The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Schreinereisaal in continuation of the meeting of April 22 Minutes by Helene Finckh

Albert Steffen: Dear friends, Today, too, I extend a warm welcome to those present at this continuation of the Annual General Meeting of April 22. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Steiner for his presence and for the fact that he will give a series of lectures every evening this week that is of such great importance for our movement, namely on the history and conditions of the anthroposophical movement in relation to our society.

And I also extend a warm welcome to our members from abroad, who I am delighted to see here. I do not want to give the slightest impression that we Swiss want to discuss everything among ourselves. We Swiss would like to have a firm foundation in our society, but then we would like to look as far as possible. Society encompasses the whole earth. We would actually like to be what our country is already modelling: it has a granite foundation and very high mountains, which we have of course not achieved in any way as yet. Dr. Steiner once described Switzerland itself as something that could become the centre of a spiritual movement. Perhaps I may quote the passage he had me print in the 'Goetheanum' at the time [from the Dornach lecture, 14 October 1921, in CW 339]: '.... A state like Switzerland... is something very special. Firstly, as was already apparent during the war if one only wanted to see it, Switzerland is something of a center of gravity in the world. And it could use its lack of engagement in relation to the various world conditions to develop free judgment and free action in relation to its surroundings. The world is just waiting for the Swiss to realize in their heads what they realize in their pockets. In their pockets they notice that the franc is not really affected by the rise and fall of currencies, by the corruption of currencies. The Swiss do notice that the whole world revolves around the Swiss franc. That this is also the case in spiritual terms is something the Swiss do not notice. But just as they appreciate the immovable franc, which has become the regulator, as it were, of currencies throughout the world, so they should also understand their position, which is truly independent of world events and through which Switzerland could actually be a kind of pivot for world events – the Swiss should understand this...

Dear attendees, what this actually says is that our Swiss anthroposophical movement is not only based on spiritual foundations but also on natural ones, and that if we cannot found this society, we are not only doing something that is unspiritual but also something that is unnatural.

Now Switzerland has been chosen by fate – which is also a fact of nature in this case – to have the Goetheanum here. It is simply necessary, if we really want to fulfill our task, that the Goetheanum be rebuilt here. This fact was also expressed at the last General Assembly, but in a highly chaotic manner and without any real outcome. But in the end, the mood was unanimous: the Goetheanum must stand here again.

You are all aware of what was discussed at this meeting, partly because you were present and partly because the report was sent out all over the world. ^{1The report can be found on page 557.} This report, so kindly and well written by Mr. Heywood-Smith, was sent to America, England, California, Italy, France and so on, and it has met with an extraordinarily enthusiastic response. Enthusiastic letters came from everywhere, and there were also assurances of support for the organization with money. I would like to read some of these letters to you. First, the letter from Mrs. Greene from New York to our friend Mr. Heywood-Smith:

"You were kind enough to send us the reports of the events of the general assembly held in the carpentry workshop. I immediately called an extra meeting and the members of the St. Mark's Group decided to send the following cable to Dr. Steiner: “It is the wish of the members of the St. Mark's Group that the Goetheanum be rebuilt as soon as possible and that we will support the work morally and financially to the best of our ability.”

A similar letter came from Mme. Ferreri in Milan. Unfortunately, she has asked me not to read it in its entirety. I will just say that she has also sent or plans to send large sums of money and that she is strongly supported in this by her group. In general, this letter conveys such a strong sense of community with Dornach and the whole movement.

Then there is a letter from California from Mrs. Love, who gives the same assurance of spiritual and financial support.

And then, especially from England, the report from the General Assembly there. After the English work had been discussed at this General Assembly, and it had been made clear that very good work was being done there, Mr. Wheeler reported that since the fire at the Goetheanum it had been possible to send an average of 100 pounds per month to Dr. Steiner. Mr. Metaxa then says: [was not noted, see page 517]. And then a whole series of members of the local branches speak in this sense. Mr. Kaufmann, for example, also said that the primary concern was to establish the necessary spiritual foundation for the building, and that this must be the goal in a new solidarity and unity that exists in society. Mr. Dunlop then said that this was the right thing to do at the present moment. The Society should come to Dr. Steiner with a definite will and aim and should not leave everything to him; if we face the world squarely and show our will and determination to build, there will be no question of the authorities being able to prevent it, rather they would welcome it if they felt there was a living international movement behind it. Miss Schlesinger and Mr. Kaufmann then proposed that a committee be appointed to immediately take the necessary steps to rebuild the Goetheanum throughout the world through the will and efforts of the Anthroposophical Society. This motion was unanimously adopted.

Now the situation with the authorities is as follows. According to the information we have received from these authorities themselves in response to our enquiries, we will receive the insurance sum and the reconstruction will be allowed. It would take something quite unexpected for this not to be the case, but in our view that will not be the case. So there will be no obstacles from the authorities. The only thing missing to build the structure is the construction fund, the money. Dr. Steiner said that the construction would cost about double the sum insured.

We then immediately began to work on this matter. Dr. Wegman in particular set to work with great energy. She suggested that each member, if they were able, donate a thousand francs, and that would actually make it possible to start building, if it could be carried out. This plan was then immediately tackled, and in three days we raised 35,000 francs here in Dornach.

In St. Gallen, too, Mr. Knopfli immediately set to work and also raised a relatively large sum there. So there is something of an—in a good sense—epidemic of giving money. This is because a truly energetic and kind-hearted person has taken the initiative to do so, and precisely such a person, whose job it is to prevent epidemics in his daily work, has already succeeded in many respects. I do not wish to pre-empt the report of the laboratories here, but I would like to say that a meeting of doctors was recently held in Zurich which recommended the hay fever remedy, and that, as a result, I believe 200 doctors have turned to the laboratories to order this remedy. So you see, here everything comes from a willingness to make sacrifices. We know that Dr. Wegman is truly very willing to make sacrifices. She takes in many sick people to the clinic for free, and that should actually also prompt us to support her in this. I would ask you in general to really look at the inner being.

Nature is making leaps. So it will, because the Goetheanum is also to be built on a natural foundation, so to speak, it will also make leaps in that respect and lead people to us who really give donations. But it only makes leaps, nature - I mean in a spiritual way - when there is a spiritual foundation, that is, when people come together and have a heart, when they really have a willingness to make sacrifices. For nature certainly makes leaps in such a case, namely when one knows: Here spirit is present. Then nature will give. But if there is no spirit, then nature will not cause a person to give anything. For example, a person who is happy to give a thousand francs will perhaps quarrel over ten francs in another case. I would therefore like to ask Swiss society to come to a decision and pass a resolution urgently asking Dr. Steiner to take over the construction of the Goetheanum. This resolution was passed by the delegates yesterday, and I will read it out in general terms, as it has not yet been precisely formulated.

There is another important point, esteemed attendees, on this occasion. We have often experienced that Dr. Steiner's work is discredited by people who do not properly represent anthroposophy. At the very least, Dr. Steiner should be guaranteed complete freedom at the Goetheanum to rebuild it; that is, no one should interfere with him; that he should be able to choose the workers he wants to help rebuild the Goetheanum himself, and not have them imposed on him; that he should be able to carry out everything according to his own plans and so on. This is also expressed in the resolution. There are two versions, so perhaps I will read one first.

“Resolution. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland expresses the wish in today's general assembly that Dr. Steiner may take the reconstruction of the Goetheanum into his own hands. The Society grants Dr. Steiner full authority to carry out this reconstruction in every respect at his own discretion, without interference from the members.”

It is a bit bluntly put; perhaps it could be softened a bit. But I think we all agree with it, and I now ask you to take the floor on this matter. Before we move on to something else, we really want to come to a decision here. I believe that if we do this, we will really have a foundation on which society can grow and flourish again.

Harriet von Vacano: Asks everyone present to accept Mr. Steffen's proposal by acclamation and present the fact as a given. (It happens.)

Albert Steffen: The most pressing matter, of course, is how to get the building fund off the ground. Mr. Metaxa has already tackled this issue in England and will perhaps say a few words about it himself.

George Metaxa: Since Mr. Steffen has already read part of the minutes of the General Assembly that was recently held in London to you, perhaps I may just tell you now that the committee that was formed to discuss the matters of reconstruction was of the opinion that the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international matter in the fullest sense. Members in all countries should really feel that they can participate in this reconstruction even if they are not able to come here themselves. And as you know, only very few are able to do so. Therefore, a proposal was made, approved by Dr. Steiner, and I am authorized to officially announce it to you. It is that we would like to call an international assembly of delegates here at the end of July, at which members from all countries would be represented. Then the matter of raising funds for the reconstruction could truly become an international affair, and all anthroposophical forces could be utilized for it. There could then perhaps also be other matters to discuss, so that the full strength of the anthroposophical movement could really be made available there too. If this proposal for an international assembly of delegates is officially accepted here by the Swiss Society, then the date could be announced. Details could perhaps be discussed with Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: Such a proposal can of course only be most warmly welcomed by our Swiss Society.

Emanuel van Leer: My dear friends, at the last meeting I already had to talk about the financial situation at the Goetheanum. The intention was to start a major campaign immediately to raise the funds, 2 to 3 million francs. In the meantime, I have had the opportunity to get to know the strong initiative in Switzerland that Dr. Wegman had introduced. I have also been to England, and it seems to me that it is not possible to rush into something, but to do something very carefully. I do not want to use the general word “programme”, but I would like to say, as Mr. Metaxa suggested, that an international assembly of delegates should take place at the end of July. We can set it for July 22 or 29. The most important thing today and in the next few days is to communicate exactly what is being done and what is intended here, that certain plans be specified and that the various countries then discuss all the various issues in their own country and that the delegates who are really delegates come together, not that it works like in Stuttgart. You went there and perhaps first had to hear: What do the people in Stuttgart actually want? There was a chaotic mass of ideas and the delegates were often not authorized to say anything binding when it came to something. If we discussed it earlier, this and that could be done, then the delegates went to their countries, but the results were rather weak. We should now try the opposite. We should give people four weeks to think up their ideas, so that the countries come up with their various proposals. It is of course right for Switzerland to ask Dr. Steiner to build up. But as Mr. Metaxa said: It depends on the international. If we get the call from everywhere and the delegates come, we will be seen as one big body. Ideas are as cheap as blackberries. It is important to stick with them. For example, our British friends stand by their ideas. I must say that in some respects the British proposals seem more pleasant and more congenial to me than our Swiss ones, for the reason that up to now all the proposals have always come from Switzerland. In England, the attitude is: we want to do it together, but we also want to have a say in it. — The form in which this is done can still be discussed, but the important thing is to make it international. I am convinced that Mr. Steffen did not mean it to be Swiss. But so far everything has been done from Switzerland. The English believe that if they get behind the cause, it would be good. I would like to suggest that if these proposals seem acceptable, we will send out an appeal or a program or whatever you want to call such a paper in the next few days, stating that we will hold an international assembly and specifying exactly what is wanted here, so that the various groups in the different countries appoint their delegates, who also know what they want. It is not factual to say: those who are currently in Dornach are our delegates. If all countries send their delegates, I believe that only then will the results of today's meeting come out.

Albert Steffen: It is quite natural that the structure is an international affair. I just wanted to express what seems necessary to me in our Swiss Society, and we, the branches of the Swiss Society, the branch leaders have met and they have unanimously agreed to work towards raising a building fund. I think we can never do too much in this regard, if we make an effort, so to speak. This will in no way affect the international aspect, it can only inspire it. I think it should be the case that delegates from the various countries should now come together in the next few days, because they are here after all, and consult with each other, and that we might have the pleasure of having Dr. Steiner with us, who alone can give us the right advice. We don't want to interfere with his work in such matters. So my suggestion would be that we, the various friends from abroad who are here, gather separately – because such things cannot be discussed in sufficient detail in the plenary session – under the chairmanship of Dr. Steiner.

Wilhelm Nedella: Dear friends! I am allowed to say a few words, not only on behalf of those friends from America who cannot be with us today and whose names do not appear among those listed by Mr. Steffen, especially those of the St. Michael Group in Chicago. When the painful news of the destruction of the Goetheanum reached us and we had recovered somewhat from the heavy blow, the unanimous wish was: will we be able to have a Goetheanum again? Impossible without Goetheanum! This wish was intensified by the last general assembly. (A letter from the St. Michael Group to Dr. Steiner is read out.) ^{1This letter is not available.} These words apply from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. There is a definite layer in America that is sincerely seeking a spirituality, that is listening to what is coming from Dornach, and there is not only pain over the loss, but also a strong will to be able to work on the new creation of the Goetheanum, a new creation in a different material. We see the destruction of the Goetheanum as a challenge to our best efforts, a test of how serious our will is and how great our devotion to the work is, and we hope that we will be equal to this test in every respect. What comes from Switzerland is always seen in America as an inspiration, an encouragement. This is on behalf of all absent friends in America who cannot be here today.

Albert Steffen thanks Mr. Nedella for his words.

George Kaufmann: Dear friends! Regarding the matter that has just been discussed by Mr. van Leer and answered by Mr. Steffen, I would like to say from the English side that what we have proposed is not intended to interfere with this Swiss assembly, so to speak, not at the beginning of this assembly, and also not, as was expressed in rather strong terms by Mr. van Leer, that the initiative for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international one — not that this could be understood in any immodest sense, because according to the external facts we in England have no reason at all to be immodest in this sense, but it is really practical, with a view to the best results for the future. And we are convinced that if the new initiative for the reconstruction comes entirely from the International Anthroposophical Society, also in formal terms, it will have the best results for the financing and for the ongoing support of the building work, which would also be necessary in the years to come. If, for example, it were to happen that now, since, as it happens, these or those representatives, these or those members should I say, are present from different countries, these are consulted for discussions and then let these discussions be the final ones and sent the members back to their countries, who then report what has been decided, that is not quite the same as when the members come as authorized delegates from their countries. They might not receive an explicit answer, but an implicit one: But who authorized you to decide something like that? — And so we think that a delegate assembly, a real delegate assembly, would be a good thing. But it can only be determined from this discussion whether or not this is a practical proposal. Perhaps, among the international members here, the right agenda for the delegates' meeting and a practical call from Switzerland to the various countries could be sent out, based on the discussions that Mr. Steffen proposed. This will only make practical sense if this meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland now discusses further what Mr. Steffen has suggested. When the General Assembly was in England two weeks ago, the report from the last General Assembly was presented here, but not yet the knowledge of the very gratifying action initiated by Dr. Wegman. It would be very nice if the decision and the taking up of the work and also the bearing of responsibility on the part of the friends in the various countries really emerged and the societies in the various countries know that they have taken it upon themselves, that they then bear the responsibility through their own will. Letters should be sent to all branches; the feeling is that contact should be established in a modest but friendly way between anthroposophists in all countries, as it could perhaps come about in a practical way on this occasion of the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Albert Steffen replied to George Kaufmann's words that we are indeed dependent on the help of the foreign branches and societies and that such a meeting of delegates is therefore really the most necessary thing. As proposed by Kaufmann and van Leer, this meeting could take place on July 22.

There are other matters that need to be discussed, but I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to say a few words about the structure of the Goetheanum.

Dr. Steiner: I myself have nothing to add to what you have said. I would just like to say this: if this meeting of delegates from different countries comes about, I do not want to chair it, I just want to be there, but I want the chair to be taken by someone else.

Albert Steffen: I would like to suggest that the chair should be taken by Mr. van Leer or Mr. Metaxa or Mr. Kaufmann or whoever you decide on at the time. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?

Willy Storrer: Mr. Kaufmann said very nicely that the proposals of our foreign friends cannot prevent us from expressing our will and taking a stand on the reconstruction. In other countries, practical discussions have also taken place about the fact that there is no longer a Goetheanum and that a Goetheanum must be rebuilt. Anthroposophy contains world forces and not philistine forces. I think we can express our will today in general and in specific details. This has already been done to some extent by the resolution that Mr. Steffen read out, and then by the initiative of Dr. Wegman and various others, for example Dr. Wachsmuth and Mr. Pfeiffer in Dornach and Mr. Knopfli in St. Gallen, who are working in this field. I would like to make a motion that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society as a whole should try to pay a contribution of one thousand francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for each of its registered members within a year. This would make a contribution of 700,000 francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for the Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Mr. Koller: What I wanted to say has now been partly said by Mr. Storrer. My suggestion would be that despite all that has been said, we can still declare our agreement, which is expressed in the resolution. Since we are all present, whether it is internal now or serves as a basis for inviting international delegates, we can now confirm by show of hands that we agree with what has been written in the resolution.

Mr. Steffen: Yes, is anyone not in agreement? Let them raise their hand. I believe we can consider this point settled for the time being. I would now like to give Dr. Blümel the floor to report on what we discussed yesterday at the delegates' meeting.

Dr. Ernst Blümel: He reported on the meeting that took place yesterday afternoon at 3:00 p.m., in which the question of rebuilding the Goetheanum was the first item on the agenda, and in which the resolution that was read was essentially formulated. Then the actual internal affairs of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society were discussed. Various voices were raised that the way the internal administration of the Society is organized, and indeed the whole internal structure of the Society, as it exists here at the moment, is not up to the demands that will increasingly arise. In particular, certain possibilities for reorganizing the office at the Goetheanum were considered, so that a clearer relationship with the branches and the council, which represents the Anthroposophical Society, must be tackled. Mr. Storrer then resigned as managing director at the Goetheanum. A provisional decision was taken to the effect that until this question of the office is definitively settled, the current officeholder will continue to be commissioned until this matter is resolved at the next conference of delegates. In connection with these questions, it was then natural that the financial side of anthroposophical affairs should also be addressed, since what is currently going on in this direction is quite unable to meet the demands. A proposal was then made as to how certain tasks could be set for the Society and how much the Society would need in order to fulfill those tasks, which are initially of a purely social nature. It turned out – and these proposals were then adopted in plenary – that it would be necessary to finance the purely administrative side in such a way that it could really count on a fixed subsidy in the appropriate manner, so that these difficulties would not arise again and again, and that something like a sum of 6,000 francs a year would be needed, partly for administrative purposes and partly for a certain contact between the office and the various branches. For library support, 2,000 francs; for the creation of something similar to a reserve fund for sick and disabled care – something similar would also be tackled – about 2,000 francs. And then perhaps, which could be one of the most pressing tasks, to actively promote the payment of contributions in Switzerland. Now it is 12,000 to 13,000 francs a year. On the other hand, the current membership fee that is paid in is actually only so much on average, so it is only 7,000 to 8,000 francs a year. The necessity for an increase in membership fees arises from this. It has become apparent that it was not possible to raise the actually necessary membership fee of CHF 20 per member, which is to be paid to the headquarters. One can only demand CHF 10 from the members. It would be good to also get the opinion of those gathered here. It has been suggested that a consortium or committee appointed by the association should maintain close contact with the headquarters here, which would manage this committee, so that it would take responsibility for the finances. So that what may be a small seed here will have the opportunity to become a strong plant. And if our society were to set a good example, perhaps the other societies would also make a certain contribution. Funds are needed for the reorganization as a foundation, but the most necessary funds are not available for this.

Edgar Dürler: Mr. Steffen has given me a suggestion, namely to report on my impressions as a Swiss in New Zealand. It is very remote from Europe, but there are good seeds for anthroposophy there. An anthroposophical group or section has been formed there that wants to join the general anthroposophical society. Mr. Crompton-Smith has led the work there, along with a few others. He has been in New Zealand for two years and in Paris for a year. He very much regrets not having known, for example, that Mr. Collison had traveled to New Zealand and given lectures there to a small group. They had had no support so far at the Swiss headquarters, which is why he had to miss the opportunity to hear Mr. Collison there. Mr. Dürler emphasizes the necessity of an international society, which is absolutely necessary, and says that it can only be welcomed when an international center of the Anthroposophical Society is created.

Albert Steffen: This is, of course, a point that must also be discussed, which has become urgently necessary in recent times; but now we must remain on the point at which we are, with the things that Dr. Blümel has suggested.

Willi Aeppli: Hopes that this financial matter will be settled very quickly: the contribution must be increased; it is impossible to finance anything with Fr. 3.50; it is easier to do something with Fr. 7. And if we have further plans, such as a library and financing of the school system, the contribution will later have to be 10 francs and possibly increased again. Perhaps some of you would like to comment on this?

Albert Steffen: I have just been asked to say that in this case a consortium would be formed, on the one hand, from the working committee at the Goetheanum and, on the other hand, from representatives of the branches in Bern, Basel, Zurich, St. Gallen and Olten. They would each have a representative in this consortium, so that the Society would really be represented peripherally and would take on a certain responsibility in the regulation of financial matters.

Willy Storrer: I would like the individual members to pay 20 francs instead of 15 francs a year, or to give 20-30 francs of it now and have the individual members pay 20 francs, so that the groups do not miss out.

A gentleman, not recorded by name, proposes that the groups should charge 25 francs.

Both proposals are accepted, both that for the branch members an increase of Fr. 5 to Fr. 10 occurs, and the second that for the individual members who are not connected to branches, a total of Fr. 25 is to be paid to the central location.

Albert Steffen: There is still a question to be answered as to how it should be in 1923, because neither the individual members nor the branches paid an amount.

Karl Keller: It is not possible to do it retroactively; it has to be determined from July 1.

Willy Storrer: With regard to the Basel branch, he proposes: retroactively to January 1.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Supports the Keller proposal.

Albert Steffen: Is actually also in favor of the Storrer proposal... It seems to me that Mr. Storrer has won.

Dr. Blümel: If the branches do not receive this money from their members, then perhaps they could be introduced to receive the full amount. They simply received what was paid in, not what the members should contribute.

Willy Storrer: Is of the opinion that the representatives cannot decide practically on their own; they have to go back to their members and ask what can be guaranteed; whether they can pay for the contribution of all members. There is actually only one large branch in Switzerland: 650 branch and 50 individual members. He believes that if individual personalities are available to do so, they can make up the difference for the members who cannot pay [so this would be the best].

The assembly agrees with this proposal.

We are here as the General Assembly and have a quorum. We have voted on this and it has been adopted. It is simply a matter of courtesy that the money be received. How we deal with members who are unable to pay is our business, not that of the General Assembly.

Dr. Blümel: There must be contact with the head office. Perhaps voluntary donations and so on should also be obtained for the society. One can also look in other directions.

Dr. Steiner: I really do not have a say in these matters, but I would like to add a small comment. As I already had the opportunity to mention at the last general assembly here in April, the establishment of the individual national societies is currently underway. I said that this must be the goal. Isn't it true that the German Anthroposophical Society was established by carving itself out of the general world society? The Norwegian Anthroposophical Society was established during my last visit to Norway. The Swedish Anthroposophical Society has existed for as long as the Anthroposophical Society has existed. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists here. And so, with due regard to the fact that proper administration can be established in small areas, these national societies will form. But it will be a matter of course that once a sufficient number of these national societies have been formed, they will have to join together to form the unified, international society, with its center in Dornach. This has not yet happened, but it must grow, so to speak, with the idea of rebuilding the Goetheanum and the like.

So, we have to think today about the fact that in a relatively short time, the individual national societies will again merge into an international society based in Dornach, and that the international center in Dornach will also have very important work to do, namely, precisely such work that, for example, if someone is in New Zealand and wants to know whether someone can be met there and the like... [gap in the protocol].

And even if not in a detailed way, it will still be necessary for the individual national societies to make contributions – however modest – to the international center, so that it can function once it is in place. This is something that has to be deferred, but it has to be thought of, as do the other things. For it is connected with the living conditions that such an international Anthroposophical Society be created here in Dornach as soon as the individual national societies have been established in an appropriate way.

Albert Steffen: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner for these remarks. They actually form the framework for our work so that we can really take up Dr. Steiner's work properly. Our idea — I think it is the idea of all of us who understand the work here correctly — is that we have to make something out of Dornach like a new Weimar. And we want the Anthroposophical Society to have the same kind of relationship with Dornach that Grand Duke Karl August had with Goethe. In other words, the Anthroposophical Society should enable Dr. Steiner to spread his impulses throughout the world. I would say that the Society is the only organization that has a real chance of lasting today. We see how today's communities are collapsing one after the other. We see it in socialism, in Bolshevism, how it really leads to murderous catastrophes. But on the other hand, we also see how religious communities take away people's freedom. Here in anthroposophy, there really is the possibility for everyone to be a person who can have an interest in society out of freedom. And if we really bring about such an organization, then we have actually achieved the ideal.

But now, I believe, there are still matters to be dealt with that concern us in Switzerland.

I would like to ask: Who would like to take the floor regarding what Dr. Blümel said? — namely, regarding the matters we discussed at the delegates' meeting yesterday and which Dr. Blümel read out in the summary?

If that is not the case, then we will have to postpone these matters for about four weeks, where they will be discussed again at a meeting of delegates. I believe that this is the will of the assembly.

Dr. Blümel asks whether this assembly is actually supposed to be the last one in these days.

Albert Steffen: If those gathered have something to report, then of course it is not the last. I hope it is the first of many. There are so many matters in the Society that really need to be discussed. I would like to say, for example, the matter of the enemies -- I have to run the “Goetheanum”, the magazine; but I stand there all alone. I really need to be supported by our friends so that I can write certain things; they should report to me about it. So far, this has been the case to a very small extent. The only ones who have kept me up to date have been Dr. Stein in Stuttgart and Dr. Hugentobler here in Switzerland. Through him, for example, I know exactly the hostile mood that prevails in certain editorial offices in Zurich. And through others, for example from Bern, I am also quite well informed about what is going on in the circles of pastors. For example, reports from pastors' meetings are brought to me, which I may not be able to use directly, but I still get an impression of what is going on in Switzerland. But this should be done from all sides. When meetings take place in Zurich, Bern or Geneva, some of our members should really go and write down what is going on there so that I can act on it. For example, there was a recent lecture in Zurich at a linguistic society about Professor Beckh's small brochure on speech sounds and so on. One of our members should have been there. It was a very important discussion among the linguists. Professor Beckh was presented as an important phenomenon, but he was also rejected. It would have been good to have a presentation here that had not been passed through the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” and that would have been more objective. But that is how many things are. I don't think any of you are really familiar with the excellent organization of the enemies. A year ago in Berlin, a conference of “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” was held, based on the work of our former member, if one can call it that, Dr. Goesch, and on the lectures of private lecturer Dr. Leisegang [see $. 795]. I cannot read this to you in full. But I would like to read to you what these people decided at the end about how to fight anthroposophy. ... [The protocol is very sketchy here, as a lot is quoted, not only about this Berlin conference, but also in relation to other cases.]

Dr. Steiner: Even at the risk of repeating myself, I would still like to say a few words. And I will now really have to touch on some things that I already said at the general assembly in April.

I would like to take up what our dear Mr. Steffen said about the association - because that is what it must be called - of non-anthroposophical connoisseurs of anthroposophy. What is behind it and how things are run was probably clear to you from Mr. Steffen's words. But I would like to tie in with the fact that these people are indeed able to work and organize themselves so well. And so the organization emerged from this society for lecturers, who are now sent around and who, at the individual locations that are considered appropriate, put forward the things with which they are appropriately equipped. A directory has been produced by this organization listing everything that the people concerned have to say in the individual places. And now, on a large scale, I might say, in all the areas to which these people have access, the program developed by this center is being put forward. I ask you to accept this as a fact for the time being and again as proof of how extraordinarily well our opponents understand organization.

Now, I have often emphasized this, especially at the last delegates' meeting ^{on April 22nd.}

Therefore, a clear distinction should be made – this is what I said at the last delegates' meeting – between the content of the opponents' objections, so to speak, and the content of our reply. In this respect, anthroposophy will go its way. This should be clearly distinguished from something else. You see, if opponents had emerged over the last two decades and only raised factual objections to anthroposophy, these opponents would have achieved nothing. They would have achieved nothing at all if they had only raised factual objections. But they know that and that is why they make factual objections, well, one or the other – depending on the case – more or less dishonestly. But that is not the point in the question of opponents; they invent untruths, they lie; and we must make a sharp distinction between what they object to, so to speak, factually, and what is simply a lie. We have often had occasion to become acquainted with the capital lies invented by our opponents. How often has the Frohnmeyersche lie not appeared, about Christ having ideal features above and animal features below, and the like. So these lies as big as your fist, they have to be faced, because it is through them that the opponents achieve something, and that is because people believe the matter. And as long as we do not have the courage to really face the mendacity of a very, very large and ever-increasing opposition, to face the mendacity, we will achieve nothing. And I would say that in many cases the courage to do so is lacking. People shrink from saying to this or that person who is in a certain position and is not really allowed to lie, but who does lie, “You lied, it is not true; you are just lying, you are not telling the truth.” As long as we do not face this, nothing will be achieved in the whole question of opponents. We must have the courage to face up to the eminently immoral behavior that has allowed the opponents to achieve their great successes.

But you see, I would also like to cite evidence for what I have just said. Summarizing what I have said, I would like to say: Anthroposophy has within itself the potential to spread and penetrate human hearts. What harms it are the lies of its opponents, not the refutations. And I would like to prove this to you, again with reference to that association of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy. You see, they now have their speakers. One of them – I believe his name is Schweitzer – gave a lecture in Hamburg to a large audience, in which he listed all the untruths. Now, when you are listening to such a lecture, you have to distinguish between the two things I emphasized: the inner power of anthroposophy and the power that the opponents have because they lie.

Now, the proof of the inner strength of anthroposophy was the next consequence of the fact that this emissary of the non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy gave a lecture in Hamburg – the opponents did not come, because, as you know, they are not interested in talking back and forth, but in slandering; so the opponents did not come, of course — and it turned out that the lecture was a real success — not Mr. Werbeck's lecture, which was only a defensive lecture and was very good, and must be greeted with extraordinary gratitude, but Mr. Schweitzer's lecture, and that was insofar as 200 people have registered who now want to hear something directly about anthroposophy, because they want to hear the other side of something that is being attacked in such a cynical and frivolous way. And these 200 people who have come forward are serious people who will probably take it very seriously. So there you have the inner strength of anthroposophy. Schweitzer's lecture in Hamburg has made 200 people aware that it is actually time to hear something about anthroposophy. So we don't need to be concerned about the clout of anthroposophy, my dear friends. But we have to get beyond the fact that our water is being cut off every day by dishonesty, untruthfulness and slander. And this requires more courage than to present oneself and refute the opponents of anthroposophy, to say something of what one knows but which the other does not know because he does not understand it after all. But to prove to people that they are telling untruths is something that must first be learned in the Anthroposophical Society, because people shy away from it. They think: You can't! He is a pastor or a professor, after all; you can't tell such a person that he has lied, that's not done!

You see, we have to face this squarely and find ways of dealing with it. It is really the case that the empty principle of internationality must take hold there as well. You see, in Switzerland it is already possible, if you have the courage, to tell someone in a very tangible way that they have lied. But in England, for example, you could not say it in the same way, because there it is much more frowned upon to tell someone whom science believes cannot do it to say that he has told an untruth. We must learn to handle such matters everywhere. But it is absolutely necessary to draw attention to this again and again, otherwise you will experience that Anthroposophy will spread... [gap].

At the same meeting [of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy in Berlin], Dr. Jeremias, who lectures at the university as a private lecturer, even made the comment: What we like about anthroposophy, what we find in it, what we can use, we want to take. But we want to wipe out Steiner and the Anthroposophical Society. That is more or less how it is stated in the report. This Dr. Jeremias is a special character, isn't he? He threw himself at the Anthroposophical Society and at me in a grotesque way, in a manner that one here in Central Europe calls “throwing oneself at someone”. He once got permission to attend a more intimate lecture. And when there was a eurythmy performance in Berlin, he came to me on stage, asked to be introduced to Dr. Steiner in the box as well, and so on. In short, he attached himself in an outrageous way in order to make the impression: You can have some of this. But afterwards he will spread it in a [different] institution. You see, there are people who would prefer me to be dead and the Anthroposophical Society to have scattered to the four winds long ago, so that they could take what they want from our books and put it into theirs. Because they are not interested in refuting the subject at all, only in what I have characterized for you.

If you, my dear friends, do not take this into account, if you continue to believe that opponents can be refuted anthroposophically, that mere anthroposophical refutations will suffice, then you are undermining the possibility of pursuing anthroposophy in a progressive way — so that not only the books are exploited —. Of course, you are also destroying the Anthroposophical Society.

You see, it is true: anthroposophy is very useful for opponents. When Mr. Werbeck, who is indeed writing a very witty book about the opponents, looked through the opponents' literature, he came across some strange things. Among all the rather stupid things that are said, he also found some very good counter-remarks, some very good objections to anthroposophy. But the style of these was somewhat different from those of those who always say that I have a bad style because they naturally want the good one. So they had a different style. He looked into the matter and now found that these objections had been copied from my own books. As you know, for years I have followed the practice of stating the possible objections myself at the relevant points. So it is easy for opponents to copy my own counter-remarks and counter-objections from my books if they want. Consider the logical implications of this: if they want to quote something they believe they can ridicule, then they quote “Occult Science”, page so-and-so-many, cycle so-and-so - because the cycles have long since been published by the opponents. But when they raise the objections that I put forward as an example, they do not quote me; they present them as their own views. Yes, that has become a method in a number of opponents' writings. What inner hypocrisy lies in the opponents' entire fight against anthroposophy! For us, it is important to be aware of this and to know how to behave in this world, to have the courage to act accordingly. I have to keep emphasizing this.

Please forgive me, I am terrible at this, always having to repeat myself. But I really want to emphasize this to you, because you always hear from some people, very good-naturedly, that they say: Yes, everyone can have their own opinion. Of course, but one's own opinion must not go so far as to lie, because that happens in a way that is very familiar to opponents.

So that is what confronts one, I would say, with primeval significance, that it is said in a good-natured way: Yes, the anthroposophists do not need to complain that other people have different opinions. Of course we must not give the impression that other people should not have different opinions; but we must insist with all our might that lies must not be told about us and that we wish to defend ourselves against them. That is what I would like to say again today, even though I have already said it many times.

Willi Aeppli: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen for enlightening us about this question of opponents. Because, to be honest, we are extremely harmless and naive! I believe that we have been convinced that we must be more attentive and work harder on this point, and above all, that we must actually support Mr. Steffen in this exhausting struggle. Mr. Steffen has already revealed the possibilities for us to inform him about the opponents' methods and, secondly, to work as hard as we can to familiarize ourselves with them. It seems to me that the opponents' method of fighting has changed somewhat. For example, Dr. Stein mentioned the Frohnmeyer pamphlet. This pamphlet was written with a sinfulness and carelessness, with a falsehood that, coming from a man who comes from the circles we know, is truly astonishing. But he has also made a fool of himself with this writing. His intellectual heirs are well aware of this. One might think that this would be the end of his pamphlet. One might think that one lesson could be learned from it and that one should hold back. But that is not the case. Frohnmeyer's pamphlet will be published again in the next few days: revised, expanded, supplemented. Prof. Heinzelmann in Basel, who was asked if he would do the reworking, declined after a moment's reflection; I don't think it was because he was put off by the untruthfulness, but because as an academic, as a university professor, he was afraid. So an Indian missionary, a pastor in Zurich [Alfred Blum-Ernst], took on the task. I must now note: Frohnmeyer has not read the writings of Dr. Steiner at all; the editor, he has read them, and indeed both the public ones: “Philosophy of Freedom”, “Riddle of Philosophy”, “Theosophy” as well as the cycles. This cycle question is a difficult question! He has read 32 cycles – not just 31, but 32 – and from these he has gained his knowledge of anthroposophy. From these public writings and these cycles, he has now formed a tool with which to give anthroposophy another push. The purpose of this book is to bring the circles of the Basel Mission, etc. to a final judgment of anthroposophy, to impose a judgment on it. So the fact is that a writing that has been presented as untrue by the anthroposophical side, that it has been reworked and is appearing a second time, and that the untruthfulness, the mendacity, is continuing. This is an example of the psychology of the opposition.

Miss Simons, Mulhouse in Alsace: In Berlin we were previously affiliated to an organization. Since the peace agreement, the matter has been left hanging in the air. I would now like to ask whether we should join together with France or whether we Alsatians – I can only speak for Mulhouse, not for all Alsatians – can join here in Dornach? It would be easier for us to hear Dr. Steiner here in Dornach than to have to wait a long time for Dr. Steiner to come to Paris. The beautiful work in Alsace is lying fallow. We can only harm the cause if we join in Paris; besides, nothing has happened in Paris yet. I would be very grateful if these matters could be discussed, since Miss Sauerwein is here.

Emanuel van Leer: Perhaps it would be possible to talk about the task that Miss Sauerwein has taken on, whether she feels supported by Kolmar, Strasbourg, Mulhouse? If you say: You want to hear Dr. Steiner here – so what? You can go to Dornach every week! – The things are in preparation. Dr. Steiner will be in England in August and was in Scandinavia last month. It will be carried out in such a way that there will be a French Society. So just support Miss Sauerwein in her efforts.

Miss Sauerwein wants to meet with the friends concerned to discuss the matter.

Albert Steffen: The question now is whether the meeting should continue this afternoon, because I fear that many people will no longer be here tomorrow. If there really are people here who want to continue talking, which I very much hope, then they should speak up. Or is there no one left who has anything to say? — As for myself, I would like to continue the meeting.

George Kaufmann: I am not quite sure whether this assembly of delegates, which we have requested, is accepted from here! The invitation would have to come from here and so on, all that would have to be determined. If it is the will of this assembly that this be done, for example, through the working committee here, before -

Interjection: It will happen!

Albert Steffen: In my opinion that has already been settled. I believe we have decided that after all? My view was that we might talk about it afterwards, but in principle the matter is self-evident.

The meeting is adjourned. It will be continued this afternoon at 2:30.

Afternoon, 2:30, continuation

Albert Steffen: Dear attendees, we don't have much longer to continue the discussion, because at 4 o'clock the hall has to be cleared for the eurythmy performance; so let's jump right into the matter at hand. Dr. Blümel would like to talk about school matters.

Dr. Blümel: Please report on the plans that are in place to ensure that the school movement in Switzerland can grow in size and understanding.

Albert Steffen: Dr. Schmiedel will perhaps say something about the clinic?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I am not very good at talking about the clinic; maybe someone else wants to do it?

Albert Steffen: Miss Vreede has now come forward for the library report.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Dear friends, I can only say a few words. The library came into being at the time when our old Goetheanum was being built, and was originally intended to bring together some reading material for the carpenters and workers on the building site. It was created from donations and was later systematically expanded, as far as limited funds allowed, by Miss Hanna Günther, who is unfortunately very ill. It contains works from the time of the idealists, especially Goetheanists, that she collected, and the very writings that Dr. Steiner referred to as significant in his lectures.

As for the library's external situation, once it had reached a certain size – it did not arise from external initiatives but from a private initiative – it was, in a sense, transferred to the Goetheanum Association by mutual agreement, with the branch at the Goetheanum being responsible for it. Since this situation has existed, since last October or November, the branch at the Goetheanum has contributed 50 francs a month to this library, which is a tiny sum for new acquisitions, because the other work has been done voluntarily. Hopefully, an opportunity will arise to develop this library on a larger scale. If the whole Anthroposophical Society were to take an interest in this library, it would be very good. But it could also be used in a much larger circle. And perhaps there will be an opportunity to take a look at it during the week. It would, of course, be very gratifying if the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland were to help here. The branch at the Goetheanum has just taken on the obligation, but is happy to share it with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Ita Wegman is asked if she would speak about the clinic. She says that she is not a speaker, but rather a woman of action.

Albert Steffen: An argument that cannot really be refuted. Will Dr. Schmiedel perhaps say something about it after all?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I do not think I need say very much about the clinic, because everyone is aware of what Dr. Wegman did there. Many of you are already very grateful to her for your healing. I would like to give more information about the work in the laboratories. In general, not very much seems to be known about the laboratories. I do believe that it is very important for society to take more interest in these laboratories and the efforts associated with them. One of the laboratories' most important and central tasks is to make the impulses given by Dr. Steiner in the medical and therapeutic fields fruitful for a larger number of people, to make them more and more useful to the general public. If a pharmaceutical industry, laboratories, is to be brought into the world, one has to struggle with great obstacles in the external field. The pharmaceutical market is overcrowded. For us, the difficulty is even greater. Not only do we have to deal with this overabundance, but we also want to take a completely different path than conventional pharmaceutical science, namely to initiate a new therapy. On the other hand, there is the difficulty that all these endeavors are met with a certain animosity. So we are in a much more difficult position in the world than everyone else. It's all happening gradually.

But we can now look to the future with increasing hope and confidence if a number of doctors decide to use our preparations, which in and of themselves already do the advertising and speak for themselves. Recently, we have been trying to promote the hay fever remedy to doctors more actively. To this end, a special report on the cases collected to date was prepared with the assistance of Dr. Knauer. This article has been sent to a large number of Swiss doctors, and there is great interest. Usually, when such things go out, we get 2-3% inquiries; this time we had four times as many inquiries as usual. Requests for samples were made. We have already received a number of orders and messages about how well the remedy works. From a report on the cantonal doctors' meeting about hay fever... [space in the post script].

This is how we will be able to gain more and more ground. You also know the name. We called ourselves “Internationale Laboratorien A. G.”. The name was chosen with the following in mind: we would establish sister societies in all countries, which would in turn form 'national societies' that also have their own production facilities and work very closely with us, so that the individual national societies then supply and process the countries. This idea is based on roughly the same principle as the way in which the Anthroposophical Society is to be organized: that you have separate societies, so to speak, but which in turn form a unity. So far we have institutions in the following countries: 1. in France (St. Louis near Basel), 2. in the Netherlands and 3. recently in England (London). The latest, as far as we know, will also be possible in the near future: that we establish our own branch, company, in America. The matter is not yet completely settled, but it seems to be fairly certain. For the time being, it has not yet reached the stage where all the preparations are produced there ourselves, but it is still the case that we manufacture the things, send them in concentrated form, and then they are further processed and bottled there. As a result, the countries are already familiar with our products.

You also know that we owe a whole series of preparations to the suggestions and impulses of Dr. Steiner and that we deliberately do not yet bring all preparations into the larger trade. It goes without saying that we make the products available to all doctors who request them. A good number of doctors work with our products all the time and send us their reports regularly. The products are in their original packaging. But the more products we want to send out, the more money we need. Financially, we don't have as much support as we would like. We already have remedies for influenza, hay fever, chronic migraines - not to mention narcotics such as phenozin, aspirin and so on. A remedy for seasickness and motion sickness in trains will be coming out soon, along with a treatment for the early stages of sclerosis, which is already in the pipeline. You are also aware that we have brought cosmetic products such as tooth water, mouth wash, hair tonic and toothpaste onto the market.

I must touch on one point that has somewhat disappointed us. We thought that when we sent out these things, we would have an echo from all sides of the Anthroposophical Society, that in a very short time, when it became known that we were sending out such preparations under the impulses and suggestions of Dr. Steiner, which most of you need every day after all, we would not be able to meet the demand! They did not know where to get the things, they said. We have therefore sent out a list of all the depots. We have been disappointed because, unfortunately, the number of enquiries was not particularly high either. We could have easily met the demand. I would like to kindly ask you to make our endeavors yours as well. On the one hand, you will be doing yourself the best service by being able and having to convince yourself that what we publish is truly unrivaled and superior to all other means available in the trade. For the remedies are quite different products, from the source from which they flow, and will be useful in quite a different way. Therefore, one should not only use them oneself, as far as is necessary and appropriate, but also send or recommend them to one's acquaintances, doctors and friends. For example, the experiences with the hay fever remedy are already very encouraging; many doctors outside our movement are already using it. And the migraine remedy is also working excellently in England. The first settlement in May was already beyond all expectations. We cannot currently do such propaganda as in England in Switzerland to this extent. But if you all help personally, the newspaper propaganda will also increase. It is distressing when opponents arise from within, from people who are not on the outside. In our circles, some of you will know, I must say, the most untrue, the most dishonest things are being spread about the laboratories, and individual personalities are being attacked in the most insulting way. But I would ask you to inform yourself to the extent that you have the ability to judge. From the outset, the things are completely dishonest, and if there is any truth in them, the facts are so twisted. Some of these elaborations – we cannot, of course, get into all these things – but there must be a protest from some quarter about individual ones. In particular, a letter contains malicious accusations that are completely untrue and dishonest. You can truly have confidence that we work out of the best conviction and that if you support us and things can continue as they appear to now, we are heading for a very gratifying future in the laboratories. All the net profit that comes from the laboratories will be able to flow back to all the endeavors that are rooted in the Anthroposophical Society. All the financial complaints that money is missing here and there, for the school movement for example, will have to disappear sooner or later, given that we have so much capital from our industry that we are able to support spiritual movements such as the school movement.

We often hear complaints that our products are a little expensive or at least as expensive as the most expensive products from our competitors, and whether it would be possible to supply the usual toothpaste and so on at least at the same price? The entire processing method for mouthwash, toothpaste and so on is such that it cannot be done any differently. I would ask you to trust us and not think that we are making excessive profits from this.

Albert Steffen gives Dr. Usteri the floor.

Dr. Alfred Usteri: I would like to raise an issue here that seems to me to require a certain amount of negotiation. I have repeatedly spoken with the workers here. Time and again, I have heard complaints about the construction management. I am not here to play the accuser. The accusations may be unfounded, but it is important that the workers who have to work for us are satisfied in every way. However, I have also pointed out that it would be right to take these complaints, not to me, but to the appropriate authority. They said: We are just in a position and have to risk something happening to us, that we will be disciplined. — I would like the workers who are present here to be allowed to present their complaints, if they have any. They should be allowed to present their complaints. You can always hear: Yes, Dr. Steiner, we like him; but we want absolutely nothing to do with the Society as such. — The same motive was guiding: they don't want to say anything because it could happen to them that they would lose their jobs. If complaints are to be directed against me personally, I am prepared to give an account.

Albert Steffen: Who would like to speak about this statement? I have never personally heard such complaints; I can't really say anything about them. At most, I can imagine that individual members suffer from a certain inability to be polite, even to workers. But I would like to ask that the complaints be stated. Yes - perhaps some who get along well with the workers will speak on this topic.

Mrs. Bollig: Perhaps I can offer a small explanation that would not be in any way offensive to anyone in the group. But it is like this: the socialist spirit that fills these people has a certain antipathy towards us, so that they did not even want to speak to the ladies when they met them. So it is not a fault of the Society, but lies with the workers. The members could be twice as amiable in order to smooth things over.

Albert Steffen: I fear that the fault lies with our members; for when the workers say that they can't get along with Dr. Steiner, it cannot be because of the world view. I believe there can be socialism that is anthroposophical. But these are things that you also hear from non-workers: when a stranger comes to Dornach, he notices that he is not greeted. The second stage is that he hears moralizing.

Mr. Kaufmann Jr., Basel: He is just a simple proletarian and cannot express himself as he should. But there is something that makes workers feel deep inside that there is still something like a class difference here. I feel that too, he said, but I have risen above this attitude, I can overcome it. But other workers really have it much harder. In the tram, for example: workers who work at the Goetheanum have already complained – I have also heard complaints about the construction management, which people have exchanged among themselves and railed against. For example, I have heard the name Schleutermann and Aisenpreis. I met them often on the tram; they say: They can preach morals, but they do nothing in fact. — It is good to build a Goetheanum, but we did not eat with it — — The class difference is very strongly felt, so that it comes to the fore that one is just a despised proletarian. Especially those who have the money act very arrogantly, and that is felt. For example, the workers who live in Basel associate with many workers in Basel and bring these things to their colleagues. We have a tremendously difficult time with the socialist impulses in the “key points”; it is said: That is done with for us, they cannot bring us anything. — All sorts of complaints come through Schleutermann -

Albert Steffen: Does anyone wish to speak on this subject? You see, it would also have to be borne in mind that it is in the Swiss character to be coarse; but that when he is coarse, he does not mean everything so terribly seriously. I have heard a great deal of good about Mr. Aisenpreis, for example, here in the area, I must say, especially from the farmers. I have not heard anything bad about Mr. Schleutermann. But I would like to come back to one thing, namely the tram that goes from here to Basel. We have actually heard about conversations that take place in it. It may have been a year ago, there was a German in it, talking to a Swiss and saying: Yes, there is nothing here, it has to be organized quite differently in Switzerland! - and more of that kind of thing. And the people sitting in the tram naturally became angry. And when such angry people read the Kully paper, yes, then these statements, the lies of Kully, fall on fertile ground. That is quite natural, and it is then very difficult to eradicate. It might be wise not to speak in this way in the tram.

Mr. (name not noted): This topic, which has been touched on here, is an everyday one and seems to exist just as much here in Dornach among anthroposophists as on other construction sites. I myself am a construction expert and was in a leading position on construction sites for 35 years — you can never please everyone! I have had a lot of experience in this regard. You really have to be a very solid, I don't know how to put it, person to find your way around and to maneuver between the workers and the employers to do the right thing by both of these extremes. I have heard the name Aisenpreis; he is the foreman here at this construction site. You all know what it's like: the foreman is the first to be criticized. You have to take things as they are. People imagine that when they work here, they should be treated somewhat more socially than by other employers, who simply look at their profit. On the other hand, you also have to consider: the person who supervises the construction here also has a certain responsibility towards society. This must also be kept in mind. Society is always dependent on outside help; the members must constantly be begged, as we say in Switzerland, so that people are very much in demand to raise the funds to build again. We are also there to do our honest work, not only to get our wages, but also to do productive work. And if a superior should say something that hurts you, you have to remember: the man has a lot to live up to that other workers might not take on; he can't just stop working when the bell rings, that's when his work really begins. There should be mutual understanding on both sides and care should be taken to ensure that things are not needlessly made more expensive. But these are local matters; they should not really be discussed in a general assembly. Perhaps they could be discussed in a building meeting.

Albert Steffen: They are certainly local matters, but there is an important core to them, namely something that affects community life. If you have the right inner anthroposophical disposition, you will actually get along well with a worker, I think even better than with any other person.

(name not noted): I agree. In the Bern Lecture, given ^{on 36 April 1923, in CW 224.}, the doctor spoke a great deal about universal love; this should be seen in practice. It should be possible to achieve a better mutual understanding, and we should learn to understand each other better.

Dr. Steiner: I don't want to say much, but it seems to me that there is something underlying the matter. That seemed to me to emerge from various things. Anyone who is familiar with life knows that some of the things that have been criticized here do happen everywhere, and rightly so. But when we had the Annual General Meeting here in April, well, it seemed to us as if this Annual General Meeting had not been fully concluded. Mr. Steffen, in particular, felt that it had not been fully concluded, and he felt the need for a continuation. Not, he said to me at the time, but the continuation would then have to be combined with a lecture cycle. And then I thought about what topic it should be, and he said that perhaps a kind of anthroposophical etiquette for dealing with anthroposophists could be the topic. (Laughter) Well, that seemed to me to point to a certain feeling, and then, don't you think, all sorts of ideas come to mind. It's really true that if I were to present you with the voices that come to me from all the most diverse sides, one by one, you would be able to become a statistician, so many come from all sides. Well, they can be summarized because one remark is heard everywhere: Yes, anthroposophy, that would be quite nice, but we are not joining the Society. And when one then asks: Yes, why not? Then it is said: Well, this Society lacks philanthropy; and the people who are inside are so strangely arrogant.

Well, as you have seen, I changed the subject for the simple reason that I did not want to sin against what is expected of me with this topic. If one wanted to talk about an “anthroposophical etiquette”, one would immediately sin against it, because it is decidedly a kind of rudeness. But isn't it, from the outside it comes so often. I once heard the saying: “Politeness is an ornament, but you get further without it.” This is very often applied to anthroposophists. Recently, in a lecture ^{4Dornach, February 16, 1923, in GA 221.}, I spoke about various personalities and how they understood moral principles. I also mentioned a personality who included politeness among the virtues. I listed the virtues that this personality had mentioned, and that included politeness. And then it occurred to me that the audience found it so amusing that politeness should be a virtue. Of course nothing was said, but it was sensed; one knows how the audience feels. It was so striking for the audience: politeness should be a virtue. And, I certainly do not want to be impolite myself, but I would like to point out that this arises from all kinds of sectarian tendencies and from the fact that many members are only concerned with themselves, that there is little interest, natural interest in other people.

Of course, there are many theories of philanthropy and helpfulness, and in an emergency they are indeed there in reality. But on the one hand there is the general view of general philanthropy – and then: well, in an emergency it is there, this philanthropy, of course – but now something is in between. And unfortunately, everyday life also comes between us, and then human love is reduced to mutual accommodation. And there, there you sometimes see – when you pass by, how an anthroposophist encounters a non-anthroposophist - something that you then have to add to such an assertion, that people tell you: Yes, we cannot join when we look at the members. — And that happens in all sorts of ways. There is something inherent in the matter, which, if it were discussed now — I don't want to discuss it myself, but if people were to talk about it honestly, — much would come out, why the Anthroposophical Society remains so closed in many respects. The reasons for this seclusion lie in the fact that it is so difficult to find the generally human tone that lies beyond everything. Whether he is a grand duke or a laborer, he is a human being, and this universal humanity, this completely unbiased encounter, even without theory, is of course something that is not felt to any great extent.

So, there are real things underlying the complaints. And I don't think Mr. Steffen would have made this suggestion to me without a real underlying feeling: I am supposed to write an “anthroposophical etiquette guide” in front of you for eight days. Of course I will not do it out of a sense of etiquette. But I think it points to all sorts of things, and you can also recognize something symptomatic in it.

Albert Steffen: Does anyone else want to speak?

A lady: Since Mr. Steffen has already pointed out the need for politeness, I would like to say, since I am allowed to come here: You walk into the hall in the evening, happy and grateful to be here for once, and then there is a tumult and noise in the hall and a restlessness at the beginning and also at the end -- It seems like a discourtesy to Dr. Steiner.

Albert Steffen: I was instructed to say what the lady said in this meeting as well; but I thought someone might say it before me. I actually wanted to bring it up too. Anyway, when you go up to the Goetheanum, you should really know where you are going. I know that many of our friends almost always go up newborn. You know, they could not see everything they see, the flowers all around and the light and the trees, if they had not been deciphered for them. They have truly come to a new view, to a new view of nature. And that gives most of us, at least I think so, a solemn feeling when they come up there. And one should actually enter this hall with this feeling, and should have yet another feeling, namely that of experiencing history. Truly: here we experience history! What will be said about Dornach a hundred years from now? Looking back, Dornach will be recognized as the center of spiritual life! And everyone will say: if only we had lived at that time, if only we had stood face to face with this personality, even just once! To have heard him just once! — This feeling of joy, honored attendees, first of all, towards nature, which has been given to us anew through anthroposophy, and secondly, towards history, which we can experience here in its highest impulse, that is hardly ever encountered when one is here in the hall. There is a tumult and chatter, everyone is saying what they are going to cook for lunch tomorrow and so on, but it is terrible. Perhaps I am mistaken, in which case I would like to apologize.

Dear attendees, would anyone else like to take the floor?

Miss (name not recorded) from Strasbourg: Asks a question about the opponents, in particular the “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy”. They actually want to be fully acquainted with the document in question.^{5See page 795 ff.}

Albert Steffen: It is terribly long and sometimes very boring. But perhaps I could read out the most symptomatic parts if anyone wishes.

Questioner: Too little is known about it. There was talk of a league against it; can't that be set up soon?

Albert Steffen: Yes, this “alliance” should be society itself.

Questioner: One should meet more often when one is in Dornach and talk about it; one would be more up to date and could also get advice; otherwise it just peters out.

Albert Steffen: It is a fact that various people are already working on it. Yesterday Dr. Stein wrote to me about a medical personality who will look at the Goesch case from the medical point of view, in relation to delusions and the like. And Leisegang is also being worked on. There is no lack of people who want to do this, but they also have to get material from the others, and above all they have to find interest in the others. You will recall that in Stuttgart they did not want to listen to the lecture about the opposition at first? ^{6At the Stuttgart delegates' meeting, see page 385 f.} I must say that I find this topic particularly interesting for the present time. You can learn so much about the decadence of our time. And we Anthroposophists should really be healing what is sick. And so we have to get to know it. Everyone must do their best.

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: There is such a lack of correct information. Not everyone can go to Mr. Steffen. Could we not meet here once a month? We would be informed about the question of opponents or other vital questions.

Albert Steffen: Of course I am prepared to do so; but I myself would also have to be informed.

Dr. Steiner: Now the big difficulty arises, to draw attention to the fact that we have a eurythmy performance here in an hour, and because we don't have much time left, I don't want to waste many words. And when I say short words, it is particularly difficult to be polite, and I don't want to be impolite at this moment, do I? So I would like to ask you to kindly accept the invitation to enter the nature outside, and to do so as quickly as possible! (Laughter.)

End of meeting.

To the members of the Anthroposophical Society

At the Annual General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland on Sunday, June 10, Dr. Steiner agreed to give a lecture cycle on

“The history and living conditions of the anthroposophical movement in relation to the Anthroposophical Society” [GA 258]

The lectures will take place from Sunday, June 10, to Sunday, June 17, at 8 p.m. in the provisional hall of the carpentry workshop at the Goetheanum.

The following speakers will also be presenting their talks: Mr. Albert Steffen on modern poetry, Miss Dr. E. Vreede on the zodiac, Dr. Ernst Blümel on the language of cosmic and earthly movements, and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth on the breathing of the earth. The dates and times of these lectures will be announced.

In addition, there will be eurythmy performances on both Saturdays and Sundays (June 9, 10, 16 and 17), as well as a children's eurythmy performance on Wednesday, June 13.

Ticket price for all lectures: CHF 15. Special tickets must be purchased for the eurythmy performances.

Please send registrations and enquiries to Haus Friedwart (Ms E. Vreede).

For the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland:

the Secretary General
Albert Steffen

MY DEAR FRIENDS! Movements such as our spiritual scientific movement have always been fostered in such a way that something that was to be impressed upon the spiritual culture of the times, or on culture in general, was first cultivated on the level of some formal social organization or society. And since the conditions of human interaction are the same today as they have been throughout history, it is also necessary for us, to a certain extent, to cultivate our spiritual scientific strivings within the framework of a formal organization.

Now, it has been the experience of almost all such organizations that it is difficult, at least in actual practice, to understand the concept of the society needed to foster a particular spiritual current like this. Time and again we're presented with evidence that there are very many people who actually do not like having to join a society. They admit that they feel uncomfortable about joining such a society; they would prefer to absorb its spiritual wealth through reading or listening to lectures not bound to any organized society, or through still other means. Only this morning, for example, I received a letter to that effect.

The kinds of reasons people give for taking this position have to be taken seriously. But let me emphasize again that a spiritual movement like this one is of necessity very different in its impulses and its whole way of thinking, feeling, and doing from the thinking, feeling, and doing of the other people around it. Therefore, to introduce such a movement to humanity with no help from a formal organization would be much more difficult than to do this by means of a society whose members are preparing, through their interactions and their ongoing absorption of spiritual scientific thoughts and concepts, to be a kind of tool or instrument for disseminating our spiritual science. As a consequence, however, the concept of a society of this kind has to be taken extremely seriously, because in quite practical terms this society has to become a vehicle for the spiritual current in question.

You need only look at our own Society as an example and examine how different it is from other societies, associations, or organizations that people have called into existence. This difference will be particularly noticeable if you keep one thing in mind. Just suppose that recent events confronting us had made us entertain the thought of disbanding the Anthroposophical Society as such. Let's assume hypothetically that we wanted to dissolve the Society because of problems within it. Now, if the Anthroposophical Society were simply an organization like many others, of course it would be possible to simply dissolve it, set something else up in its place, and eliminate the disgraceful circumstances in the process.

However, our Anthroposophical Society is different in a very significant respect from other organizations or societies founded on the basis of some program with a certain number of points and statutes. That kind of society can be dissolved at any moment. If we were to dissolve the Anthroposophical Society, however, it would not be dissolved in actual fact. As the Anthroposophical Society, as a society existing on behalf of a spiritual scientific movement, we are different from other societies in that our Society is founded, not on a program of abstract and therefore unreal points, but on something very real. Our basis is a real one.

Just look at the fact that each member of the Anthroposophical Society is entitled to have access to our lecture cycles, while other people are not.¹ That's a very real basis, because dissolving the Anthroposophical Society would do so in name only; it would not do away with the fact that a certain number of people are in possession of these cycles. And it is an equally real fact that a certain number of people are carrying a specific wealth of wisdom in their heads. I cannot tell exactly how great the percentage is of people who have the things we talk about in their heads—in contrast to those who only have them in “visions”—but that's not the important thing as far as the Society is concerned. It remains a reality that a certain wealth of wisdom, a sum total of things that really exist, are present in the hearts and minds of people who have belonged to the Anthroposophical Society until now. That cannot be taken away from them even by dissolving the Society.

So the Anthroposophical Society is different from other societies in that it will not tolerate any figments of the imagination in its organization, but is constructed on the basis of reality. Thus, dissolving it would have absolutely no immediate effect on its continued existence as far as reality is concerned. Our Society compares to other societies and organizations as something real compares to things that are merely thought out. We must keep this weighty difference in mind in order to understand the concept of our Society in the right way. And it is only because a large number of members have counted, more or less consciously, on our Society's solid grounding in reality, on its basis in something more than programmatic points, that we see an institute of higher learning for spiritual science being built on this hill, a building that will further enhance our connection to something real.

It would be possible for some group of dreamers to get together and decide not to wear collars and ties, to wear only sandals on their feet, and perhaps to simplify life in other ways by disregarding certain other social conventions or “prejudices,” as they might call them. (I have chosen a hypothetical example so that no one present needs to feel put on the spot.) Disbanding a group like that would not change anything significant. But we are not simply a group of dreamers; we are different in that we are fully aware of the weight and importance of our grounding in reality.

Without getting into splitting hairs, we also need to distinguish between the concept of a society such as the one in which we develop a specific spiritual teaching, and that of a club or similar organization. We have to admit that the appropriate concept of a such a society eludes many of us when we think about the conditions of our life in this Society, and we are left contemplating the concept of a club or similar organization. In that kind of organization, statutes and conditions are set up that have to be met. In a Society like ours, however, that is not enough. It is different from a club in much more than name only.

In our Society, the important thing, as I have explained several times in the last few weeks, is that the concept of the society really be taken seriously.² This means that all members must be aware that belonging to the Society involves more than simply receiving membership cards and being entitled to call themselves members of the Society. In fact, they are all organs of the Society. Because of that, something subtle and yet very specific has to live among the members, something for which each member should feel a certain responsibility. As individuals, they must be aware of both the obvious and subtler needs and well-being of other members of the Society, and experienced members must be ready and willing to use their experience in supporting those who have joined more recently. These more experienced members do not necessarily have to reveal their experience; after all, what matters is how they apply their experience in daily life.

The word “trust” often comes up in this connection. In the course of a lecture I gave a few weeks ago, I explained that we do not need to have trust in our teachings, because these teachings will try to justify our confidence in them through every single practical measure they give rise to.³ However, we do need to try to have trust in each other and to make sure that trust is justified. We must try to bring about real connections between members. It goes a long way toward developing the kind of “ideal aura” necessary in a Society such as ours if each experienced member, without snooping around like a spy or a detective—that is, without violating anyone's privacy—can really keep an eye on the ups and downs of only ten other members, and do it without having to tell them they are considered less experienced. Of course, it's impossible to legislate trust; it has to be earned. Our more experienced members need to make a concerted effort to win the trust of those who have been in the Society for only a short time.

Such things have been mentioned often in the course of our Society's years of activity, but it has never been as necessary to speak about them as it is here and now. When members of the Anthroposophical Society were scattered among the rest of the population in various cities, that was a very different state of affairs from so many of us living here on top of each other, on display for everyone else, so to speak. This situation makes it imperative that we take a long and serious look at the basic premises of how we live together in the Society.

Of course, a society such as ours will never be able to please all the people living outside it. It will never be able to prevent some of these people from indulging in all kinds of slander, ridicule, unjustified attacks, and so on. But that's not the point; what I am going to say now is independent of all that. The important thing is that the members of the Society really do everything possible in each single instance to show up the attacks as unjustified and lacking any basis in fact. To do this, we have to look at details, my friends. It's not enough to just pay attention to the major issues in our outer life. We have to be equally aware of the little things.

For instance, if some of our members are sitting among other people on the trolley on the way back to Basel at night, and they talk loudly about every little twinge in their ether body, that is not exactly a crime. If someone criticizes them for it, we might well reply, “So what? Is it all that important?” In fact, however, it is really very important because it puts the dignity and seriousness of our movement in question. Thus, even though such incidents are only trifling matters, they ought to be avoided. We ought to start reforming ourselves wherever that change can have a real effect. Above all, we have to realize that when we talk in front of other people about things only we can understand, those people will not be able to avoid getting wrong impressions.

We can assume that we know what we are talking about when we speak about the ether body, but the people who may be listening do not. They may be in the same situation as a maid whom some of my closer acquaintances know well. This woman worked for anthroposophists, and because she was interested in finding out what anthroposophy was all about, she attended an introductory course given by one of our members, and came home saying, “Well, I learned that I have four bodies, not just one. But I have this tiny little room and a very narrow bed, and now I don't know how all those bodies are going to fit in!” This is a true story. It took place in the house of people I know quite well. So you see, people who hear you talking about all the little twinges of your ether body will naturally think that you're talking about the ether body as if it were a physical body; thus, you are actually leading them astray and keeping them from developing any closer connection to our movement.

That's why it is important for us to learn to take the things we talk about seriously and precisely. Even if they are only minor matters in themselves, they can raise a virtual wall of prejudices around us, and that can and should be avoided. In a society like this, it is important for us to learn to speak really precisely, or else it may gradually become impossible to foster what should be fostered within this Society.

Today I feel compelled to mention a number of things that will probably seem totally superfluous to most of you, simply because the natural response is, “Well, what is that supposed to mean—we need to be precise in our way of speaking? Of course we do.” But just keep your eyes and ears open next time something happens somewhere or other, when something has been said and one person passes it on to the next. If you really pay close attention to whether or not things are being presented accurately, in many instances you will easily notice the deviation from what is strictly accurate. When something someone has heard or seen gets passed on to the next person and then to the next, and so on, what comes out can be a monstrous caricature of what actually happened or was actually said. This experience is all too common in our Society.

We have to take into account that, in a spiritual scientific movement, we can work constructively only if we get used to being exact, to really understanding things precisely. Spiritual science forces us to focus spiritually on things that have nothing to do with the outer physical world, and in order to develop the right relationship to them, we need a counterbalance of some kind. The only suitable counterbalance is to approach things on the physical plane as realistically as possible. After all, accuracy belongs to reality.

Some time ago I gave a public lecture in Munich that really startled a number of people.⁴ Its subject was the nature of evil. In that lecture, I explained that the forces at work in evil on the physical plane are in a sense nothing else but forces that have been transferred from higher planes of existence to the physical plane. Certain forces that can lead us to recognize and master the spiritual if applied up there in the spiritual world can turn to evil down here in the physical world.

The force that enables us to understand the spiritual world belongs only in the spiritual world; this same force causes all kinds of harm if it is directly and thoughtlessly transferred to the physical plane. For what is the nature of this force? It consists in making one's thinking independent of the physical plane. When this capacity is applied to the physical plane itself, it turns into deceit and dishonesty. Thus, people who were called upon to disseminate spiritual science have always seen great danger in doing so, because what is needed for understanding higher planes of existence is harmful when applied directly to the physical world.

That is why a counterbalance is needed: in order to keep our ability to understand the spiritual world suitably pure and beautiful, we must develop our feeling for truth and exactitude in the physical world as thoroughly as possible. If we do not count on exactitude on the physical plane, then in a so-called occult society certain tendencies developed through spiritual scientific practices immediately mingle inappropriately with the very lowest aspects of the physical plane.

Let's look at ordinary materialistic society in a broader sense of the word. As you know—or you may have heard about it even if you have no firsthand knowledge of it—there are certain social circles where gossip prevails. At least from hearsay, you will be aware that this gossip or tittle-tattle is going on, that it prevails in ordinary materialistic bourgeois society. The quality of this gossip is usually not very high and much can be said against it, but at least for the most part no esoteric contents get mixed up with it. But when gossip is the general rule in an occult society, esoteric ideas are the first to get drawn into it.

I hope it is possible to really talk about things like this in our circle, because it should be possible to say something within our Society without having it immediately spread abroad in places where it is then misunderstood. Our experiences in this regard, however, are also not the best, and if they continue, we will indeed have to organize our Society differently. Things that are said within the Society have to remain in the Society in the strictest sense of the word, because it really must be possible from time to time to say things that could not simply be said casually outside our Society.

Of course, in our Society we often have to talk about the karmic relationships between people. It may well be that such relationships exist—in fact, of course they exist—but if we continually get our views on karma mixed up with our ordinary everyday relationships, we are not taking the concept of truthfulness literally enough, and the result is not only nonsensical but also harmful. Truthfulness is a concept that has to be applied extremely strictly.

I can think of any number of cases in esoteric circles, both inside and outside our Society, where subjective matters that take place as a matter of course on the physical plane have been studded and embellished with esoteric truths. Let me mention one extreme example that may not happen very frequently in our Society, but it is one of the things that can be experienced. Indeed, it has happened numerous times.

Many people have learned about reincarnation, and they have also learned that Christ was alive on Earth at a certain point in time. I have experienced more than once that women who have become aware of these two spiritual facts—reincarnation and Christ's incarnation—have in all seriousness imagined that they have been chosen to give birth to the Christ and have attempted to arrange their lives to make this possible. It is unpleasant to have to mention these things and call a spade a spade, but we must do it to protect the Society, which we can do only if we don't close our eyes to the harm people can cause by applying occult truths on the physical plane.

Granted, the case I just mentioned is extreme, but it has happened not only once, but over and over again. I have described it drastically because things like this happen very frequently on a smaller scale, and it is important to notice the minor instances as well as the more blatant ones. Of course, it is a major issue if someone thinks she is going to give birth to the Christ, because the consequences can be extremely unfortunate. On a smaller scale, however, things like this are happening again and again.

Now, in ordinary bourgeois life, it happens that people fall in love, that a man falls in love with a woman. People simply call it “falling in love,” and that's the plain and simple truth. In esoteric societies men and women also fall in love; the possibility cannot be ruled out, as some of you know from experience. But in that case, what you hear about it is not as simple as, “X has fallen in love with Y.” Ordinary people just say that they're going together, which is usually a very accurate description as outward observation goes. But in esoteric societies, what you hear about it often goes something like this: “Having thoroughly examined my karma, I find that another personality has entered it, and we have realized that karma has destined us to be with each other and to intervene in the destiny of the world in a particular way.”

People fail to notice how much deception has crept in between this assertion and the simple matter of falling in love. This deception has developed in the following way: In bourgeois materialistic society, it's considered quite normal for two people to fall in love. But in an esoteric society, this is often not considered normal; instead, it is something people feel slightly ashamed of. But people do not like to feel ashamed. We don't need to go into why that is the case; there can be any number of reasons. People simply do not like to feel ashamed, so instead, they say that karma has spoken and has to be obeyed. Of course they are not acting out of pure selfishness or pure emotion—far from it; karma has to be obeyed! But if they were truthful, they would just admit that they have fallen in love, and having admitted it, they would find their way through life much more readily than by getting the truth mixed up with all kinds of karmic nonsense. The basic mischief of embellishing personal matters with esoteric truths leads to ever greater harm because it makes people lose their inner sense of limits, the limits we have to accept when we adopt a spiritual scientific philosophy.

This is not to say that we should introduce the worst principles of uncultured circles into our Society. In certain social circles, it is said that being human begins with being a baron. We must not establish our own version of this by saying that being human begins with being either a spiritual scientist or an anthroposophist—with being an “anthropop,” as others are starting to call it. We must not do that. We have to admit that even before we became spiritual scientists, we were people with certain ways of looking at things, people who would have done certain things and abstained from others.

In the very early days of our movement, I pointed out how important it is that we do not use our spiritual scientific views to sink down below our earlier level of moral standards, but that we must rise above it in all respects. That is why I said many years ago that when we entered the Society, each of us was equipped with a certain stock of moral standards and habitual ways of doing things, and that we should allow these habits to remain as they are until some clear and incontrovertible inner necessity compels us to change them. Generally, this happens only much later on. It can be extremely detrimental if, after having learned a little bit from spiritual science, we take what we have learned and use it to excuse or embellish what we do in life. You have to be perfectly clear on one point, my friends, namely that the outer circumstances of our life also come about through karma of a certain kind. And how people out in the world think and act is also a matter of karma.

Now, as you know, I prefer to talk about concrete cases because they are the most telling. For example, the following once happened to me: Not long ago, I was sitting in a barber shop—excuse me for talking about things like this, but what I'm going to tell you is not all that indiscreet or intimate. I was sitting in front of the mirror, so I could see the people as they came and went. The door opened, and in came a man who had on some kind of shoes that were nothing more than pieces of soft leather tied together; above that, he was wearing leggings and some kind of cape-like garment draped at a coquettish angle. In addition, his hair was swept back with some kind of a headband. Coincidentally, as it were, I knew the man very well.⁵

The barber let go of the razor he had just started to apply to my face and bought something from the man for five pennies. He showed it to me once the man had gone out—it was a poem he had composed himself. It was a simply terrible poem, but that man was going around the streets and stores in that get-up, selling the thing and imagining himself to be infinitely superior to all the people around him. He thought he was following some great ideal, but in reality he was only following an exaggerated and hysterical form of vanity. The basic impulse behind his conduct, his whole way of being, was nothing more than a gross exaggeration of the principle at work among the vainest and most superficial ladies.

But just consider how many among us might once have been tempted—for courtesy's sake, I will not suggest that they might still be tempted today—to say that in his own way, that man was only trying to do the right thing. True enough, but it was still absolute and total nonsense, and bound to make a mess of a person's life if he made it the principle of a lifetime. We have to realize to what extent vanity can be a motivating factor in what people do, and how difficult it is to notice it. If we take seriously what we can gain from spiritual science and accept it with respect, we have to admit that vanity is a very strong force in that man. If we do something or other out of vanity, not to mention other drives and impulses, other people are offended, though not necessarily for the reasons we might suspect. Nonetheless, there is a connection between ourselves and what other people say about us, a connection that is very easy to find if we look carefully. And we can only get beyond things like that if we develop a strict sense of exactitude as a counterbalance, an attitude we also need for understanding esoteric truths.

Although it's only a detail and no major issue, in esotericism it is extremely important to know and to observe, when people are recounting things, whether they are recounting their own observations and thus have a right to be talking about them as facts, or whether they are passing on things they heard from someone else. We must be able to tell the difference. But in hundreds of cases, people say things to others who in turn tell someone else, but in such a way that the person third in line gets the impression that they are not simply passing on something they've heard, but are talking about their own direct experience and have a right to be talking about it as if it were actual fact. This lack of precision is less important in ordinary materialistic society than it is among us. In materialistic circles, it may be pedantic to be so precise in how one speaks, but in our Society, more so than anywhere else, we need to observe such things strictly and exactly. And above all, we need to make a practice of being precise about ourselves.

If any of you need to be convinced of the implications of what I am saying, you are welcome to make the following experiment: Choose some topic—vegetarianism, for example—and observe how certain adherents of spiritual science talk about this topic in the outside world. Make a chart, and each time you hear spiritual scientists telling other people that they are vegetarians, jot down the reasons they give. It will soon become clear that on the subject of vegetarianism, adherents of spiritual science often say absolutely scandalous things to people in the outside world. When the outside world then comes to the conclusion that we are a society of fools, it should come as no great surprise.

In anthroposophical circles, I have frequently mentioned a very simple way of responding to the question of why you are a vegetarian without antagonizing people around you. If someone asks why you are a vegetarian, and you know that person would never eat horsemeat, you simply respond with the question, “Well, why don't you eat horsemeat?” Now the two of you are on the same footing, and the person who has to give a reason for not eating horsemeat will probably not come up with any highly theoretical reasons, but will say something like “The thought of it makes me sick.” Then you can say, “That's just how any meat makes me feel.” And as long as you say this in an appropriately conciliatory way, people will understand your point of view. The main thing is not to let the other person get the impression that you feel superior because of not eating meat. You might still want to add, although only if you can honestly admit it to yourself, that you are too weak to eat meat; you're handicapped when it comes to eating meat. When this question has come up, I myself have often said that a lot of things are simply easier to get through if you don't eat meat. Meat weighs people down, and if you need to use your brain in a precise way, it is simply easier to do if you don't eat meat. In the end, it all comes down to the question of what is easier and more convenient.

I have often emphasized that it is impossible to eat your way into the higher worlds, either through what you eat or through what you abstain from eating. Achieving access to spiritual worlds is a spiritual matter, and both eating and abstaining from food are physical matters. If this were not the case, people might get grotesque ideas about what would happen if they did or did not eat certain foods. It might occur to them to eat salt one week and no salt at all the next week in order to descend to the depths of the elemental world during the week when they were eating salt and come back up again in the course of the week when they were doing without. It's quite possible for people to get stupid ideas like that. In our Society, of course, people will not get ideas that are as stupid as that, but similar things might still occur to them.

But to get back to the subject of vegetarianism, if we are as modest as possible in how we discuss it in the presence of outsiders, we will find that eventually no one will hold the fact that we are vegetarians against us. On the other hand, if we consider vegetarianism to be something to our credit, the outside world will never forgive us for it. And in fact, being vegetarian is not a credit to anyone; it is simply an easy way out.

There are many other similar examples, and we really have to talk about things like this, not to preach morality, but to establish certain basic principles for our life in an esoteric society vis-à-vis the outside world. What it all comes down to is that we need to seriously consider how we relate to the outside world, and the result of our deliberations must be both a bridge and a protective wall between us and the outside, especially in the case of a society like ours. It happens again and again, for instance, that members say to people on the outside, “Dr. Steiner said this and such.” Just put yourself in the place of the person you're talking to, and imagine what it feels like!

For example, if someone says that Dr. Steiner is taking so-and-so's spiritual development in hand, how are outsiders supposed to understand that? What can they possibly imagine except a society of fools who all subordinate themselves to a single individual? That kind of thing really does happen. I cannot even pretend that it does not occur. And just imagine what it means to the outside world. We really must talk about these things from the point of view of how a society should be set up if a spiritual scientific movement like ours is to inhabit it. First and foremost, we must take this spiritual scientific movement seriously, and we must not do anything that could be detrimental to it in the eyes of the outside world.

I will go into this subject more deeply tomorrow, and you will see how intimately this all relates to certain specific impulses of spiritual science. I do not want to simply lecture you sternly; I want to explain how these things relate to the central impulses of spiritual science.

• 1. In Stuttgart on September 4, 1921, at the first Members' Assembly after World War I, Rudolf Steiner addressed the question of the lecture cycles as follows: “Actually, every member has taken on the responsibility of seeing that the cycles stay within the Society. I am not so concerned about the cycles being read outside the Society; what matters to me is that these cycles in the form in which they were printed stay among people who understand the circumstances, because lack of time kept me from correcting the proofs.” (Mitteilungen des Zentralvorstandes der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, Stuttgart, November 1921, No. 1, p. 27). And in The Course of My Life, GA 28, (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1986): “I would have preferred it if the spoken word could have been left in that form, the members wanted to have the lectures printed privately, and that is why the talks now exist in print. If I had had time to make corrections, there would have been no need for the 'for members only' restriction right from the beginning.” (Chapter XXXV, Anthroposophic Press, 1986).
  
  However, since the members did not feel bound by this responsibility and Steiner's opponents in their writings often showed themselves to be better informed about the lecture cycles than the members themselves, Rudolf Steiner was obliged to lift all restrictions and declare the printed lecture cycles available to the general public at the Christmas Foundation Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in 1923.
• 2. See the explanations Steiner gave on August 21 and 22, 1915, printed in Part Two of this volume.
• 3. August 22, 1915, in Part Two of this volume, p. 144.
• 4. “The Origin of Evil in the Light of Spiritual Science,” Munich, March 29, 1914. Only incomplete notes of this lecture are extant.
• 5. Gustav Gräser, 1879–1958, who became well known as an apostle of nature in the 1920s. Cf. Ulrich Linse, Barfüssige Propheten. Erlöser der zwanziger Jahre, Berlin, 1983. (“Barefoot Prophets: Redeemers of the Twenties”) Rudolf Steiner mentioned Gräser in a letter to Marie von Sivers on January 6, 1906 (in Rudolf Steiner/Marie Steiner-von Sivers, Correspondence and Documents 1901–1925, GA 262, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1988), saying that Gräser had attended a lecture of Rudolf Steiner's and taken part in the discussion afterward.

[ 1 ] In future there will be found in these columns something in the nature of anthroposophical ‘Leading Thoughts’ or principles. These may be taken to contain advice on the direction which members can give to the lectures and discussions in the several Groups. It is but a stimulus and suggestion which the Goetheanum would like to give to the whole Society. The independence of individual leading members in their work is in no way to be interfered with. We shall develop healthily if the Society gives free play to what leading members have to offer in all the different Groups. This will enrich and make manifold the life of the Society.

[ 2 ] But it should also be possible for a unity of consciousness to arise in the whole Society—which will happen if the initiative and ideas that emerge at different places become known everywhere. Thus in these columns we shall sum up in short paragraphs the descriptions and lines of thought given by me in my lectures to the Society at the Goetheanum. I imagine that those who lecture or conduct the discussions in the Groups will be able to take what is here given as guiding lines, with which they may freely connect what they have to say. This will contribute to the unity and organic wholeness of the work of the Society without there being any question of constraint.

[ 3 ] The plan will become fruitful for the whole Society if it meets with a true response—if the leading members will inform the Executive at the Goetheanum too of the content and nature of their own lectures and suggestions. Then only shall we grow, from a chaos of separate Groups, into a Society with a real spiritual content.

[ 4 ] The Leading Thoughts here given are meant to open up subjects for study and discussion. Points of contact with them will be found in countless places in the anthroposophical books and lecture-courses, so that the subjects thus opened up can be enlarged upon and the discussions in the Groups centred around them.

[ 5 ] When new ideas emerge among leading members in the several Groups, these too can be brought into connection with the suggestions we shall send out from the Goetheanum. We would thus provide an open framework for all the spiritual activity in the Society.

[ 6 ] Spiritual activity can of course only thrive by free unfoldment on the part of the active individuals—and we must never sin against this truth. But there is no need to do so when one group or member within the Society acts in proper harmony with the other. If such co-operation were impossible, the attachment of individuals or groups to the Society would always remain a purely external thing—where it should in fact be felt as an inner reality.

[ 7 ] It cannot be allowed that the existence of the Anthroposophical Society is merely made use of by this or that individual as an opportunity to say what he personally wishes to say with this or that intention. The Society must rather be the place where true Anthroposophy is cultivated. Anything that is not Anthroposophy can, after all, be pursued outside it. The Society is not there for extraneous objects.

[ 8 ] It has not helped us that in the last few years individual members have brought into the Society their own personal wishes simply because they thought that as it increased it would become a suitable sphere of action for them. It may be said, Why was this not met and counteracted with the proper firmness? If that had been done, we should now be hearing it said on all sides, ‘Oh, if only the initiative that arose in this or that quarter had been followed up at the time, how much farther we should be today!’ Well, many things were followed up, which ended in sad disaster and only resulted in throwing us back.

[ 9 ] But now it is enough. The demonstrations which individual experimenters in the Society wished to provide are done with. Such things need not be repeated endlessly. In the Executive at the Goetheanum we have a body which intends to cultivate Anthroposophy itself; and the Society should be an association of human beings who have the same object and are ready to enter into a living understanding with the Executive in the pursuit of it.

[ 10 ] We must not think that our ideal in the Society can be attained from one day to the next. Time will be needed, and patience too. If we imagined that what lay in the intentions of the Christmas meeting could be brought into existence in a few weeks' time, this again would be harmful.

Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts given out as suggestions from the Goetheanum

[ 11 ] 1. Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge Anthroposophy, who finds in it what he himself in his own inner life feels impelled to seek. Hence only they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels hunger and thirst.

[ 12 ] 2. Anthroposophy communicates knowledge that is gained in a spiritual way. Yet it only does so because everyday life, and the science founded on sense-perception and intellectual activity, lead to a barrier along life's way—a limit where the life of the soul in man would die if it could go no farther. Everyday life and science do not lead to this limit in such a way as to compel man to stop short at it. For at the very frontier where the knowledge derived from sense perception ceases, there is opened through the human soul itself the further outlook into the spiritual world.

[ 13 ] 3. There are those who believe that with the limits of knowledge derived from sense perception the limits of all insight are given. Yet if they would carefully observe how they become conscious of these limits, they would find in the very consciousness of the limits the faculties to transcend them. The fish swims up to the limits of the water; it must return because it lacks the physical organs to live outside this element. Man reaches the limits of knowledge attainable by sense perception; but he can recognise that on the way to this point powers of soul have arisen in him—powers whereby the soul can live in an element that goes beyond the horizon of the senses.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 14 ] 4. For certainty of feeling and for a strong unfolding of his will, man needs a knowledge of the spiritual world. However widely he may feel the greatness, beauty and wisdom of the natural world, this world gives him no answer to the question of his own being. His own being holds together the materials and forces of the natural world in the living and sensitive form of man until the moment when he passes through the gate of death. Then Nature receives this human form, and Nature cannot hold it together; she can but dissolve and disperse it. Great, beautiful, wisdom-filled Nature does indeed answer the question, How is the human form dissolved and destroyed? but not the other question, How is it maintained and held together? No theoretical objection can dispel this question from the feeling soul of man, unless indeed he prefers to lull himself to sleep. The presence of this question must incessantly maintain alive, in every human soul that is really awake, the longing for spiritual paths of World-knowledge.

[ 15 ] 5. For peace in his inner life, man needs Self-knowledge in the Spirit. He finds himself in his Thinking, Feeling and Willing. He sees how Thinking, Feeling and Willing are dependent on the natural man. In all their developments, they must follow the health and sickness, the strengthening and weakening of the body. Every sleep blots them out. Thus the experience of everyday life shows the spiritual consciousness of man in the greatest imaginable dependence on his bodily existence. Man suddenly becomes aware that in this realm of ordinary experience Self-knowledge may be utterly lost—the search for it a vain quest. Then first the anxious question arises: Can there be a Self-knowledge transcending the ordinary experiences of life? Can we have any certainty at all, as to a true Self of man? Anthroposophy would fain answer this question on a firm basis of spiritual experience. In so doing it takes its stand, not on any opinion or belief, but on a conscious experience in the Spirit—an experience in its own nature no less certain than the conscious experience in the body.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 16 ] 6. When we look out on lifeless Nature, we find a world full of inner relationships of law and order. We seek for these relationships and find in them the content of the ‘Laws of Nature.’ We find, moreover, that by virtue of these Laws lifeless Nature forms a connected whole with the entire Earth. We may now pass from this earthly connection which rules in all lifeless things, to contemplate the living world of plants. We see how the Universe beyond the Earth sends in from distances of space the forces which draw the Living forth out of the womb of the Lifeless. In all living things we are made aware of an element of being, which, freeing itself from the mere earthly connection, makes manifest the forces that work down on to the Earth from realms of cosmic space. As in the eye we become aware of the luminous object which confronts it, so in the tiniest plant we are made aware of the nature of the Light from beyond the Earth. Through this ascent in contemplation, we can perceive the difference of the earthly and physical which holds sway in the lifeless world, from the extra-earthly and ethereal which abounds in all living things.

[ 17 ] 7. We find man with his transcendent being of soul and spirit placed into this world of the earthly and the extra earthly. Inasmuch as he is placed into the earthly connection which contains all lifeless things, he bears with him his physical body. Inasmuch as he unfolds within him the forces which the living world draws into this earthly sphere from cosmic space, he has an etheric or life-body. The trend of science in modern times has taken no account of this essential contrast of the earthly and the ethereal. For this very reason, science has given birth to the most impossible conceptions of the ether. For fear of losing their way in fanciful and nebulous ideas, scientists have refrained from dwelling on the real contrast. But unless we do so, we can attain no true insight into the Universe and Man.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 18 ] 8. We may consider the nature of man in so far as it results from his physical and his etheric body. We shall find that all the phenomena of man's life which proceed from this side of his nature remain in the unconscious, nor do they ever lead to consciousness. Consciousness is not lighted up but darkened when the activity of the physical and the etheric body is enhanced. Conditions of faintness and the like can be recognised as the result of such enhancement. Following up this line of thought, we recognise that something is at work in man—and in the animal—which is not of the same nature as the physical and the etheric. It takes effect, not when the forces of the physical and the etheric are active in their own way, but when they cease to be thus active. In this way we arrive at the conception of the astral body.

[ 19 ] 9. The reality of this astral body is discovered when we rise in meditation from the Thinking that is stimulated by the outer senses to an inner act of Vision. To this end, the Thinking that is stimulated from without must be taken hold of inwardly, and experienced as such, intensely in the soul, apart from its relation to the outer world. Through the strength of soul thus engendered, we become aware that there are inner organs of perception, which see a spiritual reality working in the animal and man at the very point where the physical and the etheric body are held in check in order that consciousness may arise.

[ 20 ] 10. Consciousness, therefore, does not arise by a further enhancement of activities which proceed from the physical and etheric bodies. On the contrary, these two bodies, with their activities, must be reduced to zero—nay even below zero—to ‘make room’ for the working of consciousness. They do not generate consciousness, they only furnish the ground on which the Spirit must stand in order to bring forth consciousness within the earthly life. As man on Earth needs the ground on which to stand, so does the Spiritual, within the earthly realm, need a material foundation on which it may unfold itself. And as a planet in the cosmic spaces does not require any ground beneath it in order to assert its place, so too the Spirit, when it looks—not through the senses into material—but through its own power into spiritual things, needs no material foundation to call its conscious activity to life.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 21 ] 11. The Self-consciousness which is summed up in the ‘I’ or ‘Ego’ emerges out of the sea of consciousness. Consciousness arises when the forces of the physical and etheric bodies disintegrate these bodies, and thus make way for the Spiritual to enter into man. For through this disintegration is provided the ground on which the life of consciousness can develop. If, however, the organism is not to be destroyed, the disintegration must be followed by a reconstruction. Thus, when for an experience in consciousness a process of disintegration has taken place, that which has been demolished will be built up again exactly. The experience of Self-consciousness lies in the perception of this upbuilding process. The same process can be observed with inner vision. We then feel how the Conscious is led over into the Self-conscious by man's creating out of himself an after-image of the merely Conscious. The latter has its image in the emptiness, as it were, produced within the organism by the disintegration. It has passed into Self-consciousness when the emptiness has been filled up again from within. The Being, capable of this ‘fulfilment,’ is experienced as ‘I.’

[ 22 ] 12. The reality of the ‘I’ is found when the inner vision whereby the astral body is known and taken hold of, is carried a stage further. The Thinking which has become alive in meditation must now be permeated by the Will. To begin with we simply gave ourselves up to this new Thinking, without active Will. We thereby enabled spiritual realities to enter into this thinking life, even as in outer sense perception colour enters the eye or sound the ear. What we have thus called to life in our consciousness by a more passive devotion, must now be reproduced by ourselves, by an act of Will. When we do so, there enters into this act of Will the perception of our own ‘I’ or Ego.

[ 23 ] 13. On the path of meditation we discover, beside the form in which the ‘I’ occurs in ordinary consciousness, three further forms: (1) In the consciousness which takes hold of the etheric body, the ‘I’ appears in picture-form; yet the picture is at the same time active Being, and as such it gives man form and figure, growth, and the plastic forces that create his body. (2) In the consciousness which takes hold of the astral body, the ‘I’ is manifested as a member of a spiritual world whence it receives its forces. (3) In the consciousness just indicated, as the last to be achieved, the ‘I’ reveals itself as a self-contained spiritual Being—relatively independent of the surrounding spiritual world.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 24 ] 14. The second form of the ‘I’—first of the three forms that were indicated in the last section—appears as a ‘picture’ of the I. When we become aware of this picture-character, a light is also thrown on the quality of thought in which the ‘I’ appears before the ordinary consciousness. With all manner of reflections, men have sought within this consciousness for the ‘true I.’ Yet an earnest insight into the experiences of the ordinary consciousness will suffice to show that the ‘true I’ cannot be found therein. Only a shadow-in-thought is able to appear there—a shadowy reflection, even less than a picture. The truth of this seizes us all the more when we progress to the ‘I’ as a picture, which lives in the etheric body. Only now are we rightly kindled to search for the ‘I’, for the true being of man.

[ 25 ] 15. Insight into the form in which the ‘I’ lives in the astral body leads to a right feeling of the relation of man to the spiritual world. For ordinary consciousness this form of the ‘I’ is buried in the dark depths of the unconscious, where man enters into connection with the spiritual being of the Universe through Inspiration. Ordinary consciousness experiences only a faint echo-in-feeling of this Inspiration from the wide expanse of the spiritual world, which holds sway in depths of the soul.

[ 26 ] 16. It is the third form of the ‘I’ which gives us insight into the independent Being of man within a spiritual world. It makes us feel how, with his earthly-sensible nature, man stands before himself as a mere manifestation of what he really is. Here lies the starting-point of true Self-knowledge. For the Self which fashions man in his true nature is revealed to him in Knowledge only when he progresses from the thought of the ‘I’ to its picture, from the picture to the creative forces of the picture, and from the creative forces to the spiritual Beings who sustain them.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 27 ] 17. Man is a being who unfolds his life in the midst, between two regions of the world. With his bodily development he is a member of a ‘lower world’; with his soul-nature he himself constitutes a ‘middle world’; and with his faculties of Spirit he is ever striving towards an ‘upper world.’ He owes his bodily development to all that Nature has given him; he bears the being of his soul within him as his own portion; and he discovers in himself the forces of the Spirit, as the gifts that lead him out beyond himself to participate in a Divine World.

[ 28 ] 18. The Spirit is creative in these three regions of the World. Nature is not void of Spirit. We lose even Nature from our knowledge if we do not become aware of the Spirit within her. Nevertheless, in Nature's existence we find the Spirit as it were asleep. Yet just as sleep has its task in human life—as the ‘I’ must be asleep at one time in order to be the more awake at another—so must the World-Spirit be asleep where Nature is, in order to be the more awake elsewhere.

[ 29 ] 19. In relation to the World, the soul of man is like a dreamer if it does not pay heed to the Spirit at work within it. The Spirit awakens the dreams of the soul from their ceaseless weaving in the inner life, to active participation in the World where man's true Being has its origin. As the dreamer shuts himself off from the surrounding physical world and entwines himself into himself, so would the soul lose connection with the Spirit of the World in whom it has its source, if it turned a deaf ear to the awakening calls of the Spirit within it.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 30 ] 20. For a right development of the life of the human soul, it is essential for man to become fully conscious of working actively from out of spiritual sources in his being. Many adherents of the modern scientific world-conception are victims of a strong prejudice in this respect. They say that a universal causality is dominant in all phenomena of the world; and that if man believes that he himself, out of his own resources, can be the cause of anything, it is a mere illusion on his part. Modern Natural Science wishes to follow observation and experience faithfully in all things, but in its prejudice about the hidden causality of man's inner sources of action it sins against its own principle. For the free and active working, straight from the inner resources of the human being, is a perfectly elementary experience of self-observation. It cannot be argued away; rather must we harmonise it with our insight into the universal causation of things within the order of Nature.

[ 31 ] 21. Non-recognition of this impulse out of the Spirit working in the inner life of man, is the greatest hindrance to the attainment of an insight into the spiritual world. For to consider our own being as a mere part of the order of Nature is in reality to divert the soul's attention from our own being. Nor can we penetrate into the spiritual world unless we first take hold of the Spirit where it is immediately given to us, namely in clear and open-minded self-observation.

[ 32 ] 22. Self-observation is the first beginning in the observation of the Spirit. It can indeed be the right beginning, for if it is true, man cannot possibly stop short at it, but is bound to progress to the further spiritual content of the World. As the human body pines away when bereft of physical nourishment, so will the man who rightly observes himself feel that his Self is becoming stunted if he does not see working into it the forces from a creative spiritual World outside him.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 33 ] 23. Passing through the gate of death, man goes out into the spiritual world, in that he feels falling away from him all the impressions and contents of soul which he received during earthly life through the bodily senses and the brain. His consciousness then has before it in an all-embracing picture-tableau the whole content of life which, during his earthly wanderings, entered as pictureless thoughts into his memory, or which—remaining unnoticed by the earthly consciousness—nevertheless made a subconscious impression on his soul. After a very few days these pictures grow faint and fade away. When they have altogether vanished, he knows that he has laid aside his etheric body too; for in the etheric body he can recognise the bearer of these pictures.

[ 34 ] 24. Having laid aside the etheric body, man has the astral body and the Ego as the members of his being still remaining to him. The astral body, so long as it is with him, brings to his consciousness all that during earthly life was the unconscious content of the soul when at rest in sleep. This content includes the judgements instilled into the astral body by Spirit-beings of a higher World during the periods of sleep—judgements which remain concealed from earthly consciousness. Man now lives through his earthly life a second time, yet so, that the content of his soul is now the judgement of his thought and action from the standpoint of the Spirit-world. He lives it through in backward order: first the last night, then the last but one, and so on.

[ 35 ] 25. This judgement of his life, which man experiences in the astral body after passing through the gate of death, lasts as long as the sum-total of the times he spent during his earthly life in sleep.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 36 ] 26. Only when the astral body has been laid aside—when the judgement of his life is over—man enters the spiritual world. There he stands in like relation to Beings of purely spiritual character as on Earth to the beings and processes of the Nature-kingdoms. In spiritual experience, everything that was his outer world on Earth now becomes his inner world. He no longer merely perceives it, but experiences it in its spiritual being which was hid from him on Earth, as his own world.

[ 37 ] 27. In the Spirit-realm, man as he is on Earth becomes an outer world. We gaze upon him, even as on Earth we gaze upon the stars and clouds, the mountains and rivers. Nor is this ‘outer world’ any less rich in content than the glory of the Cosmos as it appears to us in earthly life.

[ 38 ] 28. The forces begotten by the human Spirit in the Spirit-realm work on in the fashioning of earthly Man, even as the deeds we accomplish in the Physical work on as a content of the soul in the life after death.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 39 ] 29. In the evolved Imaginative Knowledge there works what lives as soul and spirit in the inner life of man, fashioning the physical body in its life, and unfolding man's existence in the physical world on this bodily foundation. Over against the physical body, whose substances are renewed again and again in the process of metabolism, we here come to the inner nature of man, unfolding itself continuously from birth (or conception) until death. Over against the physical Space-body, we come to a Time-body.

[ 40 ] 30. In the Inspired Knowledge there lives, in picture-form, what man experiences in a spiritual environment in the time between death and a new birth. What Man is in his own Being and in relation to cosmic worlds—without the physical and etheric bodies by means of which he undergoes his earthly life—is here made visible.

[ 41 ] 31. In the Intuitive Knowledge there comes to consciousness the working-over of former earthly lives into the present. In the further course of evolution these former lives have been divested of their erstwhile connections with the physical world. They have become the purely spiritual kernel of man's being, and, as such, are working in his present life. In this way, they too are an object of Knowledge—of that Knowledge which results with the further unfolding of the Imaginative and Inspired.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 42 ] 32. In the head of man, the physical Organisation is a copy, an impress of the spiritual individuality. The physical and the etheric part of the head stand out as complete and self-contained pictures of the Spiritual; beside them, in independent soul-spiritual existence, there stand the astral and the Ego-part. Thus in the head of man we have to do with a development, side by side, of the physical and etheric, relatively independent on the one hand, and of the astral and Ego-organisation on the other.

[ 43 ] 33. In the limbs and metabolic part of man the four members of the human being are intimately bound up with one another. The Ego-organisation and astral body are not there beside the physical and etheric part. They are within them, vitalising them, working in their growth, their faculty of movement and so forth. Through this very fact, the limbs and metabolic part of man is like a germinating seed, striving for ever to unfold; striving continually to become a ‘head,’ and—during the earthly life of man—no less continually prevented.

[ 44 ] 34. The rhythmic Organisation stands in the midst. Here the Ego-organisation and astral body alternately unite with the physical and etheric part, and loose themselves again. The breathing and the circulation of the blood are the physical impress of this alternate union and loosening. The inbreathing process portrays the union; the out-breathing the loosening. The processes in the arterial blood represent the union; those in the venous blood the loosening.

Further Leading Thoughts issued from the Goetheanum for the Anthroposophical Society

[ 45 ] 35. We understand the physical nature of man only if we regard it as a picture of the soul and spirit. Taken by itself, the physical corporality of man is unintelligible. But it is a picture of the soul and spirit in different ways in its several members. The head is the most perfect and complete symbolic picture of the soul and spirit. All that pertains to the system of the metabolism and the limbs is like a picture that has not yet assumed its finished forms, but is still being worked upon. Lastly, in all that belongs to the rhythmic Organisation of man, the relation of the soul and spirit to the body is intermediate between these opposites.

[ 46 ] 36. If we contemplate the human head from this spiritual point of view, we shall find in it a help to the understanding of spiritual Imaginations. For in the forms of the head, Imaginative forms are as it were coagulated to the point of physical density.

[ 47 ] 37. Similarly, if we contemplate the rhythmic part of man's Organisation it will help us to understand Inspirations. The physical appearance of the rhythms of life bears even in the sense-perceptible picture the character of Inspiration. Lastly, in the system of the metabolism and the limbs—if we observe it in full action, in the exercise of its necessary or possible functions—we have a picture, supersensible yet sensible, of pure supersensible Intuitions.

Anthroposophical Society (Theosophical Society)

Dear Members of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dear Friends!

The Central Council of the Anthroposophical Society takes pleasure in inviting you to the second general meeting to be held on January 18 and the following days of 1914.

The proceedings will be as follows:

Saturday, January 17, 3 p.m. (Motzstr. 17): ordinary board meeting;

8 p.m. social gathering at the branch office at Geisbergstraße 2.

Sunday, January 18, at 10 a.m. (architect's house, Wilhelmstr. 92/93), the business part will take place with the following program:

1. Opening of the meeting by the central committee.

2. Reports of the board members and the auditors.

3. Motions from the floor.

4. Reports from the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, January 18, at 4 p.m. (Architect's House, Wilhelmstr. 92/93), there will be a factual-theosophical part with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members. (Mr. Bartsch, Mr. Daeglau, Dr. Sexauer, Mr. Arenson, Dr. Unger, Mr. M. Bauer, Mr. J. v. Rainer, Ms. Wolfram, Mr. W. Selling and others have announced lectures so far).

2. Sunday, January 18th, 6 p.m., social gathering of members at the architect's house (Wilhelmstraße 92/93).

Sunday, January 18th, 8 p.m., the JohannesBauverein will hold its general assembly.

Monday, January 19, at 10 a.m. and again in the afternoon, the factual-theosophical part (free lectures by members) will continue.

Monday, January 19, 7 p.m., continuation of the general assembly of the Johannes-Bauverein. This will be followed by a concert for the benefit of the Johannes-Baus. Tuesday and the following days of the week, the factual-theosophical part can be continued as needed and desired.

A series of lectures by Dr. Steiner is planned for the evenings of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. (Topic: Human and Cosmic Thought).

For information about the apartment, please contact: Mrs. Clara Walther, Miss Emmy Ehmek, Mr. Wilhelm Selling, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motzstraße 17.

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie von Sivers, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly as soon as they receive this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, speeches, etc. are requested by January 12, 1914.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

With theosophical greetings
On behalf of the Central Committee
Marie von Sivers.

In the lectures to the Anthroposophical Society which I am now giving at the Goetheanum, I am seeking to give expression to the root-questions of the inner life of Man. The underlying point of view has been indicated in the first five ‘Leading Thoughts’ published in the News Sheet. My object has been to meet the fundamental need of an anthroposophical lecture. The listener must feel that Anthroposophy is speaking of what he, when he holds counsel with himself most deeply, realises as the essential concern of his soul. If we can thus find the right way of representing Anthroposophy, there will arise among the members the feeling that in the Anthroposophical Society the human being is truly understood.

And this is the fundamental impulse in those who become members. They want to find a place where the understanding of Man is duly cultivated.

When we earnestly seek to understand the human being, we are indeed already on the way to recognition of the spiritual being of the World. For we are made aware that, as to Man himself, our knowledge of Nature affords no information but only gives rise to questions.

If in representing Anthroposophy we tend to lead the soul away from love of Nature, confusion alone is the result. The true starting-point of anthroposophical thoughts cannot lie in the belittling of what Nature reveals to Man. To despise Nature, to turn away from the truth which flows to Man from the phenomena of life and the world, or from the beauty that pervades them and the tasks they offer to man's will: this frame of mind can at most produce a caricature of spiritual truth.

Such a caricature will always be tinged with the personal element. Even if it is not composed of dreams, it will be experienced in a dreaming way. In waking life man lives with other men, and his effort must be for mutual understanding on things of common interest. What one man states must have some meaning for the other; what one achieves by his work, must have a certain value for the other. Men who live with one another must have the feeling that they are in a common world. But when a man is living in his own dreams he cuts himself off from the common world of men. The dreams of another—even his nearest neighbour—may be utterly different from his. In waking life men have a world in common; in dreaming each man has his own.

Anthroposophy should lead from waking life, not to a dreaming, but to a more intense awakening. In everyday life we have community indeed, but it is confined within narrow limits. We are banished to a certain fragment of existence, and only in our inner hearts we bear a longing for life's fullness. We feel that the true community of human life extends beyond the confines of the everyday. We look away from the Earth to the Sun when we would see the source of light common to all earthly things. So too we must turn away from the world of the senses to the reality of the Spirit to find the true sources of humanity where the soul can experience the fullness of community it needs.

Here it may easily happen that we turn away from life instead of entering it more fully and more strongly. The man who despises Nature has fallen a victim to this danger. He is driven into that isolation of the soul, of which ordinary dreaming is a good example.

Let us rather educate our minds by contact with the light of truth which streams into the soul of man from Nature. Then we shall best develop the sense for the truths of Man, which are at the same time the truths of the Cosmos. The truths of Nature, experienced with free and open mind, lead us already toward the truths of the Spirit. When we fill ourselves with the beauty, greatness and majesty of Nature, it grows in us to a fountain of true feeling for the Spirit. And when we open our heart to the silent gesture of Nature revealing her eternal innocence beyond all good and evil, our eyes are opened presently to the spiritual world, from whence—into the dumb gesture—the living Word rings forth, revealing good and evil.

Spirit-perception, brought up in the loving perception of Nature, brings to life the true riches of the soul. Spiritual dreaming, elaborated in contradiction to true knowledge of Nature, can but impoverish the human heart.

If one penetrates Anthroposophy in its deepest essence one will feel the point of view here indicated to be the one from which all anthroposophical descriptions should take their start. With this as our point of departure, we shall come into living touch with the reality, of which every member will say, ‘There lies the true reason why I entered the Anthroposophical Society’.

It will not be enough, for the members who wish to be active in the Anthroposophical Society, to be theoretically convinced of this. Real life will only enter their conviction when they unfold a warm interest in all that goes on in the Society. As they learn of what is being thought and done by active individuals in the Society, they will receive the warmth they need for their own work in it. We must be filled with interest in other human beings, to meet them in an anthroposophical way. The study of ‘What is going on in the Society’ must gradually form the background of all our activity in it. Those above all who wish to be active members will stand in need of this.

As one of the results of the Christmas Foundation Meeting, those who take upon themselves to work actively in the Society should make increasingly plain in the eyes of the world the real nature of Anthroposophy, what it is and what it is not. The following is frequently heard: Ought not this or that anthroposophical truth to be introduced here or there without frightening people by saying it is Anthroposophy? So long as such a question is still a matter for discussion, much in the Society will fail to have the effect it should.

Now it is most important to strive for clarity in this matter. There is a difference between advancing, in a sectarian spirit, something which one has laid down for oneself as dogmatic Anthroposophy, and the straightforward, open, unconcealed and unembellished standing for the knowledge of the spiritual world which has been brought to light through Anthroposophy in order that men may be able to reach a relation to the spiritual world, worthy of humanity.

It is the task of the Executive at the Goetheanum, unceasingly to carry on the work of Anthroposophy with this understanding. Moreover this task in its peculiar nature must be fully understood by those members who undertake to work actively in the Society. As a result of the Christmas Foundation Meeting, Anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society should become ever more and more united. This can never be the case as long as the seed continues to flourish which has been disseminated through continual distinction being made in anthroposophical circles between what is ‘orthodox’ and what is ‘heretical’.

Above all one must know what the true standard and content of Anthroposophy should be. It does not consist of a sum of opinions which must be entertained by ‘anthroposophists’. It ought never to be said amongst anthroposophists, ‘We believe this’, ‘We reject that’. Such agreement may arise naturally as the result of our anthroposophical study, but it can never be put forward as an anthroposophical ‘programme’. The right attitude can only be: ‘Anthroposophy is there. It has been acquired by persistent effort. I am here to represent it, so that what has thus been acquired may be made known in the world.’ It is still much too little felt in anthroposophical circles what a difference—indeed as between day and night—exists between these two standards. Otherwise the grotesque remark would not be heard continually: ‘The Anthroposophical Society holds this or that belief.’ A remark of this sort is absolutely meaningless, and it is most important that this should be realised.

Were a person to ask—with the intention of obtaining a clear idea of Anthroposophy—let us say, the following question: ‘What is the opinion or standard of life of some particular member of the Anthroposophical Society?’ he would be taking quite a wrong direction to arrive at the nature of Anthroposophy. Yet many would-be active members act in such a manner that this question is bound to arise. Rather should the thought arise: ‘Anthroposophy really exists in the world, and the Anthroposophical Society provides opportunity to become acquainted with it.’

Each one entering this Society should have the feeling: I enter simply in order to learn about Anthroposophy. The normal development of this feeling can be effected by the attitude of the would-be active members. But as things are, something quite different is often produced. People are afraid of joining the Society because, from the attitude of the would-be active members, they receive the impression that they must subscribe with the inmost core of their soul to certain dogmas. And naturally they shrink from this.

The good-will must be developed to efface this impression. Many would-be active members think that if people are received into the Society merely in order that they may become acquainted with Anthroposophy, they will leave again when they have learned what they desired, and we shall never have a compact Society.

But this will never happen if the Anthroposophical Society is rightly comprehended by its would-be active members. It will however come about if we try to make membership of the Society depend upon the acknowledgment of even the smallest dogma—and in this connection every point in a ‘programme’ is a dogma. If the members of the Anthroposophical Society are simply directed to become acquainted with Anthroposophy by virtue of their membership, then, whether they remain in the Society or not will depend upon something entirely different, namely on whether they feel they can hope to continue learning more and more in the Society.

That again will depend upon whether the kernel of the Society is really alive or dead, and whether in the circles of the Society the conditions exist for the living kernel not to die away when it tries to expand into the Society. It is the concern of the Executive at the Goetheanum that the kernel should be alive. The Executive does not administer dogmas; it feels itself solely as the vehicle of a spiritual possession, of the value of which it is fully aware, and it works for the spreading of this spiritual possession. It is happy if anyone comes and says, ‘I wish to share in what you are doing’. As a result of this, the Anthroposophical Society will have a living form. And this will be kept alive if the general attitude and way of working of all the would-be active members is in unison with the Executive of the Goetheanum.

All that one is justified in calling ‘confidence’ in the Society can only flourish on such a foundation as this. If this foundation exists it will not happen again and again that the Anthroposophical Society appears to the world as something quite different from what it really is.

I know quite well the judgment that will be passed by many would-be active members when they read the above. They will say: ‘This we cannot understand; now we really do not know what is wanted.’ But to say this is the worst prejudice of all. The above words only require to be read exactly, and it will then be found that they are neither indefinite nor ambiguous. To catch their spirit does indeed require a certain sensitiveness of feeling; but this ought surely not to be absent in those who wish to be active in the Anthroposophical Society.

Anthroposophical Society (Theosophical Society).

Dear Members of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dear Friends!

The Central Council of the Anthroposophical Society takes pleasure in inviting you to the first General Assembly to be held on February 3, 1913 and on the following days.

The first item on the agenda will be:

Monday, February 3, 3:30 p.m. (Architects' House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93) there will be a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on the following topic:

The Essence of Anthroposophy.

On this and the following days there will also be: Free lectures and discussions by members (registrations for these are requested as soon as possible). On the evenings of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, there will be a lecture cycle by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on:

The Mysteries of the Orient and of Christianity.

(Further details will be announced at the meeting).

On Thursday evening at 8 p.m., there will be a public lecture by Dr. Steiner.

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie v. Sivers, Berlin Wfilmersdorf, Motzstr. 17, of their attendance at this General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Registrations for speeches etc. by individual members are requested to be sent to Miss v. Sivers.

Hoping to be able to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

with warm Theosophical greetings
On behalf of the Central Board
Marie v. Sivers

It is natural that different points of view exist among the members about their own relation to the Anthroposophical Society. A person may enter the Society with the idea that he will find in it what he is seeking out of the inmost needs of his soul. In his search and in the finding of what the Society can give him, such a member will then see the meaning of his membership. I have already indicated that no objection can properly be made to this point of view.

From the very essence of Anthroposophy, it cannot be for the Society to bring together a circle of human beings, and impose upon them when they enter it obligations which they did not recognise before, but are expected to take on simply on account of the Society. If we are to speak of obligations in the proper sense, it can only be of those of the Society towards its members.

This truth (it should indeed go without saying) involves another which is not always rightly understood, nay, is sometimes not even considered.

As soon as a member begins to be active in any way in the Society and for it, he takes upon himself a great responsibility, a very solemn sphere of duty. Those who do not intend to be thus active should not be disturbed in the quiet spheres of their work; but if a member undertakes any activity in the Society, he must thenceforth make the concerns of the Society his own, and this he must on no account forget.

It is natural for one who wishes to be a quiet member to say, for example, ‘I cannot concern myself with the statements of opponents about the Society’. But this is changed the moment he goes outside the sphere of silent participation. Then at once it becomes his duty to pay attention to the opponents and to defend all that is worthy of defence in Anthroposophy and the Anthroposophical Society.

It was bad for the Society that this most necessary fact was not always observed. Members have the fullest right to expect that the Society will give them in the first place what it promises to give. It must surely seem strange to them to be called upon at once to undertake the same obligations as those who hold out these promises.

If, then, we speak of the duties of members to the Society, we can only be referring to those members who desire to be active. This question must not of course be confused with that of the duties which belong to man as such. Anthroposophy does indeed speak of duties. But these will always be of a purely human character; they will only extend the horizons of human responsibility in a way that results from insight into the spiritual world. When Anthroposophy speaks in this way, it can never mean obligations that apply only in the Anthroposophical Society. It will mean duties arising out of human nature rightly understood.

Once more, then, for the members who are active in it, the Anthroposophical Society by its very nature involves definite responsibilities, and these—for the same reason—must be taken most seriously. A member, for example, may wish to communicate to others the knowledge and perceptions of Anthroposophy. The moment his instruction extends beyond the smallest and most quiet circle, he enters into these responsibilities. He must then have a clear conception of the spiritual and intellectual position of mankind today. He must be clear in his own mind about the real task of Anthroposophy. To the very best of his ability he must keep in close contact with other active members of the Society; and it must be far from him to say, ‘I am not interested when Anthroposophy and those who represent it are placed in a false light, or even slandered by opponents’.

The Executive formed at the Christmas gathering understands its task in this sense. It will seek to realise in the Society what has here been expressed, and it can do no other than ask every member intending to be active to make himself a helper and co-operator in these matters.

Only so shall we achieve our purpose, and the Society will be equal to the promise which it holds out to all its members—and thereby to the world at large.

To take one example, it is distressing to have the following experience. It sometimes happens that the members in a certain place, who desire to be active, meet from time to time to discuss the affairs of the Society. In conversation with individuals who take part in these meetings, it will afterwards emerge that they hold certain opinions about each other, each other's activities for the Society, and the like—opinions which are not voiced at all in the meetings. A member, one will find, has no idea what those who are often associated with him think of his work.

It is essential for these matters to be guided into better channels, and this should follow from the impulse which the Christmas gathering has given. Those above all who claim and desire to be active members, should seek to understand this impulse. How often does one hear such members say: I really have the good-will but I do not know what is the right line to take. We should not hold an all too comfortable view upon this subject of ‘good-will’, but ask ourselves again and again, have we really explored all channels which the Society provides to find the right line in co-operation, on the strength of our good-will, with other members?

Dr. Steiner: If things had not gone as they went, the course of the general assembly would have been quite different; we would have come to completely different things earlier. But it is quite good for our members to have to get an idea of how it is done, if you absolutely have to make the affairs of the company your own, and how it is still possible - if you don't encourage the customs of the outside world to be carried into our circles, just as you can carry pseudo-science into them. You may know that if you want to stop any proper work in parliaments, you have the system of “urgency motions”. If you use this system appropriately, you can paralyze all other work. There is no other way: since we have stopped at a certain point, I must also bring to your attention everything that has happened during the proceedings. If we had dealt with these matters earlier, they would have arrived too late.

So, before I get back to the agenda, I have to read out some letters that have arrived:

[Gap in the handwriting]

Miss von Sivers: As a representative of Mr. Horst von Henning, who is the one forming the attacked party here, I would like to say a few words in his defense. Because it is quite clear from Mr. von Henning's letters that these are not contradictions, but rather that he, after perhaps standing for a while under other mind suggestions, has now found the courage to say: A few years ago he thought differently than he does now. - So first of all, he thinks differently about the meaning of the matter. But now it is also clear, after he wrote a letter to Mr. Boldt in the first instance – which is included in the brochure – that Mr. Boldt interpreted the words more in his favor than Mr. von Henning intended. The same is also evident from the letter of Mr. Deinhard, who says that it was only a very fleeting remark, which, made fleeting, hardly contained any recognition. Then it further emerges from the letters of Mr. von Henning that he attaches importance to the fact that he absolutely condemns exerting even the slightest pressure in this direction on the resolution of our great teacher.

But Mr. Boldt wants that because we have not taken sufficient interest in his cause. Mr. von Henning objects above all to coercion and then says that he has never given the importance that Mr. Boldt ascribes to his own writing.

Mrs. Wolfram: I would first like to draw attention to something that is clear from Mr. Boldt's letter that was just read out. In this general assembly, no one had a different opinion than we did, as was made visible by the show of hands. How is it possible that Mr. Boldt suddenly knows that it is necessary to send another letter? One might ask: how did Mr. Boldt have contact with this general assembly? This raises the question: He finds it necessary to do a little more than before – through what contact from here to Munich did he get this impulse? You will see from this that it might be a good idea after all if my request were approved, so that from the outset we would be dealing with a request from a group, not from a single individual.

I would like to respond to what Mr. Novak said. It certainly cannot be denied that we have been able to learn an infinite amount through the Boldt case in this General Assembly. But perhaps we could have learned in a different way if Dr. Steiner had not been forced to talk about this.

Then I would like to point out that my motion was not so much about eliminating motions that are factually unfounded, but rather about eliminating motions that are presented to us in an utterly unqualifiable way. I would like to emphasize that it goes without saying that the point is not to reject any problem as “impossible to address”. If Mr. Boldt had presented the motion to us in a dignified, respectful, and proper manner: “I would like to know how the General Assembly or Dr. Steiner stands on the sexual problem,” I would have signed this motion with pleasure. Any motion can be signed if it is presented in a proper, objective manner.

Once again, I would like to ask you to consider, if possible, how much time we have lost despite everything we have learned, through discussions that have arisen not from the problem itself but from the improper way in which the motion was put forward, the impertinence of which is unparalleled.

Dr. Steiner: I would like to note that the letters I have read could just as easily belong to the Wolfram motion, which we are supposed to deal with now. In response to what has just been said, I would like to note that the words spoken by Ms. Wolfram are deeply rooted: that with us, everything can be discussed if it is in the spirit of our cause. These words are not only deeply rooted, but you should also have the example and, if time permits, hear a lecture from our friend Dr. Max Hermann on this very problem. You will see from this that a man who has studied it scientifically can give a presentation and will be heard here. But you will also notice the difference between what can be said to you here and what wants to penetrate our circles as pseudo-science.

Of course, I would have made a different comment regarding what Mrs. Wolfram said first if I had had the impression that it was clear from Mr. Boldt's letters that he had been informed of the course of the proceedings. But I do not have this opinion. Mr. Boldt comes voluntarily – and may consider his matter important enough that everything that is sent in writing – without him knowing the proceedings of the General Assembly – is taken seriously by his personality and sent to the General Assembly. It is not stated in the letter that he has heard from the General Assembly. He sends it of his own free will; and you could experience that he would send much more if it did not give the impression that it was based on the indiscretion of members sitting here. Otherwise it would have to be treated quite differently according to the rules of procedure.

Ms. Wolfram: The Theosophical Society's headquarters in Adyar has decided to organize lectures in the adjoining room on the days of our general assembly. Since the members gather in the foyer during the breaks between the meetings, it is quite possible that the result of the negotiations could have been overheard in their conversations and passed on to Mr. Boldt.

Dr. Steiner: A written document regarding the Wolfram motion has been submitted:

Modification of the Wolfram motion:
Several members have asked me [gap in the transcript]

Fräulein von Sivers: It still seems to be misunderstood that it is not the executive committee that is sitting here that is meant, but the executive committee of some lodge. We have 107 branches, and it concerns the executive committees of these 107 branches. From several statements I have noticed that this has not been understood at all yet. So we are talking about the boards of all the branches scattered throughout Europe and now even all over the world; we can turn to all of them.

Dr. Steiner: I would be most happy if not we – the board – would plead for it, but [he] could leave it to the free decision of the plenum.

Mr. Hamburger: I do not support the Wolfram motion because the matter is being presented in a way that does not correspond to how Dr. Steiner wants to lead us. Since we are dealing with spiritual matters, we should prescribe more and more and less and less paper for our affairs. This will shake us out of our lethargy.

Ms. Wolfram: I would like to note objectively that, if we look closely, Mr. Ulrich's proposal is much more rigorous than my own. In Mr. Ulrich's proposal, you are dependent on the board of the working group. You have the greatest possible freedom if you accept my proposal to look for whomever you want. Of course, I can only agree with what Mr. Hamburger said, insofar as he presents us with the ideal of anthroposophists as they should be. Unfortunately, however, this ideal has not yet been realized! And we have to deal not with the desired ideal anthroposophist, but with the Anthroposophical Society as it is now, which includes Mr. Boldt and, as he says, 25 percent of his like-minded members. To prevent what Mr. Hamburger thinks from happening, we must now vigorously create conditions that make a “Case Boldt Number II” impossible.

Director Sellin: Since the executive council has just expressed the wish that resolutions be passed by the plenary assembly, I would like to propose that we fully endorse Wolfram's motion and would like to have this motion adopted as my own.

Mr. Schuler: When the “Bund” was founded and then the “Anthroposophical Society”, the ideal was expressed that we would manage without statutes if possible. When the Anthroposophical Society was founded, some statutes were then drawn up. Both must be seen as a great step forward. But we should not go on to set up points, provisions and statutes in the further course; because we know very well from ordinary life that – to put it somewhat drastically, to be understood – the laws are only there to be circumvented. The more laws, statutes and paragraphs there are, the more they are circumvented. Who among us has said that we do not take it for granted that the board is entitled, indeed obliged, to examine all proposals and present them with the opinion it deems appropriate? Who among the members who come to the general assembly can be prepared to think on their feet so quickly when something is proposed to them? Or who would not be grateful if the board, in which they previously had confidence, pointed out this or that? I therefore believe it is right, in a general sense and in the sense of the meeting, that the board can do this on its own initiative. So what should we decide, when we think about it, other than to say: “The board can do that, that is its duty! – So we take the matter on board.” That is what every parliamentary board does: it first discusses the proposals that have been received and presents them with its [gap in the transcript]. Then the general assembly can still do whatever it wants. For example, yesterday we were so quick to dismiss a motion on the agenda: we could perhaps say more about the way Dr. Steiner could be discharged than we are now supposed to say about the Wolfram motion. The motions are only there to be misunderstood. They are misunderstood, no matter how well they are meant. And if a motion or resolution now comes up that still mentions the Boldt case, then we should also move on to the agenda. - I move to move on to the agenda!

We naturally have the confidence; it is written in our hearts – so I also support the words of Mr. von Rainer. Regarding what has been said about the resolution... well, we sometimes have to adopt a resolution; but the one that has been adopted should suffice, and all further ones should be dropped.

[Rudolf Steiner:] Before we discuss the “transition to the agenda”, [Mr. Kühne] is still noted down as a speaker.

Mr. Kühne: As I did yesterday, I would like to point out some difficulties that would arise from accepting the Wolfram motion. Motions must be submitted three to four weeks before the Annual General Meeting. Later motions, which might be recognized as “urgent” at the Annual General Meeting, could not be discussed.

The board, which meets shortly before the general assembly, could not put forward any motions to the general assembly on its own initiative because they were not known three weeks in advance. At the general assembly itself, someone who wants to impose themselves on the assembly could, for example, bring up something in the discussion that they might have thought the board would not let approach the general assembly as a motion to be dealt with at the general assembly. No proposals could be made regarding the proposals that would be discussed at the General Assembly. Proposals from the floor to the General Assembly would be inadmissible. This is how management and procedural difficulties arise.

Dr. Steiner: I have to address something about the rules of procedure. There are now two motions from Ms. Wolfram and a motion to “move to the agenda” from Mr. Schuler. If a motion is legally submitted, as in the case of Ms. Wolfram's motion, you cannot move on to the motion to the agenda; further discussion must be given to it. I must now open the discussion on the motion to move on to the agenda, which means that in this case no further speakers should be signed up. Whether or not this is desirable, I would ask you to consider voting on a motion without being completely clear about it, because not only the motion itself is on the table, but also a modification of it. We will then have to vote on each individual proposal; otherwise the General Assembly would not be properly conducted; it would be legally contestable, and anyone could declare it invalid.

Mr. Arenson: As much as we all want to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings, I think it is too important an issue for us not to discuss it. Even if we talk it over, we can avoid lengths; but to break off briefly does not seem right to me. There is too much at stake for the future in the form in which motions can be tabled for us to be tempted to rush through it.

Mr. von Rainer: It may perhaps help to clarify this matter if I mention something. I would like to have had more time to speak about the concepts of “Roman law” for our time. But I would like to mention just a little about it here because it is relevant to the present.

It is well known that the “Codex Justinianus” is the summary of Roman law. What is this summary? It is the summary of the legal pronouncements made by the praetors at the Roman Forum. These legal pronouncements came about because there was no “written” law at that time; rather, as was generally the case in older times, case law was such that people who were thought to have a special power of judgment over right or wrong decided the case in question in one way or another, depending on whether they considered it right or wrong. There were no general principles of law yet. Now these legal pronouncements, which were made in the Roman Forum, have been collected and principles of law have been made out of them, although originally they were pronounced only for the individual case by the praetors concerned. From this, under the Emperor Justinian, the “Codex Justinianus” was later derived. Our entire legal system today is based on this, which, if you can judge it, consists more and more of laws and offers less and less opportunity to individualize the individual case. I just wanted to point out what the truth is: that it is not possible at all to express a “legal principle” because each individual case would always have to be treated individually.

But what Mrs. Wolfram expresses with her motion also has the character of wanting to express a “principle,” while each individual case must be treated individually. In the Boldt case, the board proved that it did not exercise the right to which it is fully entitled to drop a motion and not bring it before the general assembly, but to deal with it itself. Our situation is such that we do not need the proposal at all. And it would be a continuation of what Roman law has done wrong in jurisprudence if we were to establish such principles again. It is indeed easier for the board if it can invoke the fact that the general assembly has given it the right to deal with proposals on its own initiative; but after all, it will still have to individualize itself.

But now that a “free word to free Theosophists” is being addressed, they will say: “They may have got the motion under control, but they are already working to ensure that no more free bolders can be addressed in the future.” — With that, I also agree that we should not go back to business as usual, because the matter needs to be clarified. But on the other hand, I would like what can be considered a fact, Roman law, to be taken into account as an example.

Dr. Steiner: It will be very good if we discuss these matters thoroughly this time. I must confess that the Annual General Meeting, which is now scheduled for Thursday, has left me with a strange feeling: a feeling of sorrow for those members who have come here to take part in the results of anthroposophical work and to go home with these results. If we were to have only general meetings like this one, it would only serve to make these general meetings longer and longer: this time it is a week, the next time it will be two weeks, and we will no longer be here, but after 52 years it would be 52 weeks!

It would be necessary for you to authorize the board – this is not a motion, but rather concerns a practice – to set the first day or one and a half days for the business negotiations, and to dedicate the remaining days to the Theosophical work. Otherwise, I fear that we will be sitting in front of empty benches at the next General Assembly; I don't think that many members who have to travel long distances to the General Assembly to hear such things will be satisfied.

Ms. Wolfram: I would like to remind everyone that Mr. von Rainer has encouraged us to discuss the delusion and value of laws. What purpose have laws actually had and do have? They have always been children of necessity; man has built a defense against the enemy in them, a barrier against him. If you accept my proposal, we will be doing exactly what Mr. von Rainer wants: we will create a very individual law for the “Individual Anthroposophical Society” that is supposed to protect it.

And it is not because I enjoy developing a law out of myself that I have submitted my proposal, but because I think that something concrete must be done now to stop the current situation. Yes, the board has agreed to take on these long discussions so that this case can be handled as a “typical” one. It is not intended to serve as a model for other general meetings, and the question is whether we want to draw a conclusion from all this or not?

If you listen to what Mr. Schuler said, you will see: in theory, Mr. Schuler is happy to admit that we have the right to consider proposals. But he himself says afterwards: the board will bring it up - and then we'll talk about it! But that's not the point, that a proposal is still being discussed that the board has dismissed after conscientious consideration at its meeting.

We must therefore be clear from the knowledge of the case we have dealt with that it must come to the law, if you want to call it that. There must be a barrier precisely because people are not as they should be, but as they are; we must take this into account. Because the facts are such, we must build a kind of barrier that can later be torn down, when the ideal society has been realized. Building this barrier is truly our duty now.

Dr. Steiner: What is the consequence of such a correspondence between Mr. Boldt and the undersigned, Pschorn, [Zormaier] and Petri, as read out earlier? I will be very brief. In Mr. Boldt's brochure, it says that I have committed the great sin of not speaking to the members as he thinks fit. And these members, Pschorn and so on, write to Mr. Boldt in agreement, so that I should be forced to speak about what Mr. Boldt likes. The consequence would be that I would not be able to determine the topics I speak about, but the members of the Anthroposophical Society. This is the consequence, even if people do not consider it.

It is the sin that people do not consider the consequences of their assumptions! So in the future, it will be necessary to take a closer look at these things and be clear about the consequences of such things. These may be people who mean well, as I said about Mr. Boldt; but the point is that we have the opportunity to move our Anthroposophical Society forward!

Mrs. Wöbcken: Seven years ago, I attended the General Assembly and now, after everything I have heard, I have to say that, in terms of how we handle external matters, we are in exactly the same position as we were seven years ago. Yes, I even have to say: in an even worse position! For this reason, I would like to ask the members to leave it to those who have a true insight into the matter and vote in favor of the motion that Fräulein von Sivers has made.

Fräulein von Sivers: What motion? I would like to consider this not as a matter for the board, but as a matter for the plenary assembly; the general assembly should decide on it and all those who travel here from faraway countries should decide whether they agree with it, or whether we can act somewhat independently for once.

Mr. Lévy: Since I am one of those who have traveled here from faraway countries, I would like to say something for practical reasons. What Mr. Schuler and others have said is, of course, entirely defensible. But it is not a matter of saying something “right”; because from a correct, theoretical point of view, one can also defend the Wolfram proposal. I just want to shed light on the practical side, because we will meet again in a year and want to have learned something from that. The Wolfram proposal says: The board should be informed three to four weeks before the general assembly of the motions to be put forward at the general assembly. One can only say that it would have been very salutary for the Boldt case if that had happened, because the members were required to study a book and a brochure in order to form an opinion about it. So here, if you look at the practical side, there is a necessity to do something. If you also consider that a motion needs to be supported by at least seven people, then you can only say: if a member does not have seven friends in the whole society who support the matter that they want to raise, then they are not being entirely serious about it. These seven people could, after all, be in other countries. But then it turns out to be a settled matter that can be raised. We have already been together for seven hours in the board meeting. So everyone should be able to come and present something to the General Assembly that makes sense. And then the proposals to the General Assembly must be prepared in such a way that they contain sufficient material, and that not just proposals are received that are categorized without anyone thinking about them. Such provisions have already been introduced wherever there are assemblies.

So, for example, I know that the French [Lücke in der Mitschrift] committee has also made such arrangements – and much worse ones than those proposed by Ms. Wolfram.

Mr. Schuler withdraws his proposal and instead makes the following proposal:

The General Assembly may decide that it is left to the board to submit the received proposals with appropriate justifications to the General Assembly or not to submit them. Furthermore, the board determines in advance the duration of the General Assembly.

Mr. Lévy: That would be an infringement of the rights of the plenary. In any case, it should be possible to see what is contained in the proposals. However, it would not be right for the plenary not to see what proposals are coming in.

Dr. Steiner: Since the Schuler proposal is the more far-reaching one, it is necessary to discuss it.

Ms. Wolfram: I would like to know how Mr. Schuler thinks it would work in practice if we were to decide to set aside one or two days for negotiations? Let's assume there are ten or twenty motions; not all motions can be dealt with. So if we only have a limited amount of time, so many motions will have to be dropped, and we would have to deal with each motion for so many minutes, according to the bell. How do you think this can be practically implemented?

Dr. Steiner: If the time for the business negotiations were set, for example, at one and a half days, then the General Assembly would be strictly broken off after one and a half days, and the motions that had not been dealt with would then be “deferred to the next General Assembly”. This would mean that at the next general assembly, we would only be able to discuss items from the previous year's general assembly, and at the following one only matters from the year before last, and so on, as the old Reichskammergericht in Wetzlar did – which is where the phrase “law and rights are inherited like an eternal disease” comes from. Mr. Hubo proposes closing the debate on the Schuler motion. The end of the debate is approved.

Dr. Steiner: We will now vote on the Schuler proposal. I would like to point out that the first part of this proposal would exclude the Wolfram proposal, but not the proposal to determine the duration of the Annual General Meeting.

Mr. von Rainer: I would like to take this opportunity to request that the Board of Management abstains.

Dr. Steiner: You can't make a decision about whether a number of members, who are also members of the board, should have a say or not.

The Schuler motion is rejected.

Dr. Steiner: We will now move on to the further discussion of the Wolfram motion, and I would first ask Ms. Wolfram to determine the exact wording of her motion.

Ms. Wolfram: The motion reads:

The General Assembly may decide that any motion from a member of the General Assembly be submitted to the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society at least three weeks before the General Assembly, and that each applicant must have supported his application by seven members of the Society and three members who are on any board of a working group or on the broader board of the Anthroposophical Society.

Mrs. von Ulrich wishes to amend that only one member of the executive council of any group should support the proposal and no special members, and that furthermore a proposal should be submitted only ten to twelve days after the announcement of the General Assembly.

Mr. Hubo: It seems to me that the matter has now been sufficiently illuminated from “twelve standpoints” and I move that the debate be closed.

[Rudolf Steiner:] Mr. Selling has also requested the floor.

Mr. Selling: We have two points of view here. One sees the society-endangering living from the formal side and wants to contain it. For the other, life is more important; he is against the restriction. The fact that both points of view exist gives them a right to exist and they both have something to say to us. If we look more closely, both can be quite well reconciled. From a practical point of view, it would be foolish not to make use of the experience gained here for the future: that Dr. Steiner was unable to change the title of his lecture in time because he only found out about Boldt's brochure too late, although he would otherwise have done so. This can be avoided in future cases by accepting Wolfram's proposal, which, to a certain extent, represents the last safety valve to be activated in time. But it is much more important that we keep our eyes open and pay constant attention throughout the year, so that we immediately know when a little Boldt is about to start wiggling! (General amusement.) We have to be outwardly conservative, that is, conservative, but at the same time inwardly quite liberal, that is, respectful - not disrespectful - of the life germinating in souls. Then such exuberant life will not harm us, but only serve as a necessary resistance for our development and be guided back into the right direction itself. Boldt has just, as it so often happens, confused the “test” with the “mission”.

The motion to end the debate is approved.

The vote is taken on the Ulrich motion, as it is the most extensive:

The General Assembly may decide that any motion to the General Assembly be submitted to the Board at least ten to twelve days after the announcement of the General Assembly to the members, and that each applicant have the signature of any board member under his application.

This proposal is rejected.

The Wolfram proposal is adopted in its latest wording.

Thereupon the proceedings are postponed until 4 p.m. except for four items.

Continuation

At 4:30 p.m., the proceedings that were adjourned at noon are resumed.

Mr. Bauer: The last “resolution” that was introduced has been withdrawn. Instead, a third version will be read:

The General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, meeting in Berlin between January 18 and 24, 1914, hereby declares that it has the deepest compassion for the aberrations into which Mr. Boldt's thinking has fallen. It sees him as a victim of certain thought suggestions and pseudoscientific influences of our time. In contrast to this, it sees itself as an association of people who consciously and resolutely reject such influences.

The discussion of this resolution begins. Dr. Unger will take over the presidency for the duration of the discussion.

Mr. Lévy: In view of the spirit of the resolution, which refers to Dr. Steiner, I would like to ask the Friends that we express our opinion on it not by raising our hands, but by standing up or staying seated.

Ms. von Ulrich also supports this.

Mr. Lévy's proposal is adopted.

Mr. Baron Walleen: It is a little difficult for me to talk about this matter, because there is no doubt that the content of the resolution expresses our most intimate feelings. But I do wonder whether it is always necessary to emphasize our trust in Dr. Steiner on every occasion? The matter that arose with Mr. Boldt is not of such overwhelming importance. It is self-evident that we have trust in the relevant personalities within our society. I think: too much talking is not good. I just want to recall a healthy word that Mr. Bauer spoke when the “Bund” was founded; it was:

“Who wants to come with me?” Many had the trust, and it has probably only grown stronger since then. And I think: as long as it remains silent, it has a stronger effect on the world than all fine words. The resolution is very fine; but I would like to leave it to you to decide whether it would not be better not to speak about it.

Mr. Bauer: In the resolution proposed yesterday, the final sentence contained something like an expression of trust. It was the echo of the first version. The idea was that this trust on our part should be made known in the circles to which the resolution would reach without our intervention – namely, to the outside world. Ultimately, however, it had to be said that this would have the opposite effect. It is certainly not necessary to declare trust within our ranks. But not to make any statement at all would not be right. Firstly, because we have already made a statement, and secondly because of the threats, insults and so on that are said about Dr. Steiner in the brochure. If we were to leave unchallenged this darkening of our acceptance of masks, the right or duty to disguise ourselves and so on, then we would be reproached with it over and over again, and it would be said, “So it is probably true after all.” But if we have a ready-made explanation for this, then that is a ready-made answer for all those who want to reproach us with the story of the mask-like nature of our great educator.

Mr. Arenson: If we are to pass a resolution at all, then it would not be right if we left out one point — and especially the point that is addressed to Dr. Steiner. We have responded to the other things! So, in view of these allegations by Boldt, we must once again clearly identify our direction, so that three quarters are answered and one quarter simply remains unanswered. The form in which the reply is now presented seems to me to be extremely favorable, because it emphasizes independence from authority. Therefore, we should clearly state the direction in which we are marching. This is not only good, but necessary – and must not be missing from a resolution that we adopt at all in response to this Boldt motion.

Baron Walleen: Mr. Bauer said that this resolution should have an external effect. Then it would have to be published; because the “Mitteilungen” are not written for the outside world. But then I think that everything that could be said has been said in the resolution that Dr. Steiner submitted. I cannot help but feel that this resolution is somewhat superfluous. It would be a different matter if the “Mitteilungen” were really written for the outside world. But they are only for us, and we cannot speculate that they will end up somewhere unlawfully.

Fräulein von Sivers: I would just like to say that it is a fact that the brochures are read. But then it is above all necessary that the members make themselves heard, who are not 75 percent sheep, and that they also clearly express that they are aware of their own judgment and do not go along as sheep.

Mr. von Rainer: Although I have said before how much I am against resolutions, I must say that in the present situation I am not against it. What has prompted us to this resolution now is what is stated in the brochure “Theosophy or Antisophy?” No other attack against Dr. Steiner has been brought forward at this General Assembly. And the resolution is a rejection of this brochure. So it is actually only about the brochure by Mr. Ernst Boldt and nothing else. And if you reject what is in the brochure, you have actually done everything you can with the brochure. If the resolution turns out to be the one that the majority will adopt, I would like to say that it emphasizes what particularly characterizes Boldt's attack: that Dr. Steiner adopts masks and gestures. We must guard against this!

Mr. Selling: It seems necessary, after all, that we show that we can think things through to the end. When we have begun to formulate, we must also bring this point into the form; otherwise it forms the gateway for hostile attacks that come not only from outside but also from within society. Lucifer and Ahriman are also inside and ready to invade again at any moment.

Mr. Levy: If we adopt a resolution here, it is certainly with the absent members in mind. We can only make them understand the way in which the first part of the resolution emerged for us by adding the second part: Not only that we firmly and consciously reject the brochure, but also on the basis of our own judgment and independently of Dr. Steiner. We must also say this to those who are not present; otherwise they might come to a completely false view. And after all, they must also represent the matter externally.

Mr. Hubo: I would like to point out one thing first. Only a small part of the total number of members of the Anthroposophical Society is gathered here, and this resolution in particular would summarize the overall result of our position in short paradigmatic sentences regarding this case and the whole essential question that underlies it. Secondly, it is necessary for the larger number of members who are not present here to read this in black and white, so that what is expressed in the resolution is repeatedly deepened, this ability to judge, which may not yet be very well developed in some people.

Dr. Noll: It seems possible, however, that we take a positive position on Mr. Boldt, especially in view of the fact that Boldt's brochure will continue to be read and may also fall into other hands. This could be done in such a way that, after everything we have now understood, we ask Mr. Boldt to withdraw his brochure. This would be the strongest way for us to express our disagreement with his arguments; so that perhaps the resolution can be worded to request Mr. Boldt to withdraw his brochure.

Dr. Unger: It is not appropriate for us to express a “request” to a person within a “resolution”. This would have to be treated as a special motion afterwards.

Dr. Grosheintz: When Dr. Steiner explained the injustices perpetrated by Mr. Boldt, he divided them into four points: injustice against the board of the Munich Lodge, injustice against Director Sellin, injustice against the Philosophical Theosophical Publishing House, and the injustice against himself was the fourth point. We also agreed that Mr. Boldt should not have written what he did in his brochure. Until now, we have only supported

the first three points and expressed that we have recognized the injustices. We can clearly see why nothing can be said about the fourth point in Dr. Steiner's motion. And I do not understand why Baron Walleen considers Dr. Steiner's motion to be perfectly adequate. Dr. Steiner could not include in the proposal what should be said about the injustice against him. That should come from the plenary! And I believe that it is very nicely expressed in the resolution that is now on the table. I would therefore like to make a motion that we simply vote on this “fourth point” now and close the debate.

Fräulein von Sivers: In response to the previous speaker, I would like to associate myself with what was said by Messrs Selling, Hubo and Lévy. I would like to say to Mr. von Rainer that all the answers to the accusation of “mask-like quality” in the resolution are already implicit in it; but perhaps something can still be changed, and the resolution can then be read again with the addition of a word. Then it will be seen that the things that are desired are already in it. Regarding Dr. Noll's suggestion, I would like to say that we do not have any “requests” to make to Mr. Boldt! The acquaintance with it – even if the resolution is printed in the “Mitteilungen” – where it is said that we have confidence in our own judgment, can be spread throughout the world. We certainly don't need to hide behind an explanation of what is merely a fact when we are being assailed from outside!

The “resolution” will be read again with an amendment in the following form:

Resolution

The General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, meeting in Berlin between January 18 and 24, 1914, hereby expresses its deepest sympathy for Mr. Boldt, who has lost his way in thought. It sees him as a victim of certain thought suggestions and pseudoscientific influences of our time. In contrast to this, it regards itself as an association of people who consciously and resolutely reject such influences. Its greatest obligation towards Dr. Steiner arises from the fact that he has opened up to it the sense of freedom and truth in the field of scientific, moral and spiritual research and endeavour. She turns to Dr. Steiner out of her own sense of judgment and critical sense of truth, in recognition of the broad cultural significance of the treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom he offers. By duly emphasizing her independence from his authority, she believes she is acting in the best way in his interest.

Dr. Grosheintz: We have now reached the point where we have to decide whether we want to make a statement at all or not. It seems to me, after having discussed this matter for so long, that we could also draw a conclusion. And a “conclusion”, a complete conclusion, would be reached, in my opinion, if we were to adopt this statement. This declaration is, in a sense, a counter-declaration. Consider this: another declaration has been made by a member of the Anthroposophical Society, stating that Dr. Steiner has made certain “gestures” towards us, and that this member claims to have the support of 25 percent of the members of the Anthroposophical Society! Four or five of the 3,700 have found themselves fortunate enough to support his cause. This will be proudly announced to the outside world, that “one” person from our circles has stood up and said what so many others outside the Society are saying! Mr. Boldt went a step further: In the “preliminary remarks” of his brochure, he threatened that the inclusion of his writing in the general assembly would depend on whether it would later be incorporated into a larger work, which has been temporarily omitted from this announcement.

I believe that we should also give a response to this answer and take a position on it. It is not really clear to me why we should not dare to make this statement, which so clearly expresses what we all live by, and thus draw the conclusion from all that has been discussed so far.

Dr. Unger: Please allow me to point out that a motion to end the debate has been tabled!

Mr. von Rainer: I really do not think it is appropriate to put this motion to the vote with a motion to end the debate. Everyone who has signed up to speak would have to be given the floor. I am against the motion to end the debate.

Mr. Bauer: Before we vote, I would like to say: Without doubt, we need to explain something. An explanation given by Dr. Steiner during the proceedings would mean nothing to people who think similarly to Mr. Boldt. They would say: “There is also the fact that he was once obliged, due to his ‘arch-archangel activity’, not to make a gesture!”

In any case, Mr. Boldt will count us among those who cannot count themselves among the “Archarchangels”. We will merely have to rely on our logic and our sense of truth. And based on our sense of truth and our logic, and with regard to our guiding principle “Wisdom is only in truth”, we want to reject the view that somehow the truth cannot be upheld by archangels. What has already been done is not enough. We must do it! Actually, no one disagrees with the content of the resolution. So why hesitate to adopt it?

Mr. Toepel criticizes the fact that the resolution is not specifically linked to the Boldt case with regard to the points concerning Dr. Steiner's personality. Based on the brochure, one would have to reject the book “Sexual Problems”. That would be an objective rejection of the “authority”. Since Mr. Boldt is accused of untruthfulness, the resolution would have to address the personality of Dr. Steiner, who would be able to educate us to see through pseudoscientific activities. This should be submitted as a new resolution, to which he would be happy to contribute.

Dr. Unger: The end of the debate is still up for discussion! No new proposals are to be allowed within this proposal.

Mr. Lévy rejects Mr. Toepel's objections because this way of arriving at a result would create dependencies. First, on Mr. Boldt's brochure, and second, on the way in which Dr. Steiner introduced his first resolution. It is always better for us to focus on ourselves. If we went into all the details, as we are otherwise opposed, we would not get any positive work done. Mr. Walther proposes the motion to close the debate. The motion to close the debate is adopted.

Dr. Unger: The debate on the content of the resolution is closed. We will now vote on the resolution itself. However, an “additional motion” has been submitted. Since a separate vote cannot be taken on an additional motion, I would like to put it to the vote beforehand.

Mr. von Rainer: I would like to formulate the additional motion in such a way that it could be inserted at a suitable point in the resolution: “The General Assembly is convinced that Dr. Steiner, true to the motto: ‘Wisdom lies only in truth!’ is acting loyally in the face of all external and internal attacks.

Mr. Hubo: I believe that it is not in keeping with our feelings that we should put what Mr. von Rainer has said into words.

Mrs. von Ulrich: The additional motion is useless because the word “truth”, which was added by Miss von Sivers, contains exactly the same thing – only in a shorter form.

The “additional motion” is rejected.

Dr. Unger: We will now vote on the resolution itself. It has been decided that the vote will be taken by standing up from our seats. I therefore ask that all those in favor of adopting the resolution stand up!

The assembly stands.

Dr. Unger: I hereby declare the resolution adopted unanimously by the General Assembly in the wording that has been read out!

Dr. Steiner (after he has resumed the chair): It did not seem to me that this resolution was somehow a vote of no confidence against me, but rather that it expressed a kind of summary of what I actually endeavored to do in these negotiations: to make it clear what was at stake.

We could have kept quiet about the whole matter if the “75 percent” had not necessarily given themselves a vote of confidence. Whether this is more or less a matter of course – just as “more or less” as it seemed necessary to me to express a special vote of confidence within the company – it still seems very important to me. And let me emphasize that such a document, in which our dear friends declare that they want their own judgment, is available. The objection that has been raised to the effect that this declaration would only be published in our “Mitteilungen” and therefore could not be found by the outside world seems incomprehensible to me. For no one is prevented from using in the broadest public what he finds in the “Mitteilungen” about our positions and views. It is something different from the case of Mr. Casimir Zawadzki, for example, and not as if we were embarrassed to use what is in the “Mitteilungen” to defend our positions in the broadest public. I would just remind you that in repeated cases it has been used in defense of our matters, which have been discussed here, in the broadest public. And it will even be very nice if our members say to certain ongoing attacks: “We passed this resolution back then!” - I don't know why it couldn't be rubbed in everyone's face when dependence and belief in authority are mentioned again! Regardless of what the resolution says about me, I would like to correct this; and I believe that the tenor of this resolution is truly not a vote of confidence in me, and I will therefore have no reason to thank for this resolution as if it were a vote of confidence in me. But it is a summary of why we spoke at all – a rallying cry. If it had not been there, I would not know what we had been trying to do.

Since our time for the business negotiations is up, we have to postpone the continuation until tomorrow at ten o'clock. I had assumed, however, that we would deal with what we have now in three minutes - instead of five quarters of an hour!

The proceedings are suspended at half past five, and the deliberation on the remaining points is set for Friday, January 23, at ten o'clock in the morning.