civilization, as they could also feel from the eurythmy performances and other things, that anthroposophy is not some nebulous mysticism to which individual mavericks turn, but something that is primarily working on the great tasks of the time and in all different fields, for example, in the fields of art and the arts. That is what I would like to say to your souls, my dear friends.

Of course, many of you were not present at the Stuttgart Congress. But that is not the point. I used his example only to draw attention to the way in which members of the Anthroposophical Society should now take a living stand on what is happening, what is happening every day; how they should not just make themselves the bearers of theories or of something that satisfies them personally, but how they should feel as members of the Anthroposophical Society. If the members feel that they are members of this Anthroposophical Society, then what must come about will come about: the Anthroposophical Society will grow into the Anthroposophical Movement; because that is what we need, my dear friends.

Now, my dear friends, you see, there are also other symptoms that testify to the fact that the anthroposophical movement as such is now self-supporting. It is indeed precisely because of what happened in Stuttgart that much has been done to ensure that we have an anthroposophical movement today. But now that the anthroposophical movement is here, it is working through its own strength. This is shown, for example, by the fact that my Berlin lectures in the “Philharmonie” were not arranged by any anthroposophical group or branch or even by any anthroposophists, but entirely from outside, from the world, by people completely uninvolved in the Anthroposophical Society, namely from the Wolff'schen Konzertbureau, without anyone from the Anthroposophical Society having any part in the arrangement, and this lecture was truly sold out many days before it took place, and I was requested by the organizers, who were not Anthroposophists, to repeat it on the 22nd in Berlin. And I was asked to give these lectures in ten other German cities, immediately following that event, which was also not organized by the Anthroposophical Society or anything like that. Now, my dear friends, I could not do all that. I had all sorts of other tasks; many of you are here today. And so I could not give the second lecture and, of course, now that I have tasks burning on my fingers, I could not even do anything to give these lectures in the other ten German cities. I had to postpone it all. And I would say that it is necessary, my dear friends, that it be postponed. Why? Yes, my dear friends, because I have to return to the concerns here. Of course, I am always happy to return to what Dornach has become, but because I have to return to the concerns here! I spoke of these concerns when the general assembly of the “Goetheanum” was held here. At the time, I made an appeal to the members, which said: It is truly necessary that, now that the Mittelland can no longer make sacrifices because of the foreign currency issue, sacrifices be made from elsewhere so that we can continue this building in Dornach. Otherwise, as I said at the time, we will have to close this building within a short time. You can imagine that I could not possibly travel around Germany with a calm heart and simply forget these worries.

So far, I have not heard much that my appeal at the time has been met. Of course, my dear friends, I know all the things that are said as a justification for this lack of response, so to speak, but I also know how many things are not done that could already be done. And finally, it should not be the case that the central point remains in a state of limbo when the movement in those areas that are currently most in turmoil and suffering takes the course that I have just been able to tell you about. Well, I hope that you can imagine in your own souls what it would mean now that, precisely where everything is at its lowest point with regard to the old, people are longing for the new, how precisely there, I would say, how from the very core of the world's being the call comes that one should not abandon what wants to arise here as a central point.

Since that General Assembly, a few months have passed, and it should actually be seen whether that appeal has borne any fruit, or whether it must be the case that the anthroposophical movement must simply flee there – it does not need to flee, but I can put it that way – to where it is desired.

You may say: This has now become a diatribe. Yes, but my dear friends, we are also facing a serious matter, and in such a serious matter it is not always possible to speak only of beauty, but rather to speak the truth. But I would like to separate the latter completely from what the moral side of the matter is, which after all consists in the fact that the Anthroposophical Society must become an instrument that is the bearer of the anthroposophical movement. Then we can go through all the enmities that are blossoming in such abundance in all possible places in the world. But within the Anthroposophical movement itself, this must become our attitude, especially in view of what has happened in Germany.

You see, my dear friends, a whole series of eurythmy performances has been grouped around my lecture in Berlin. These eurythmy performances — how they were reported to you just a few weeks ago in the “Basler Nachrichten”! What vulgar attacks these eurythmy performances have suffered! Eight days ago today, we had a eurythmy performance in Berlin at the “Kammerspiele” theater. It was sold out many days in advance, and in the days leading up to it, requests for tickets kept coming in — the phone didn't even want to stop ringing —. It was completely sold out. And it can be said that this eurythmy performance was a success, a real, unfeigned, honest success, which can perhaps only be compared with the successes that Gerhart Hauptmann has had in the Deutsches Theater in recent decades, a completely undivided success. And the same was true of the performance that took place the day before in our own space on Potsdamer Strasse. The Potsdam venue is not smaller than the “Kammerspiele”, but larger, and it was not just for anthroposophists, but for the general public. I was unable to attend the following performances. There have been two more performances in Berlin so far, and I have been told that the success is increasing. Yesterday there was a performance in Dresden, but I have not yet received any report on how it went. Then two more performances will take place in Berlin.

So you see, we can move forward. What follows from anthroposophy as an art form is what is needed today. Don't think that I am deluding myself; I know how much sensationalism and how much sensation there is in these things, but that doesn't matter in this case because the thing is not calculated on sensation because the matter is serious, and if the supporters of the matter take it seriously, then now is the time to keep the matter warm; otherwise, of course, what has been achieved will mean a kind of culmination, and it will pass because there is a lot of sensation on the part of the outside audience. But many of those who today take up the matter only as a sensation will one day become serious people if the Anthroposophical Society finds the strength to support the matter.

So the fact that something has been achieved does not mean anything other than that a possibility has been given. But for us today, this possibility is a task, a task that will certainly lead forward if we show ourselves to be up to it. And it is a matter of rising to this challenge. In order to emphasize this in the right way, my dear friends, I wanted to give you this report today, which should stand out from the series of regular lectures, and which should show how the Anthroposophical Society should think about its reform and its progress. And basically, it should be one of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society to constantly take care of what is happening, to know what this Anthroposophical Society actually is. My dear friends, the essence of the Anthroposophical Society is not something that is mentioned here or there in a brochure or that appears in the title “Principles of the Anthroposophical Society”, one, two, three and so on. The essence of the Anthroposophical Society is what happens every day. What is printed as statutes and so on — well: in all philistine honor. I don't want to say anything else. But that is not reality; reality is what happens every day in reality, and furthermore, how what happens every day lives in our souls. And so the Anthroposophical Society should take it upon itself to care about what happens, to know what is going on.

Sometimes this Anthroposophical Society seems very strange to me. You ask: Anthroposophical Society, yes, what are its principles? Then you want to have a little booklet that tells you what it is. It seems to me as if I were presented with an 18-year-old person and did not take him or her as a living human being with all that he or she is, and say: I want his or her baptismal certificate, I want his or her birth certificate; in these I find everything worth knowing, and perhaps some notes that were made at the time or in the course of his or her life. That is what matters: always living in the present, because the eternal must be realized in the present, and not in things that have become acts.

It is something that matters – I hope that others will do it differently – it is important to me to emphasize these two achievements of the Stuttgart Congress that I have highlighted today; but everything that happens should be evaluated and understood in this way.

Really, my dear friends, I know that something like this can be misunderstood. It can be misunderstood on the numerous sides where ill will against us is so strong today. Recently in Dornach we had a special occasion to reflect on who now has authority in relation to the representation of a matter, and to which names one should turn. Nothing was found that was right, and in fact, all the names have been used up. Those who still had a full sound in 1914 are gone, especially if you look at it seriously. Now one should also dare, one should have the courage to say: something is coming! For try to find a teacher today who gives a lecture like Fräulein Doctor von Heydebrand! Try to find an economist or a political economist who gives a lecture like the one Emil Leinhas gave in Stuttgart! We must have the courage to recognize the significance of something even when we have the opportunity to listen to it ourselves, and not just accept it as an order from some authority, even if that authority is the fact that the people concerned hold a professorship or are directors of some famous bank or belong to this or that group, and so on. We also need the courage to judge. This is precisely what the Stuttgart conference and all the events in Germany are now proving. We must have no respect for what today, in any case, cannot begin to do, such as the Stuttgart conference, the Stuttgart congress. But we must have all the more feeling for what is actually there as living life.

And so, my dear friends, I would ask you to take this to heart, what happened in Stuttgart, for these things must have an effect. Hopefully in the future we will be able to bring about a congress here in Dornach; but for that we must maintain the continuity of the building of Dornach. For that we must really be able to continue building the building of Dornach. You will say: We have had courses here at the School of Spiritual Science and so on. We certainly have had those, but we also had them in Stuttgart; I did not speak of them today, but rather of the Stuttgart congress, which addressed everyone oriented to anthroposophy and which was attended as a congress, and which was something else again, which above all showed: There, there they come, there they have their longing. We cannot really say that about the summer course that immediately preceded it, and I would very much like to say so, because anthroposophy must not be a matter of necessity, which it is to a large extent in the Central European countries. Anthroposophy must be a matter of insight, of insight into the necessity for humanity to renew its spiritual life.

That is what I wanted to show by this example today.

Dear friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

written between March 7-11, 1923

[At a meeting between Rudolf Steiner and the governing body of the Society for Anthroposophical Youth, formed at the delegates' conference in February, which took place on March 7, 1923, Rudolf Steiner (according to Ernst Lehrs, a representative of the young people, in his memoir Gelebte Erwartung, p. 215f.), “that we would have to be an independent society with our own membership admission and use of the same membership cards (which look quite unassuming compared to the certificates he later created), as the old society had. He also stated that he would provide us with a memorandum for our committee's own orientation, in which we would find fundamental information about the internal structure of our society and how to cultivate life in it. This happened not long afterwards, when he handed over his notes to Maikowski. ¹ – we others had since left for our various places of work – when he informed him that from now on our society should call itself the Free Anthroposophical Society."]

1. With regard to the external constitution of the Free Anthroposophical Society, the aim should be to ensure that this society corresponds to the “Draft Statutes” ². This makes it possible to unite people in a society while allowing them complete individual freedom, without constantly threatening dissolution. 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 personalities who are already members of the Anthroposophical Society and who, in the opinion of the committee formed, started from the points of view that legitimately had to cause the separation into two groups of the overall society. Mere dissatisfaction with the old leadership cannot suffice, but only a positive orientation towards an anthroposophical goal, which must be assumed to be unattainable by the old leadership.

3. First of all, the Free Anthroposophical Society, formed in this way, is to appoint trusted individuals who are recognized by the committee. Only those who have an interest in giving anthroposophy to contemporary civilization should be appointed as trusted individuals. Then, in addition to the personalities already in the Anthroposophical Society, others will be added who will only be 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 individuals, even if they are accepted into the Society with the idea that they will grow into real anthroposophists.

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

5. The Free Anthroposophical Society should become an instrument for spreading anthroposophy throughout the world. The lecture and other dissemination work should arise from its bosom, and institutes and other organizations should also be formed from it.

6. Another is the general Free Anthroposophical Society, and another is the communities to be formed within it. In these — whether exoteric or esoteric — people should come together who feel inwardly connected, who want to experience the spirit together. Alongside such communities, it is quite possible that the branch life will develop in the sense of the “draft”. The branches would then be groups of the Free Anthroposophical Society in general. However, it is quite possible that members of the Free Anthroposophical Society will join the branches of the Anthroposophical Society and work together with the members of the latter.

7. The work in the communities will be of such a nature that it is concluded within the community itself. It is directed towards the spiritual perfection of the members of the community. Whatever a member of such a community undertakes externally, he does as a representative of the general Free Anthroposophical Society. Of course such a community can take on a certain external activity; but it remains desirable that then its individual members act precisely as representatives of the general Free Anthroposophical Society. This does not, of course, need to found a bureaucratic administration of an association activity, but can be a completely free fact of consciousness for the individual.

8. A committee of trust should be established for each of the two committees, one for the Anthroposophical Society and one for the Free Anthroposophical Society. These two committees are responsible for handling 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 quite beneficial if a central administrative office is set up 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 – to be determined by the committees – of the membership fees should be paid into the central fund so that the affairs of the entire society can be adequately provided for.

10. It should be understood that the two groups have come into being only because there are two sharply distinct groups 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. The Free Anthroposophical Society should in no way attempt 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 Anthroposophical Society should not lead to further feuding, 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 Anthroposophical Society. This is because the life communities will be free groups of people who understand each other; and this will be able to form the basis for ensuring that no one in the general Free Anthroposophical Society feels restricted in their freedom.

• 1. According to Rudolf Steiner's notebook entry on March 11.
• 2. This refers to the statutes of the old Anthroposophical Society that were in force at the time; see under References.

To-day we must bring our observations to a sort of conclusion; and the natural and proper conclusion of them will of course be, as I indicated yesterday, to consider the necessary consequence to be drawn for the conduct of the Anthroposophical Society in the future. In order to form a clearer notion of what this conduct should be, let us just look back once more and see how Anthroposophy has grown up out of the whole modern civilization of the day.

You will have seen from the course of our observations during this past week, that in a way the public for Anthroposophy had necessarily to be sought in the first place amongst those circles where a strong impulse had been given towards a deepening of the spiritual life. This impulse came, of course, from many different quarters. But here one needed to look no further for the main impulse for these homeless souls, than to the things which Blavatsky, so to speak, delivered as riddles to this modern age.—Well, we have discussed all that. If, however, we must go back to this in the first place as the impulse for the Anthroposophical Society, on the other hand it must also have been plain, that for Anthroposophy itself such an impulse, or this particular impulse, was not the essential matter; for Anthroposophy itself goes back to other sources. And although—for the very reason that its public happened to come in the way I said—Anthroposophy at first employed outward forms of expression—even for its own wealth of wisdom—that were terms already familiar to these homeless souls, as coming from the quarter connected with Blavatsky,—yet these were just outward forms of expression. If you go back to my own first writings, Christianity as Mystical Fact, Mysticism at the Dawn of the New Age of Thought, you will see, that in reality these writings are in no way traceable to anything whatever coming from Blavatsky, or indeed from that quarter at all, with this one exception of the fact, that the outward forms of expression have been selected incidentally with a view to finding understanding.

One must distinguish, therefore, between what was actual spiritual substance, flowing all through the anthroposophic movement, and what were outward forms of expression, incidentally required by the conditions of the time. That mistakes can arise on this point is simply due to the fact, that people at the present day are so disinclined to go back from the form of outward expression to what is the real heart of the matter.—Anthroposophy can be traced back in a straight line to the note already struck in my Philosophy of Freedom (though then in a philosophic form),—to the note struck in my Goethe writings of the 'eighties.

If you take what is in these writings on Goethe and in the Philosophy of Freedom, the dominant note struck in them is this: That Man, in the innermost part of his being is in connection with a spiritual world; that therefore, if only he looks deep enough back into his own being, he comes to something within himself to which the usual natural science of that day, and also of this, is unable to penetrate, and which can only be contemplated as direct part of a spiritual world-order.

And in face of the terrible, what I might call spiritual chaos of language which this modern civilization has created in all countries, it might really be recognized as inevitable, if one was sometimes obliged to have recourse to what sounded paradoxical terms of expression.

And so I let glimmer faintly, so to speak, through these Goethe writings, that when one rises from contemplation of the world to contemplation of divine spirit, it is necessary to introduce a modification in the idea of Love. Already in these writings on Goethe, I indicated, that the Divinity must be conceived as having shed Itself abroad in infinite love through all existence, and that it has now to be sought in each particular existence;—which leads to something totally different from a confused pantheism.—Only, at that date, there was absolutely no possibility in any way of finding what one might call a philosophic ‘point of connection’. For, easy as it would have been to gain a hearing for a spiritual world-conception such as this, had the age possessed any philosophic ideas on to which to connect, it was equally difficult with the sort of warmed-up Kantianism that at that time existed,—with this sort of philosophy, it was difficult to find any point of connection. And accordingly it was necessary to seek this point of connection in a fuller, more intensive stream of life, in a spiritual life inwardly saturated, so to speak, with spiritual substance.—

And this kind of spiritual life was just what one found manifested in Goethe. And therefore, when I had first had to make public these particular ideas, I could not connect-on with a Theory of Cognition to what was then to be found in the civilization of the day: one had to connect-on to the world-conception of Goethe; and by aid of this Goetheistic world-conception it became possible to take the first step into the spiritual world.

In Goethe, one finds two doors which in a way open into the spiritual world,—which, to a certain degree, give access to it. One finds the first of these doors at the point where one enters upon the study of Goethe's natural-science works. For with the scientific conception of nature which Goethe worked out, he was able, within the bounds of the vegetable-world, to overcome just that disease under which the whole of modern natural science down to this day is suffering. He succeeded in putting living, flexible ideas in place of the dead and dried ones, for the observation of the vegetable-world. And then it was possible to go further, and indicate at any rate ... even though Goethe himself failed with his theory of metamorphosis when he came to the animal king-dom, still it was at any rate possible to indicate a prospect that a similar, only intensified, method of observation, not worked out so far by Goethe, might be applied to the animal kingdom as well. And in my book, Goethe's World-Conception,¹ I tried to show how it was possible—only as a sketch to begin with—to push on as far as history, as far as historic life, with the live and live-making ideas from the source.—That was the first door.

Now, in Goethe, one finds no direct line of continuance leading on from this starting-point into the actual spiritual world; from this starting-point one can only work on, as it were, to a certain definite level. And whilst thus working one has the feeling then of grasping the sensible world in a spiritual fashion. When employing Goethe's method, one is moving, rightly speaking, in a spiritual element. And though one is applying this method to the sensible plant-world, or the sensible animal-world, one grasps by this method the spiritual element living and weaving in the plant or in the animal-world.

But Goethe had another door besides in contemplation. And this was most strikingly apparent when one started out from something which Goethe was only able to indicate pictorially,—half symbolically, one might say; when one started out, namely, from his Story of the Green Serpent and the Lovely Lily,² through which he wished to show how spirit, spiritual agencies, are at work in the evolution of the world, and how the several spheres of the True, the Beautiful, the Good, work together, and that they are actual Spiritual beings one must grasp, not mere abstractions of the mind, if one wants to arrive at a view of the actual life of spirit.

The possibility therefore existed, of connecting-on, to begin with, to this point in Goethe's world conception. Rut then, however, there followed a very particular necessity. For there is one thing above all, you see, which must necessarily present itself to anybody to-day, when it is a question of a world-conception for these homeless souls; and that is the moral and ethical problem, the moral conduct of life.

¹ ‘Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung.’

‘Cognitive Theory of Goethe's World-Conception.’

² See: ‘Goethes Geistesart in ihrer Offenbarung usw.’

In those old times, when men arrived by original clairvoyance at their view of the divine spirit-world, it was, then, a matter-of-course that this divine spiritual world, of which men could rise to a view, was the source of their ethical impulses also. If we look back to very old periods of human evolution, we find a state of things in which, when Man gazed up, say in the good old times, in his first primitive clairvoyance, to the world of Divine Spirit above him, he beheld on the one hand, those living Beings, those Powers, who rule the phenomena of the natural world; and in the phenomena of the natural world, in the workings of wind and weather, in the workings of earth, in mechanic workings, this man of a primal age could see the continuance, the prolongation of what he beheld in the divine spirit-world. But at the same time he could receive from this divine spirit-world the impulses for his own actions.

This is the peculiar thing about the old world-conceptions, which still went along with a primitive clairvoyance, that, if we take, say, the Ancient Egyptian Age, men looked up to the skies in order to learn the workings of the earth, even to learn what they needed to know about the flooding of the Nile; they looked up to the stars; and from the courses of the stars, from the laws of the stars in their courses, they deduced what concerned them for the earth-world,—I mean, for the order of Nature in the earth-world.

And in the same way, too, these people calculated—if I may use the expression—what the impulses should be for ethical life. The impulses of ethical life, too, were drawn from observation of the stars.

And if we then look at things as they are now in recent times, we shall say: Observation of the stars is now carried on in its mathematical aspect only; which amounts to nothing more, than that men carry the mathematics of earth up into the stars of heaven. And they look on earth, and find on the earth what are called ‘laws of nature’.

Well, these ‘laws of nature’, which Goethe found, too, in his time, and which he converted into live ideas,—these ‘laws of nature’ have a certain peculiarity, directly it comes to a view of the world,—to a world-conception. The peculiarity namely is this: that Man,—to go by the laws of nature,—is himself excluded from the World,—that he then, in his own truest, most characteristic being as Man, has no longer any place in the World.

Picture to yourselves the old world-conceptions and how it was there. On the one side we have the world of Divine Spirit. This world of Divine Spirit permeated the phenomena of the natural world. People discovered laws for the natural phenomena; but these laws were recognized as being a kind of reflection from the action of Divine Spirit in the world of Nature. And Man, too, was also there. The same divine spirit-world shed its rays into Man. And so Man had his place within the whole order of the world. He derived, so to speak, the substance of which he was made from the same divine spiritual element of which the substance of the natural world was made.—What happened then?—My dear friends, what then happened, is something that one must regard in all its gravity; for what happened was, that, in a sort of way, a cut was made by natural science across the link that joined the world of Nature to the world of the Divine. The Divine is gone,—gone from the world of Nature. And in the world of Nature the reflections of Divine action are statuated as natural laws, and people speak of ‘laws of Nature’.

To the people of old, these Laws of Nature were the Thoughts of Cod. To the men of to-day they are still of course thoughts, for one has to comprehend them by thoughts; but the explanation lies somehow or other in the phenomena of Nature, which of course are themselves contained under the laws of Nature:—law of gravitation, law of the refraction of light, and all these fine things,—these are what people talk of to-day. But all these things have nothing whatever underneath them, or rather, nothing whatever above them; for there is no sense in talking of all these laws; unless one can talk of them as reflections from the Divine Spirit's action in the natural world.

This is what is felt by minds of greater depth, by homeless souls, in all the talk of the present day about Nature: they feel, with these people who talk about Nature, that one might rightly apply to them the words of Goethe,—or, more correctly, the words of Mephisto: they ‘laugh at themselves, and never know it’.¹ People talk of laws of Nature, but these laws of Nature are what has been left behind from the views of the men of old. Only, the views of the men of old had something else beside these laws of Nature, something, namely, that made these laws of Nature possible.

Suppose for a moment that you have a rose-bush. You can always go on having roses from this rose-bush. When the old roses wither, new ones grow again. But if you pick the roses and let the rose-bush die, you cannot still go on having new roses.

But this is just what happened with the science of nature. A rose-bush was once there; it had its roots in God. The laws which men found in the natural world, were the separ-ate roses. These laws, men have picked; they have picked the roses; the rose-bush they have let die. And so we have now in the laws of Nature, something that remains like roses without a rose-bush. And people are blind to it; they have no notion of it in their heads, upon which they set such store in these days. But those people, who are homeless souls, have a very strong notion of it in their hearts: for they can make nothing of these laws of Nature; they feel: These laws of Nature are withered: they shrivel up, when one tries to look at them as a human being.

And so the men of modern times, in so far as they can feel, in so far as they have hearts in their bodies, suffer unconsciously under an impression: ‘They tell us about Nature; but what they tell us withers in our grasp; indeed, it withers us, ourselves, as human beings.’ And mankind is compelled

to accept this as pure truth. Mankind is compelled by fearful force of authority to believe,—whilst in their hearts they feel, that the roses wither, they are compelled to the belief that these roses are the eternal living World-Beings. And people talk about World-Laws! The phenomena pass away, the laws abide for ever!—Natural science, this ‘science of Nature’, ... since what Man is seeking to express as his own consciousness of Human Self is Anthroposophy, then natural Science is,—Anti-Anthroposophy!

But let us look at the other side of it, at the ethical and moral side. The impulses of ethical and moral life came from the same divine source; but just as men had made withered roses of the laws of nature, so they made withered roses of the ethical impulses. The roots were everywhere gone; and so the ethical impulses went fluttering about the civilized world as moral commandments and customs, of which nobody knew the root. How could people possibly help feeling, ‘The moral commandments and customs are there;—but the divine origin is not there.’ And now arose the inevitable question: ‘Yes!—but what is to come of it, if these customs and commandments are not obeyed? It will come to chaos and anarchy in human society! ‘Whilst on the other side, again, there was this question: ‘What is the force of these commandments? What is at the root of them?’—Here, too, people felt this same withering and drying-up.

¹ He has the bits then all in his hand:

—One thing, alas! is missing however:

The bond of the spirit to hold them together!

• Encheiridion, Chemistry calls it;—

Laughs at itself, and never knows it!

(‘Faust’ I.)

That, you see, became the great question. That came to be the question, which arose out of Goetheanism, but to which Goetheanism, in itself, could give no answer.

Goethe gave, so to speak, two starting points, which converged upon one another, but did not meet. What is wanted,—what was wanted,—is the Philosophy of Freedom.

It needed to be shown that Man himself is the seat of the divine impulse, since in Man lies the power to go to the grounds of the spiritual principle both of the natural, as well as the spiritual principle of the moral law.

This led to the intuitionalism of the Philosophy of Freedom; it led to what people termed ethical individualism; ‘ethical individualism’, because in each single human individual was shown to reside the source of the ethical impulses,—in that Divine First Principle to which every man in the innermost part of his being is united.

Now that the age had begun, when the laws of Nature on one hand, and on the other, the moral commandments, had lost all life for men, because the Divine Principle was no longer to be found in the external world—(it could be no otherwise in the age of freedom!)—it was now in Man for we meet with Man in the first place in individual form ... it became now necessary to look in Man for the Divine Principle.

And with this, one has reached a world-conception which,—if you only consider it clearly, you will see,—leads on in straight continuation to what to-day we call Anthroposophy.

Suppose ... it is rather a primitive sketch, but it will do! ... that these are men. (Sketch in coloured chalks on the blackboard.) These men are connected in the inmost part of their being to a divine spiritual principle. This divine spiritual principle assumes the form of a divine, spiritual order in the world. And by looking at the inside of all men, conjunctively, one penetrates, now, to the divine spiritual principle, as, in old days, one penetrated to the divine spiritual principle when one looked outside one, and by primitive clairvoyance discovered the divine spiritual principle in the outer phenomena.

What had to be done then, was to follow up what was given by Goethe's world-conception on the one hand, and, on the other, by the sheer necessities of human evolution at the end of the nineteenth century; and so push on to the spiritual principle;—not to push on by any external, materialistic means, but by actual direct apprehension of Man's essential being.

Well, with this, the foundations were really laid of Anthroposophy,—if one looks at the matter in life and not in theory. For if anybody were to suggest that the Philosophy of Freedom is very far short of being Anthroposophy, it must seem to one exactly as though somebody said: ‘There was once a Goethe. This Goethe wrote all sorts of works. By “ Goethe ” we understand to-day the creator of Goethe's works.'—And another person were to answer, ‘That's not a logical sequence; for in 1749 there was a baby in Frankfort-on-Main; the baby indeed was quite black at its birth, and they said it couldn't live. If one considers this baby, and all the circumstances connected with it, it is impossible, logically, to deduce the whole of these “Goethe” Works. It is inconsequent:—one must trace Goethe back to his origin. And see whether you can discover Faust in the black-and-blue little boy who was born in 1749 at Frankfort-on-Main!’

You will agree that it is not very sensible to talk like this; but it is just as little sensible to say that Anthroposophy cannot logically follow from the Philosophy of Freedom. The black little baby in Frankfort went on living, and from its life proceeded all that to-day lives in the world's evolution as Goethe. And the Philosophy of Freedom had to go on living; and then, out of it, proceeded Anthroposophy.

Just think what it would be if, instead of actual life, there were to come a professor of philosophic logic, and say that everything which is in East and Wilhelm Meister, etc., must be deduced logically from the blue-and-black little boy of 1749! Do you think he would be able to deduce anything? By no means! He would only demonstrate contradictions—terrible contradictions! ‘I can't make the two things agree! ‘he would say; ‘I find no sequence between this Faust, as written at some time by somebody or other, and the blue-black little boy, as he existed in Frankfort-on-Main.’

And so, too, say the people who deal in fusty book-worm-logic, not in life: ‘From the Philosophy of freedom there is no logical sequence to Anthroposophy.’—Well, my dear friends, if the sequence had been a logical one, then you might have seen how all the schoolmasters would have been busy in 1894, deducing Anthroposophy from the Philosophy of Freedom! They just did nothing of the kind! And afterwards they come, and confess that they cannot deduce it, that they can't bring the two together; and make out a contradiction between what came after and what went before.—The fact is that people in these days have absolutely no capacity,—at a time when so-called logic is cultivated, and philosophy, and such things,—they have absolutely no capacity for entering into real life, for observing what is springing and sprouting up around them, and has more in it than can be seen by the pedantry of logicians.

The first thing to be done, then, in the next place, was to come to relations with all that was pushing its way up, so to speak, out of the present life of the day towards a progressive development of human civilization.

Well, as you know, I tried to do this by picking out two very striking and remarkable instances as subjects for discussion.—The first of these was Nietzsche. Why this particular case should he chosen will be obvious to you from what has gone before. For Nietzsche, namely, presented a personality on the top-surface of the modern stream of civilization, who had grown into the whole evolutionary tendency of world-conception at the present day, and who, in opposition to all the rest, was honest.

What did all the rest say? What did one find to be the general verdict, so to speak, in the 'nineties of the nineteenth century. The general verdict amounted to this:—Natural science must, of course, be right. Natural science, as constituted, is the great authority. We take our stand on the abiding ground of Natural science and peep up at the stars.—Well, of course as a leading instance, even before this, there was the conversation between Napoleon and the famous astronomer Laplace. Napoleon could not understand how, by looking up at the stars with a telescope, one can find God. And the astronomer replied: ‘I do not need the hypothesis’.Of course he didn't need such an hypothesis to see the heavens and their stars with a telescope. But he needed it, the moment he wished to be a man. But the sight of the heavens and the stars with a telescope gave man's own nature nothing, absolutely nothing. The heavens were full of stars; but they were stars of the senses. Otherwise they were empty.

And men looked through the microscope as far as ever one can see, into the tiniest life-germ, into the tiniest part of a life-germ, and ever further. And the microscope was made more perfect, and more perfect still.

But the soul they didn't find. They might look never so long into the microscope; it was empty of any soul. There was nothing there, either of soul or spirit. Neither in the stars was there anything of soul or spirit; nor under the microscope could they find any soul or spirit. And so it went on.

And with this Nietzsche found himself faced.—What did the rest of them say?—They said: ‘Oh, well, one looks through the telescope at the stars, and one sees so many worlds of the senses,—nothing else. But then we have a religious life, a religion, and this tells us that there is a spirit all the same.’ David Friedrich Strauss may talk as much as he pleases and ask at the end: ‘Where, then, is this spirit to be found along any scientific road!’ We stand by the fact, that in the writings handed down to us they talk of the Spirit all the same. We don't find him anywhere, it is true; but nevertheless we believe

¹ ‘Ihr Anblick gibt den Engeln Starke.’

‘The sight gives strength unto the Angels,

Though none may sound the depths thereof;’

(‘Faust,’, Prologue in Heaven.)

in him. Science finds him nowhere; and we are bound to believe in Science; which is what it is, because it is bent upon reality;—if it were different, it would have no reality,—and there-fore everything that searches along any other road will come to no reality. We know about reality; and we believe, ... we believe in what is not indeed discovered to be a reality, but what old times tell us about as being a reality.

It was this, you see, that in a soul like Nietzsche's, which was honest, worked downright distraction. There came a day when Nietzsche said: ‘One must cut the account!’—How did he do it? He did it thus: he said: ‘Well then, we have now the reality. The reality is discovered by natural science. All the rest is nothing. Christianity taught that Christ is not to be sought in the reality that one investigates with telescopes and microscopes. But there is no other reality. Therefore, there is no justification for Christianity. Therefore,’ said Nietzsche, ‘I shall write the Anti-Christ.’

When one looks through the microscope and telescope, one discovers no ethical impulses, People accept the old ethical impulses, however, as commandments that flutter around in the air, or are ordered by the official authorities. But they are not to be discovered by scientific research. And so Nietzsche proposed, as the next book to his Anti-Christ, which was the first in his Revaluation, of all Values, to write a second book, in which he showed that all ideals exist, strictly speaking, in Nothing,—for they are not to be found in Reality; and that, therefore, they must be abandoned.

And he proposed then to write a third book: The Moral Principle, certainly, is not derived from the telescope and microscope; therefore, said Nietzsche, I shall argue the case for the Immoral principle.—And accordingly the three first books were to have been called: Revaluation of all Values; first book, The Anti-Christ;—second book, Nihilism, or The Abolition of all Ideals;—third book, Immoralism, or The Abolition of the Universal Moral Order.

It was a dreadful thing, of course. Rut it is the ultimate honest consequence of what are really the other people's premises. One must put things in this way before one's soul in order plainly to perceive the inner nerve of modern civilization.—And this was something that required to be dealt with. One required to show in what a terrible error Nietzsche was involved, and how it must be rectified in each case by assuming Nietzsche's own starting-point, and showing that these starting-points must be taken as leading, in actual fact, not to Nothing, but to a Spiritual Principle.—It was a necessity, therefore, to settle relations with Nietzsche.'

And the same, too, with Haeckel. Here again was a phenomenon with which it was necessary to enter into discussion. Haeckelism had followed up with a certain consequentiality all that natural science can make out of the evolution of sense-organisms. And this was a point to be connected onto in the manner I described to you at the beginning. I did it, as I said, by the aid of Topinard's book, in the very first anthroposophical lectures that I ever gave. One only needed to proceed in this way, and the actual progressive steps led on of themselves into the concrete spiritual world. And the details then came afterwards simply through further investigation, further life with the spiritual world.

I have told you all this for the following reason, namely, to show this:—that in tracing the history of Anthroposophy one must go back to illustrations from the life of our modern civilization.—If one traces back the history of the Anthroposophical Society, one must go back and ask: Where were the people in the first place, who had received a kind of impulse that made them ready to understand spiritual things?

And these were just the people who, from the character of their peculiarly homeless souls, had received such impulses from Blavatsky's quarter.

¹ Fr. Nietzsche, ein Kampfer gegen seine Zeit. ( Nietzsche, the Antagonist of his Age.) Phil. Anthr. Verlag.

You see, my dear friends, what at the beginning of the century,—simply from the circumstances of the time,—had gone on side by side: the Theosophical Society and Anthroposophy, was something that now, in this third period (which began, as I told you about 1914), was completely outgrown and done with. There was absolutely nothing left, indeed, to remind one in any way of the old theosophist days. Down to the very forms of expression there was nothing, really, left. As it was, quite at the be-ginning of anthroposophic working, the tendency of the stream itself led the direction of spiritual study on to the Mystery of Golgotha, to the penetration of Christianity; and so, on the other side, the tendency which now set in brought these same spiritual means to bear upon natural science. Only,—I would like to say,—the acquisition of the spiritual means, by which true Christianity could be restored to its place before the eyes of the age,—the acquisition of these means belongs, as a fact, to an earlier time. It begins in the first period already, and is more peculiarly cultivated in the second. What was required for work in the various other directions did not really come out, in the manner I have been describing in these last few days, until the third stage. There then came to be people within the anthroposophic movement itself, who were seeking along the scientific path.

Now for those who are seeking along this scientific path, it is quite necessary, ... I say this in order that fresh misunderstandings may not continually be introduced into the anthroposophic movement ... especially for those who are pursuing this scientific path it is pre-eminently necessary that they should be absolutely filled through and through with what I spoke of yesterday and this morning again, namely, this working from the central source of Anthroposophy. It is here really necessary that people should be quite clear about these things.

My dear friends, it was in the year 1908, I think, that I said once in Nuremberg,—to give a quite definite fact as illustration:—We undoubtedly have a very great evolution in science, owing to the experiments made in recent times. Such investigations made by aid of experiment have brought an enormous amount to light. They turn out well everywhere, for the reason that all through the experimental process a spiritual element is at work, in the form of spiritual beings. For the most part, what happens is,—as I said then,—that the learned scientist goes up to the table of operations, and simply really goes through the manual performances, according as the practice may be, according to the regular methods of the mechanic routine. And then, besides him, there is a whole army at work,—so to speak—of spiritual beings. And it is they, who really do the thing. For, as for the person experimenting at the table, he only provides the opportunities, so that the different things can come out, bit by bit. If this were not the case, the thing wouldn't have gone so particularly well in recent times.

For you see, whenever anybody struck upon something,—like Julius Robert Mayer on his voyage,—he proceeded to clothe it in exceedingly abstract formula. But the other people didn't even understand it. And when, in course of time, Philip Reis was forced upon the telephone: then again the other people didn't understand it. There is really an enormous gulf between what folks understand and what is continually being dug out by experiment. For the spiritual impulses are not the very least under Man's control.

The fact of the matter is this:—Let us go back again to that very distinguished man, Julius Robert Mayer, who to-day, of course, as I said, is a great scientific discoverer, universally acknowledged, but who, so long as he was at school, was always at the bottom of his class. When he was attending the University at Tubingen, they thought of advising him to leave before taking his degree. With pain and grief, however, he succeeded in becoming a doctor, enlisted then as a ship's surgeon, and went on a voyage to India. They met with very rough weather on the voyage, the sailors fell ill, and on arrival he had to bleed a number of them.

Now a doctor, of course, knows that there are two sorts of blood vessels: veins and arteries. Arterial blood spurts out red; veinous blood spurts out bluish. When one lets blood, therefore,—makes an incision in the vein,—the blood. that comes out should be bluish. Julius Robert Mayer had very often to bleed people. Rut with all these sailors, who had made the voyage with him and fallen ill from the exciting times they had gone through at sea, something very curious happened when he made the incision. ‘Good heavens!’ he said to himself, ‘I've gone and struck the wrong place; for it's red blood spurting out of the vein! I must have struck an artery!’ And now the same thing happened again with the next man; and he got quite perplexed and nervous, thinking each time that he must have struck the wrong place; because each time the same thing happened. Finally he came upon the idea that he had made the incisions quite rightly after all; but that the sea, which had made the people ill, must have had some effect upon them, which gradually caused the veinous blood to come out red instead of blue, or at least approximately red, approximately the colour of the arterial blood.

And so, quite unexpectedly, in the process of blood-letting, a modern man, without any sort of spiritual motive leading him to look for any particular mental chain of connections, discovers a stupendous fact. But what does he say to it? As a modern man of science he says: ‘Now I must carefully consider what exactly takes place: Energy is converted into Heat, and Heat into Energy. It will be the same, then, as with the steam-engine. One heats the engine, and the result is Motion, Work; Work produced by Heat; and it will be the same in Man; and because Man is in the tropical zone (the ship had sailed to the tropics), where he is under other conditions of temperature, he therefore does not need to perform the process of con-version into blue blood. According to the law of the transformation of forces in nature, the thing takes place differently. The conditions of temperature in the human organism are different; the blood does not turn so blue in the veins, but remains red.’—The law of the transformation of substances, of forces, which to-day is a recognized law, is deduced from this observation.

Suppose for a moment that something of the kind had happened to a doctor, not in the nineteenth century but, let us say, if we imagine quite different conditions, to one perhaps in the eleventh or twelfth century only. It would never have occurred to this doctor, when he observed such a fact, to deduce from it the ‘mechanical equivalent of heat’. It would never have entered his head to connect anything so abstract with a phenomenon of the kind.

Or even, indeed, if you think of later times:—Paracelsus would certainly never have thought of such a thing,—not even in his sleep; although Paracelsus in his sleep was still a great deal cleverer, of course, than other people when awake,—but such a thing would most certainly not have occurred to him, my dear friends. A doctor such as Paracelsus might have been (and for the nineteenth century, Julius Robert Mayer was much the same as Paracelsus was for his age),—or a hypothetical doctor that lived, let us say if you like, in the tenth, or eleventh, or twelfth century,—what would he have said?

Well, even van Helmont still talks of archeus, that is, of what to-day we should call, conjointly, the etheric and astral bodies; (we have to discover it again by means of Anthroposophy; these terms had been forgotten) ... . A doctor of the twelfth century would have said: ‘In the temperate zone we find in Man a very pronounced inter-action between red blood and blue blood. When we take Man to the torrid zone, the veinous blood and the arterial blood no longer make themselves so vigorously distinct from one another; the blue veinous blood has become redder, and the red arterial blood more blue. There is scarcely any distinction left between them. What can be the origin of this?’—Well, there the doctor of the eleventh or twelfth century would have said (in those days he would have called it archeus, or something of the sort,—what we to-day call the astral body): With Man in the torrid zone,—he would have said,—the archeus sinks less deep into the physical body than it does with Man in the temperate zone. A Man of the temperate zone is more saturated with his astral body, more densely permeated by it; with the Man of the torrid zone, the astral body remains more outside him, even when he is awake. And, as a consequence, this differentiation, which takes place through the action of the astral body upon the blood, takes place more strongly with the Man of the temperate zone, and less strongly with the Man of the torrid zone. The Man of the torrid zone, therefore, has his astral body more free. We have a sign of this in the lesser thickening of the blood. And so he lives instinctively in his astral body, because this astral body is freer. And he becomes, accordingly, not a mechanically-thinking European; he becomes a spiritually-thinking Indian who, at the full flower of his civilization (not now, when it is all in decadence, but at its full flower) naturally has a quite different, a spiritual civilization, a Veda-civilization; whereas the European naturally has a Comtist, or Darwinist, or John Stuart Mill-ist civilization.

Yes, indeed, my dear friends; from this blood-letting a doctor of the eleventh or twelfth century would have arrived at some contemplation, such as this, of the Anthropos. He would still have sailed on into Anthroposophy. He would still have found his way on to the spiritual reality, to the living spirit. Julius Robert Mayer,—the Paracelsus, if you will, of the nineteenth century,—found, in his day, the law: ‘Nothing comes from nothing; therefore, there is a transformation of forces’,—an abstract formula.

The spiritual principle in Man, which can once more be found by means of Anthroposophy, this spiritual principle leads on in turn to Epics. Here we link up with that quest for the moral principles which we started on in the Philosophy of Freedom. Thereby the way is once more opened to Man for a spiritual activity in which he no longer has a gulf between Nature and Spirit, Nature and Ethics, but in which he finds the direct union of both.

One thing, however, will be plain from all I have been showing you, which is this:—The leading lights of modern science arrive at their abstract formulae. And these abstract formula are, of course, buzzing about in the heads of all the people to-day who have received a scientific training. The people who give this scientific training regard this tanglewood of abstract formula as something in which the modern man has to believe. And they look upon it as sheer lunacy for anyone to talk of leading up from the composition of the red and the blue blood to the spiritual principle of Man.

From this, however, you can see all that it means for an actual scientist, if he proposes to come into Anthroposophy. It means something more, besides the mere goodwill. It means, in reality, immense and devoted application to a profundity of study to which people are not accustomed at the present day,—and least of all accustomed, when they have passed through a scientific training.

What is wanted then, here, more especially, is courage, courage, and ever again courage. And with this we touch on the element which we above all things need for our souls, if we are to meet the necessary life-conditions of the Anthroposophical Society. This Society stands, in a way, to-day in diametrical opposition to all that is popular in the world. If it wants to make itself popular, therefore, it can have no possible prospect of succeeding. And therefore what we must not do,—more particularly if we want to spread Anthroposophy through the various branches of actual life; which has been the constant attempt since the year 1919,—we must not take the line of trying to make ourselves popular, but we must go out straight from the centre and essence, and pursue the road marked out by the life of the spirit itself,—as I described to you with reference to the Goetheanum this morning, in this one particular case.—But we must learn to think in this way in all matters; otherwise, we slide off the path; otherwise, we slide off it in such a way that people continually, with more or less justice, confuse us with other movements and judge us from the outside. But if we give ourselves with all energy our own form of structure, then, my dear friends, then we shall be following the road that runs in the direction of the anthroposophic movement and the conditions of its life. But we must teach ourselves the earnestness from which then the needful courage will come.

And we must not forget what is made simply necessary by the fact that we to-day, as Anthroposophists, are only a little handful. It is the hope, truly, of this little handful, that what they are the means of spreading abroad to-day will spread to ever larger and larger numbers of people; and, amongst these people then, there will be a certain direction of mind and knowledge, a certain moral and ethical, a religious direction.

But all these things, which will exist amongst people then through the impulses of Anthroposophy, and will be looked upon as, matters of course,—these things need to exist in a very much higher degree amongst those to-day who are only a little handful; these people must feel the very gravest obligations incumbent upon them towards the spiritual world. And one must understand that, quite instinctively, this will find expression in the verdict of the world around them.

By nothing can the Anthroposophical Society do itself more harm,—intense harm,—than if this Anthroposophical Society fails to give itself, in its members, a general form and style, through which people outside are made aware that, in the very strictest sense of the term, the Anthroposophists will this and that; so that they are able to distinguish them from all other, sectarian or other, movements.

So long as this is not the case, however, the Society cannot fail to call forth the kind of verdict from the outer world, which it does to-day. People don't really quite know what the purpose is of this Anthroposophical Society. They make acquaintance with some of the individual members; and in these there is nothing to be seen of Anthroposophy. Now suppose, let us say, that the Anthroposophists were to proclaim themselves by such a fine and marked sense for truth and circumstantial accuracy, that everybody saw at once: That's an Anthroposophist; one notices that he has such a very delicate sense in all he says, on no account to go further in his statements than strictly accords with the facts;—that, now, would give a certain impression.—However, to-day I don't wish, as I said, to make criticisms, but only to point out the positive things.—Are there signs of this happening? that is the question to be asked.

Or, again, people might say: Yes, those are Anthroposophists! They are very particular in all little matters of good taste. They have a certain artistic sense; the Goetheanum in Dornach must have had some effect after all.—Then again people would know: Anthroposophy certainly gives its members a sort of good taste: one can distinguish them by that from other people.

This is the kind of thing you see,—not so much what can be put into clearly defined propositions, but things of this kind,—that are all part of what the Anthroposophical Society, must study to develop, if it is to fulfil the conditions of its life.

Oh, there has been a great deal of talk about such things. But the question that has again and again to be raised, and one that should occupy a great place in all that is discussed amongst Anthroposophists, is this: How to give the anthroposophic society a quite distinct stamp, so that everyone can tell: Here is something by which this society is so completely distinguished from all the others as to leave no possibility of confusion.

One can only indicate these things as matters more of feeling; for where there is to be life, there can be no fixed programmes. Rut just ask yourselves whether, in the anthroposophic society, we have altogether got beyond the old: ‘One has to do this’, ... ‘One always does that’,... ‘One must be guided by this or the other’, and whether the impulse is always a strong one on every occasion to ask: What does Anthroposophy herself say?—There is no need for it to be set down in a lecture. But the things set down, or spoken, in lectures sink into hearts,—and this gives a certain tendency of direction.

I must say it once more, my dear friends: Until Anthroposophy is taken as a living being, who goes about unseen amongst us, and to whom each feels himself responsible,—not until then will this little band of Anthroposophists go forward as a model band that leads the way. And they should lead the way as a model band,—this little band of Anthroposophists.

When one came into any of the theosophic societies (of which there are many) they had, of course, the three well-known ‘principles’. I have spoken of these yesterday and how we must look upon them. The first principle was the establishment of universal human brotherhood, without distinction of race or nation, etc. I pointed out yesterday that it is a matter for consideration whether in future this should be set up in the form of a dogma. But still, my dear friends, it is significant that people make such a principle at all. Only it must become a reality. It must, little by little, become a reality in actual fact. And this it will do, when Anthroposophy herself is regarded as a living, supersensible, invisible being, going about amongst the Anthroposophists. Then perhaps there may be less talk of brotherhood,—less talk of universal love of mankind, but this love will be more living in men's hearts; and the world will see, from the very tone in which they speak of that which binds them together in Anthroposophy, from the very tone in which one tells the other this or that, it will be evident that it signifies something for the one, that the other too is a person who, like himself, is linked to the Unseen Being, Anthroposophy.—My dear friends, we can choose instead to take another way. We can take the way of simply forming a number of cliques, of going on as the fashion is in the world,—coming together for five-o'clock tea-parties or other social gatherings of the kind, where people drop in just for the purpose of mutual conversation, or at most to sit in company and listen to a lecture. We can do that, too, no doubt, instead. We can form little cliques, of course, instead,—little private circles. Rut an anthroposophic movement, of course, cannot live in a society of this kind. An anthroposophic movement can only live in an Anthroposophical Society which is a reality. But, in such a society, things need to be taken with very serious earnestness; there, one must at every moment of one's life feel that one is an associate of the Unseen Being, Anthroposophy.

If this could become the tone of mind, the tone of actual practice; if,—not in twenty-four hours perhaps, but after a certain length of time,—this could become the tone of mind, then,—let us say in twenty-one years,—there would most certainly arise a certain impulse: The moment people heard anything like what I mentioned yesterday again from the opponents, then the needful impulse would awake in people's hearts;—I am not saying by any means that it need lead at once to any practical action, but the necessary impulse would be there, in people's hearts; and then in good time the actions would come too.

When the actions do not come; when only the opponents act and organize; then it must be that the right impulse is not there; it must be that people still prefer well ... to live on in peace and comfort,—and of course to sit in the audience, when there are lectures on Anthroposophy. But this, at any rate, is not enough if the Anthroposophical Society is to prosper. If the Anthroposophical Society is to prosper, Anthroposophy must really live in it. And if that is the case, then indeed, in the course of twenty-one years, something of importance might come to pass,—or even in a shorter period. When I come to reckon,—why, the society has already existed twenty-one years!

Well, my dear friends, since I do not wish to make criticisms, I would merely ask you yourselves to carry your self-recollection so far as to ask, whether really each single individual at each single post has done that which must be felt to proceed from the very centre of all that is anthroposophic? And if you should happen to find that one or other of you has not as yet felt this, then I would beg you to begin at once, tomorrow, or this very evening; for it would not be a good thing if the Anthroposophical Society were to go to pieces. And it will most certainly go to pieces if (now that in addition to all the other things it already has on hand, it proposes to rebuild the Goetheanum), it will most certainly go to pieces, if that consciousness does not awake, of which I have been speaking in these lectures,—if this self-recollection is not there. And then, my dear friends, if it does fall to pieces, it will fall to pieces very rapidly.—But that is entirely dependent on the will of the people who are in the Anthroposophical Society.

Anthroposophy will quite certainly not be driven out of the world. But it might sink back for tens of years and more, so to speak, into a latent state, and then be taken up again later. An enormous amount would be lost for the evolution of mankind.—This is something to think over, if one intends in earnest to set about that self-recollection which was really my meaning with these lectures. It certainly was not my meaning, however, that there should again be a lot of big talk, and all sorts of programmes set up again, and declarations that ‘should this or that be wanted, we place ourselves entirely at disposal!’ ... those things we always did. What now is needed is that we should look into ourselves and find the inner centre of our own being. And if we pursue this search for the inner centre of our being with aid of the spirit to be found in the anthroposophic wealth of wisdom, we shall then find, too, that anthroposophic impulse, which the Anthroposophical Society needs as a condition of its life.

I particularly wanted in these lectures, my dear friends, not to deal so much in criticism, of which there has been plenty in these last times;—a great deal has been said, scattered about, on one or the other occasion. This time I wanted rather, by a historical review of one or two things,—if I tried to say everything, these lectures would. not be long enough;—but by a historical review of just one or two things, I wanted really through a study of anthroposophical affairs to give just a stimulus towards the actual handling of them in the right way. And these lectures especially, I think, can afford occasion for being thought over, reflected upon, so to speak. That is a thing for which one can always find time; for it can be done between the lines of life,—the lines of a life that brings with it the calls of the outer world.

This, my dear friends, is what I wanted to put before you in these lectures more especially, as a sort of Self-Recollection for the Anthroposophical Society, and to lay it very urgently to your hearts. We have absolute need to-day of this kind of self-recollection. We should not forget that if we go to the sources of anthroposophic life, very much can be done by means of them. If we neglect to do so, we are simply abandoning the paths on which it is possible to do anything.

We are about to enter on tasks of so great a magnitude as the rebuilding of the Goetheanum. Here, truly, our hearts' considerations can go out only from really great impulses; here we can go out from no kind of pettiness. This is what I said this morning to those who were there; and this is what I wished to put before you again to-night from a particular aspect.

From the ‘News Sheet’ (Nachrichtenblatt) Year I. No. 22, June 8th, 1924

During the time from the middle of May to the middle of June, Frau Marie Steiner with the eurythmists from the Goetheanum is undertaking a eurythmy tour through the towns of Ulm, Nurnberg, Eisenach, Erfurt, Naumberg, Hildesheim, Hanover, Halle and Breslau. The accounts of this journey, which I receive here in the Goetheanum, speak of a profound interest which the comparatively large audiences take in the art which has arisen out of the anthroposophical movement.

That here and there a few noisy disturbers bring discord into the otherwise very gratifying reception cannot alienate him who knows the obstacles which must always, in every sphere of life, be contended with when that to which people are accustomed is faced by something new.

One would like to expect from the Anthroposophical Society that it should bring its full inner support towards the endeavours which are active in the art of eurythmy. For only with such inner support can the warmth be sustained which is necessary for those who dedicate themselves to these endeavours.

It is not everywhere known within the Anthroposophical Society upon what foundations such endeavours are built up. At the Goetheanum, under the direction of Marie Steiner, constant work is going on in order to carry out all the practices necessary before the performances. In all this work great devotion is indispensable from all those taking part. And from outside it is not always apparent how wearing it is, in artistic work, to make tiring journeys from town to town, how fretting to unfold the artistic mood during these fatiguing journeys. To succeed in carrying out such endeavours in the available circumstances certainly needs much devotion and a true enthusiasm for the cause.

Eurythmy as an art is the fruit of the spiritual impulse working in the anthroposophical movement. That which lives in the human organisation as soul and spirit comes to visible manifestation through eurythmy. Its effect upon those watching it depends upon the inner perception that in the externally visible movements of people and groups of people soul and spirit visibly unfold themselves. He only who has the artistic conception of what lies in the audible word can unfold the right sense for how the audible can, in eurythmy, be transformed into the visible. One has, as it were, the human soul-being before one’s eyes.

And into this evident revelation of the human soul-being resound the arts of recitation and of music. It can be said that the art of recitation experiences in the strivings of eurythmy the essential conditions of its being. Recitation is, of course, connected in the first place with the word. But the word easily succumbs to the temptation to stray away from the artistic. It tends to become the content of understanding and feeling. It is, however, only the formation of this content which can have artistic effect. When recitation appears at the side of the eurythmic art of movement it has to unfold its formative character in full purity. It must reveal what can work formatively and musically in language. Necessary for eurythmy, therefore, was the development of the art of recitation, as this has been made possible by the devotion of Marie Steiner to this part of the anthroposophical movement. Within the Anthroposophical Society one should follow up what has arisen since the time when Marie Steiner, with a few eurythmists, began the work in 1914 in Berlin. Eurythmy could only unfold itself as a visible art of speech side by side with the artistically conceived audible art of speech. He only who has the artistic conception of what lies in the audible word can unfold the right sense for how the audible can, in eurythmy, be transformed into the visible. From the side of the public that only can be of interest which shows artistic merit. For the members of the Anthroposophical Society the point is intimately to share in the becoming of such a striving. For this is a part of the anthroposophical life.

In such a sharing the noblest human elements will be able to develop. And in such a development lies indeed one of the grandest tasks of the Anthroposophical Society.

Our musicians who place their artistic gifts at the service of eurythmy are bringing, I am convinced—through the way in which they do this and through the great enthusiasm which ensouls them in their work with the related art—they are bringing music forward in a quite special direction. I believe, indeed that the musical sense which lives in them finds its true liberation when placed in this connection. In any case, in the work of our musicians within the framework of eurythmy activity there is a deeply satisfying expansion of the musical into the general sphere of art. And its fruitfulness is shown again by the beautiful working-back upon the specifically musical.

From Marie Steiner’s efforts in the sphere of eurythmy there has arisen the Eurythmeum in Stuttgart. This is based upon the idea of a eurythmy conservatorium. Eurythmy in all its branches is taught there, lectures being also given in such auxiliary subjects as poetry, aesthetics, history of art, music theory, etc. All this in accordance with that artistic conception in the light of which eurythmy must stand. What has arisen in this way in Stuttgart carries within itself many possibilities of further upbuilding. It is deeply satisfying to see how many members from the circle of our society devote themselves with the warmest participation to the furtherance of eurythmy endeavours. This participation is in process of growing in a gratifying way. Through this there has entered into our movement a feature which is entirely consistent with the fundamental conditions of its life. For art stands midway between the revelations of the sense-world and spiritual reality. It is the aim of anthroposophy to place the spiritual world before mankind. Art is the reflection of the spirit in the sense-world. If art did not grow upon anthroposophical soil this could only result from some lack in this soil itself. In anthroposophical circles insight into this has been steadily increasing; it is to be hoped that such understanding will ripen more and more.

But even if anthroposophy initially has its roots in the insights already gained into the spiritual world, these are only its roots. Its branches, leaves, flowers and fruits grow into all fields of human life and activity. With the thoughts that reveal the essence and laws of spiritual existence, it reaches into the depths of the creative human soul, and its artistic powers are evoked by the call. Art receives all-round inspiration. It allows the warmth that radiates from the contemplation of the spiritual to flow into the hearts: and the religious sense awakens in true devotion to the divine in the world. Religion receives a deep internalization. It opens its sources, and the human will, borne by love, can draw from them. It brings human love to life and thus becomes creative in impulses of moral action and genuine social practice. It fertilizes the view of nature through the driving seeds of spiritual insight, thereby transforming mere knowledge of nature into true knowledge of nature.

In all of this, anthroposophy generates a wealth of life tasks. These tasks can only reach the broader circles of human life if they start from their point of origin in a caring society.

The leadership of the Goetheanum in Dornach called upon those individuals who believe that the anthroposophy cultivated at this Goetheanum seeks to correspond to the characterized tasks to bring the long-standing attempts to form anthroposophical societies to a satisfactory conclusion in a Christmas conference.

The call was answered in a way that could not have been expected. Seven to eight hundred people appeared at the “laying of the foundation stone” of the “General Anthroposophical Society”. What they did will be described in this supplement to the “Goetheanum” bit by bit.

It fell to me to open and preside over the meetings. And it became easy for my heart – this opening. The Swiss poet Albert Steffen sat next to me. The assembled anthroposophists looked to him with grateful souls. It was on Swiss soil that they had gathered to found the Anthroposophical Society. In Albert Steffen, they have long had a leading member in Switzerland to whom they look up with true enthusiasm. I saw in him Switzerland in one of her noblest sons; my first word was to give him and our Swiss friends the warmest greetings, and the second was to ask him to open the meeting.

It was a deeply moving beginning. Albert Steffen, the wonderful painter in words, the poetic visualizer, spoke. One heard and saw soul-stirring images like visions before one.

The laying of the foundation stone of the Goetheanum in 1913 stood there before the soul's eye. I cannot find words to express how it was for me in my soul when I saw this process, in which I was privileged to work ten years ago, in Steffen's painting.

The work at the Goetheanum, in which hundreds of devoted hands moved and hundreds of enthusiastic hearts beat, conjured up artistically perfect words before the mind.

And - the burning of the Goetheanum: the whole tragedy, the pain of thousands, they trembled when Albert Steffen spoke to us.

And then, in the foreground of another picture: the essence of anthroposophy itself, transfigured by the poet soul of Albert Steffen. In the background are its enemies, not being criticized, but simply presented with the creative power.

“Ten Years of the Goetheanum”; Albert Steffen's words about it went deep - one felt it - into the hearts of those gathered.

After this dignified prelude, it fell to me to speak of the form that the Anthroposophical Society will now have to take.

What should take the place of a conventional statute was to be said. A description of what people in a purely human context - as an anthroposophical society - would like to accomplish should take the place of such a “statute”. Anthroposophy is cultivated at the Goetheanum, which since the fire has only had makeshift rooms made of wood. What the leaders of the Goetheanum understand by this care and what effect they expect it to have on human civilization should be stated. Then how they envision this care in a free university for spiritual science. Not principles to which one should profess, but a reality in its own way should be described. Then it should be said that anyone who wants to contribute to what is happening at the Goetheanum can become a member.

The following is proposed as a “statute”, which is not a “statute” but a description of what can arise from such a purely human and vital social relationship:

1. The Anthroposophical Society shall be an association of people who wish to cultivate the soul life in the individual human being and in human society on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.

2. The core of this Society consists of those individuals and groups who were represented at the Christmas Conference at the Goetheanum, Dornach, 1923. They are imbued with the conviction that a true science of the spiritual world, developed over many years and already published in important parts, really does exist at the present time and that today's civilization lacks the cultivation of such a science. The Anthroposophical Society is to have this task. It will try to solve this task by making the Anthroposophical spiritual science cultivated at the Goetheanum in Dornach, with its results for fraternity in human coexistence, for the moral and religious as well as for the artistic and general spiritual life in the human being, the center of its endeavors. ¹

3. The personalities assembled in Dornach as the basis of the Society recognize and approve of the view of the Goetheanum leadership, represented by the Executive Council formed at the founding meeting, regarding the following: “The anthroposophy cultivated at the Goetheanum leads to results that can serve as a stimulus for the spiritual life of every human being, regardless of nation, class or religion. They can lead to a social life truly built on brotherly love. Their appropriation as a basis for life is not tied to a scientific level of education, but only to an unbiased human nature. Their research and the appropriate evaluation of their research results, however, are subject to spiritual scientific schooling, which is to be attained in stages. These results are as exact as the results of true natural science. If they are generally recognized in the same way as the latter, they will bring about the same progress in all areas of life, not only in the spiritual but also in the practical realm."

4. The Anthroposophical Society is not a secret society, but a completely public one. Anyone can become a member, without distinction of nationality, class, religion, scientific or artistic conviction, who sees something justified in the existence of such an institution as the Goetheanum in Dornach as a free school of spiritual science. The Society rejects all sectarian aspirations. It does not regard politics as part of its remit.

5. The Anthroposophical Society sees a center of its work in the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach. This will consist of three classes. Society members who have been members for a period of time to be determined by the leadership of the Goetheanum will be admitted to the School upon application. They will then enter the first class of the School of Spiritual Science. Admission to the second and third classes will follow if applicants are deemed suitable by the leadership of the Goetheanum.

6. Every member of the Anthroposophical Society has the right to participate in all lectures, other presentations and meetings organized by it under the conditions to be announced by the board.

7. The establishment of the School of Spiritual Science is initially the responsibility of Rudolf Steiner, who is to appoint his co-workers and his eventual successor. 8. All the Society's publications will be public, as are those of other public societies.²

The publications of the School of Spiritual Science will make no exception to this public nature; however, the leadership of the School claims that from the outset it disputes the legitimacy of any judgment about these writings that is not based on the training from which they emerged. In this sense, it will not grant any judgment that is not based on corresponding preliminary studies, as is usual in the recognized scientific world. Therefore, the writings of the School of Spiritual Science will bear the following note: “Printed as a manuscript for members of the School of Spiritual Science, Goetheanum Class... No one will be granted competence to judge these writings who has not acquired the foreknowledge claimed by this school through them or in a way recognized by it as equivalent. Other judgments will be rejected insofar as the authors of the corresponding writings do not enter into discussion of them.

9. The aim of the Anthroposophical Society shall be to promote spiritual research, and the aim of the School of Spiritual Science shall be to carry out this research. Dogmatism in any field shall be excluded from the Anthroposophical Society.

10. The Anthroposophical Society holds an ordinary annual meeting at the Goetheanum every year, at which the Executive Council gives a full report. The agenda for this meeting is announced by the Executive Council with the invitation sent to all members six weeks before the conference. The Executive Council can convene extraordinary meetings and set the agenda for them. It shall send invitations to the members three weeks in advance. Applications from individual members or groups of such members must be submitted one week before the meeting.

11. Members may join together in smaller or larger groups in any local or professional field. The Anthroposophical Society has its seat at the Goetheanum. From there, the Executive Council is to provide members or groups of members with what it regards as the tasks of the Society. It deals with the officials elected or appointed by the individual groups. The individual groups take care of the admission of members; however, the confirmations of admission are to be submitted to the Executive Council in Dornach and signed by it in confidence with the group officials. In general, each member should join a group; only those for whom it is absolutely impossible to find admission to a group should be admitted as members in Dornach itself. 12. The membership fee is determined by the individual groups; however, each group is required to pay [15 francs] for each of its members to the central administration at the Goetheanum.

13. Each working group shall draw up its own statutes; however, these shall not contradict the statutes of the Anthroposophical Society.

14. The Society's organ is the weekly journal “Goetheanum”, which for this purpose shall include a supplement containing the official communications of the Society. This enlarged edition of the “Goetheanum” will be distributed only to members of the Anthroposophical Society.³

The opening meeting on the morning of December 25 was closely connected with the festivities on the morning of the 25th, which bore the name: “Laying of the Foundation Stone of the General Anthroposophical Society”.

This could only be an ideal and spiritual laying of the foundation stone. The soil in which the “foundation stone” was laid could only be the hearts and souls of the personalities united in the Society; and the foundation stone itself must be the attitude that springs from the anthroposophical way of life. This attitude forms, in the way it is demanded by the signs of the present time, the will to find the way to the contemplation of the spirit and to life from the spirit through human soul-penetration. I would like to start here, with which I tried to shape the “foundation stone” in verse form and give the further description of the opening meeting in the next issue of this newsletter.

Human soul!
You live in the limbs
That carry you through the world of space
Into the being of the spiritual sea:
Practice spirit-remembering
In the depths of the soul,
Where in the ruling
Creator of the world
the own I
in the God-I
reveals itself;
And you will truly live
in the human-world-being.

For the Father-Spirit of the heights rules
in the depths of the world, generating being:
You power-spirits
Let from the heights resound
What finds the echo in the depths;
This speaks:
From the divine, humanity exists.
The spirits in the east, west, north, south hear this:
May human beings hear it.

Human soul!
You live in the heartbeat of the heart and lungs,
which guides you through the rhythm of time
into your own soul being:
Practice spiritual reflection
in soul balance,
where the surging world-becoming-deeds
unite the own I
to the World-I
unite;
And you will truly feel
in the work of the human soul.

For the Christ-will rules in the surrounding
in the rhythms of the world, bestowing soul;
You spirits of light
Let the east inspire
What is formed by the West;
This speaks:
In the Christ, life becomes death.
The spirits in the east, west, north, and south hear this:
May human beings hear it.
Human soul!
You live in the resting head,
Which opens up to you the thoughts of the world from the reasons of eternity.
the world thoughts:
Practice spirit-seeing
In thought-rest,
Where the eternal divine goals of world-being-light
To one's own self
To free will
Give;
And you will think truly
in human spirit reasons.

For the spirit world thoughts prevail
in the world being, light-invoking:
you soul-spirits
let from the depths request,
what is heard in the heights:
This speaks:
In the spirit's world-thoughts, the soul awakens. This is heard by spirits in the east, west, north, and south: May men hear it.

At the turning point of time
the light of the world's spirit
entered the earthly stream of being;
night-darkness
had been fully developed;
day-bright light
shone in human souls;
light,
which warmed
the poor hearts of the shepherds;
light,
which enlightened
the wise heads of the Magi.

Divine light,
Christ-sun
Warmth
Our hearts;
Enlighten
Our minds;
That good will come
From what we
From our hearts,
What we
From our minds
Want to lead.

• 1. The Anthroposophical Society is linked to the Anthroposophical Society founded in 1912, but seeks to create an independent starting point for the goals set at that time, one that corresponds to the true spirit of the present.
• 2. The conditions under which one comes to the School for training have been publicly described and will continue to be published.
• 3. Members may purchase the bulletins individually. The conditions for doing so can be found at the beginning of this first issue. Everything that relates to the implementation of the statutes in detail will be given in a special “rules of procedure”. These will be included in one of the next numbers of the announcements.