The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Berlin, June 27, 1898 Dear Madam!

The weeks that have passed since I was once again allowed to visit the Nietzsche Archive - after a long time - have brought me many worries and excitements; and with these I ask you, dear madam, to excuse the fact that I am only able to follow up on the previous discussion today. From information given to me by my dear friend Dr. Heitmüller, I see how you, madam, currently feel about the matter.

You will certainly believe in my enthusiasm for the great cause of Friedrich Nietzsche, dear madam, and you yourself have often spoken such beautiful words to me about my understanding of his art and his teaching that I was deeply moved. I have now suffered deeply since those unfortunate days, which will remain in the memory of all concerned. You may believe me, madam, that it is not at all in my nature to bring my personal interests into the great affair that has become yours through the leadership of your brother's cause. You know, madam, how satisfied I was with the secondary role I was given for a time. At that time I did not feel called upon to assert dissenting views, because I considered it my duty to do nothing against existing rights. But you, dear madam, know best of all that I myself contributed nothing to the role which circumstances then forced upon me. The pain of which I spoke was increased by a special circumstance. Surely you remember our conversation - I think it was in the late summer of '96 - about the "eternal return". At that time we arrived at an idea about this doctrine which I should have developed and defended; then this doctrine would have become a subject of discussion in the widest circles today. I am infinitely sorry that such things, which I believe lie in the direction of my talent, but which I could and should only have done with your constant support, were not done by me. The volume in which the Return of the Same is found should have become an event in Nietzsche literature. You may believe me, madam, that it is infinitely difficult for me to be so distant from the cause of Friedrich Nietzsche now. I felt the pain renewed in your last beautiful letter in the "Zukunft".

I would like to return once again to messages that my dear and highly esteemed friend Heitmüller sent me. You seem, dear madam, to doubt my courage. I assure you that I will not lack courage in a matter that is so close to my heart. And from the unreserved frankness with which I speak here, may you, madam, draw the proof of how seriously I take this matter, how it is linked to my innermost thoughts, feelings and will.

No matter how one may judge my talent: I am deeply rooted in the way of thinking that has found such a grandiose expression through Friedrich Nietzsche, and therefore feel able to contribute my mite to the spread of his art and teachings. I did this myself only recently on the occasion of a lecture I gave in the city of Kant, in Königsberg. The people of Königsberg were unable to suppress their slight displeasure, but afterwards a few clever people confessed to me that the good people of Königsberg only have the understanding for their Kant to gather every year on his birthday and eat their lunch dishes, which are popular in Königsberg. There is no toast because the people of Königsberg don't know what to say about Kant.

May these words of mine show you, madam, that nothing has changed in my nature and that I will always be able to uphold the words that I often said to you in the good, happy hours before the unfortunate events. How can we better honor and understand Friedrich Nietzsche than that we, who believe we have the talents to do so, do our part to spread his ideas? I would consider it an abandonment of myself if I acted otherwise. I am and will always have the strength and courage to stand up for his cause.

With heartfelt respect, yours sincerely

Rudolf Steiner
Berlin W., Habsburgerstr. 11 I.

The outrageous attacks that have recently been directed against me by the Nietzsche Archive and its friends, in particular the outrageous one by Mr. Michael Georg Conrad in the second June issue of the "Gesellschaft", oblige me to add the following to the whole dispute. I was prompted to write the essay that I directed against the "Nietzsche Archive" in Weimar in February of this year (in No. 6 of this weekly) by two facts. The first was the protection given by the "Nietzsche Archive" to the book by the French philosopher Henri Lichtenberger "La Philosophie de Nietzsche". This book was published at the end of last year in German translation with an introduction by Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. In this introduction, Nietzsche's sister says quite clearly that she identifies with Lichtenberger's remarks. It is my conviction that the French philosopher's book distorts Nietzsche's ideas into the trivial. Nevertheless, I might never have bothered with it if it had not been declared the official interpretation of Nietzsche's world view by the introduction and explanation of Nietzsche's sister. That I can have a disparaging judgment of the book for no other than factual reasons, I already proved in the above-mentioned attack by the fact that I myself am praised in the book by Lichtenberger. I will add today that not only am I discussed in the course of Lichtenberger's account (on $. 179 of the French edition) in a way that, if I were concerned with personal vanity or the like, could fully satisfy me, but that the following passage is also found on the last page of the French edition: "R. Steiner. F. Nietzsche, ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit, Weimar 1895; ouvrage signal& par Mme Foerster-Nietzsche comme exposant le plus fidelement les idees de son frere." The second fact that prompted my attack was the appearance of a brochure by Dr. E. Horneffer, the current editor of the Nietzsche edition, "Nietzsche's Return of the Same and its publication to date." In this pamphlet, Nietzsche's view of the eternal return of all things is the subject of assertions which I consider to be fundamentally false. At the same time, it is said that the former editor of the Nietzsche edition, Dr. Fritz Koegel, made egregious errors in the publication of the "Eternal Return" in the 12th volume, which has since been withdrawn from the book trade by the Nietzsche Archive. These errors are said to consist not only in individual readings; but by compiling the individual aphorisms belonging to the idea of the Second Coming, Dr. Koegel is said to have given a completely false picture of what Nietzsche wanted. I have not doubted the errors in detail, but have tried to defend my view that despite them, the picture that the reader gains of Nietzsche's writings from the ı2nd volume corresponds to the true one. Dr. Horneffer sought to maintain his assertion in a reply to my attack in No. ı5 of this weekly. I further defended my conviction in a reply (No. 15 ff. of the "Magazin"). My opinion is that the Nietzsche Archive is not presenting the facts of the case correctly. I am of the opinion, and believe that I have sufficiently proven this in numbers 15-17 of the "Magazin", that Nietzsche's doctrine of the Second Coming is a misguided work, and that Nietzsche himself soon convinced himself of the untenability of the ideas under consideration here. That is why he did not develop the concept any further. What we have in the 12th volume could therefore only give a picture of an unsustainable train of thought by Friedrich Nietzsche. The Nietzsche Archive, however, claims that the appearance of untenability is only caused by Dr. Koegel's misguided editing.

There is therefore a completely scientific dispute here. I am of the opinion that I am defending the truth against a distortion. Unfortunately, in my aforementioned essay, I had to add to the factual attack against the current publications of the Nietzsche Archive a characterization of the events that led to Dr. Fritz Koegel's dismissal. For I had to show that this dismissal was not due to Koegel's academic ability, but to a personal dispute between Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Dr. Koegel. To this end, I have simply related the facts that I know from personal experience. From the day I wrote the essay, I was aware that I would be subjected to the sharpest attacks from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche and her friends. This could not prevent me from speaking the truth in a matter that is as important to me as Nietzsche's cause. Nevertheless, I might have avoided speaking about the character traits and actions of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche if this woman had not made it necessary by the way she administers her brother's estate. Anyone who pushes herself personally to the fore like Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche regrettably makes a purely factual treatment of the matters under consideration impossible. The public should accept what Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche says and does. That is why she also had to be informed about her qualities. There was therefore a compelling reason for me to make a personal characterization, despite knowing what misinterpretations I was exposing myself to by such an approach. I know two things: firstly, that Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche is a charming socialite, captivating through her personal amiability, and that this quality clouds the view of her friends for a truthful assessment of her qualities. I could therefore imagine that her friends would fall all over me. The second is that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche undeniably has great merits in the administration of her brother's estate. These can always be played off against someone who is forced to act as an opponent of this woman. And I could have no doubt that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche herself would defend herself in a way that corresponds to the character I have outlined. I therefore understand her outrageous attack in No. 29 of the "Zukunft" (of April 21, 1900), and finally I also understand the defence that Dr. Arthur Seidl sang for her in the first May issue of the "Gesellschaft". This "defense" of Dr. Seidl shows sufficiently what kind of a child the defender is; and I have unraveled his web of incorrect assertions, of frivolous accusations of my person, and, what matters to me above all, of unbelievable logical nonsense, in the second May issue of the "Gesellschaft".

But now comes something completely incomprehensible. In the second June issue of the "Gesellschaft", Mr. Michael Georg Conrad published a short essay entitled "Steiner versus Seidl", which trumps everything incredible that has been achieved by Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's friends. This essay begins: "For Steiner's manner and behavior in the Nietzsche controversy, I feel that one sentence is decisive, which flows from Steiner's pen in "Magazin" as well as in "Gesellschaft". An artist of style like Steiner writes what he wants to write, with full consideration of the moments of impression and the suggestive value of each individual word. Everything unconscious and unintentional is excluded. Therefore, Dr. Steiner has to bear full responsibility for the effect of his writing. In discussing the effect, I will limit myself to a single sentence. - In the "Society" it is found at $. 201, line 9: "Soon after Dr. Koegel's engagement, Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche used my presence, etc." And now my opponent follows this sentence with the following edifying observation: "Now everything is as clear as day. Now it's obvious why Dr. Koegel has remained silent about the most serious accusations ever since. The persecuted man of honor could not open his mouth out of pure consideration. Of course. Silence is a knight's duty in such a case. Only his faithful squire, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, was allowed to tap on this point with a careful finger. Koegel's engagement! Aha! Poor Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, out of spurned love you acted so wickedly towards the archive doctor and gave him the slip! Because she was not the chosen one! - This is how the uninfluenced, naive reader argues, this is how he must argue. ... The other reader is different, who, with sufficient knowledge of the people and the facts, scrutinizes every word spoken in this dispute with extreme coldness and caution. He receives a completely different impression of Steiner's prose in "Magazin" and in "Gesellschaft" and in "Zukunft" than the good-natured, gullible average reader who is so grateful for ambiguity and scandal. - He reacts to the motif of "Dr. Koegel's engagement", so casually struck, in Steiner's score also with an "aha!" and a "Donnerwetter! But for a substantially different reason. In a flash, this one note has illuminated Dr. Steiner's entire method and attitude to the core. Everything is bright and clear through and through. All the contrapuntal ingenuity, all the contradictory repartee, all the dazzle of syllabic bravura, all the pomposity and snark - poor, ineffective arts! He disrespected the woman and thus stirred up all the dull and evil feelings in the flock to the detriment of Nietzsche's venerable sister. By appealing to the community of bad instincts, Steiner has judged himself."

Now Dr. Arthur Seidl has already reproached me with the same thing in his article in the "Gesellschaft" and found it compatible with his taste and other of his qualities to call my sentence in question an "equally malicious and simple-minded insinuation". I did not owe him the answer. I have provided him with objective proof - as objective as it can be - that I did not insinuate anything, but that with this sentence I merely reproduced a passage in a letter from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche (from a letter to me), which reads: "Dr. Koegel was not only to be the editor, but also the son and heir of the archive. However, the latter was only possible if I had a sincere mutual friendship with Dr. Koegel. I felt this lack and had hoped that we could become better friends through his marriage. But since I was completely mistaken about the bride, the lack of friendship and trust became much more noticeable after the engagement than before."

I told Dr. Seidl: "Only a not entirely pure imagination can see a malicious insinuation in my sentence." And now comes Mr. Michael Georg Conrad, ignores my proof, ignores the interpretation that my sentence receives from the fact that it does not come from me, but from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche, and erects an edifying accusation on this "single" sentence. There are now only two assumptions for me. Either I return Mr. Michael Georg Conrad's compliment and say: "A stylistic artist like Michael Georg Conrad writes what he wants to write, with full consideration of the moments of impression and the suggestive value of each individual word. Therefore, Mr. Michael Georg Conrad has to bear full responsibility for the effect of his writing." Then I would have to say: Mr. Michael Georg Conrad writes an objectively refuted assertion with the specific intention of suspecting me, of degrading me in public opinion. He uses the means that he hopes many will fall for: he sets himself up as the protector of a "worthy" woman who has been severely insulted in her femininity. He is imputing to me the intention of speculating on the base instincts of the "herd" in the most disgraceful way. Anyone who is reasonably unbiased could form their own opinion of my statements, which reflect objective facts, if I wanted to say that about Michael Georg Conrad. I did not need to put my own here, for - what could I possibly care about the statements of a man who is capable of such things! But I do not believe that this is the case. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that Mr. Michael Georg Conrad writes his plate in good faith. He has not the slightest understanding of the whole matter, of the content of the dispute. And because this content is a closed book to him, because he is completely incapable of forming a real judgment, he falls for the marked way out in his childish - basically harmless - manner. Instead, I attach particular importance to another sentence in Conrad's writing. It reads: "The most blind must realize today that everything and every right in this dispute is on the side of Nietzsche's sister." I subscribe to this sentence. Yes, I claim to have proven precisely this sentence through my "contrapuntal resourcefulness" in "Magazin", "Gesellschaft" and "Zukunft". Yes, the "blindest" will realize that everything and every right is on the side of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche. The sighted, however, must be convinced of the opposite. I do not shorten Mr. Michael Georg Conrad's claim to belong to the "blindest" by one iota. He is fully entitled to this claim. He disregards everything I have said on the matter; he asserts the most childish things from the "personal and factual knowledge" that he can muster. When such a man then says: "Dr. Koegel, Dr. Steiner and Gustav Naumann (the author of the silly Zarathustra commentary with the ragamuffin-like naughty and malicious introductions) have severely damaged the reputation of German scholarship, education and chivalry" (on p. 374 of the "Society"), I can only smile pityingly at such a sentence. Moreover, I do not need to prove that Mr. Michael Georg Conrad - whom I appreciate to a certain extent as a poet and novelist - has nothing, nothing at all to do with German scholarship. Because anyone who is at all familiar with "German science" knows that.

I believe Mr. Michael Georg Conrad that it would be right for him if my voice in the Nietzsche controversy could be eliminated with talk as far removed from the issue as his is. For then he, who is not entitled to a judgment on the matter, could do something.

It remains sad that an article like Michael Georg Conrads is possible at all. You champion a cause, and some random person who happens to have personal connections to the people involved in the cause comes along and dares to write in the most spiteful way - to write upholding an absolutely disproved assertion - without at the same time feeling obliged to somehow address the substance of what matters.

And a man who proceeds in this way also has the naivety to pass judgment on the endangerment of "German education". -- One would have to become quite bitter if the matter were not so boundlessly ridiculous. So let's leave Mr. Michael Georg Conrad alone.

With Dr. Arthur Seidl, who in the first May issue of the "Gesellschaft" repeated with as much loquacity as lack of insight what he had been told in Weimar, who does not deny my assertion that Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche today calls blue what was red to her yesterday, but explains from the theorem of the old Heraclitus that "everything flows", - with this Dr. Arthur Seidl in my essay "Frau Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche und ihr Ritter von komischer Gestalt" (2nd May issue of "Gesellschaft"). However, since Michael Georg Conrad's omissions again contain a sentence in a slightly different form that Dr. Seidl already dared to write, I will at least repeat here what I replied to this gentleman on p. 208 of the "Gesellschaft". Mr. Seidl had the audacity to write: "And it must not be overlooked that in the whole battle that broke out, the self-interested and personal motives lay entirely on the side of her (Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's) opponents, who, as Nietzsche publishers, wanted to create pecuniary advantages for themselves." I replied to this gentleman: "Since you speak of Nietzsche publishers in the plural, you are implying that I have ever sought pecuniary advantages in this matter. I was never a Nietzsche publisher; I never wanted to become one, so I never wanted to gain pecuniary advantages. You will not be able to provide proof for your assertions. So you are putting slander into the world."

Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche herself objected to my attack in an article entitled "Der Kampf um die Nietzsche-Ausgabe" in No. 29 of "Die Zukunft" (dated April 2, 1900). It simply asserts: "In the autumn of 1896, he (Dr. Rudolf Steiner) had the passionate desire to become Nietzsche editor, as he was without a position after completing his work on the natural science part of the Goethe edition."

"...As long as Dr. Steiner still saw the slightest possibility that I could involve him in the complete edition, he remained silent. Only now, when he sees from Hornefler's writing and has probably also heard that he is completely superfluous and that everything is going well in the Nietzsche Archive, both philologically and philosophically, does he seek revenge." Although I know Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, I would not have assumed that she would try to impute ugly, personal motives to my attack by making assertions that are as completely out of thin air as this one. I never applied for the position of Nietzsche editor, never expressed a wish of Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche in this direction. On the contrary, in the fall of 1896 I had to fend off this woman's continual "strangest attempts" to make me an editor. Despite this, today she is able to write sentences like the ones quoted. As much as I would have liked to avoid this, I must now return to Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's efforts to involve me in some way in the work of the Nietzsche Archive with words that illuminate the situation even more crudely than those I have used so far. For years, this woman kept me busy trying to carve out some kind of position for me in the Nietzsche Archive. She started in the spring of 1895. She wanted me to come to Naumburg for at least a few days - the Nietzsche Archive was there at the time - to organize and catalog Nietzsche's library. I evaded her for as long as I could in every possible way, finally invoking the "weakened state of health" so popular in such cases. Then I complied with her wish and cataloged the library. I thought this would give me peace of mind. I had been mistaken. The molesting didn't stop. When Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche moved to Weimar in the autumn of 1896, where I was also living at the time, I even used a clear sign of rudeness to avoid any further questions. At first I did not pay Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche a visit in Weimar. She wrote to me saying that I would like to come. I have described several times the situation I was in when the quarrel with Dr. Koegel broke out. I would certainly have left Weimar at that time to be safe from Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche if it had not been my heart's desire to complete my final work on "Goethe's Weltanschauung" in the place where I had spent years thinking and researching Goethe's view of nature. I only made one mistake. I allowed the importance of Nietzsche's cause to keep me from putting Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's chair in front of the door again and again. And this woman is now saying that I wanted to take revenge because I did not get a position in the Nietzsche Archive. Indeed, in No. 33 (May 9, 1900) of the "Zukunft" she manages to write: "It seems insignificant to me that Dr. Steiner wants to prove that I offered him the position, but he did not even consider it. I do not know whether there are people anywhere who think it possible that I am considering an editor who does not want it at all." Yes, of course, one should not think it possible. But Mrs. Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche has done the impossible after all. She claims so many things. For example, she also says (in an omission from May 19 that trumps the one from April 21): "Since the spring of 1894 it had been Dr. Steiner's passionate wish to become Nietzsche editor; and when I, who at that time could not think of choosing him because he was still employed at the Goethe Archive, hired Dr. v. d. Hellen, who was just concluding his work at the Goethe Archive, Dr. Steiner made a terrible scene for Mr. v. d. Hellen and accused him in the most embarrassing way of having taken away this position for which he would have been predestined." Of course, I do not want to draw attention to the glaring contradiction that lies in the fact that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche claims: she could not have thought of hiring me because I was busy elsewhere, but I would very well have thought of seeking the position in the Nietzsche Archive despite being tied up elsewhere. After all, there are more than enough contradictions in everything Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche writes. But this is a good example of how she retells facts. I once had the misfortune of being considered the most suitable Nietzsche editor, not by me, but by a number of other people. Dr. von der Hellen also had this opinion at the time. He therefore took a step with quite noble and benevolent intentions, which, from my point of view, I had to resent. He, who had a position at the Nietzsche Archive, came to me to apologize for it. At the time I had not even remotely thought of seeking the position, and felt quite uncomfortable that I was expected to placate myself. The tearful story that Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche also told in the "Zukunft" on May 9 is just as incorrect as the "embarrassing" scene with v. d. Hellen, but a good deal more ridiculous.

For the time being, that should suffice. For with the basic fable that I had the unfortunate wish to become Nietzsche's editor, all other little fibs fall apart by themselves.

Books like this one can only owe their origin to the unfortunate mania of wanting to write at all costs. On 124 pages, the author compiles all the ideas he has come up with about human abilities, branches of culture, God, religion, religious development, the state, education, morality, law and the life of nations. It is understandable that he does not spare us ideas of social reform, for how could he not believe that he knows something about the future if he thinks he can judge all the circumstances of the past? But we are of the opinion that every educated person has probably already thought something about the above-mentioned concepts; this, however, is no reason to string together such random, incoherent ideas without guiding points of view, without a uniform world view, in a book and have them printed. We do not mean to say that among these ideas there are not some good ones, but alongside them we find sentences which we cannot understand how a man who has grown up in the education of the present can write down, for example, page 73: "Sufferings which someone endures through the sins of his parents, he does not suffer unjustly because he is the flesh and blood of his parents." It would have been more commendable than welding this book together if the author had pursued his really good thoughts on the position of the peasantry in the state and on the mortgage system in economic life and worked them out for himself. For the complete misunderstanding of the principle that (see page 64) "a peasant population that is as strong and healthy as possible is a mainstay of the nation through its ability to develop" on the part of many so-called free-minded men of the people cannot be countered often enough by clarifying the correct view. It is also necessary that the realization of the need to reform the mortgage system, which in its present form is causing serious damage to agriculture, should become more and more widespread. The author would have to deal with these questions separately if his comments, which are correct in this respect, are to fall on fertile ground.

Clearness, clarity and vividness are undoubtedly the characteristics of a good textbook. The present psychology meets these requirements to a large extent. In terms of clarity, the author even seems to go too far. He keeps too close to the surface of the subject matter in his treatment of the material and in his choice of examples. For this reason, he only passes on to the candidates for the magisterium the most tangible, coarsest facts of the life of the soul. The more intimate manifestations of the spirit, the finer forms of its expression are not taken into account. We consider this to be a shortcoming, especially in view of the purpose of the book. The future teacher should also be introduced to the more secret expressions of the human inner being. It is precisely through this that the right ideal of education will develop in him. He will understand the golden rule of all pedagogy, that every pupil is to be treated individually; he will take pleasure in studying every new human soul. He will discover new points of view in every single object of education. He will put his best into his profession because he knows the knowledge of the developing human being in its finest ramifications. He will know how to make something out of the child because he knows the germ that is to develop. If he only understands the main threads of the spiritual fabric, his educational activity will be pedantic, mechanical, average, not appropriate to the subtleties of the soul, which he cannot hear. The arrangement of the material in this book seems to us otherwise excellent, the empirical treatment generally appropriate to the purpose. The discussion of the facts and the exegesis of the phenomena are always followed by the conclusion of the laws, and then their application to pedagogy. However, the pedantic uniformity with which this maxim is applied throughout the book makes it appear as if this method did not originate from the subject matter, but had been introduced into it from outside.

In eight chapters: Development of socio-ethical culture, the origin of language, language and thought, the sounds of language, the development of writing, the development of moral-religious ideas among the Greeks, philosophy of art, science, the author gives the main features of the content of modern education. In a preface, he develops his ideas in an attractive form on how our higher educational institutions can be given a development appropriate to the times through the conversion of mere memorized knowledge into organically absorbed educational material. Knowledge should be transformed from a mere collection of material details into a living skill, so that the educated person is able to see through the surrounding circumstances with a sure eye and to give them the desirable direction according to the current state of cultural development. Instead of dead formal stuff, Biese wants to deal with a sense of orientation in the world and in life. These are general propositions whose correctness is not in doubt. The only question is: what needs to be done to reform our secondary schools in this direction? Biese offers very little to answer this question. The answer would have to consist of two parts: ı. What direction should teacher training take in future? 2. What educational material will lead pupils most safely to the stated goals?

There is no doubt that a great deal needs to be done in both respects. The exclusively "scholarly" interest that is rooted in our secondary school teachers, because their previous education only imbues them with such an interest, must be replaced by studies of culture, art history, philosophy and, in particular, psychology, which are obligatory for every future secondary school teacher, with an interest in the free development of human nature. The future teacher must be capable of two things: studying the great developmental process of humanity and observing the individual nature of every single person. Only equipped with these preconditions will he be capable of his true educational task: integrating the individual into the correctly understood total development process of humanity in accordance with the special dispositions inherent in the former.

The individual chapters of Biese's book are stimulating throughout. Everyone will enjoy reading them. The author combines his knowledge of recent views from the fields of ethnology, linguistics and national economics with an eye for the ideal areas of human activity, sharpened by a deeper understanding of the spirit of the classical period. The latter is particularly evident in his remarks on art. The laws of artistic creation and enjoyment are dealt with in a straightforward manner. Everywhere a spirit rooted in the humanism of the classical period is expressed. Some things could have been deepened, some things sharper in expression, but everything is borne by a noble spirit and a fine way of looking at things. The same can be said of the overview of the individual sciences and their interrelationships. To summarize: Biese's book will be useful to anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with the humanistic educational content of our time in a comfortable way. From this point of view, we recommend it to the widest circles.

A journey through the most recent German poetry

Woldemar von Biedermann, who celebrated his eightieth birthday on March 5, is widely known for his contributions to Goethe literature. For thirty years, he has published studies on Goethe, edited his works, letters and conversations and devoted himself to their interpretation. But Biedermann is not only a researcher; he is also an interesting personality. Anyone who has spent an hour chatting with him will remember it fondly. The passion with which the old gentleman talks about things he is interested in reveals that he has kept his heart young. There is still something in him of the enthusiasm with which he sang rapturous songs about love and women fifty years ago. In 1847, he published poems under the pseudonym Ottomar Föhrau, which he called "a young singer". He also approached the figure of Goethe as a poet before turning his researcher's intuition to it. A play "Doctor Goethe in Weimar" is his first Goethe work. However, it was followed just one year later (1865) by his first academic work "Goethe and Leipzig". Biedermann is not a professional scholar. He was a Saxon civil servant for thirty-eight years. His numerous works are not scholarly enough for philologists. But they are indispensable for anyone who wants to get to know Goethe's life and work better. As co-editor of the Hempel and Weimar editions of Goethe's works, he rendered good service with his wide-ranging knowledge. His collection of "Goethe's Conversations", published a few years ago, is an almost monumental work.

The whole world is under the impression of Kaiser Wilhelm's passing. It almost seems as if the whole of non-German politics is celebrating until the glorious prince is led to his grave. Even in the Orient, there is no movement on the Bulgarian question; Sofia has wisely given no reply to the Grand Vizier's telegram and, determined to maintain its present position, is awaiting further action by Russia or Turkey. Prince Ferdinand apparently feels completely secure on his throne and can count on the devotion of his people. After the failure of the Ghika project, the Romanian ministerial crisis found its simplest and best solution in the reappointment of Bratianu. In the Italian parliament, Crispi answered an interpellation from the radical side concerning the attitude of the kingdom to the Bulgarian question by saying that Italy, if it did not want to deny its own history, could never allow a people striving for freedom and independence like the Bulgarians to be oppressed by foreign despotism. In France, the latest Boulanger hype - individual districts wanted to elect the radical "savior of democracy" as a deputy - has fizzled out like all previous demonstrations that had Boulanger as their focal point. In Russia, the devaluation of public values and the armament for war continued; there was already half-loud talk of the imminent outbreak of state bankruptcy. The Austrian House of Representatives discussed the Catechist Law, but the general interest throughout Austria, as in the other states, is only focused on the events in Berlin. To squeeze them into the space of a short weekly review is simply impossible and could only detract from the force and solemnity of it. We must therefore refrain from doing so. Only one thing may be mentioned in particular, namely that the serious bereavement affecting Germany has given renewed cause to emphasize the solidarity between the allied Central European empires. This found particular expression in a brief exchange of dispatches between Prince Bismarck and Count Kalnoky. What else can we say? Emperor Wilhelm has died! His great son succeeded him under the name of Frederick IIIL! He has issued a proclamation to his people and at the same time a letter to the Imperial Chancellor containing the principles which the new Emperor and King has laid down for his government policy. These two mighty documents, which form an everlasting monument to history, must not be missing from any journal that wants to serve the German people. And that is why we are publishing them in full, even though our readers are undoubtedly already familiar with them. Such words should be preserved and cherished and read again and again in every German home. They read:

To my people!

The emperor departed from his glorious life. In the much-loved father, whom I mourn, and for whom My royal house mourns with Me in deepest sorrow, Prussia's loyal people lost its glorious king, the German nation the founder of its unification, the resurrected empire the first German emperor! His noble name will remain inseparably linked with all the greatness of the German fatherland, in whose new foundation the enduring labor of Prussia's people and princes has found its finest reward. By raising the Prussian army to the height of its serious profession with never-tiring patriotic care, King Wilhelm laid the sure foundation for the victories of German arms won under his leadership, from which national unification emerged; he thereby secured a position of power for the empire that every German heart had longed for until then, but had hardly dared to hope for.

And what he had won for his people in a fierce, sacrificial struggle, he was destined to consolidate and beneficially promote through the long peace work of arduous years of rule. Resting securely in its own strength, Germany stands respected in the council of nations and desires only to rejoice in the peaceful development of what it has won. That this is so, we owe to Kaiser Wilhelm, his unwavering loyalty to duty, his unceasing activity dedicated solely to the good of the Fatherland, supported by the unwavering devotion to sacrifice demonstrated by the Prussian people and shared by all German tribes. All rights and duties associated with the crown of My House have now passed to Me, and which I am determined to faithfully exercise in the time that may be granted to My government according to God's will.

Pervaded by the greatness of My task, it will be My whole endeavor to continue the work in the sense in which it was founded, to make Germany a haven of peace and to cultivate the welfare of the German land in agreement with the allied governments, as well as with the constitutional organs of the Empire such as Prussia.

I place my unreserved trust in my loyal people, who have stood by my house through centuries of history in both good and difficult times, because I am convinced that on the basis of the inseparable connection between prince and people, which is which, regardless of any change in the life of the state, forms the imperishable heritage of the Hohenzollern dynasty, My crown will always rest just as securely as the prosperity of the country to whose government I am now called, and to which I vow to be a just and, in joy and sorrow, a faithful king.

May God give me his blessing and strength for this work, to which my life is henceforth consecrated.

Berlin, March 12, 1888 Frederick III

My dear Prince!

At the start of My government, I feel the need to address you, the longstanding, much-tried first servant of My Lord Father, who rests in God. You have been the faithful and courageous advisor who has given form to the goals of his policies and ensured their successful implementation. I am, and My House remains, deeply indebted to you. You therefore have a right to know, above all, what are the points of view which should determine the attitude of My Government.

The constitutional and legal systems of the Empire and Prussia must above all be consolidated in the reverence and customs of the nation. The upheavals caused by frequent changes in state institutions and laws must therefore be avoided as far as possible. The promotion of the tasks of the imperial government must leave untouched the best foundations on which the Prussian state has hitherto rested securely. In the Empire, the constitutional rights of all allied governments are to be respected as conscientiously as those of the Imperial Diet; but equal respect for the rights of the Emperor is to be obtained from both. It must be borne in mind that these reciprocal rights are to serve only to elevate the public welfare, which remains the supreme law, and that newly emerging, undoubted national needs must always be fully satisfied. I see the necessary and surest guarantee for the undisturbed promotion of these tasks in the undiminished preservation of the country's military strength, My tried and tested army and the flourishing navy, to which serious obligations have arisen through the acquisition of overseas possessions. Both must be maintained at all times at the level of training and the perfection of the organization which has established their fame and which ensures their continued efficiency.

I am determined to lead the government in the Empire and in Prussia in conscientious observance of the provisions of the Imperial and State Constitutions. These were founded by My ancestors on the throne in wise recognition of the unavoidable needs and difficult tasks to be solved in social and state life and must be respected on all sides in order to be able to exert their power and beneficial effectiveness.

I want the principle of religious toleration, which has been held sacred in My House for centuries, to continue to be a protection for all My subjects, whatever religious community and creed they belong to. Each one of them is equally close to My heart. After all, all of them have equally proven their full devotion in the days of danger.

In accordance with the views of My Imperial Father, I will warmly support all endeavors that are likely to raise the economic prosperity of the various classes of society, to reconcile their conflicting interests and to mitigate unavoidable grievances to the best of my ability, without creating the expectation that it is possible to put an end to all the ills of society through the intervention of the state.

I consider the care given to the education of young people to be closely linked to social issues. If, on the one hand, higher education must be made accessible to ever wider circles, then it must be avoided that serious dangers are created by half-education, that life demands are awakened which the economic forces of the nation cannot satisfy, or that the educational task remains unconsidered through the one-sided pursuit of increased knowledge. Only a generation growing up on the sound foundation of the fear of God in simple morals will possess sufficient power of resistance to overcome the dangers which, in a time of rapid economic movement, arise for the whole through the examples of highly exalted lifestyles of individuals.

It is My will that no opportunity be missed to influence the public service to counter the temptation to disproportionate expenditure. Every proposal for financial reform is assured of My unprejudiced consideration in advance, unless the time-honored thriftiness of Prussia allows the imposition of new burdens to be avoided and previous requirements to be eased.

I consider the self-government granted to larger and smaller associations in the state to be beneficial; on the other hand, I put it to the test whether the right of tax imposition granted to these associations, which is exercised by them without regard to the burden emanating simultaneously from the realm and the state, may not disproportionately burden the individual. In the same way, it will have to be considered whether a simplifying change in the structure of the authorities would not appear permissible, in which the reduction in the number of employees would make it possible to increase their salaries.

If we succeed in maintaining the foundations of state and social life, it will give me particular satisfaction to see the blossoming of German art and science, which is so abundant, develop to its full potential. For the realization of these intentions of mine, I am counting on your devotion, which you have so often demonstrated, and on the support of your proven experience.

May it be granted to me to lead Germany and Prussia to new honors in peaceful development with the unanimous cooperation of the imperial organs, the dedicated activity of the people's representatives and all authorities and through the trusting cooperation of all classes of the population.

Unconcerned about the splendor of glorious deeds, I will be satisfied if one day it can be said of my government that it has been benevolent to my people, useful to my country and a blessing to the empire.

Berlin, March 12, 1888

Your well-wishing Frederick III

With the intention of continuing the "Magazin" in the spirit indicated by the outgoing editor in the above words of farewell, we are taking over the management of the magazine. We wish to offer the readers of the "Magazin" a picture of contemporary intellectual life in the broadest sense of the word. All significant phenomena in the fields of literature, art, science and social life will find their illumination in this journal. Contributions from poets and writers will reflect the artistic life of the present day.

Without favoring one-sided currents, we would like to serve the progressive development. We will always keep our columns open to new directions and aspirations. Dilettantism will never find a place in "Magazin"; but we will always endeavor to show full understanding for individual expressions if they are based on solid foundations.

We intend to run the magazine in the spirit of the living present, but no less in the spirit of genuine art and science. We would like to provide an organ for honest artistic creation and free, unreserved judgment.

We believe that the ground for our endeavors has been prepared in the best possible way by the excellent work of the previous editor and his staff. It is our fervent wish that the excellent relationship he has with his staff and readers will also be passed on to us. The "Magazin" was already a valuable magazine for us, as we were only friends and attentive readers. We now approach our task with all the more enthusiasm and good will, and with the best hopes for the future. The fact that the outgoing editor will continue to be a dear guest is a source of great pleasure to us and will also be welcomed with particular gratitude by our readers.

Our publisher, Mr. Erzil Felber, has been close to the one editor (Steiner) for years, both in business and as a friend. His excellent publishing work to date is particularly suitable for arousing the best expectations for the future of the paper.

Rudolf Steiner
Otto Erich Hartleben

Dr. Kurella has just obtained a book entitled "Socialism in England, described by English Socialists, edited by Sidney Webb". This book will be of great use to anyone who wants to understand socialism in the characteristic forms it takes in England. Important contemporary issues, for example unemployment, are discussed in the book by thorough experts. The writers William Morris, Robert Blatchford, John Burns and others have contributed. A wealth of stimulating material is considered from fruitful points of view.