The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Address by Rudolf Steiner before and after the cycle “What significance does the occult development of the human being have for his sheaths and his self?” (GA 145)

My dear Theosophical friends!

We are gathered here for the first time for a cycle after those of our friends who were able to recognize the current state of our Theosophical endeavors joined with the members of the former German Section of the Theosophical Society who – there is no other way to put it – were expelled from our Theosophical Society. It is necessary, my dear friends, at this moment, when I have the honor of welcoming you to this particularly solemn cycle, to add a few words to this warm, theosophically sincere greeting. This is necessary because our friends may often have the opportunity in the near future to speak a word here or there about the true facts of the events that have taken place recently among us and our friends.

We have been able to see from a variety of letters and statements that here and there it has not been felt as natural that we had to choose the mode for our events, for our internal events, not to admit members of the Theosophical Society, insofar as it is administered from Adyar, to these our internal events. It has been shown that this necessary measure has not been perceived as such everywhere, and that in some places it has been thought that we would have done better not to take this measure so strictly in order to maintain peace or the like. Nevertheless, my dear friends, when you really consider everything that has happened, you will be able to, and indeed must, defend to everyone that this measure had to be taken at the appropriate moment. You must only consider that the German Section did not, as one could formally interpret it, leave the Theosophical Society, but in reality was nevertheless expelled, expelled again for a reason that can be formally defined in the very special way that one could even dare to say that the German Section had violated some statutes of the Theosophical Society! For one will say: This German Section has expelled the members of the Star of the East, thus expellers of a particular opinion, from their body. It must be borne in mind that everything had previously been done from the other side, that the German Section could not help but no longer admit to the events of the German Section, not only the members of the Star of the East, but also the personalities who came into consideration within Germany as members of the Star of the East. For the moment the 'Star of the East' made its entry into Germany, it set itself with the declared intention of being hostile to the German Section; in particular, it endeavored to express the system which, among other things, was also expressed in such a - one might say - hidden, peculiar way in the last March 'Theosophist'. The personalities who had adopted the flag of the Star of the East tried to present our work to the world as if it had ever been our intention to exclude any spiritual opinion or point of view from our endeavors.

Thus, a full-scale attack, based solely on objective untruth, was launched against the German Section. And all the measures that were of a milder nature had remained ineffective against this subversive work, which repeatedly and increasingly came to the point of vilifying the entire character of our efforts before the whole world, so that we were forced, for the sake of the possibility of our work, to declare that we could not work with those personalities in Germany who had joined the “Star of the East”. Similar attacks were indeed made by personalities of the “Star of the East” from abroad. The measure that was then taken against the “Star of the East” was nothing more than a defensive measure, and anyone who presents it differently is not telling the truth about it. A necessary defensive measure, provoked by the fact that our work would not only have been disrupted but simply made impossible if we had not resorted to this measure. Our work can truly be characterized by pointing out that there were indeed lodges among us that worked quite differently than we did, but that not a hair on their heads was touched. We “chartered” all the lodges that took a completely different position from the one we ourselves held. But when, with the subversive activities of the Star of the East in mind, lodges were to be founded that were already attacking in their title, not only our work but also the truthfulness and honesty of our Theosophical beliefs, then the defensive measure was necessary for the reason that we would have become untrue people if we had somehow created such lodges.

Thus we were forced to either become untrue deep inside or take this defensive measure against the members of the Star of the East. The tactic can always be presented in a strange light if one first wants to force someone to act and then describes this action as unlawful. It may be said that it has actually happened in few measures in the world that one has behaved in such a way; but that was reserved for the present Theosophical Society to such a high degree.

If you also read the letter that Mrs. Besant wrote to the General Secretary of the Section at that time regarding the impending expulsion of the German Section, you will see this letter as nothing other than a real expulsion. You will have to say to yourself: If the German Section had not seen it that way, then it would have been on false ground.

But then you have to bear in mind that this was preceded by a circular letter from me to the General Secretaries, in which the actual state of affairs was explained in detail. This circular letter contained real documents for the assessment of the situation. It was a distressing experience that apart from the General Secretary of the Scandinavian Section, who has since resigned, there was not a single person in the body of General Secretaries and the General Council who was willing to respond to what I had put forward. Everything that came from the General Secretary was worded in such a way that it was assumed from the outset that all the representations from Adyar were the only authoritative ones that could serve as a basis for assessing the facts. It is a sad fact that resulted from my circular letter at the time. One could say that one might be overcome by a justified sense of pain at the fate of the Theosophical Society when one sees the general deafness of an entire body to the facts that have been openly stated.

And the crowning touch to the whole system was provided by a speech delivered by Mrs. Besant at the representative assembly at Adyar during this convention, in which she showed how completely she lacks any ability to gain a relationship with that necessary sense of duty that one must have to first examine the facts and then make an assertion. Mrs. Besant has, as is well known, made the assertion that my education was conducted by Jesuits. One cannot say anything that would more absurdly and foolishly belie the truth than this claim, which was hurled into the assembly by the leadership of the Theosophical Society at the same time when we had our lecture cycle in Cologne, in the presence of numerous friends, including some from this country, in which we were once again able to affirm how we were trying to stand firmly and truly on the good ground of the old Theosophical Society. My dear Theosophical friends, you should feel the full anomaly of such a fact. Not only that this had happened, but Mrs. Besant had the audacity, the unenviable audacity, to carp an answer to the facts I had presented in the booklet of “Mitteilungen,” where I was first forced to describe the facts, at the end of which she placed the words, these are her last words in this matter.

My dear Theosophical friends, based on our experiences so far, it is possible that there are still people in the Theosophical Society who could add something to this answer. In this answer, one could look for a word that would correspond to objective truth: one would find nothing, because in this answer, almost everything is turned upside down, and in such a way that with an enormous verbiage, this turning of things upside down has been carried out. It is truly wonderful that someone can be found who is capable of turning things upside down in such a way; each sentence includes something that is the opposite of what has taken place.

I did not refer to this document at all at the Berlin General Assembly or the meeting of the Anthroposophical Society, so as not to take up even more of the already heavily taken up time. And I do not want to go into this document today either, which everyone only needs to read to see the spirit in which it was written. I would like to go into just one point, because it cannot be immediately seen from the document itself. At the end there is a sentence that goes something like this: Dr. Steiner says that the pamphlet by Dr. Vollrath – he is referring to the printed pamphlet that was so unpleasantly discussed at the previous general assembly – contains nothing more than certain remarks that Mrs. Besant addressed to me regarding his expulsion. Anyone who can read can see. Here she says that this document from Dr. Vollrath's appeal... was present... indeed she says more, she says: “If that pamphlet contains nothing more than the document that Dr. Vollrath addressed to me, then it must be very harmless.” But the fact that she claims that the pamphlet must be harmless, that the repeated accusations contained in Dr. Vollrath's appeal to Mrs. Besant at the time, because she says that they were harmless. Well, these accusations included, for example, the point that Dr. Vollrath should have turned against me because I greedily enjoyed a large salary and because my exercises were so strongly black magic in nature that numerous people had become ill, some had even died... and that all those exercises were intended only to acquire magical powers and not knowledge and the like. Dr. Vollrath claims that he is willing to prove all these things if Mrs. Besant demands it. That was the document that Vollrath sent to Adyar. ... This letter

was produced by Mrs. Besant, and the above was an integral part of it. Mrs. Besant says about it: “If Dr. Steiner claims that this pamphlet contains only repetitions of that appeal of his, then this pamphlet must be very harmless.” So Mrs. Besant makes the world believe that the accusations that Dr. Steiner had wanted to enrich himself while refusing any salary, and that he had given exercises that were of a black magical nature, that made people ill and even killed them, these accusations, which were indeed made at the time, were called harmless by Mrs. Besant, in order to present the case to the world in her own way. Such are the things that Mrs. Besant has recently been dishing up to her followers in the February issue of “The Theosophist.”

I don't want to add anything else to these things for the moment; after all, the more you add, the less tolerable things become – I just want to ask whether our feelings in Berlin when our friends decided to work towards finally drawing a line under it were justified, whether we can assume, take for granted, that our friends would feel: It is impossible for me to speak to those who continue to call themselves confessors of Misses Besant. It would be a violation of all occult principles to speak to those people who have thrown one out – the expression may be used – who have presented one in such a way as Misses Besant has liked.

I am so reluctant to go into things like the March Theosophist that I don't want to do it. Because what is dipped in sugar-sweet sauce is the most hidden attack that can be imagined.

In principle – as you have seen from the statutes of the Anthroposophical Society – we take the view that anyone can join us. But those who are unable to see the truth of the matter we are dealing with declare in principle, even if [they want to join us], that they actually wanted to leave our organization. And the way the general secretaries have behaved proves that it would be untruthful of us to have taken other measures now than to have drawn a line between what we want and what is being done within this Theosophical Society, not according to the principles, but contrary to all the principles, of the old Theosophical Society.

But I may also say the other side of the matter, my dear Theosophical friends, to the whole affair. And actually it was only necessary so that our friends are not, so to speak, embarrassed when this or that is spoken in the future; it was only necessary to say the words that have just been spoken, as it were, as a background to what I have to say to you further as a kind of greeting. Actually, my dear Theosophical friends, I must admit that I myself, if I may speak to you for a moment – and the friendship you have shown me entitles me to do so to some extent – I myself feel that, in addition to everything that has been bitter and painful, I also feel it as a great liberation, as a liberation from a narrowness that has weighed heavily on me for years in the life of the Theosophical Society since that Congress of European Sections in Munich, where an attempt was made to bring a new note, then still timidly emerging, into the Theosophical Society, not on the basis of some national and one-sided opinion, but on a really broad basis of the present day. There one could hear the judgment: What you have done is not Theosophy, it is something quite different.

A society based on occultism, even if individuals may free themselves from its limits and boundaries to a certain extent, still has forces that work psychically or spiritually, and it was simply not possible within the framework of the Theosophical Society to bring to bear in all its breadth and adaptability for our present cycle of humanity that which is justifiably called occultism. And I hope that if we are granted the opportunity to continue the Anthroposophical Society, our friends will be convinced that our liberation from the Theosophical Society will not lead to a narrowing, but rather to an expansion of our occult endeavors. Much of what was impossible to achieve within the Theosophical Society because of its prejudices, because it was opposed to narrowly defined traditions, can be achieved in the Anthroposophical Society, and those who want to see will see that the breadth of perspective that we need in our present time is to be tried out now, so that what flows down from the spiritual worlds in our time, in the way of spiritual wisdom and spiritual will impulses, can benefit a part of humanity that has an understanding for it. That is why this first cycle, which is being held here before you, my dear Theosophical friends, and which is the first cycle of the established Anthroposophical Society, seems to me to be particularly worthy of celebration.

Address by Rudolf Steiner after the cycle “What significance does the occult development of the human being have for his sheaths and his self?” (GA 145)

As I mentioned at the beginning of this lecture cycle, this lecture cycle itself was a solemn, serious event for me in a certain way; a solemn, serious event because we have, so to speak, the first lecture cycle within the circle of our Theosophical friends after - let's call it today from the one aspect from which we can also look at it - after our liberation from that which, in a certain way, fettered us after all, fetters that we, if we really want to progress with the demands of the spiritual development of humanity, should have found increasingly unbearable and unbearable.

I think it was quite palpable at some points in this lecture cycle that certain inhibiting spiritual forces have now been cast off, and that many things – I don't know if it was felt much – that many things could be brought before the ears of our revered friends in a less inhibited way from the secrets of higher existence, more than was the case in earlier times, when we still carried around the sorrow - which in some respects was a sorrow for us - that thought forms were introduced into our society that came from sources that gave these thought forms, even if they had only spread to people through books, a certain inhibiting influence.

Because when we are dealing with spiritual matters, we are dealing with real forces. We are dealing with a liberation, with the fact that thoughts that used to inhibit us are now – I don't want to say how – withdrawing from our ranks, really withdrawing; thoughts that previously – I don't want to say how – worked within our work. Perhaps in the not too distant future the world will be able to see for itself what these thought forms and various elemental forces are that used to mingle with our ranks from some quarters, but in more recent times have poured into our work only in the form of a distortion veiled in the well-known objective untruths.

We will increasingly feel that what has happened is a liberation; but many things will have to be understood, my dear friends. We have noticed in particular in Germany that a certain movement with pretensions has emerged, the truthful description of which would be nothing short of an outrage; because the way, for example, our opponents in Germany have , which led to the necessary defense, showed everywhere, in every point, the opposite of what must be striven for by a real occult movement, showed everywhere a desire for tyranny poured into objective untruths. A true occultist can only come to want to have nothing to do with those whom he knows cannot belong to him; that is, not to want them in his ranks. That is the only principle that can prevail in an occult movement: positive work and the right not to want to take care of others who work on a different ground. That was the only thing that was claimed within our ranks. And the one who examines will be able to find this ancient, sacred criterion of real understanding of the occult realized precisely in our ranks.

Mocking real occultism was the demand that, for example, the German section had to accept anyone who, in their own opinion, but not in the opinion of this section, had to belong to it. What our opponents demanded of us in the past, and why they hurled every kind of untruth at us, was the same as the demand that people should not walk on their legs but on their heads; only in our time things are not pursued to their ultimate consequences.

It has come to the point that in the last “Mitteilungen” it had to be said that one of the representatives of the “Besant system” in Germany went so far as to say that he did not understand how that strange boy could have gone through the kind of development he was supposed to have gone through. Because, says the gentleman, Annie Besant parades with him as the coming Christ; the expression 'parades' was used; but anyone who has read the so-and-so many incarnations of that strange boy will already know that Annie Besant does not mean the Christ of the Gospels by this; she only says - says that gentleman - to European humanity that he who she does not consider the Christ is the Christ. Well, I believe that if it is possible for someone to write such things, it is proof enough for a cause that should not be further characterized.

So it can mean a relief, which is what happened. You may also have felt this way about this cycle, which was in a sense a solemn and serious one for me because it was the first in our new work, in our new creative endeavor; and indeed there could be nothing else but a feeling of gratitude for this work, which has offered us the opportunity to accept with a certain equanimity all that has come our way in such a repulsive and intrusive and often so brazen manner.

So let this series of lectures, my dear friends, who have taken part in it, be felt in your hearts as a kind of inauguration of a new period of our work. That is how I greeted you at the beginning of this cycle; and I think that in a way we were in agreement; and if we, my dear friends, have not seen some people sitting here who might have been here if events had not taken the turn they did, then another thing, if we feel it right, may lift us above all that: This lecture cycle has shown us, right before our eyes and close to our hearts, that the personality who is so

has become so dear to us and will remain so dear: our dear, highly esteemed Edouard Schuré, who has done so much for modern esotericism in the West in the form of an immensely valuable literature. That this personality has graced us with his presence at this lecture cycle of the Anthroposophical Society is a gift that we cannot value highly enough.

I just wanted to give color and nuance to the words of greeting that I am addressing to you at the end of this lecture cycle, to the effect that we feel united in our souls, in our hearts, in the old theosophical sense that we mean, even where we and that we will feel, feel like a spatial, a physical togetherness, as with such a cycle, as the starting point of a belonging together of souls, of hearts for the spiritually lasting, for that which may work on the spiritual development of humanity.

Address by Rudolf Steiner on the eve of the first Anthroposophical College Course at the Goetheanum.

My dear friends!

With the start of the School of Spiritual Science here in Dornach tomorrow, we are undoubtedly standing at a very important stage in our movement in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. And even if it is only very briefly, I would like to be allowed to say a few words today about the development of this spiritual science, after I already did so to a certain extent here some time ago, a few months ago, due to [opposing] attacks. Nevertheless, today I would like to draw your attention to a few things in this regard.

We will open this course for spiritual scientific knowledge in the Goetheanum itself, in the construction of the Goetheanum, in a building that is still unfinished but has progressed so far that work will be able to begin in it in the next few weeks. And when I now consider the name 'Goetheanum', which was given to this building in the way you know, I cannot help thinking of one of the starting points of this movement. As I have often indicated, and also printed in a few sentences in the introduction to my book Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life, our movement originates from the lectures I gave in Berlin at the beginning of the century to a small circle. This inner circle in Berlin consisted partly of people who at that time called themselves Theosophists; but it also included such personalities who were quite distant from what the others called Theosophy. This circle met once a week in the house of Countess Brockdorff in Berlin, and there lectures were given from the most diverse areas of intellectual and public life; some artistic activities were also cultivated. Once I was invited to give a lecture in this circle. And I accepted, although I had never been in this circle before and did not know whether I had met one or other of the personalities in this circle; in any case, I did not know the lady of the house or the master of the house. But there are moments in life when one is polite. So after I had agreed through an intermediary to give the requested lecture on Nietzsche - it was, after all, quite some time after the writing of my essay “Nietzsche, a Fighter Against His Time” - it occurred to me: You have to be polite, you are now going to the housewife and the head of the household. So I first wrote a letter to Countess Brockdorff, asking her for permission to pay a courtesy call before giving the lecture at the house. Countess Brockdorff wrote back to me that it was not necessary, I should just come to the lecture – I no longer remember on which day it was, just the next lecture [evening]. And so I came into this circle and gave a lecture on Nietzsche. At the end of this lecture, I was invited to give another lecture during the winter season. And I immediately said: Yes, I would give a lecture on the same topic that I had written about in the “Magazin für Literatur”, which I was editing at the time, for Goethe's hundred and fiftieth birthday.

I had written on the occasion of Goethe's hundred and fifth birthday: “Goethe's Secret Revelation”. I said that I wanted to speak about this topic, “Goethe's Secret Revelation”, at the lecture evening to which I had been invited. The lecture took place. And I tried to present everything that can be connected to Goethe's “Fairytale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily” in this lecture at the time.

That was actually, I would say, the original cell of this movement, my dear friends. The original cell was that lecture on Goethe's secret revelation. I have to mention this when we begin an important stage in our movement here at the Goetheanum tomorrow. Actually, it is very nice that this movement is returning to its beginning – at least for me and what I have to do in the movement.

It began with Goethe, and tomorrow we begin something extraordinarily important in the building that was given its name by Goethe. So you see, there is something of consistency and continuity in the whole course of our movement.

The lecture I gave [at that time] on Goethe's secret revelation then led to me having to present the essentials of what is now contained in my essay 'Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life' in connection with modern natural science in that circle during the following winter. Thus, having arisen from Goethe, it was then continued in that writing. I then presented to a wider circle what is contained in my book “Christianity as Mystical Fact”.

What is contained in my book “Mysticism” has already led to a large part of this “mysticism” being translated into English. And that led to me being invited to give lectures on what, in its various forms, was the “Theosophical Society”.

Now I will never allow anyone to take away the right to give lectures, to give what I have to advocate in order to advocate it, where I am invited to do so. Therefore, I also gave lectures for those who called themselves Theosophists, among other lectures, but which, as I told everyone from the outset who wanted to or should hear it, did not contain anything that had not arisen from my own research.

I then took part in various Theosophical congresses. In the meantime, this movement, which had come into being in this way, had gained members within Central Europe, members who stuck together mainly because of the world view that I had already advocated at the time. When I gave the lecture on Goethe's Secret Revelation, it didn't mean much that what was advocated there was advocated at the invitation of the Theosophical Society.

At one of the congresses in London, I also saw Olcott, the president of the Theosophical Society. He said to me at the time, “Yes, with this German Section, it's an awkward business.” I said: Why? – Yes, the membership lists are so difficult for us. – I said: I am not interested in the membership lists, I am more interested in the members; and if the members are there, I don't really care if they are on the list. – Well, similar comments were made more often.

After going through various stages [a congress was held in Munich – it was 1907 –] with the other Theosophists. And at that time, people were very surprised that this movement had sprung up so quickly within Central Europe, as it was put. For there was a dictum that had been passed from one to the other among members of the Theosophical Society, especially in the circles of those who were “advanced” - that's what they called those who directed something here or there; and this dictum, which was constantly being uttered among these people, was: Germany is not ripe for this.

Now, this dictum was somewhat suppressed in Munich at the time. But actually, this dictum did not seem entirely unjustified to me; because we were not ripe for what the Theosophical [Society] held in its bosom, nor are we today, and I don't think we care about it at all.

What this “immaturity” led to was that we did not mature to recognize this Hindu boy, Alcyone – or something like that was his name – who had been chosen to carry the soul of Christ Jesus, when others who had been chosen as suitable candidates for the incarnation of the soul of Christ Jesus had proved unsuitable. We proved ourselves to be completely immature. And so we were thrown out.

And so, more and more developed outwards into the clarity that is the Anthroposophical Movement. But it simply developed outwards only what was originally, very originally there.

You see, I had just been invited to lecture at the Theosophical Society, and I had just founded a German Section in Berlin in 1902; but during the founding, founding negotiations, founding meeting, I had to leave because I had to give a lecture in another venue that was part of a cycle called “Anthroposophical Reflections on World History”. And so you see that while the Theosophical Society was founding its German Section, I was speaking about anthroposophy.

Today there is nothing else there but what actually arose from this original cell, 'Goethe's Secret Revelation'. And the Anthroposophical Society is just that, even in its external name, which was always intended by me.

In 1909 there was a Theosophical Congress in Budapest. At that time all kinds of curious things were already simmering in the center of the Theosophical Society, the Adyar Center. I believe that a part of the more reasonable people at the time had split off from the Theosophical Society, and this part needed a name. They turned to me. I did not think the time had come then to come out openly under the real flag of the Anthroposophical Movement. And so I said at the time: I already know a name that should be given when this movement takes on a reasonable form; but I need it later, I don't want it misused yet. So I said in 1909. I had in mind the name “Anthroposophical Society”.

And then in 1913 the Anthroposophical Society was founded. Those who were then there as members, insofar as they were still members of the Theosophical Society, were thrown out of the latter, lock, stock and barrel.

These things must be faced if we want to see the whole continuity of what is before us today, my dear friends; for here beginning and end are truly connected. And in the course of development, too, you will basically not perceive any breaks if you do not artificially construct them.

Then came the time that had often been pointed out in our anthroposophical lectures, the time when the decline of modern civilization became most evident: the terrible years since 1914 came, and with them the collapse of Central Europe, which in reality is a collapse of modern civilization as a whole. And it was necessary to include this in the current of our anthroposophical movement, which now, I would say, is moving as a social wing within this movement.

Anyone who follows the movement internally can see how the threefold social order movement has grown out of this anthroposophical movement in a completely organic way.

The threefolding movement brought all sorts of new elements into the anthroposophical movement. However, the personalities who were the bearers of these elements were already there at the same time; admittedly, others were added, but as I said, the personalities who were the bearers of these elements were there at the same time. But for a number of personalities, the idea of threefolding had the effect of awakening a new impetus, a new impulse in them. It is not clear to me how this impetus could have arisen from within the Theosophical Society. Because, you see, when I consider these real, actual moments of the genesis of the anthroposophical movement, I always think of such things, as I have mentioned before.

I was once at a Theosophical event in Paris. There, for the most part, the people who were “advanced” spoke. And afterwards, people would express their judgments about what had been said. I can't say they talked about what had been said, but the advanced ones, especially the ladies, moved around partly nimbly, partly a little drowsily, and declared everywhere: There were such wonderful vibrations in this room while so-and-so was speaking! And everywhere you heard praise for these very brilliant “vibrations”.

And from everything that had been said behind the various lectures, I could only imagine that one actually did not use one's ears as a mediator for what was going on in the hall, but it seemed to me that one's nose was used. Because the way people talked afterwards was actually as if they had smelled these “vibrations”. So that one actually had to smell theosophy.

But I have to say: I don't think that much of a social nature could have been sensed from these reports, from these speeches! For there was nothing in all of this that was native to it, nothing of an impact that would have gone so far as to directly grasp the living existence, the full humanity.

The need to grasp this full humanity, however, came to the fore with great force in the second decade of the twentieth century. And if the anthroposophical movement had not sensed that it had to absorb social elements within itself, or rather, had to allow them to emerge from itself, then it would have proved to be just any old sect standing in the corner, but not as that which it was meant to be from the very beginning: the renewal of spiritual life from the original spiritual source for the developmental needs of modern humanity.

This should be fully understood within our movement. And above all, it should be understood that if anthroposophy is to fulfill its task, then it must actually pour its currents into all the individual branches of modern knowledge, it must take hold of all science.

In this respect, nothing was similar in all that had been achieved on anthroposophical ground to what had been achieved on the ground of the Theosophical Society. Because, you see, there they had also made all kinds of compromises with science, but they were compromises. If, on the other hand, you could impress people in Italy or England or elsewhere with a professorial conquest that you had made in this or that, of course, brilliant name, then you were happy: Professor so and so became a member of the Theosophical Society – a brilliant achievement! That's how you drew the line to the sciences.

But the anthroposophical movement should not draw its lines in this way. Of course, one could have some success by bowing and scraping to ordinary science, but we did not do that. So I made myself unpopular, at least in that respect. I could give many examples, but I will give only one.

There was a man [...] within the Theosophical Society who was actually quite charming. He once came to a place where we had an anthroposophical branch. He was a botanist. I was always interested in those things that I thought might incidentally interest him. And so I spoke to the professor of botany, and I talked about some details of botanical science. He was not at all interested, not in the least. He was even a little annoyed, because he was fond of “theosophy” and he assumed that it would not interfere with his botany. He thought to himself: “A botanist – that's someone in the style of modern scientific development. It's a matter of course that everything is in order there. And then, if you have any needs on the side, you also take up theosophy. But there you have two neatly separate drawers: here botany, here theosophy. And there the one does not interfere with the other. Therefore, it became extremely uncomfortable for him to hear about botany from an anthroposophical point of view. One example among many.

But we could not refrain from pouring into everything that comes from the sources of anthroposophical research, into the specific activity of life, into everything that belongs to the world. This became unpleasant for many people, quite unpleasant. Because, right, you could be a good botanist in the sense of the demands of the time, because you had graduated from high school, then did your specialized studies, wrote your dissertation, then became a private lecturer, wrote your book, became a professor – well, you also had your botanical collection – it was all in order; you had that behind you. Why interfere in any way? But because it was unsatisfactory, something was needed for the other needs of the human being. So one took up Theosophy. It was easy to grasp in relation to the many books one had studied before finally becoming a university professor. So one bought a few more, that is, Theosophical books. Now one also had something for the other. The circles should not be disturbed.

But we couldn't do it that way. I, in particular, could not become that well-behaved, my dear friends. And so I was obliged to speak out against this from an anthroposophical basis, to tell people: No, this is not right; we do not need to approach things with a hide; instead, each of the other subjects needs to be properly cleaned up; everything has become dead and must come to life again.

The whole matter is connected with our social demands. For if we had not this ghastly specialization in individual sciences alien to life, if we did not have this lack of understanding of life through these separate individual sciences, then we would not have been driven into the misfortune of recent years. And we must get out of it by starting at the right end and properly penetrating into the pigeonholes. So that the spirit, which alone can carry the development of humanity, is also present in all the individual activities of the life of knowledge. And everything that was to emerge from this life of knowledge was in our anthroposophical movement. And when the new elements came, who felt inspired by the idea of threefolding and by many other things that have been going on in the anthroposophical movement in recent years, the impetus also came to take the path that now leads to what is to begin tomorrow as our anthroposophical college course here.

Above all, it was Dr. Boos, the founder and leader of the Swiss Threefolding Union, who had the inner strength that led to what we will begin tomorrow.

In a certain way, one had to be completely immersed in the realization of the necessity to fertilize all scientific, all artistic, all social life from anthroposophy. You had to be equipped with the inner audacity to really combine absolutely clear, sharply defined thinking with the necessary intuition that sees that what flows through the currents of anthroposophy can really deliver what needs to be delivered to the sciences. Then you have to have that sacred fire that is dedicated to such work. This has been done in a way for which we cannot thank our friend Dr. Roman Boos enough, and it is actually thanks to him that we have his work in front of us, this anthroposophical university course that is to begin tomorrow.

Of course, we must not forget all those who have worked and contributed in abundance; but a driving force must be behind all of this. And this driving force must, I would say, be a social impetus. That was necessary above all. We have had that in relation to these enterprises, and I would just like to wish that we still had many more ventures with Dr. Boos; then we will certainly make progress.

And so we can follow the growth of what I took the liberty of presenting to you today in the original cell, how it branched out into the life of the individual sciences, how it summoned all the friends whom we cannot greet warmly enough and who will now devote themselves as lecturers to the development of anthroposophy in the individual sciences and branches of life. If we can show the world how Anthroposophy is working in the individual branches of science, we will also gain the necessary momentum for the social work of Anthroposophy.

And that, my dear friends, is what should inspire us as we experience this course of the anthroposophical higher education system. We hope that many new seeds will arise from everything that is done, spoken and shown here.

[The following remarks are not directly related to the history of the society from 1902 to 1913:]

"According to the program, we will begin tomorrow with this anthroposophical college course. The first event tomorrow will be what is intended to be the starting point, so to speak. We will begin tomorrow at five o'clock with a musical prelude by our friend Stuten. Then there will be a series of addresses, which I am supposed to open with one about science, art and religion, but which will hopefully lead to a whole series of addresses that briefly point out the significance of the moment, which is so embedded in the present that from here, from this Goetheanum, we are really trying to lead that impulse into the world, which, above all, aims at a renewal of scientific life.

Then there will be a rehearsal of the musical settings of our friend Schuurman, namely his setting of a poetic insertion in the “Chymischen Hochzeit des Christian Rosenkreutz”. Then there will be a break. After a break, declamations and other musical performances will follow. Then this morning celebration will close with a eurythmic performance. So we will first point out the different lines of activity that are to be cultivated here at this Goetheanum.

Today, my dear friends, it would probably be our task first of all to think about how to accomplish the work that falls to us, since we have to ensure that the entire three-week event runs in a dignified but also practical manner. To do this, the gentlemen from our Swiss threefold social order, the gentlemen from the Goetheanum, from the Association of Goetheanism and so on, the ladies and gentlemen, need to be supported by a number of other personalities who - please don't be offended by me, I don't always mean it to sound so bad - order, right, because if they have already been standing outside the entrance before, it is really not necessary to spend another hour until everyone is sitting in their seats, but to make sure that everyone finds their seat as quickly as possible, that what is done is that which leads to sitting still and listening as soon as possible. I have to say that I am actually sorry that I have to speak tomorrow: I would much rather be a steward, because you can develop such wonderful talents when you are a steward. Firstly, a steward, if he is really agile, if he is not clumsy, when he gets a ticket in his hand – excuse me, I don't mean any harm – first looks at it from all sides, just like a clumsy clumsy postal clerk at the counter with the letter, so that you get desperate until you get your ticket for a registered letter, but with a quick movement you immediately know: there is the place - so that the person in question can walk and immediately get to his seat. So direct them quickly, but calmly, and be charming at the same time, not rough, so that the person who is directed to the seat is very happy; so that no one can think: You're being snarled at. So I think this is a good opportunity to develop your best talents; it's actually extremely desirable. And so I ask the gentlemen in particular to be charming. I think it will be especially nice in this case if the gentlemen are officially charming, so to speak; the ladies without office are charming in between. I ask the gentlemen to strive for two things: to get the blue ribbon here, which is to distinguish the folder, into the buttonhole. I think that it will really be a worthwhile goal, especially for those who come from monarchical states, where nothing else is available now in the buttonhole, will be a contemporary ideal. So we will adorn all those who endeavor to view the tickets so quickly, to show them to their seats and to be charming, with a blue ribbon - not a red one, for example, so that the Swiss don't think we're socialists or something like that; right, you can get into all sorts of trouble with the minister Kully if you give people red ribbons; so you will get blue ribbons and all of you will be charming and nimble ushers. I ask you to consider this from these two points of view. The one point of view is that if you know you are one of those who can be nimble and charming, then don't refrain from helping to maintain order. And if you should know that you may have absorbed too much militarism in the course of the last few years, so that you cannot develop such qualities - but this is only said in parenthesis and really not meant badly - so if someone in the course of the last few years has absorbed too strong military tendencies , which are then not suitable for being charming and the like, so if you have got into the habit of commanding too much, then you may practice anthroposophical self-restraint and refrain from participating in the ordering. But as I said, I am only saying this as one would say in the old science: “for the sake of wilderness.” I will present alternatives in a moment. One must be complete in science. We have a scientific course now. Right? There's no need to be as radical as the one person from the neighborhood who, when she came up here for the first time, didn't want to miss the opportunity to reprimand us right away because we — who wanted to be an “innovator” wanted to be – now, wherever you look, we have “old hat, as the Berliners say, about doctor titles and so on; if you are going to start renewing, the personality said, then you should leave out such titles.

Well, that's not true, you can have different opinions about whether you want to do this or that, whether you should dress in a new style; but we don't want to see our ideals in outward appearances, and that's why I mentioned the second point for the sake of completeness, and I sincerely hope that it was not necessary for me to mention it.

Now, that would be part of what we have to complete today, if the personalities concerned, who, as stewards, now feel particularly called upon to do so after what has been said, let us know that they want to get this blue ribbon in their buttonhole for the next few days, and especially for tomorrow. Perhaps it could be the case that Dr. Boos himself or someone he appoints will take the names of those who feel called to such a high office at the end, after all the others have been addressed. That will be one thing.

The other thing would be for me to ask those of the honored gentlemen who are presenting and are already here today to perhaps contact me at the end of this evening, because there is still a lot to be discussed.

That is what I have to say for the time being. And now, since I have only been here since today and have not been able to participate in the rather extensive preparations that were necessary to launch this course, I will ask Dr. Boos to take over the management of this evening and to suggest to us what else needs to be done in this direction.

But then, when we have completed the things to be discussed for tomorrow and the following “days”, we will have to discuss some other things for this evening that relate to some other events. But first we want to discuss the agenda for the course.

Dr. Boos introduces the necessary measures and arrangements for discussion.

At the end, Dr. Steiner takes the floor again:

"I would just like to mention for those friends from out of town who have come as members of the Anthroposophical Society that, as before, anthroposophical lectures will take place on Saturday and Sunday when I am present in Dornach, and I also believe there will be eurythmy performances on Saturday and Sunday. The lectures will take place after the eurythmy at eight o'clock or, if there are no performances on Saturday and Sunday, at half past seven, and if we can accommodate everyone, here in the carpentry workshop, otherwise over in the building. The eurythmy performances will also be here in the carpentry workshop.” Dr. Boos reports on various activities that are intended to incite and slander, and calls for a statement to be made regarding a proposal that has been made to him to send something to the press from the meeting, which is now already in session.

Dr. Schmiedel says that the number of guests should be indicated.

Dr. Boos says that he had also considered drafting a resolution through a mass meeting here, in which those not yet present here could also be included according to the mood; one does not need to come up with numbers; a resolution would be extremely effective in a concise, short form. Adoption of the resolution is proposed. Since no amendments have been proposed, he will ask again. There is unanimity. This matter is thus also brought to a conclusion with regard to this resolution.

Rudolf Steiner: “I do not think it is necessary to say much about the meeting that apparently took place here in Dornach and was evidently convened by the machinations of Pastor Kully and Pastor Arnet, I think it is not necessary to say much about this meeting after the press report.

Certain things have been reported that might perhaps lead one to notice this or that. For example, it is a remarkable fact that these gentlemen, who now, out of absolute untruthfulness and dishonesty, collect all kinds of things that are not true, that these gentlemen are, or at least are supposed to be, able to have accurate reports, for example, of the celebration of our laying of the foundation stone and the like. All the signs are that our people, our members, are basically willing to give the two gentlemen, who are the soul of the counter-action and the emerging movement, just about anything the gentlemen want.

My dear friends, it will soon be nonsense to hold closed meetings when everything from our circle is carried to Father Kully and similar people. It has to be said, because things express themselves. The assembly itself is no concern of ours; what people want to decide among themselves, they may decide among themselves, they may be as indecent as they like; they were indecent enough, as we already know. The thing that the resolution we have just been proposed by Dr. Boos is directed against is precisely what they have excreted as garbage, and what has even been spread by a Swiss newspaper. Of course we have to take a stand against that. Let them decide among themselves what they decide among themselves. Unless we hear that it is happening through spiritual-scientific communications from our members, about things that should be kept within our circles. It is said, for example, that the gentleman who is reported to have spoken in original Swiss German, that he is said to have spoken such filth that people are now said to have felt compelled to simply leave out the dirty bits. But as I said, people can discuss whatever they like among themselves, that's none of our business for the time being. I notice that they should really settle it among themselves. Because those who did not belong and are said to have gone to that meeting were shown in a very indecent manner that they had no business talking, and they were thrown out in an indecent manner. So that in the end, or at least during part of the meeting, some people who did not belong to the group do not appear to have been present at all. There may have been only a few there.

On the other hand, I would like to warn against being too lulled and again giving in to the sleep that has often been characterized here. This sleep in the face of the dangers that come to us from that side is the very worst thing that could actually happen in our ranks. And there is a lot of sleep in this direction.

Today, too, after I barely returned, I heard again that news is spreading in a certain comfort that the Catholics' behavior in such a disgraceful way, as it has happened, has brought us good friends everywhere among the non-Catholics. So for a large number of our members it is not a matter of facing the facts, but of finding another excuse for themselves to lie comfortably on their backs, on the other side, when one ear what is negotiated in the Dornacher “Ochsen” - in that meeting, of which it is said - I don't know if it is true, I emphasize this expressly - of which it is said: Such a great “Ochsen” event has never taken place in Dornach before. - But that was only because the meeting was in the “Ochsen”.

But to those who would like to go back to their cozy comfort zone, I would like to recommend paying attention to a certain statement in the report that has been written about this meeting, a statement that is already intended to be understood and that could show how significant the attacks actually are. It is said there – I don't have it verbatim right now, but it is in one of the reports – that the way Pastor Kully spoke at that Catholic gathering was quite remarkable. The person reporting this was apparently strangely touched, struck by Pastor Kully's particular turn of phrase. He says: “A unified thought did not go further through the speech; the speech did not make much sense either; but it was made up of nothing but individual images, which were presented to the people in a certain way, and which were only summarized by everything that hatred could do to present these images and these imaginations to the people, held together by the element of hatred. Anyone who is aware of the nature of the methods and polemics on certain sides also knows that such a message means an extraordinary amount, and that these things are effective.

It is necessary, or at least would be necessary, that finally, after decades of practicing anthroposophy, it could be known on our side that such things cannot be ignored, and that one cannot calm oneself by saying: Now they are being stirred up on that side, and stirred up in a very shameless way... This only wins us special friends on the other side. The point is to try to look things squarely in the eye; because the people - I have said this before - the people who are fighting on that side, they know very well what they want, they know very well how they should work, and how they should escalate things, and how they should then finally reach their goal through this clever escalation and sentiment.

So it would be better to try to face the matter squarely and realize that the situation is indeed a very dire one for us, here where we have just put what should be most sacred to us. And it would be necessary to consider that we should wake up, and to consider that it is always possible that things that should remain among us are immediately also carried to Father Arnet. Or is it not very strange, for example, when there is a message here: Pastor Arnet has spoken of how many people have been seriously affected in their health by the effects of my exercises; if he wanted to talk further about what is being reported to him, he would have to violate the seal of confession.

So, it would be a good idea to keep an eye on what is coming to the surface again and again as a result of such things, even within our ranks.

Furthermore, I consider it unworthy of us to concern ourselves with the assembly; because, right, certain things simply cannot be negotiated about anymore. When they begin to consider a certain level below decency as their own, you can no longer negotiate, you can no longer talk about the matter seriously at all. But that should not encourage anyone not to be vigilant about what comes from there.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss today. I would therefore ask those honored friends who wish to acquire the blue ribbon in their buttonhole to report to Dr. Boos.

And in a few minutes I will be back here and ask those friends who will be speaking in the next few days and are here today to come together for a very short meeting to discuss a few points on which we need to agree. So I will be back here in a few minutes.

It is incumbent upon me at this moment to inform this larger circle of an intention from the narrower circle of those who already know about it. But allow me to say a few words beforehand. It should be specified that what is said now has nothing to do with what occurred at this General Meeting or what is otherwise related to previous actions – which however does not exclude the possibility to consider them later should it be so desired.

When we look around in the world today we must say to ourselves: the contemporary world is full of ideals – and when we ask ourselves: Is the representation of these ideals by those who believe in them and are in the service of them sincere and honest? In many cases we will find the answer is: Yes, that is the case. It is the case with respect to the belief and dedication the individuals are capable of. When we then ask: How much is generally demanded when such a representation of ideals is brought to life, whether by an individual or a society? From an observation of life we will find the answer to be that in most cases all is demanded; but what is mostly demanded is that the asserted ideal finds an absolute, unconditional recognition. And the basis for such an assertion of the ideal is that an absolute agreement is demanded. And usually a lack of agreement is expressed in some kind of derogatory criticism. Those words characterize how the principle of an association of people has occurred in a natural way during the course of human development and the justification of such a principle is not meant to be doubted in any way.

But above all the possibility I wish to present is this: one was always convinced that opinions were never authoritative in respect to the realities of what went on within the societies; whatever a person might think, in the moment he uttered it, by the very fact of uttering it he entered into a contradiction with the reality. Much must be said in this moment which is not in agreement with much that is valid in the world. Thus it must be said: the avowal to a thing may not be true when this avowal is spoken of. I would like to give a simple example from which you can see that the danger can exist of being untruthful simply by pronouncing it. And I would like that this simple truth be understood as being in agreement with Rosicrucian principles.

Let's assume that someone expresses his agreement using the words: “I am silent“, which cannot be true. When someone says: “I say nothing“ and wants to describe a present condition, what he says is not true. The possibility exists that by verbally avowing a thing he denies it. From this simple example: “I say nothing”, you can see that it is applicable to innumerable instances in the world and can happen again and again.

What is the consequence of such a fact? The consequence is that the people who want to associate in order to represent such and such a thing find themselves in a most difficult position if the reasons for associating are not those of the sense world but the super-sensible world.

And when we understand what we have been able to receive from the new occultism in the course of time, then we will perceive that it is absolutely necessary in the immediate future to represent certain aspects of this occultism before the world. Therefore the attempt must be made against all the principles of occult societies and their heretofore possible organizations with something completely new, something born from the spirit of that new occultism about which we have often spoken in our circle.

This can only be done, however, if we turn our view only towards something positive, only toward something which exists in the world as a reality and which can be cultivated as such a reality. Realities in our sense are only the things which primarily belong to the super-sensual world. Therefore the attempt will for once be made to realize something that comes from the super-sensible world: an attempt not to found a community of people, but to endow it.

In other opportunities I have already emphasized the difference between founding and endowing. It was many years ago. It was not understood then, and since then hardly anyone has thought about this difference. Therefore the spiritual powers which stand before you under the symbol of the Rose Cross have also overlooked bringing this difference to the world.

A renewed attempt must be now made, this time in an energetic way, not to found but to endow a community. If it is not successful, it will have failed for a certain amount of time.

Therefore I am announcing to you now that among the appropriate persons a method of working is endowed of which the individual, whom we have called Christian Rosenkreuz since western pre-history, is the originator.

What has been said today is preliminary. For what has happened until now refers only to a part of the endowment, which, if possible, should enter the world; it refers to the artistic representation of Rosicrucian occultism.

The first point I want to make is that a method of working shall enter the world as an endowment under the direct protectorate of that individual whom we designate by the name which he had for the outer world during two incarnations: Christian Rosenkreuz; and that this endowment shall be called by the provisional name: “Gesellschaft für theosphische Art und Kunst“ (“Society for the Theosophical Way and Art“)

This named is not definitive, but a definitive name will be introduced once the first preparations for bringing this work into the world have been accomplished. What is described as the “Theosophical Way” is in a beginning stage, for the preparations must still be made in order to understand what is meant.

But what is understood with the concept of theosophical art has already begun in many ways by the performances in Munich and above all the meaningful beginnings in Stuttgart; and an additional important advance for the understanding of these things is shown by the Johannes building [in Munich].

In a certain sense what has been tried provides the required sanction. Within this working group a purely spiritual task should develop, a task which is to result in a spiritual method of working and in its results.

Obviously no one can be a member of this working group who holds to a different viewpoint, but only if he has the will to dedicate his strength to the positive aspects.

Perhaps you may say that I am talking a lot of words that are not understandable. That must be so with things such as these – for they must be grasped directly in life. And what must happen within this endowment is that according to purely occult laws what is a very small circle at first is formed which sees its duty as cooperating on this project.

A very small circle has been created. It has been created in the sense of our stream for this endowment; thus in a certain sense a beginning has been made, to be detached from me and to have its own substance.

Thus this small circle that has been sanctioned stands before you, which has received its task with its own recognition of our spiritual stream, and thereby the sovereignty and the independence of all spiritual striving, which is an absolute necessity for the future to be introduced to humanity.

Therefore within the endowment I will only serve as interpreter of the basic principles, which as such only exist in the spiritual world – as interpreter of what is to be said about the intentions behind the thing itself. Therefore a curator will be named for the outer cultivation of the endowment. And with the positions which will be created only duties are associated, no honors, no laurels, so that it is impossible for rivalries or other misunderstandings to occur if it is correctly understood.

At first Miss von Sivers will be recognized by the endowment itself. This recognition is none other than what is interpreted from out of the endowment; there are no namings, only interpretations. It will be her task in the immediate future to do what can be done in the sense of the endowment, to gather a corresponding circle of members - not in the usual sense, but rather that they come on their own.

Furthermore within this branch of our endowment a number of associate branches will be created. And as the leading personalities of these associated branches – insofar as these already exist – several of the proven personalities from within our spiritual movement will be placed with the corresponding responsibilities.

This is also an interpretation: for each of these associate branches an archdeacon will interpret.

We will have an associate branch for general art; arch-deacon will be Miss von Eckhardstein – and that is a specific recognition for what this personality has done in recent years for this art.

Literature will be published: provisional Curator Miss von Sivers. Further architectural subjects: Dr. Felix Peipers; for Music: Mr. Adolf Arenson; for painting: Mr. Hermann Linde. The work to be done is essentially interior. What will appear in public will be what has been done in total freedom by these personalities.

A certain coordination of the personalities involved in this work will be necessary; this coordination will take place in a completely different way than is the case with normal organizations. The office of Conservator will be served by Miss Sophie Stinde, in charge of this coordination.

The way in which these personalities coordinate requires work very soon. In order for the organization to come into being a Keeper of the Keeper of the Seal will be necessary: Miss Sprengel, and the Secretary will be Dr Carl Unger.

At first this will be a tiny circle. Don't think of it as something which appears immodestly in the world and says: Here I am. Rather think of it as nothing more than a seed around which the thing itself will develop.

It will be organized so that by next Three-Kings Day (Epiphany) a number of members of the community will be interpreted [sic]. This means that by that time a number of members will have been given to understand that they may participate. So that for the beginning the most ample freedom in this direction must be assured in that the will to be a member should not come from anyone except the one who desires to be a member. And the fact that he is a member is brought about by his being recognized as a member. This will only be for the time between now and the next Three Kings' Day, January 6, 1912.

Thus we have before us something which because of its peculiarity reveals itself as something which flows from the spiritual world. Furthermore it will present itself as flowing from the spiritual world in that the membership will be always and exclusively concerned with spiritual interests and the recognition of spiritual interests – with the exclusion of everything personal.

This announcement constitutes a deviation from older occult principles, and this deviation consists in the fact of the announcement itself. Therewith no use is made of that assertion of the man who says: I say nothing.

The initiative will be announced; and in full consciousness that it will be announced, this should be the result. But as soon as someone indicates that he somehow does not agree with what is announced today, then he should of course not be expected to adhere to such a way of working. For nothing but complete free will for such a way of working is applicable. You will see though, if something like this should come into being – if our time with its peculiarities allows that it come into being – then really through recognition of the spiritual world work can be done, the principle that not only all nature and all history, but everything done in the world, all human deeds are based on the spiritual, super-sensible world.

You will see that it is impossible for someone to belong to such a community if he is not really in agreement with it. If you think that what I am saying is somewhat curious, then please understand it thus: that it happens in full consciousness that what is therewith preserved is everything which belongs to the eternal laws of being. And what also belongs is that the principles of becoming are taken into consideration.

At this moment one can sin against the spirit of what is to happen if he goes out into the world and says: this or that has been founded. Not only has nothing been founded, but the fact is also that to give a definition to what is to be done will never be possible – for everything is to be in continual becoming. And what is to happen because of what has been said today cannot be described. It is based on what happens, not on words, but on persons, and not even on persons, but on what the persons will do.

It will be in a living stream, a living becoming, and everything that is said about it will be untrue at the same moment. Thus also today the principle is none other than the first principle: Recognition of the spiritual world as the basic reality. All other principles are to be formed as the thing develops. As a tree in the next instant is no longer what it was, but has added something new, so should this be like a living tree. Never should what it is to become be compromised in any way by what it is.

Therefore if someone wanted to define outside in the world as a founding what has been described here as a beginning, then he would commit the same untruth as someone who says: I say nothing. Whoever uses in this way this or that word in order to characterize the matter, he says something incorrect. Therefore at the beginning it is a question of the people who want something like this coming together. Then the matter will progress. And it will profoundly differentiate itself from what the Theosophical Society is. For not one attribute described here today can pertain to the Theosophical Society.

I had to say these things for the simple reason that the matters which the endowment deals with are also publicly connected to the Theosophical Society. Because through this endowment – in the sense of intentions the contents of which do not lie in the physical world and have nothing to do with Ahriman – a spiritually ideal counterbalance to everything connected to a founding in the outer world must be created. Only in the context can a connection be seen with what already exists, that this branch of our endowment, the branch for Theosophical Art, should create a counterweight for what is connected to the Ahrimanic. It may be hoped that an excellent model will be created by the existence of this branch of our endowment. And the other branch will do its duty in the corresponding manner.

What figures as art in the movement for spiritual science must flow into our culture from the spiritual world. Spiritual life must be the basis for everything we do. It will be impossible to confound this ideal spiritual movement with any other, which also calls itself “Theosophical Movement” and will wish to participate.² Wherever we may be, the spiritual moment is our foundation. The example of the festival in Munich, the building in Stuttgart – at the limits of possibility at first, but it was everywhere attempted that the spirit be the most important, was the conditio sine qua non.³ Those who are already somewhat familiar with what this is all about will understand me. These words are spoken less for their content than that the guidelines be indicated.

When the next Three Kings Day passed and no further nominations had been made known, one of the people who had heard his address asked Dr. Steiner when that would happen, he replied: the fact that it didn't happened could be considered an answer. The year 1912/1913 was overburdened with the dispute with Annie Besant, her proclamation of the new messiah and her “Star of the East” being active also in Germany. The President [A. Besant] received from the adherents of the western spiritual movement inaugurated by Rudolf Steiner a demand for a precise statement about the agreements reached in Munich and Budapest, instead of her evasiveness, her hide-and-seek games and behind-the-scenes acting. These were the same people who together with members from many provinces founded the “Bund”, which was followed in 1913 by the founding of the Anthroposophical Society after the expulsion of the German section by the President of the Theosophical Society. Meanwhile work was undertaken in various areas through the nomination of the intimate circle: the Johannesbau-Verein [St. John Building Society], in the completion of Society's house in Stuttgart, the so-called “Art-and-People's-rooms” in Munich and Berlin, one of Miss von Eckardstein‘s initiatives. The most spiritually outstanding publication was the Calendar of the Soul, a result of Dr Steiner's cooperation with Miss von Eckardstein; here the wonderfully transparent nuances of speech allow spirit and soul to interact and become one with nature. Various other things sought a peaceful unfolding in the future. But the World War started and its associated commotions, which deeply affected the living conditions and relations between the members from various nations in Dornach. We tried to overcome such blood [national] ties, but every now and again commotion and disruption occurred. The most irritating crisis for Dornach was in the summer of 1915. A Dr. Gösch, a typical representative of psychoanalysis, stepped front and center. He convinced himself that the Keeper of the Seal had opened his eyes about promises that Dr. Steiner gave and didn't comply with. He published this according to psychoanalytical methodology in a brochure. At the same time he wrote a letter to Dr. Steiner in which he described his theories based on the “revelations” made to him by the Keeper of the Seal. The Keeper of the Seal could not have understood the task given her by this name other than in a most personal sense. She felt herself to be the inspiration for the spiritual teaching given to humanity by Dr. Steiner. And as she also played the role of Theodora in Rudolf Steiner's Mystery Dramas in Munich, she took all this as evidence of a symbolic promise of marriage, for the fulfillment of which she had waited “seven years”. The many complaining letters revolving around this point gave Dr. Gösch the opportunity for a psychological interpretation in Freudian sense for the illumination of her case. He had been for a long time himself in Freudian treatment for a nervous disorder, which had deeply infected his person. His open letter of complaint provided the opportunity for strictly carried out actions by which the membership was to obtain clarity about the case. Descriptions about the case exist and constituted the basis for the special number of the magazine „Anthroposophie“ [and] the book published in Stuttgart: Anthroposophie und Psychoanalyse. Here is only mentioned what has to do directly with the case Sprengel – alias Proserpina – alias Theodora – alias Keeper of the Seal, and what she experienced in such a mystical, personal way as megalomania. Of course symptoms existed of her conceit even before the war. Because of this unfortunate megalomania, the possibility of further nominations to the existing circle of eight personalities failed – caused by egoistical conceit on one hand and the absurdity of false mysticism on the other. The Keeper of the Seal “sprang” the seal in the most common human sense. The necessity of women being active participants in the cultural tasks of the future is non-negotiable and will be accomplished despite failures in individual cases. - That's what happened in the case of the Keeper of the Seal.

Dr. Steiner expressed himself in the following way about this affair in an address during the so-called crisis in 1915:

“It was announced in autumn that because certain impossible symptoms had become apparent in our Society it was necessary to found a certain smaller society whereby I had attempted to attribute certain titles to a number of close associates who have been a long time in the Society in that I required of them that they would act independently in the sense of these titles. I said at that time: If something happens, the members will be informed by Three Kings Day. Nothing was informed and it is therefore obvious that the Society for the Theosophical Way and Art does not exist. It is self-evident because nobody informed anything. It is self-evident that the information would have been sent if the thing had been realized. The manner in which it was conceived in a certain case made it impossible. It was an attempt.⁴

The circle of nominees, as an internal matter, was shattered; outside the war raged; in Dornach the practical work continued no less intensively despite the external circumstances. Due to the recall to the fronts of so many artists and helpers, the burden of work fell heavily on the women. Few men were able to remain, Hermann Linde for one. From early morning on clanged the hammering and chiseling from wood which grew up out of the cement foundation to the curved domes. The outer and inner walls bore the organically moving forms, warmed and waved by the human hands grooving them. In the interior space the columns rose with their bases, capitals and architraves, until they reached the place where both domes merged into each other – a symbol of the soul's experience of how the cosmos separates and unites simultaneously.

The painters and their helpers were gathered around Hermann Linde. Dr. Steiner had drafted the motives for the painting of the domes, copies of which are preserved in Alinari's reproductions (Rudolf Steiner's drafts of the great dome in the first Goetheanum – realized by Alinari, Florence.) With diligence and zeal new priming methods were tried through which the effect of vegetable colors unfolded in glowing brilliance; plants were rubbed zealously by a group of helpers, from which the new colors for the dome paints derived. Weekly eurythmy performances provided the opportunity for the development of personal fantasy and to practice with the outlines Dr. Steiner had prepared.

In Germany a most capable replacement was soon found for the “sprung” Keeper of the Seal in the person of Miss Berta Meyer. During the months of the war years we spent in Germany, she often came from Bremen to Berlin to perfect her knowledge of jewelry art by means of Dr. Steiner's suggestions. A happy opportunity for new motivation was the return of a member from the orient with a collection of precious stones. Stones were selected whose inner substance and brilliance were especially appropriate. It was a peculiar experience to feel the cool ripple of the stones on one's hand and their penetration in one's etheric body. This grasp in the coolness of the stone kingdom and the almost exciting affecting glow of melting metal in fire, especially gold, brought the elements of nature's force clearly to consciousness. Dr. Steiner's drawing for the Mystery Dramas' seals provided the basis for the spiritual studies of this predestined [new] Keeper of the Seal, who left us so many excellent artistic works.⁵ Death tore her from us at the very moment that a place for her work, a Jewelry art school, could have been arranged in Dornach. The form forces of eurythmy, carried by etheric impulses and the musical art seeking new ways, which by experiencing the sharps and flats, over the fifth, to grasp the force of their origin in tone, to which they thanked their being, were also rehearsed with these seals. Thus feeling the way to lost words.

The new architectural style created by Dr. Steiner, which incorporated the plant movements and did not shut itself off from the outer world, but opened to the world, was also faithfully used in the glass windows.⁶ Floods of light had to stream into the space; differentiated according to the rainbow, but retaining the basic tones brought the hovering and weaving light colorings into the room. The delicateness of the nuances were intensified by the different thickness of the glass which acquired the motive during the grinding and etching; its spiritual content related to the path of initiation of humanity into the future. Whereas the motive of the larger and smaller domes followed the macrocosmic and microcosmic evolution of humanity leading to the fulfillment of his I.

The new art of black-white line drawing given by Dr. Steiner developed alongside the creative colors.⁷ And all these, artistically created from the most varied elements, were brought to life in the art of the spoken word – speech formation⁸ – which divines the original forces of the lost “Word” and to a certain extent grasps it. Through the little that was achieved by hard work it was possible to partly fulfill what Dr. Steiner referred to as the mission of the spiritual movement inaugurated by him: to allow the forgotten spiritual stream around Goethe and Schiller to flow again into culture.

We have lived in the plenitude of his impulses. He was torn from us by death in 1925. He had to pay with death for the immeasurable richness of his gifts. We were enlivened and carried by his encouraging spiritual force.

• 2. Rudolf Steiner may be referring here to the strong differences which occurred during this time, the end of 1911, because Rudolf Steiner refused to allow the members of the order founded by Annie Besant, “The Star of the East“ to attend events of the German Section [of the Theosophical Society] led by him.
• 3. Translator Note: gaps in all three manuscripts
• 4. lecture of August 1915 in Dornach – unpublished.
• 5. Kleinodienkunst. Die Dramasiegel. Nach himweisen und Entwerfen von Rudolf Steiner mitgeteilt und aussgearbeitet durch Beerta Meyer-Jabobs.
• 6. Die Goetheanum-Fenster-Motive Rudolf Steiners, Assja Turgenierff
• 7. Die schöpferische Kraft der Farbe, Hilde Boos-Hamburger
• 8. Sprachgestaltung

A lecture given during the first general meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Berlin

My dear theosophical friends! When in the year 1902, we were founding the German Section of the Theosophical Society, there were present, as most of our theosophical friends now assembled know, Annie Besant and other members of the Theosophical Society at that date – members who had been so for some time. Whilst the work of organization and the lectures were going on, I was obliged to be absent for a short time for a particular lecture of a course which I was at that time – more than ten years ago – delivering to an audience in no way belonging to the theosophical movement, and the members of which have, for the most part, not joined it. Side by side, so to say with the founding of the theosophical movement in Germany, I had during these days to deliver a particular lecture to a circle outside it; and because the course was a kind of beginning, I had used, in order to describe what I wished to say in it, a word which seemed to express this still better than the word ‘Theosophy’ – to be more in keeping with the whole circumstances and culture of our time. Thus, whilst we were founding the German Section, I said in my private lecture that what I had to impart could best be designated by the word ‘Anthroposophy’. This comes into my memory at the present moment, when all of us here assembled are going apart, and alongside of that which – justly of course – calls itself Theosophy are obliged to choose another name for our work, in the first place as an outer designation, but which at the same time may significantly express our aims, for we choose the name ‘Anthroposophy’.

If through spiritual contemplation we have gained a little insight into the inner spiritual connection of things – a connection in which necessity is often present, even if to outer observation it appears to be a matter of mere ‘chance’ – feeling may perhaps be allowed to wander back to the transition I was then obliged to make from the business of founding the German Section to my anthroposophical lecture. This may be specially permissible today when we have before us the Anthroposophical Society as a movement going apart from the Theosophical Society. In spite of the new name no change will take place with regard to what has constituted the spirit of our work, ever since that time. Our work will go on in the same spirit, for we have not to do with a change of cause, but only with a change of name, which has become a necessity for us. But perhaps the name is for all that rather suitable to our cause, and the mention of feeling with regard to the fact of ten years ago, may remind us that the new name may really suit us very well. The spirit of our work – will remain the same. It is really that which at bottom we must call the essence of our cause. This spirit of our work is also that which claims our best powers as human beings, so far as we feel ourselves urged to belong to this spiritual movement of ours. I say, “ours best power as human beings” because people at the present time are not yet very easily inclined to accept that which – be it as Theosophy or Anthroposophy – has to be introduced into the spiritual and mental life of progressive humanity.

We may say “has to be introduced” for the reason that one who knows the conditions of the progressive spiritual life of humanity, gains from the perception of them, the knowledge that this theosophical or anthroposophical spirit is necessary to healthy spiritual and mental life. But it is difficult to bring into men’s minds, in let us say a plain dry way, what the important point is. It is difficult and we can understand why. For people who come straight from the life of the present time, in which all their habits of thought are deeply connected with a more materialistic view of things, will at first naturally find it very difficult to feel themselves at home with the way in which the problems of the universe are grappled with by what may be called the theosophical or anthroposophical spirit. But it has always been the case that the majority of people have in a certain sense followed individuals who make themselves, in a very special way, vehicles of spiritual life. It is true the most various gradations are to be found within the conception of the world that now prevails; but one fact certainly stands out as the result of observing these ideas – that a large proportion of contemporary humanity follows – even when it does so unconsciously – on the one hand certain ideas engendered by the development of natural science in the last few centuries, or on the other hand a residuum of certain philosophical ideas. And on both sides – it may be called pride or may appear as something else – people think that there is something ‘certain’, something that seems to be built on good solid foundations, contained in what natural science has offered, or, if another kind of belief has been chosen, in what this or that philosophical school has imparted.

In what flows from the anthroposophical or theosophical spirit, people are apt to find something more or less uncertain, wavering – something which cannot be proved. In this connection the most various experiences may be made. For instance, it is quite a common experience that a theosophical or anthroposophical lecture may be held somewhere on a given subject. Let us suppose the very propitious case (which is comparatively rare) of a scientific or philosophical professor listening to the lecture. It might very easily happen that after listening to it he formed an opinion. In by far the greatest number of cases he would certainly believe that it was a well founded, solid opinion, indeed to a certain degree an opinion which was a matter of course. Now in other fields of mental life it is certainly not possible, after hearing a lecture of one hour on a subject, to be able to form an opinion about that subject. But in relation to what theosophy or anthroposophy has to offer, people are very apt to arrive at such a swift judgment, which deviates from all the ordinary usages of life. That is to say, they will feel they are entitled to such an opinion after a monologue addressed to themselves, perhaps unconsciously, of this kind, “You are really a very able fellow. All your life you have been striving to assimilate philosophical – or scientific – conceptions; therefore you are qualified to form an opinion about questions in general, and you have now heard what the man who was standing there, knows.” And then this listener (it is a psychological fact, and one who can observe life knows it to be so) makes a comparison and arrives at the conclusion, “It is really fine, the amount you know, and the little he knows.”

He actually forms an opinion, after a lecture of an hour’s length, not about what the lecturer knows, but very frequently about what the listener thinks he does not know, because it was not mentioned in the hour’s lecture. Innumerable objections would come to nothing, if this unconscious opinion were not formed. In the abstract, theoretically, it might seem quite absurd to say anything as foolish as I have just said – foolish not as an opinion, but as a fact. Yet although people do not know it, the fact is a very widely spread one with regard to what proceeds from theosophy or anthroposophy. In our time there is as yet little desire really to find out that what comes before the public as theosophy or anthroposophy, at least as far as it is described here, has nothing to fear from accurate, conscientious examination by all the learning of the age; but has everything to fear from science which is really only one-third science – I will not even say one-third – one-eighth, one-tenth, one-twelfth, and perhaps not even that. But it will take time before mankind is induced to judge that which is as wide as the world itself, by the knowledge which has been gained outwardly on the physical plane. In the course of time, it will be seen that the more it is tested with all the scientific means possible and by every individual science, the more fully will true theosophy, true anthroposophy be corroborated. And the fact will also be corroborated that anthroposophy comes into the world, not in any arbitrary way, but from the necessity of the historical consciousness.

One who really wishes to serve the progressive evolution of humanity, must draw what he has to give from the sources from which the progressive life of mankind itself flows. He may not follow an ideal arbitrarily set up, and steer for it just because he likes it; but in any given period, he must follow the ideal of which he can say, “It belongs especially to this time.” The essence of Anthroposophy is intimately bound up with the nature of our time; of course not with that of our immediate little present, but with the whole age in which we live. The next four lectures,¹ and all the lectures which I have to deliver in the next few days, will really deal with the ‘essence of Anthroposophy’. Everything which I shall have to say about the nature of the Eastern and Western Mysteries, will be an amplification of ‘essence of Anthroposophy’. At the present time I will point out the character of this ‘essence’, by speaking of the necessity through which Anthroposophy has to be established in our time. But once again I do not wish to start from definitions or abstractions, but from facts, and first of all from a very particular fact. I wish to start from the fact of a poem, once – at first I will only say ‘once’ – written by a poet. I will read this poem to you, at first only a few passages, so that I may lay stress on the point I wish to make.

The god of love speaks softly to my inmost heart
In deep words of yearning,
He speaks of marvellous things,
Which throw my thoughts into a whirl;
So flattering is everything he says.
And as I hearken and delude myself,
I strive to repeat what I hear;
It is but lost labour.
It is beyond my power.

After the poet has enlarged further on the difficulty of expressing what the god of love says to him, he describes the being he loves in the following words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

It appears to be quite obvious that the poet was writing a love-poem. And it is quite certain that if this poem were to be published somewhere anonymously now—it might easily be a modern poem by one of the better poets—people would say. “What a pearl he must have found, to describe his beloved in such wonderful verses”. For the beloved one might well congratulate herself on being addressed in the words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

The poem was not written in our time. If it had been and a critic came upon it, he would say: “How deeply felt is this direct, concrete living relation. How can a man, who writes poems as only the most modern poets can when they sing from the depths of their souls, how can such a man be able to say something in which no mere abstraction, but a direct, concrete presentment of the beloved being speaks to us, till she becomes almost a palpable reality.”

A modern critic would perhaps say this. But the poem did not originate in our time, it was written by Dante.²

Now a modern critic who takes it up will perhaps say: “The poem must have been written by Dante when he was passionately in love with Beatrice (or someone else), and here we have another example of the way in which a great personality enters into the life of actuality urged by direct feeling, far removed from all intellectual conceptions and ideas.”

Perhaps there might even be a modern critic who would say: “People should learn from Dante how it is possible to rise to the highest celestial spheres, as in the Divine Comedy, and nevertheless be able to feel such a direct living connection between one human being and another.” It seems a pity that Dante has himself given the explanation of this poem, and expressly says who the woman is of whom he writes the beautiful words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

Dante has told us – and I think no modern critic will deny that he knew what he wanted to say – that the ‘beloved one’, with whom he was in such direct personal relations, was none other than Philosophy.

And Dante himself says that when he speaks of her eyes, that what they say is no untruth, he means by them the evidence for truth; and by the ‘smile’, he means the art of expressing what truth communicates to the soul; and by ‘love’ or ‘amor’, he means scientific study, the love of truth. And he expressly says that when the beloved personality, Beatrice, was taken away from him and he was obliged to forego a personal relation, the woman Philosophy drew near his soul, full of compassion, and more human than anything else that is human. And of this woman Philosophy he could use these words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

—feeling in the depths of his soul that the eyes represent the evidence for truth, the smile is that which imparts truth to the soul, and love is scientific study.

One thing is obviously impossible in the present day. It is not possible that a modern poet should quite honestly and truly address philosophy in such directly human language. For if he did so, a critic would soon seize him by the collar and say. “You are giving us pedantic allegories.” Even Goethe had to endure having his allegories in the second part of Faust taken in very bad part in many quarters. People who do not know how times change, and that our souls grow into them with ever fresh vitality have no idea that Dante was just one of those who were able to feel as concrete, passionate, personal a relation, directly of a soul-nature, towards the lady Philosophy as a modern man can only feel towards a lady of flesh and blood. In this respect, Dante’s times are over, for the woman Philosophy no longer approaches the modern soul as a being of like nature with itself, as a being of flesh and blood, as Dante approached the lady Philosophy. Or would the whole honest truth be expressed (exceptions are of course out of the reckoning), if it were said today, deliberately that philosophy was something going about like a being of flesh and blood, to which such a relation was possible that its expression could really not be distinguished from ardent words of love addressed to a being of flesh and blood? One who enters into the whole relation in which Dante stood to philosophy, will know that that relation was a concrete one, such an one is only imagined nowadays as existing between man and woman.

Philosophy in the age of Dante appears as a being whom Dante says he loves. If we look round a little, we certainly find the word ‘philosophy’ coming to the surface of the mental and spiritual life of the Greeks, but we do not find there what we now call definitions or representations of philosophy. When the Greeks represent something, it is Sophia not Philosophia. And they represent her in such a way, that we feel her to be literally a living being. We feel the Sophia to be as literally a living being as Dante feels philosophy to be. But we feel her everywhere in such a way – and I ask you to go through the descriptions which are still existing – that we, so to say, feel her as an elemental force, as a being who acts, a being who interposes in existence through action. Then from about the fifth century after the foundation of Christianity onwards, we find that Philosophia begins to be represented, at first described by poets in the most various guises, as a nurse, as a benefactress, as a guide, and so on. Then somewhat later painters etc. begin to represent her, and then we may go on to the time called, the age of scholasticism in which many a philosopher of the Middle Ages, really felt it to be a directly human relation when he was aware of the fair and lofty lady Philosophia actually approaching him from the clouds; and many a philosopher of the Middle Ages would have been able to send just the same kind of deep and ardent feelings to the lady Philosophia floating towards him on clouds, as the feelings of which we have just heard from Dante. And one who is able to feel such things even finds a direct connection between the Sistine Madonna, floating on the clouds, and the exalted lady, Philosophia.

I have often described how in very ancient periods of human development, the spiritual conditions of the universe were still perceptible to the normal human faculty of cognition. I have tried to describe how there was a primeval clairvoyance, how in primeval times all normally developed people were able, owing to natural conditions, to look into the spiritual world. Slowly and gradually that primitive clairvoyance became lost to human evolution, and our present conditions of knowledge took their place. This happened by slow degrees, and the conditions in which we are now living – which as it were represent a temporary very deep entanglement in the material kind of perception – also come by slow degrees. For such a spirit as Dante, as we gather from the description he gives in the Divine Comedy, it was still possible to experience the last remnants of a direct relation of spiritual worlds – to experience them as it were in a natural way. To a man of the present day it is mere foolish nonsense to except him to believe that he might first, like Dante, be in love with a Beatrice, and might afterwards be involved in a second love-affair with Philosophy, and that these two were beings of quite similar nature, the Beatrice of flesh and blood, and Philosophy.

It is true I have heard that it was said that Kant was once in love, and someone became jealous because he loved Metaphysics, and asked “Meta what?” – but it is certainly difficult to introduce into the modern life of the spirit enough understanding to enable people to feel Dante’s Beatrice and Philosophy as equally real and actual. Why is this? Just because the direct connection of the human soul with the spiritual world has gradually passed over into our present condition. Those who have often heard me speak, know how highly I estimate the philosophy of the nineteenth century; but I will not even mention it as possible, that anyone could pour forth his feelings about Hegel’s Logic in the words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

I think it would be difficult to say this about Hegel’s Logic. It would even be difficult, although more possible, with regard to the intellectual manner in which Schopenhauer contemplates the world. It would certainly be easier in this case, but even then it would still be difficult to gain any concrete idea or feeling that philosophy approaches man as a concrete being in the way in which Dante here speaks of it. Times have changed. For Dante, life within the philosophic element, within the spiritual world, was a direct personal relation – as personal as any other which has to do with what is today the actual or material. And strange though it seems, because Dante’s time is not very far removed from our own, it is nevertheless true, that for one who is able to observe the spiritual life of humanity, it follows quite as a matter of course for him to say: “People are trying nowadays to know the world; but when they assume that all that man is, has remained the same throughout the ages, their outlook does not really extend much further than the end of their noses.” For even as late as Dante’s time, life in general, the whole relation of the human soul to spiritual world, was different. And if any philosopher is of opinion that the relation which he may have with the spiritual world through Hegel’s or Schopenhauer’s philosophy, is the only possible one, it means nothing more than that a man may still be really very ignorant.

Now let us consider what we have been describing – namely, that on the transition from the Graeco-Roman civilisation to our fifth period, that part of the collective being of man which we call the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, which was specially developed during the Graeco-Roman period, was evolved on into the self-conscious soul, during the development which has been going on up to the present. How then in this concrete case of philosophy does the transition from the Graeco-Roman to our modern period come before us – i.e., the transition from the period of the intellectual soul to that of the self-conscious soul? It appears in such a form that we clearly understand that during the development of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, man obviously still stands in such a relation to the spiritual worlds connected with his origin, that a certain line of separation is still drawn between him and those spiritual worlds. Thus the Greek confronted his Sophia, i.e. pure wisdom, as if she were a being so to say standing in a particular place and he facing her. Two beings, Sophia and the Greek, facing each other, just as if she were quite an objective entity which he can look at, with all the objectivity of the Greek way of seeing things. But because he was still living in the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, he has to bring into expression the directly personal relation of his consciousness to that objective entity. This has to take place in order to prepare the way gradually for a new epoch, that of the self-conscious soul.

How will the self-conscious soul confront Sophia? In such a way that it brings the ego into a direct relation with Sophia, and expresses, not so much the objective being of Sophia, as the position of the ego in relation to the self-conscious soul, to this Sophia. “I love Sophia” was the natural feeling of an age which still had to confront the concrete being designated as Philosophy; but yet was the age which was preparing the way for the self-conscious soul, and which, out of the relation of the ego to the self-conscious soul, on which the greatest value had to be placed, was working towards representing Sophia as simply as everything else was represented. It was so natural that the age which represented the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, and which was preparing the self-conscious soul, should bring into expression the relation to philosophy. And because things are expressed only by slow degrees, they were prepared during the Graeco-Roman period. But we also see this relation of man to Philosophia developed externally up to a certain point, when we have before us pictorial representations of philosophy floating down on clouds, and later, in Philosophia’s expression (even if she bears another name), a look showing kindly feeling, once again expressing the relation to the self-conscious soul.

It is the plain truth that it was from a quite human personal relation, like that of a man to a woman, that the relation of man to philosophy started in the age when philosophy directly laid hold of the whole spiritual life of progressive human evolution. The relation has cooled: I must ask you not to take the words superficially, but to seek for the meaning behind what I am going to say. The relation has indeed cooled – sometimes it has grown icy cold. For if we take up many a book on philosophy at the present day, we can really say that the relation which was so ardent [passionate] in the days when people looked upon philosophy as a personal being, has grown quite cool, even in the case of those who are able to struggle through to the finest possible relation to philosophy. Philosophy is no longer the woman, as she was to Dante and other who lived in his times. Philosophy nowadays comes before us in a shape that we may say: “The very form in which it confronts us in the nineteenth century in its highest development, as a philosophy of ideas, conceptions, objects, shows us that part in the spiritual development of humanity has been played out.”

In reality it is deeply symbolic when we take up Hegel’s philosophy, especially the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, and find as the last thing in this nineteenth-century book, a statement of the way in which philosophy interprets itself. It has understood everything else; finally, it grasps itself. What is there left for it to understand now? It is the symptomatic expression of the fact that philosophy has come to an end, even if there are still many questions to be answered since Hegel’s days. A thorough-going thinker, Richard Wahle,³ has brought this forward in his book, The Sum-Total of Philosophy and Its Ends, and has very ably worked out the thesis that everything achieved by philosophy may be divided up amongst the various separate departments of physiology, biology, aesthetics, etc., and that when this is done, there is nothing left of philosophy. It is true that such books overshoot the mark but they contain a deep truth, i.e., that certain spiritual movements, have their day and period, and that, just as a day has its morning and evening, they have their morning and evening in the history of human evolution.

We know that we are living in an age when the Spirit-Self is being prepared, that although we are still deeply involved in the development of the self-conscious soul, the evolution of the Spirit-Self is preparing. We are living in the period of the self-conscious soul, and looking towards the preparation of the age of the Spirit-Self, in much the same way as the Greek lived in the epoch of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, and looked towards the dawning of the self-conscious soul. And just as the Greek founded philosophy, which in spite of Paul Deussen⁴ and others first existed in Greeks, just as the Greek founded it during the unfolding of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, when man was still directly experiencing the lingering influence of the objective Sophia, just as philosophy then arose and developed in such a way that Dante could look upon it as a real concrete, actual being, who brought him consolation after Beatrice had been torn from him by death, so we are living now in the midst of the age of the self-conscious soul, are looking for the dawn of the age of the Spirit-Self, and know that something is once more becoming objective to man, which however is carrying forward through the coming times that which man has won while passing through the epoch of the self-conscious soul.

What is it that has to be evolved? What has to come to development is the presence of a new Sophia. But man has learnt to relate this Sophia to his self-conscious soul, and to experience her as directly related to man’s being. This is taking place during the age of the self-conscious soul. Thereby this Sophia has become the being who directly enlightens human beings. After she has entered into man, she must go outside him taking with her his being, and representing it to him objectively once more. In this way did Sophia once enter the human soul and arrive at the point of being so intimately bound up with it that a beautiful love-poem, like that of Dante’s could be made about her; Sophia will again become objective, but she will take with her that which man is, and represent herself objectively in this form – now not merely as Sophia, but as Anthroposophia – as the Sophia who, after passing through the human soul, through the being of man, henceforth bears that being within her, and thus stands before enlightened man as once the objective being Sophia stood before the Greeks. This is the progress of the history of human evolution in relation to the spiritual facts under consideration.

And now I leave it to all those, who wish to examine the matter very minutely, to see how it may also be shown in detail from the destiny of Sophia, Philosophia and Anthroposophia, how humanity evolves progressively through the soul principles which we designate the intellectual soul (the soul of the higher feelings), the self-conscious soul and the Spirit-Self. People will learn how deeply established in the collective being of man is that which we have in view through our Anthroposophy. What we receive through anthroposophy is the essence of ourselves, which first floated towards man in the form of a celestial goddess with whom he was able to come into relation which lived on as Sophia and Philosophia, and which man will again bring forth out of himself, putting it before him as the fruit of true self-knowledge in Anthroposophy. We can wait patiently till the world is willing to prove how deeply founded down to the smallest details is what we have to say.

For it is the essence of Theosophy or Anthroposophy that its own being consists of what is man’s being, and the nature of its efficacy is that man receives and discovers from Theosophy or Anthroposophy what he himself is, and has to put it before himself because he must exercise self-knowledge.

• 1. The Mysteries of the East and of Christianity, Berlin, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th February 1913 [PC]
• 2. Poem number 61 in Dante’s Rime {note from the book Isis Mary Sophia}
• 3. Richard Wahle (1857-1935) was professor of philosophy at the Universities of Czernowitz (in Western Ukraine) and Vienna.
• 4. Paul Jakob Deussen (1845-1919) was a German professor of philosophy at University of Kiel and academic researcher of the history and cultures, languages, and literature of the Indian subcontinent.

Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

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

Stockholm, January 31, 1913.

Gustaf Kinell, Anna Wager-Gunnarsson, Gustaf Ljungquist.

Fräulein Marie von Sivers.

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

Stockholm, January 31, 1913.

Gustaf Kinell, Anna Wager-Gunnarsson, Gustaf Ljungquist.

The following telegram of greeting has arrived from France:

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

Edouard Schuré, Alice Bellecroix, Eugène Lévy.

From Prague:

The first General Assembly warmly welcomes the Prague Circle.

Krkavec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weimar:

The Theosophical Society,
Anthroposophical Society

Weimar Branch.

Weimar, February 1, 1913.

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

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

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

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

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

From the Bochum branch:

Warmest congratulations and blessings.

Bochum branch.

From the Paulus branch in Mulhouse:

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

Two friends sent us the following telegram: Budapest.

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

Valborg and Louis Werbeck-Svärdström.

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

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

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

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

Unanimous approval of the meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Architect Schmid: We want to create the daily bread in the broadest sense, not a caricature of what it is supposed to be. Just as each column on the Johannesbau is the only, correct, best expression of what it is supposed to represent, so it should be with our entire environment. The aim is not to create cheap coffee and so on, but the right coffee, cocoa and so on. The name you choose is Maja; we should offer the right thing for the same money.

Many speakers spoke, then Mr. von Rainer: I had to ask the bread whether it wants to be sold like this. It told me: That's a sore point. - That doesn't suit the bread, the bread doesn't want to know anything about that either. The lowest possible prices, [that] doesn't suit the bread either. The bread is opposed to all these privileges because, in a sense, they violate the occult law under which it stands. That would just be another area of selfishness. Bread is very demanding and wants to be treated well and lovingly. It is against all modern business relationships and prefers a good wearer. Bread wants nothing to do with advertising. On the one hand, the matter must not take on fixed forms, but on the other hand, there is a desire to help others when the principle of altruism can be carried out in contrast to selfishness.

Rudolf Steiner: We should definitely avoid bringing something into the world in an indefinite way. Above all, we must be clear that it is necessary for us to proceed practically, to bring something viable into the world. Of course, some of the general principles that are developed are useful, and it is a practical matter. If we don't want to talk at cross purposes, we have to take something important into account. As unlikely as it seems, this touches on the practical side of the matter: Mr. von Rainer has stated that the bread feels offended, and Mr. Schröder has apologized. The bread cannot excuse anything by its very nature. It is necessary that we absolutely take into account the real factors.

In the moments after such a mistake as the one that has now been apologized for, but I think that when such a mistake is made later, it is important that it be translated into reality. In the moments when something like this is done, we are immediately dealing with the material consequences of it. We have to proceed practically; we talk about many points without any basis. What we should talk about would be: How can a trading company be established, how should it relate to those of our friends who produce something in some field or other and have something to sell, how can an understanding be reached with consumers? Basically, we cannot elect a commission; we cannot become a consumer association as an Anthroposophical Society. Things must develop in such a way that someone finds inspiration in their impulses and others go to them. It would be a mistake to choose a commission. We have to develop understanding and act on the basis of the original initiative. We can only be understanding consumers as an Anthroposophical Society. We can exchange our views. There are many things to consider. It is extremely important that this trade association does not take a purely materialistic point of view, but above all takes the point of view of offering support to good, appropriate production. The difficulties that arise from today's commercial nature, that those who are involved in material life cannot help but develop principles, however good a person they are, [that they] cannot help but develop the principles, as Mr. Schröder has described, that they apply in England, according to which a mistake would be worse than a crime.

But I ask you, what should the merchant, the mediator do today in the face of the fact that he has to reckon with the cheapness of the goods and not with the quality. People want cheap bread without the bread being properly right and good. Measures of value are basically false, and if we want to gain understanding, we must gain this understanding by not basing ourselves on a foundation that has not fundamentally improved the social order. Anthroposophy must advance humanity, and we must base ourselves on a foundation that advances. We can, of course, do such a thing quite properly, but we have to approach it practically; it has to yield something fruitful. We have nothing to do with patterns. We have to work from what is properly at hand; if we work according to old patterns, the only thing that can happen is that we achieve something old. We cannot establish a company to market Rainer bread, but we can spread understanding that we eat this bread! The trade association should be a mediator in the most practical way possible.

It would be completely impractical to proceed in the way we do for a purely idealistic cause, that we would organize collections. For a matter that is based on a material basis, it is not a matter of not having confidence in it from the outset, that would be an admission of failure from the outset, but rather of launching a matter that is actually well-founded, and it is a matter of the people who have an understanding of it participating with the prospect of interest and profitability. We did not want things to be based on material considerations that would fall apart after a few years, even though they had been justified several times. Capital should not be raised for an idealistic cause, but everything should be based on a practical foundation. These things must be taken into account; they are very beautiful when done right, but they should be understood in such a way that we stand vis-à-vis Mr. Schröder in such a way that we give him advice and he gives us advice, and should not talk about selfishness and altruism.

After a few other [speakers], Dr. Steiner takes the floor again and says after a few introductory words:

Of course, I take it for granted that everyone here is in favor of this trade association. We are in favor of everything good, and [it is also self-evident] that we consider Mr. Schröder to be a capable man for the job. It is very nice when there is such enthusiasm for the cause. However, I would like to emphasize right away: I am not here to

but I have experienced exactly the opposite of what Ms. Wolfram has claimed: the teaching of Saturn, Sun and Moon is quite easy to explain; people accept it readily. But if you tell them to have their shoes made by the shoemaker or to have a whole sack of Rainer bread delivered, that is more difficult than getting the teaching of Saturn, Sun and Moon across. Above all, it is necessary for the Theosophists to start thinking rationally and not just to be enthusiastic about practical things, but to persevere in the long run.

It is normal that everything is wrong at the beginning; it is usually very difficult to find understanding when this or that is wrong. The new thing about theosophists is that they should be aware that the good things are bound to appear with certain dark sides, which is self-evident. How often have we had to hear that what is based on an incorrect approach to the matter; some loaves of Rainer bread went moldy; that it is moldy is a sign that it is good, my dear theosophical friends, because vegetables only grow on good soil. It is only a matter of us working against such a thing. On the other hand, we must be clear that there are also difficulties inherent in the matter. I don't see why we can't look at the matter soberly. The story is nothing new, something we have always had in small circles. There have been many of us who said to others: Get your shoes made by this shoemaker, buy your bread here or there. There were also those who volunteered to get the necessities, to travel to cycles, order rooms and so on. All this has already been done.

Mr. Schröder has realized that something should be organized, and the newspaper is also just an expression of systematization, where it is best to turn, systematization of the matter, so that one can work more rationally when organizing a matter than when it is left to chance. Because we have the belief that when anthroposophists do something right, it will be a beautiful and ideal thing; they will do things quite differently, namely, the anthroposophists. I mean a connection between those who have something to offer - be it food, be it something else - they should connect with the trade association, where the thing is offered. It will be seen that the thing will flourish. I will be blunt: the only possibility is that it pays off in a rational sense. If someone can do or provide something well, the trade association will come to help them make a living. It is understandable that some of us producers have certain difficulties as such. A producer cannot count on a purely anthroposophical clientele. There are many details to be considered.

After further interjections, Dr. Steiner takes the floor again:

It is only necessary that this point of view be put into practice immediately, starting with the fact that what is there can be sold; and then adding more and more. We need what has been said today to be understood as nothing other than a statement from consumers to producers.

We do not need to postpone for the reason that the rest that needs to be done should come from the trade association itself. It should get in touch with our producers and get things moving. What we would like from our other friends is for them to get into the habit of taking things a little more seriously – the trade association can't do anything about that – and to be as well organized as possible when no one is buying from them. To do that, we need to talk a little, so that understanding is gained and not just among the small circle of those present, which is a small circle for 2,500 members. Try to spread understanding when you yourself agree with it, for this specific thing. Then we will actually make progress in this area, and then the matter is not so infinitely important, whether we say more or less: we take into account the other people or those who are among us. — Finally, it is quite true that we should carry anthroposophy out and not close ourselves off materially. But we shall also do what is necessary to support our materially productive friends; it is more important to accommodate a friend who is productive in some field and is part of society than to accommodate another who does everything he can to harm our movement just because it is more convenient for us. Altruism is not what moves us forward, but staying the course.

After further interjections, Dr. Steiner says the following:

Regarding Mr. Schröder's planned publication of a newspaper that is supposed to contain only an extract of the events of a certain period of time: It is not easy to publish such an extract. Just imagine: We were supposed to edit telegrams about the Balkan War that were supposed to be objectively true. One would have to proceed purely clairvoyantly – and that would be black magic in this case, [that] would not be a means of the physical plan to give a purely objective picture.

The advertising story is a questionable thing. We have to take the view that it is being done practically, that will gradually come out. Paid advertisements are not practical. And even if it is tried today, it will be different in a year. The advertising system will have to be different. It will do the newspaper good if it takes the approach of other newspaper companies. The big newspapers live from advertising, but that is also what they are like. A newspaper cannot help but take on a certain configuration if it lives from advertising. Take a large newspaper company. I would like to know how many readers there are who read these advertisements. Do you think that those who spend money on advertisements are unaware of the situation I have just described? Those who place these advertisements and pay for them with hard-earned money have very specific reasons for placing them. And even if these advertisements are not successful the first time, they still have an effect in a variety of indirect ways. It is natural that newspapers should be dependent on advertisements. In short, it will not prove to be practical at all. Only a newspaper that does not depend on advertisements, that can live on subscribers, can be in a position as it should be. A newspaper that relies on only one advertisement cannot possibly stand on solid ground. You may say that we anthroposophists are reforming the advertising business. I would like you to start with practical principles. The impractical people consider themselves the most practical because they are familiar with this subject. If they set up something new, they are not at all practical. It must be borne in mind that things must be done in a truly practical way. It will then become clear that a great many things that we imagine are not possible in practice.

Someone could easily say today: We are anthroposophists, we can easily organize things, everything should be put on a healthy basis. Certain things are in the nature of things. The advertising business cannot be reformed. If you base something on advertising, it cannot be reformed. Certain things are an inner necessity. So it is with many things that come into question in this matter, they cannot be reformed, they must be removed. Nothing can be reformed in the commercial sphere. The trade association would make no sense if it were to incorporate the principles of consumer associations and cooperatives. Our task is to ensure that what we receive is procured rationally and appropriately; commercial aspects must take a back seat. We must be sober and practical in our judgment. Our work must ensure that what is actually being implemented is that the paths of healthy, appropriate production are opened up to consumers. There is no reform in the commercial sphere. If you are dealing with a certain type of thing from the outset, you can only say: I don't want anything to do with the article, or I have to say that it is good. We must want to help healthy, appropriate production.

[Mr. Selling: draws attention to “Lucifer-Gnosis”, issues 30-32, where you can find the basics of understanding.

Dr. Steiner: The Rainer bread is just practical, that's what it's supposed to be eaten as.

H. Klepran: If not everyone can enjoy it, it's because it's living bread, in contrast to the dead bread we are used to eating.

Dr. Steiner: Found a very fine small handkerchief. Really nice! I believe it belongs to a lady.]

So, my dear friends, we have finally come to the end of our meeting, but we can highlight one fact in all of this. You see, my dear Theosophical friends, something extraordinarily important seems to have taken place. One might ask: Was it a general assembly? What was it actually? When it is talked about later, it will be said, “Once upon a time...” — just as it is said in fairy tales. We were still members of the Theosophical Society in Adyar when we arrived here, but now we are no longer members. Something earth-shattering seems to have happened, but in terms of the matter, one has not actually noticed it. We are again diverging in terms of the matter, as we used to diverge, and precisely this fact, that we can do that, that we do that, is a very important one. Perhaps this does testify to how serious we were about the spiritual, about the cultivation of spiritual culture, about the content of our cause; and if we were serious about that, no form will break this content, but this content will seek its new form if the old one is challenged.

As for myself, my dear Theosophical friends, I must confess that, with regard to the external events that have occurred, I have been so touched by the matter that I must say again: things actually only differ in degree. You see, Mrs. Besant has found it necessary to make the claim, which defies all facts, that I was educated in a Jesuit school. It is so that one must take it seriously, because it is a very strong accusation in the present, and effective if it were believed in relation to the inner, to the hateful motives.

And with regard to the other underlying motives of Mrs. Besant, I find only a slight difference compared to another accusation that came across my eyes, from a letter that is one of a whole series of letters. I received a letter from Hamburg in which a lady writes that she had always been persuaded not to go to the lectures, but now she had seen for herself, because before she never went because a pastor had said that I was a Satan. I have not yet read the other letters, but there is one coming every day, sometimes two. Shortly before the lecture here in this hall, a letter was brought to me – I should definitely read it before the lecture. In the letter, a lady wrote to me that she had heard some of my lectures that she liked. But now she looked me up in the dictionary of writers to find out how old I actually am, and she discovered that I carefully dye my hair, because people my age don't have black hair anymore! So she can't come to my lectures anymore, because it would be outrageous and speak to the prevalence of such a thing.

You hear all kinds of things and finally, the accusations are to be distinguished according to the motives for how they are made effective. The motives are human, all too human, whether one or the other makes them, whether one is accused by Mrs. Besant of having been educated in a Jesuit school or by another lady because of something else. That's how people act. There are many more stories I could tell.

Something that really did meet with the enthusiastic support of our friends – the printing of the cycles – is also being made the target of attacks. I am being reproached for the fact that it says: “According to a postscript not checked by the speaker.” But there is a very simple reason for this; I don't have time to check the postscripts. They would never see the light of day if I had to read them first. The person concerned says: He – Dr. Steiner – has not looked at the matter, so he always leaves himself a back door open if he were to be caught making mistakes.

In this way, one can suspect everything, while we have really only taken into account the energetic wishes of the members. We are dealing with serious, profound, and meaningful things, and so we must be able to fully distinguish between what is a serious and sacred matter and what is an external form, and we must not sleep and believe that we can always dream and talk about the content to get ahead. The worst things could happen to us if we were not on guard, if we did not take into account the need to remain vigilant. And in this respect, I was also able to tie in with what Dr. Peipers said today, the word about keeping watch. There is also a productive way of keeping watch. That is in our nature and not in that of our opponents.

I hope that we will part peacefully, with the feeling that we will remain united intellectually.

Goodbye!

My dear friends!

Before I come to today's reflection, please allow me a few words. It may not have remained unknown among our friends that it would correspond to my inclination to speak most gladly about the factual theosophical things from the very beginning, namely about the objective matters of the spiritual world. But sometimes it turns out to be necessary to address a word to our friends that does not belong to the matter at hand, but to our affairs. Much as I dislike it, it sometimes has to be done. It had to be done in the most diverse ways during the period when the affairs that led to the free-standing Anthroposophical Society; and unfortunately it is necessary from time to time, again and again. Therefore, allow me today to say a few words to you before we come to the subject of our consideration.

It is always the case, though, that you don't really know where to start. But it happens time and again that these or those misunderstandings, these or those things open to misunderstanding, creep into our ranks. The one who can understand this best, the one who can really understand this well, is really myself. But if nothing were said at all, it would not work either. I do not want to bother you with matters that have been discussed often enough. Because I feel, I would like to say, up to a kind of creepy feeling, I have been told more often by these or those lately: Thank God! Now that we have the Anthroposophical Society, we no longer have to worry about the matter, now we can have peace and quiet. It is a nice feeling to have peace and quiet. But it is creepy when there is this exaggerated need for peace and quiet if there is no peace from the other side. And there are enough other people around us to ensure that we do not give peace a chance! That is why I would like to make a heartfelt request to you not to live too much by this need for peace. Misunderstandings arise easily, understandably. And if I had always been understood since 1907, many things would not have come about that quite understandably did come about. If only they had had the will to represent what I tried to do with a certain clarity, to see it, to understand some of what was in what I tried to do, then they would have acquired a certain power of discernment since 1907, perhaps even earlier.

Please forgive me for discussing these matters in such a dry, seemingly presumptuous way; but it has to be done because no one else is saying it. I would rather not say it. If we had acquired the ability to distinguish between things wherever work was considered important for the further progress of our cause, then the case could not always arise that, in addition to what we are trying to do, which, as our friends know, we are trying to do out of seriousness, out of real seriousness about occultism on the one hand and about the occult situation at the time, which I I tried to characterize in a general way the day before yesterday, if one had acquired a proper sense of the seriousness with which we should actually take the matter, it would gradually have become self-evident that much of the selfish stuff – if you will allow the expression – even such selfish stuff that came from Adyar in the years mentioned would simply have been viewed in the right way.

It has caused me, I must say, a certain sadness - do not misunderstand the expression, the occultist in a sense knows no sadness - but yet I must say: It has caused me a certain sadness that in the way things are tried, the question could arise: How does the view presented here of the Christ problem or similar things square with what Miss Besant presents? It saddens me because it shows that the seriousness with which these matters are treated here is not appreciated in the right way, is not understood in the right way. Since no one else is saying it, I have to say this, although I would rather not because it could be misunderstood. I had hoped that people would not just look at the differences, but at the inferiority, the whole inferiority that is found in occult stuff, which has sometimes been taken up as if it were necessary to deal with it. I had hoped that discernment would arise for what one has discernment for in other fields! These are the words I would most like to avoid saying myself. If someone does something with seriousness and dignity and someone else does a botched job, you don't ask: How does what was done with seriousness and dignity deal with the botched job, with what openly bears its inability on its forehead!

Thus it was necessary, at the starting point of our anthroposophical movement, to address a heartfelt request to you not to live too much in the need for calm and indifference in the face of what is sufficiently done in the world to throw dust in the eyes of our contemporaries about what is reality. It is not enough for us to acquire knowledge of these or those things with a certain curiosity – but it is necessary because there are other people living around us to whom we must gain access with what needs to be done in the spirit of the time mission. It is not enough to inform oneself with a certain curiosity about the monstrous things happening in the Theosophical Society and otherwise rest on the cushion of the Anthroposophical Society, but it is necessary to gain the appropriate attitude in one's soul. Because if this appropriate attitude is not gained, what must be done as a highly necessary defense will always be distorted in the most outrageous way. One should not believe that those people who are now trying to distort everything that must come from us as a necessary defense, or who are trying to simply accept such outrageous attacks in a seemingly noble way, one should not believe that either of these people are right. What is being done against us often comes from people whose actions show the kind of spirit behind it. Therefore, I would like to ask you not to let old comradely feelings prevail where the truth is concerned. In the course of my endeavors in developing the German Section, I have always had to come into conflict with the increasing inability to distinguish. And even if our friends had developed more and more discernment between the stuff that is spreading and what is being tried here – it is unpleasant for me to say this – and even if our friends had tried to apply discernment, it would not have been possible to come to me with every piece of nonsense that comes from the other side.

Those who are familiar with the work that has been done by this side know that this is not based on intolerance, but on [painful] necessity. Inability has always had to be dealt with: examples can easily be given. For example, one should not have believed that so much was possible, as was expressed in the General Assembly, that something even more outrageous would be added to the outrageous! After the Jesuits were criticized from Adyar, one would have thought that these outrageous acts could not be surpassed. Miss Besant has made it possible to surpass these improprieties by managing, in her publication, which until recently was itself still being read in some of our lodges, not to retract the Jesuit accusation, but to reinforce it and justify it by referring to three people. The system is not to take back the untruths, but to refer to three others who have told the untruth.

We must find it within ourselves to respond to these outrageous acts, and to subsequent ones. At the beginning of the German Section's work, a certain personage wrote me a card containing the following words, which were meant to sound friendly: “We are all pulling in the same direction, after all.” I could not for a moment think of pulling with this personality in one direction; because it would have been a violation of our serious work to pull with this personality in one direction. So such personalities had to be shaken off; because they did not want help to improve their incompetence, but they wanted to push themselves forward with their incompetence. This personality is one of those who now raise the Jesuit accusation, one of those on whom Mrs. Besant relies, a personality who, like Mrs. Besant, upholds this Jesuit accusation.

As unpleasant as it is to talk about these things, it cannot be spared. The soul must find the opportunity to take a stand on these things. We cannot allow the belief that something is justified because it calls itself Theosophy to serve our contemporary world in this way.

Another person, who had once been introduced to me by a Theosophist, sent me a writing of his that had nothing to do with what had to be done out of the seriousness of our movement. I also had to reject this person, which this personality wrote about a series of writings that are published by a certain publisher; anyone with discernment could see from this preface how incapable such a personality is of rational thought. There are many such personalities. The matter required that the personality discussed be rejected. That is the second of the personalities on which Mrs. Besant relies. I must keep emphasizing such things. It should be understood that it is not a license for anything if a person calls himself a Theosophist. The rejection of the Jesuit accusations that originated in Germany and which Mrs. Besant has recently allowed herself to be guilty of was easily seen through. What I said in Berlin was easily seen through. One could have found that it is not a matter of thinking about a matter in one way or another, but that the whole matter is not true, that the whole matter is untrue! The person who has been designated by Adyar as the General Secretary of the German Section finds the opportunity to have the following printed: Dr. Steiner and his followers reject this with indignation. Why this indignation, actually? Is it dishonorable to have dealings with Jesuits, or is it criminal to be dogmatic?

So, my dear friends, the man who wrote this dares to write this to throw dust in people's eyes – I won't say he intends to, but it happens because of it. If someone says to me, “You broke stones in your youth,” and I say, “It's not true,” is it a retort when someone says, “Breaking stones is an honest occupation after all”? It doesn't matter if it's an honest occupation; what matters is that it's not true! We have to get into the habit of not engaging in such things. There are still people who say, “It's not meant to be so badly, he has justified himself.” It depends on the fact that it is not true! For this we must acquire a sense of discernment, so that we cannot see such stuff without inwardly taking a stand on it, without feeling how outrageous such things are. It is easy to carry out journalistic skirmishes over and over again if you leave what it is about undisturbed and write about something that has nothing to do with the matter, because people who do not feel the obligation to acquire discernment are deceived by it.

There is another page that I would like to read to you, but the whole brochure is like that again! I have included in the “Mitteilungen” in the General Assembly report that I was written to by the man who then became the General Secretary in Germany: It would be incomprehensible to him how Krishnamurti could have gone through all that he was supposed to have gone through, but that is not the point; people in the West have no understanding of what an adept is. That is why Mrs. Besant chose the path of calling the one with whom she parades – those are his words – the Christ. In response to this account, one dares to write: “Something else, a fourth way of using the word ‘Christ’ – I can only ever serve you with one use of the word, though – was the [my writing of July 4, 1911, that Mrs. Besant uses the word “Christ” occasionally, based on the idea of Paul, but in a more exact sense, namely for an “adept” or “master who has already reached the goal of human perfection. Since the present-day cultural world knows no other model for this than Jesus, it is justified to use the term 'Christ' under certain circumstances also for the human being in whom the Christ-being reveals itself in its full abundance. But the present time is such that people read this without thinking.

Much to my regret, I had to mention it here: because I must point out that it is part of the essence of the theosophical sentiment to feel that what is being done here under the flag of theosophy is actually the most outrageous thing! It would be the most outrageous thing if anyone harbored the belief that such people could still be converted! The question arises again and again: what could be done to teach this or that person a better opinion. The assumption arises again and again that it can be a matter of that at all! Those who have raised the Jesuit accusation in this way cannot be converted. It would be the most impossible undertaking to even want to negotiate with such a person!

This is one of the theosophical misunderstandings. The real issue is that we should not allow our fellow human beings to be put off by things that are said because of human laziness!

It was necessary for me to make these few remarks. I made them reluctantly. It never ceases to amaze me how even now, within the Anthroposophical Society, the belief can sometimes arise that some kind of work of initiation is to be developed on that side. I have learned many things about Adyar matters that I will not discuss here.

The founding of the Anthroposophical Society began with such accusations being made from the other side. I understand the love for the cushion. But we also have the obligation to represent our cause without camaraderie, without regard to the person, if that person is dominated by such motives, as is the case here. We see how it begins; it is not yet complete. We will have many opportunities to sit on our pillow of rest if we close our eyes. It is right that we only take care of our own business, represent our cause positively and do not look to the right or left; it is right when we are the aggressors. But when it comes to our defense, I have to admit that it saddens me – now that it is about our sacred cause – that the days are filled with dealing with individual personalities, but that I have no time to defend our sacred cause against such outrageous attacks. And since this sorrow sometimes really has to befall me within the most necessary activity for our individual members, it was probably necessary to talk about these things here once. It will not happen too often that these things are spoken about, because I will wait and see if souls find the opportunity to truly confess themselves, which actually lies in the fact that today, in our time of crass materialism, in this time when there is so little sense of duty to examine the truth, that a matter that is so seriously meant may be attacked in such a way. For the sake of the cause and for the sake of the path that the cause must take into the hearts and souls of our contemporaries, it is necessary to write such things into our hearts. This is truly our holy cause! And I would not have spoken these unpleasant words if I had not been urged on by the whole assessment of the matter. I would feel obliged to continue to do what I have been doing for years within the movement, undeterred by what can happen in such a way. But if one feels such an obligation, one may still direct one's attention to it, so that souls may find the possibility to find the unheard of also unheard of, to find a position to the unheard of, not to allow that our present is approached with such things.

My dear friends, with all my warmth, with the deepest friendship, I say to you: we will work, I will work with you on what needs to be done. When souls find the right position, the right thing happens in the outside world; all action develops out of the right attitude. I will wait.

Wilhelmstraße 92/93, House of Architects

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (Theosophischen Gesellschaft), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 6/1914

At 10:30 a.m., Fräulein von Sivers opens the General Assembly with the following words:

My dear friends! On behalf of the Executive Council, I warmly welcome you to the second General Assembly, the first ordinary General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society! For as long as we have held general meetings of the Theosophical Society, it has been customary for the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society to also chair the general meeting. However, it is the right of the general meeting to elect the chair. On behalf of the board, I propose that Dr. Steiner be elected to chair this general meeting. I ask you to vote on whether you agree to this.

The meeting unanimously accepts this proposal.

Dr. Steiner: My dear Theosophical friends! We are gathered here for the first time in a regular General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, and it is my duty to greet you most warmly and to express my joy at the large number of you who have come. I would also like to express the hope that this first General Assembly of our Society will be fruitful in all respects. My dear friends, you have surely brought with you hearts filled with an anthroposophical spirit for this day, hearts throbbing with the enthusiasm that is necessary if a spiritual current is to be brought into existence in the world, a spiritual current like ours, which can certainly, without being guilty of the slightest exaggeration, be said to have to be born in pain. And from the many antecedents that have befallen us in recent times, it will indeed become clear that we have a great need to approach our task with great seriousness and a certain urgency at this time.

Before I try to continue the train of thought that I have stimulated with a few words, I would like to dedicate the word to those who have left the physical plane since we last gathered here and, as members of our movement, which is so close to our hearts, now look down on our work from the spiritual world. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize once again that those who have passed away from the physical plane will continue to be considered our members in the most beautiful sense of the word, and that we will feel united with them as we did when we were still able to greet them on this or that occasion on the physical plane.

First of all, we would like to remember an old theosophical personality, old in the sense that she was connected with what we call true, genuine theosophical life for the longest time of most of our ranks, Baroness Eveline von Hoffmann. She is one of those who have imbued their entire being and active will with what we call the theosophical attitude. Many have come to appreciate the deeply loving heart of this woman, if only because they have felt infinite strength flowing from this heart in times of suffering and adversity. Although little of this became known to the outside world, Mrs. von Hoffmann was a loyal and self-sacrificing helper to many. And we may consider it a particularly valuable thing that she, who had been involved in theosophical development for a long time, was last in our midst. And with her dear daughter, who is still with us, we will keep the memory of this loving, loyal, and helpful woman, who wants to be united with her in the spiritual world.

I also have to remember some old members who left us for the physical plane this year. I have to mention our dear old friend Edmund Eggert in Düsseldorf. If some of us perhaps know the great inner difficulties that our friend had to struggle with, the heroic strength with which he became involved in what we call our spiritual current, then those who knew the good, dear man will certainly join me in making unceasing efforts to continue to be loyal friends of our dear Eggert in the spiritual worlds. And those of the dear friends who hear this, what I say from a troubled heart, will faithfully send their thoughts to the one who has passed from the physical plane.

I also have to remember a dear, loyal member, a member who always gave us sincere, heartfelt joy when we were able to see her in our midst time and again, our dear Mrs. van Dam-Nieuwenhuisen from Nijmegen, who left the physical plane this last time, and who certainly was one of the most beloved personalities among those who were her close friends, who worked faithfully for our cause as long as we knew her, who in particular also did a great deal to ensure that our cause was appropriately represented among our Dutch friends.

I must also mention a loyal, if perhaps quieter member, who always gave me great joy when I was able to see her in the circle of our dear Nuremberg friends, Fräulein Sophie Ifftner. She was much appreciated in the circle of our Nuremberg friends, who will ensure that the way is created through their feelings so that we will always find her when we seek her in the spiritual worlds.

I would also like to mention another faithful friend who has been active within the circle of our worldview for many years. She has been tragically recalled from the physical plane to the spiritual worlds. I would like to mention one of those to whom she has become dear and precious, and who want to be and remain with her in their thoughts, Miss Frieda Kurze.

I would also like to mention our Julius Bittmann, who was torn away from his dear family and from us, until his last difficult days, the fixed point of his inner life, despite difficult external circumstances, in what we call Theosophy. It was a deep joy for me to be able to spend the evening before the death of our dear Bittmann at his side once more, and I am sure that those of our friends who were closer to this man will not fail to form the path here as well, on which the theosophical thoughts unite us with the friend in the spiritual world.

I must also mention Jakob Knotts in Munich, who was a man who, after all his various struggles in life, finally found his firm support and his definite point of reference in Theosophy, so that his friends will be his mediators in the same way.

I must also mention another friend who left the physical plane during this period. Mr. Eduard Zalbin, who had come to us from Holland, was sadly mourned by his wife and children when we saw him depart from the physical plane through a quick death. Shortly before this occurred, Zalbin was still at our last general assembly, and his departure from the physical plane had to be pointed out there.

I would like to remember an old friend of the Stuttgart Lodge, who had organized her innermost life in such a way that she associated everything she thought with Theosophy, and who will now certainly be surrounded by the thoughts of all those who knew her, Miss Duttenhofer.

I must also mention Miss Oda Wallers, who we felt was connected to our cause with all her soul, for a long time. She was one of those souls who was as loyal to the cause as a human soul on earth can be, so loyal that we not only saw this soul depart from the physical plane with deep sorrow – a sorrow that does not need to be particularly emphasized in this case because all those who knew Miss Oda Waller knew her, felt it with the deepest sympathy – but at the same time we looked up to her in the spiritual world with the most beautiful hopes, with those hopes that are justified in the case of such a faithful soul, who, like Oda Waller, has firmly established in her heart to remain connected to the theosophical cause for all time. There will be more than a few who, united with their dear sister Mieta Waller, will be in heartfelt contact with our dear Miss Oda Waller.

I have to remember our Munich friend Georg Kollnberger. Those who knew him will be our mediators when we reflect on him with our feelings and emotions.

I have to remember a dear friend in Bonn who left the physical plane not so long ago, Miss Marie von Schmid. Those who knew her feel deeply how closely connected Miss von Schmid's soul was to the spiritual life. Those who felt a close connection with Miss von Schmid, a soul so open to the spiritual life, have lost a great deal, as have those who felt a close connection with an outwardly shy and withdrawn nature. It is so pleasant to meet such a nature in life. Precisely because she was so reserved, we got to know her so little. Those who knew her understand what I mean by these words.

We have to remember a member who, in terms of his physical strength, was unfortunately taken from us all too soon, a man who was happy to put his physical strength at the service of our cause, but who will also be an esteemed member in the form in which he is now connected to us, Mr. Otto Flamme in Hannover.

I must also remember our friend Fräulein Munch, who was found in the circle of our Nordic friends in our midst, and who, after a long, heroically endured illness, despite the most careful and loving care, finally had to leave the physical plane. Perhaps those who were closest to her will have the most understanding for what I would like to say about this soul, when we consider how she clung to the theosophical cause, I would say with inner strength, and passed through the gate of death with it.

I would also like to mention a friend who had also become acquainted with our friends in Berlin and who, after long and severe suffering, has recently left the physical plane. She was fully aglow with the yearning to implement in practical life on the physical plane what shone so beautifully for her heart and soul. We are sure that she will now continue her work in other places in a way that we also assume for our dear friend Flamme from Hannover.

All those who have passed away, as well as those who have become less well known in the circles of our members, we remember in this solemn hour: Mr. Brizio Aluigi from Milan, Mrs. Julie Neumann from Dresden, Mrs. Emmy Etwein from Cologne, Mrs. E. Harrold from Manchester, and we affirm that we sense, we want to live with them in thought – with these dear departed members, who, after all, have only changed the form of their way of life for us – that we want to surround them with the forces and thoughts with which we are accustomed to connecting with those friends who have left the physical plane; we affirm this will and remembrance by rising from our seats.

Dr. Steiner continues:

My dear friends!

First of all, I have to read out some letters that have been sent to the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society.

To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society. On behalf of the Swedish members, we send our fraternal greetings and wish that the coming year may bring good success for our spiritual striving. We also express our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Steiner, Miss von Sivers and our German brothers and sisters for all that we have received in the past year.

Stockholm, January 15, 1914.
The board: Gustav Kinell, Gustaf Ljungquist,
Anna Wager Gunnarsson.

Zwolle, January 17, 1914.
Zwolle working group sends warm greetings and best wishes for the meeting.
[Gaston] Polak.

Prague, January 17, 1914.

The Prague working group sends its warmest greetings to the assembled members and asks the holy protecting powers to help us all so that we may work together to bring about a vibrant and harmonious development and prosperity of the high teachings and revelations entrusted to us. May our Society remain inwardly healthy and strong, and may it continue to be a spiritual brotherhood that brings help, consolation and blessing to all people for a long time.

Ptikryl

I am sure that you will all accept these very warm greetings with thanks.

My dear friends!

Perhaps I may, in accordance with the custom of earlier years, say something in advance to this assembly; something that is really meant not otherwise than as a kind of greeting from the bottom of my heart to your hearts and souls, a greeting that I feel so deeply this year because we are united in this way for the first time within our Anthroposophical Society. For in a sense, the constituent assembly that we had to hold last year was what we had to hold. But only this year have we been able to see how many souls want to walk with us. And it shows itself to us through your extraordinarily large attendance. Perhaps it is right, at the very point of origin of our anthroposophical endeavors, to bring ourselves face to face with what we actually want to be with our goals and endeavors. When we turn to these goals and endeavors with our thoughts, two feelings must prevail in our souls, side by side, for they can hardly go hand in hand. One is a deep awareness of the necessity and importance of the spiritual life, to which we want to be devoted in our time with seriousness and loyalty, a feeling that must be connected with the earnest desire and the striving for sufficient energy to participate in what can deepen our time spiritually. The other sentiment that must go hand in hand with the first is what one would call, not wanting to be sentimental, but precisely in order to express something quite serious: the humblest modesty. Only in the humblest modesty and in the feeling of our inability to accomplish the great task can the necessary counter-image be created in our souls to what could so easily lead to an overestimation of ourselves and to pride. Because that is precisely the most important thing: the seriousness, the importance and the dignity of spiritual striving on the one hand; on the other hand, we can only advance in the right way on the path we have chosen in the most humble modesty towards our inability. And, my dear friends, if I may now pick up on the first thought that was expressed, we must never lose sight of the need for true and honest spiritual striving in our present time.

What I would like to tell you, I must summarize here in a few words. But there are some things I do not want to leave unspoken. What is connected with the serious feelings is what must make us attentive to the whole course of the spiritual life of our time in the broadest sense. In particular, this makes it my task time and again to point out, in a way that I certainly do not seek from a different point of view, these or those other spiritual currents, which should truly not be fought in a superficial way, but only to show how little they are suited to meet the deep, serious longings of the souls of our time. But people do not yet know about most of the deep longings that are present in the souls. Unconsciously, they rest in the depths of the souls. But the spiritual scientist tries to dive down into these depths of the soul. He knows how necessary it is to make progress in this area and to integrate spiritual science into the currents of life as far as possible. People today do not always admit that there is something in the depths of the soul like the call for these spiritual necessities. But anyone who clearly sees in the eye of the mind what souls strive for without knowing it in their innermost being can find this silent, silent call for spiritual life everywhere. And this call becomes a duty in our soul: to work together on spiritual work in order to make progress in this area.

One symptom is shown of how these or those personalities fight us, how they refute us and describe the things that come to our attention through our teaching as fantastic and unscientific. Sometimes, however, they give themselves away in the way they reject something, and by rejecting us they show that in fact they agree with us at the deepest level. Perhaps one of the most daring assertions that I have often made is that the materialism of our time, the monism in [contemporary] intellectual life, is based on fear. I have had to experience it that people from the audience, especially after such statements, approached me after the lecture and were horrified by such a grotesque assertion. I will not mention any names, I will only mention one man who has already achieved a great deal for our present intellectual life, who bears a revered name in connection with the name of our great Schiller, Alexander von Gleichen-Rußwurm, who belongs to the descendants of Friedrich Schiller, and who has already achieved a great deal. I will quote his words, which—one might perhaps call it “coincidence” if one were not a theosophist—yesterday “karma” delivered to my desk:

Balzac once dared to express the wish that a professorship in occultism would be established at the University of Paris. Such a professorship, however, is not about to be established, nor is the laboratory for the purpose of researching occult things, which Schrenck-Notzing presents as a desideratum. Even today, most people, and not only the devoutly religious, feel uneasy, afraid, horrified, and physically and psychologically repelled by any study of such things. This is usually only manifested in attempts to ridicule these things and to deny their reality. It is what Madame de Staël so beautifully calls 'Le côté nocturne de notre nature', and hand on heart: we are all afraid in this nocturnal darkness.

Please pay particular attention to these words: “We are all afraid.” Here you have expressed the opposite point of view to our own, which has been expressed again and again as a result of decades of research: that all clinging to materialism arises out of fear. So, sometimes people betray themselves by saying things that show how right we are with our views. We hear, when people betray themselves, especially when they put their hand on their heart, affirmations such as: “We are all afraid in this nocturnal darkness...”. One must look at what is going on between the lines of present life. Then one will feel the justification that is emphasized by the necessity of our spiritual work.

And, my dear friends, however slowly it may proceed, we do see fruits that show us how what is sought in spiritual heights can be implemented in practical life. I would remind you of a saying that I have taken the liberty of saying and writing often in the course of the striving of our German Section: on the one hand, our task is to search for the secrets of the spiritual worlds, to make that which we can explore , to make it our spiritual heritage and to care for it among those who belong to us; on the other hand, our task is to make fruitful in the right way what we are exploring in the spiritual life in our lives, wherever we can. And we see fruits in this respect too - I would like to mention just one symptom. Souls are maturing in our midst who, we may say, are willing to carry into the place in life where they are placed, what can be won on our ground, even outside the circle of our Anthroposophical Society. Among many beautiful phenomena, let me mention one because it was deeply satisfying for me. Our young friend Karl Stockmeyer wrote a significant essay in a journal for the Baden school system about the impossibility and impracticality of what is being striven for from many sides: to use the cinematograph to teach mathematics in schools. It is wonderful to be able to guide the soul along such paths through the problems of life, where something can be gained if one engages with the way we have to approach the matter. This is exemplified by our dear young friend Karl Stockmeyer, who in such a modest way allows what has become his to be exemplary for what is meant when I have repeatedly said and written: In addition to cultivating the wisdom treasures, one should also make practical use in life of what we can gain in our souls from these wisdom treasures. I would like to sincerely request that as many of our friends as possible familiarize themselves with the unpretentious but very valuable essay.

I always want to speak only symptomatically about such things, I want to speak so that it can be seen from the example how the things are meant. What we strive for from spiritual heights can be fruitfully applied in the particular. So when we try to bridge the gap between our spiritual values and the demands of practical life, we will gain the opportunity in many ways to let real theosophical-spiritual striving, anthroposophical spiritual life, flow into the life of the present. And such a task we have, we have a task! I would like to place all the emphasis I am capable of on this simple word: we have a task to carry into the world in a proper and correct way what we recognize as being right, what we are able to research.

The mood in the world is not one that makes such a task easy. There are people who call themselves theosophists and who have done much to tarnish the reputation of the name “theosophy”. All the more reason for us to take on this task when people who believe they are at the height of spiritual culture repeatedly condemn us for giving a bad name to theosophy. For example, in a German journal, 'Die Tat', Giuseppe Prezollini uses strange words. In a lengthy essay, he describes what he means by theosophy. He starts by talking about all kinds of philosophical schools and characterizes them - one might say - wittily. Then we have the following sentence:

Theosophy and spiritualism are becoming more popular and enjoying the increased attention that all cheap imitations receive when the real product rises in price. Of course, women are not missing either, because women go wherever the wind blows, and their presence is both a sign and the best guarantee of success.

My dear friends! It is symptomatic that such things are written by people who are taken very seriously in their field. We must really bear in mind that what presents itself to our soul as a duty, that we have to regard a sacred belt in such a way that we have to stand up for it. The direct transition is made in this essay from philosophical education to the university. I would like to make the transition to the German university.

All kinds of cheap books are appearing today. There is a collection; “Bildung der Gegenwart”; in it there is the following chapter on modern theosophy:

In Germany, the Theosophical Society in Leipzig (founded in 1897) is a center of the movement. It is a branch of the “International Theosophical Fraternity,” which considers its main purpose to be “to form a nucleus of a general brotherhood that spiritually encompasses all of humanity, without distinction of race, nationality, creed, class and sex, around which the theoretically already recognized ideas of universal human love and human brotherhood crystallize, and the highest ideals of humanity can be realized.

This direction particularly appreciates the writings of the former physician Franz Hartmann, who spent a long time in India with H. Blavatsky († 1912).

Rudolf Steiner can be considered the spiritual leader of another (more aristocratic) theosophical group based in Berlin. He draws particularly on Goethe and the Romantic period. He wants to give Germanic-Christian mysticism a modern form that will also stand up to the criticism of scientific thought. In contrast to the Buddhist disdain for our world of experience, which can easily lead to quietism, he values Christianity as a source of positive life-enhancement and a powerful way of shaping life. The existence of supersensible powers is a fact that can be grasped by direct, intuitive insight. He believes that everyone can acquire this ability of intuition through training. On the basis of such inspirational insight, he gives teachings on the cosmic development of the planets and the epochs of human history, which, however, descend into wild fantasies. (Prophecies of major events, especially of violent wars and other catastrophes, are also common in theosophical circles).

Steiner regards the soul, the actual “higher self”, as an immortal force that comes from the Godhead and returns to it. (This is reminiscent of the doctrine of the nus poetikos in Aristotle and his Arabic interpreters, cf. vol. I, p. 68, 109; vol. II, p. 4.) From here, Steiner arrives at the doctrine of the re-embodiment of the soul (to which Lessing and Goethe also tended, and which Schopenhauer, in line with Buddhism, advocates).

So now anyone can educate themselves about Theosophy for little money. But what is distressing is that this is in a treatise on the “History of German Philosophy from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Present”. What is distressing is that the man who writes this refers, for example, to something that I certainly never quoted as a source: a Buddhist catechism, a superficial compilation that no serious person can use. He goes on to quote the “Secret Doctrine”. But then he gives the sources from which he has informed himself; he mentions Hans Freimark's (!) “Moderne 'Theosophie” (1912). But that is not yet the distressing thing, because if an ordinary writer had done that, it would not have meant anything for our culture. But this is written by the full professor at the University of Giessen, Dr. Messer. We learn from it how official representatives of the highest intellectual life judge us. We must conclude: this is how men who teach our youth today write.

With such conscientiousness, a licensed professor of philosophy, an official representative of science, teaches himself about things. Is one not entitled to conclude from this: if this man writes and teaches about Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, how is our youth taught today?

I do not want to say anything against the views that Messer presents against Theosophy. It is not this opposing criticism that concerns me, but how the man who writes such things informs himself about the things. What value can his explanations of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc. have if this is how the man informs himself? How, then, did that which is currently being disseminated as “science” and so accommodatingly believed by many come about? Can one not see the bleakest of circumstances here!? I am not talking about the fact that Messer is our opponent; I am talking, independently of that, about the nature of his “scientific conscience.” The final sentence in Messer's account reads:

Undoubtedly valuable ethical and religious tendencies are at work in this Theosophical movement, but only critical reflection will be able to prevent it from lapsing entirely into arbitrary and fantastic enthusiasm.

Undoubtedly, there is sometimes good will and the belief that something is known associated with what today calls itself philosophy and the like. Nevertheless, it will take a great deal of serious and genuine spiritual striving to put the incredible arbitrariness and ignorance that is spreading today into the right perspective for our time. I do not wish to shrink from pointing this out in a fitting manner, in order to show how deeply significant what I understand by seriousness and dignity is, and how it must be taken if we want to help what we call our spiritual heritage today to find its appropriate place in the world. Those who know how I avoid saying such things on all other occasions will forgive me if I put these things in their proper light on this occasion, in order to show how things stand and what tasks we must take on.

My dear friends! If, on the one hand, we link these considerations to the feeling of how serious and necessary our task is, then on the other hand, we should never forget how incapable we are, how modest we must be, how we must know how little we are actually capable of in the face of our great task. I am convinced that those who understand me will always adhere to this most humble modesty. So we must endeavor to bring our spiritual knowledge to people in such a way that we never lose the most humble modesty. If we were to take pleasure in the fact that we are compelled to speak such words, if we were to let ourselves be carried away by a feeling of superiority for a moment, it would be bad for us. We do not want to do that! We want to strive for our spiritual good in all seriousness and dignity, but we want to do so in such a way that this striving is carried by the most humble modesty, and that we carefully keep every trace of self-esteem, every trace of arrogance, away from our souls. Let this, what Karma has brought me, let this be kept in mind. I did not seek out the symptoms; they forced themselves on me. I was obliged to take Messer's book in my hands because I am obliged to inform myself about these things at the moment when I am working on a philosophical book myself. In the same way, the journal 'Die Tat' was also sent to me. This is a social monthly for German culture. I bought this, as they say, by chance from a newsagent. I really wasn't looking for these things. But I want to avoid telling you something else that I found in the farthest reaches of my mind that was similar to what I've been describing. I'll leave it at that.

I wanted to address these words as a first greeting to your souls. I think it is the best greeting I can offer you, when I speak those words that also touch me deeply, and that can contribute to our being together in the right spirit in these days, and to give an impulse for what we decide in our souls for the Anthroposophical Society, if we all decide it in the right spirit.

We come to the second item on our agenda, the report of the members of the Executive Council.

Fräulein von Sivers: The membership movement is as follows: The total number of working groups and centers is 107; of these, 47 are in Germany and 60 in other countries. The number of new members is 3,702. Of these, 19 have died and 36 have left. The total number is therefore 3,647. Of these, 2,307 belong to the working groups in Germany.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on this report? Since this is not the case, we will move on to the third item on the agenda, the financial report.

Mr. Seiler: The financial statements can be described as favorable, on the one hand because voluntary donations have been received, and on the other hand because two large items have ceased to apply, namely contributions to Adyar and contributions to congresses.

Cash report

The financial statements of the Anthroposophical Society from February 2, 1913 to August 31, 1913 are as follows [in Marks and Pfennigs]:

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on this financial report?

Mr. Tessmar: The meeting has just heard the figures that make up the final result. The two auditors commissioned to audit the books have done so and dutifully checked the accounts. It is to be said that we found everything to be correct and in order, and we can testify that the sum of 5,340 Marks 32 Pfennigs is deposited at the savings bank; the proof of this was presented to us. I would like to emphasize that this cash report covers the period from February to August 1913, and that this year was particularly difficult because three financial statements had to be prepared. The accounts have been properly and correctly prepared. I therefore take the liberty of proposing that the treasurer be granted discharge for the period from February to August.

Mr. Seiler: I would like to point out that a large number of members are unclear about the contributions. Each member has to pay five marks in entrance fees and at least six marks in annual dues. If a member belongs to a lodge or a group, they will be registered with us by the group. In this case, the group is then obliged to pay a contribution of three marks to the central fund. It is up to the individual lodges or groups to decide what contribution they charge their members. Members who do not belong to a group have to pay six marks to the central fund. The question has now arisen as to how much should be demanded from a regional group – foreign country, section. Basically, this issue is hardly acute, since the need for regional groups is hardly present. It only exists in one case. It has now been proposed to raise one mark from the members of such a regional group. At present, the dues for foreigners have been reduced to one mark to support the group. I would also like to mention that in previous years, the individual groups had to pay a fee for the charter diploma. A fee of ten marks was charged for these diplomas.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on the financial report?

Fräulein Scholl: You have heard that it has been considered whether only one mark should be paid to the central fund by the individual lodges abroad for the member. However, as long as there are no national associations (no sections), there can be no reason for foreign lodges to pay only one mark in membership fees. This is simply for the reason of sending the “Mitteilungen”. In any case, it turned out that postage costs of around 80 to 100 marks had to be paid from Berlin for each issue. In 1913, seven issues were published, which resulted in additional postage costs of around 600 to 700 marks, a large portion of which was for shipments abroad. For the “Mitteilungen”, a standard rate, an annual contribution of at least two marks from each member, should also be levied. Relatively speaking, that is still very, very cheap, since a lot of the work is done for free. In other societies, much more is levied. I would like to propose levying two marks annually as a standard rate for the “Mitteilungen”.

Mrs. Geelmuyden: If it should be necessary to translate the “Mitteilungen” into foreign languages, then it might be appropriate to set the contribution so low. As long as we enjoy the same rights, it is only fair that we foreigners also bear the costs.

Mrs. von Ulrich: I would like to agree to change the membership fee and maybe make it an occult number, so that seven marks would have to be paid as a membership fee.

Mrs. van Hoek: I would like to ask whether sending the “Mitteilungen” would not be simplified by sending the “Mitteilungen” only in one package abroad, and then having the respective lodges take over the mailing to the individual members themselves?

Fräulein von Sivers: But in the future it will probably be even more necessary to address the mail personally to the individual members. The possibility has been created that a member belongs to several working groups: This also means a complication of the management. It will be necessary to start from a registry of personalities, not from branches, when sending messages and communications of any kind.

Mr. von Rainer: If I understand Mr. Seiler correctly, there are two types of members. Those who belong to a working group and those who do not belong to a working group, the latter pay six marks to the central fund. If Fräulein Scholl's proposal is accepted, each member who is directly connected to the headquarters would have to pay eight marks. I would like to propose that we accept Ms. Scholl's proposal. Each member is managed by the working group in which they pay.

Dr. Steiner: It would be a great help for the registry if each member were registered at the time of their registration and in all correspondence at the headquarters: “Member so-and-so, managed by working group so-and-so, belonging to working groups so-and-so.”

Fräulein Stinde: If we could call the working groups that are dedicated to specific studies study groups, then there would be no confusion. Dr. Steiner: But groups could also be formed that are not dedicated to a specific study. Perhaps we could just say “group” to indicate the difference. So let's note this for once, that we say “group” and call the others “working groups” to distinguish them.

Mr. Hubo: I would like to support Miss Scholl's proposal.

Miss von Sivers: Even if this proposal is accepted, the clause can remain in place that a reduction could be granted if necessary and at the request of the student.

Mr. Tessmar: Couldn't a conflict arise from the fact that it would be very difficult to account for the costs of sending the “Mitteilungen” in Mr. Seiler's account? Let's just drop the “Mitteilungen” and simply say: the contribution will be increased. That might be assumed. If the motion passes, then it must also be determined from when this increase should be introduced.

Mr. Meebold: But if one group claims the right to a discount, difficulties will easily arise. Our group in London would have nothing against an increase in dues. But they are doing it with sacrifices, and it will be more difficult for them to continue if other groups have discounts. The “Mitteilungen” thing isn't really fair, because the foreign members receive it in German.

Fräulein von Sivers: Perhaps the dues could just be increased by two marks for all German-speaking members.

Mr. Baster: I would like to ask whether it is necessary to increase the contribution at all, since the cash balance was quite favorable. One must not forget that individual lodges already have a lot to pay for. Could not those members who receive the “Mitteilungen” directly from headquarters contribute to this?

Fräulein von Sivers: I would like to point out that we are trying very hard to reduce expenses and that it would be necessary to enlarge the office space. We are forced to work under very uncomfortable external conditions at Motzstraße 17; our rooms there are quite inadequate in the long run. It is equally necessary to increase the number of employees as our society continues to grow. This year, we received a particularly large sum of voluntary contributions from the collection in Cologne before the Anthroposophical Society was founded, and we cannot count on this in the future. We have not touched them yet, in order to have something in the coffers for future cases, but we may soon be forced to make use of them because we do have to adapt external circumstances to the rapid growth of the movement.

Mr. von Rainer: If in the future it should turn out that the contribution of two marks is too much, then that can be changed again at any general assembly.

Mr. Bauer: It does not seem entirely practical to me that the two marks should be taken especially for the “Mitteilungen”; one could then do without the “Mitteilungen”. We may certainly make the request in the interest of simplifying the work: for German members, an annual contribution of five marks will be levied for the central fund; for foreigners, a contribution of three marks. If perhaps some fear that our current increase in contributions will not be met with entirely friendly feelings, I believe the matter can be smoothed over if we decide to introduce the increased contribution only for the year 1915. That is so far away that no one will be upset.

Ms. Scholl: Mr. Bauer will excuse me if I do not agree with him on this. I find this last suggestion unjustified. I would consider it right to pay an additional two marks for the past year, for the “Mitteilungen” that have already appeared. After all, one can look back on work that has already been done. You know what had to be published in the interest of our movement, and how so many members abroad in particular were able to be informed about the true events within the Theosophical movement. When you look back on it, you have to say that it has a value that cannot be paid for with two marks today. That should encourage us to pay later rather than postpone it. I propose that we stick with the first motion to raise the dues by two marks. If individual members are unable to pay these dues, then there are certainly wealthier members in the individual lodges who could step in for them. This way, no one will be harmed.

Fräulein von Sivers: Although I can understand Fräulein Scholl, who empathizes with the difficult external conditions under which work often has to be done in the cramped rooms on Motzstraße, I would still like to ask you to accept Mr. Bauer's proposal. 1915 is a normal point in time. The building in Dornach is standing, and the huge sacrifices that had to be made for the Johannesbau have been overcome. Of course, we have received proposals in which members propose an increase in contributions. Although they show a complete lack of knowledge of the situation, they are nevertheless very well intentioned. These proposals would now have to be read out.

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends! It is sometimes in the nature of such discussions that they expand endlessly. But the whole matter can be simplified. Before deciding whether to accept the more rigorous approach of Miss Scholl or the more liberal approach of Mr. Bauer, and before voting on the Sivers motion – which would create the possibility that after some time members will be happy to pay again – we must first read two motions from our Tübingen friends.

Fräulein von Sivers:

Tübingen, January 3, 1914
for Sunday, January 18, 1914,
three proposals from the plenum.
Proposal Tübingen, regarding membership fees.

A letter dated October 15, 1913, signed by Mr. Franz Seiler and attached to the membership statistics, informed the chairmen of the groups, lodges and branches of the Anthroposophical Society that our fiscal year would be changed from the September period to the calendar year and requested the advance payment of a four-mark membership fee for 16 months. This request directly contradicts the membership fee of six marks per year stated on page 6 of the draft of the principles of the Anthroposophical Society, according to which eight marks should have been charged for the aforementioned 16 months. These six marks annual contribution must be considered as intended only for the Anthroposophical Society and do not include any local membership fees.

In the interest of improving our financial situation, with due regard to our steadily growing income and expenses, the following motion is proposed:

Motion 1: The annual contribution to the Anthroposophical Society should be maintained at six marks in accordance with the draft principles, and the corresponding four-mark contribution should be levied retroactively for each member for the 1913/1914 financial year.

Furthermore, it should be noted that until the Anthroposophical Society was founded, we were obliged to pay three marks per capita membership fee to Adyar each year. This obligation to pay dues to Adyar has expired for each member upon their entry into the Anthroposophical Society.

Almost at the same moment, we have decided to regard the execution of the Johannesbau as a sacred duty, and to do our best to make it possible. Therefore, it must be considered a matter of course and unavoidable that the three marks of annual membership dues that have now been freed up by breaking away from Adyar should be donated to the Johannesbauverein.

This leads to proposal 2:

The annual membership fee of the Anthroposophical Society in the amount of six marks should be increased by a further three marks for the Johannesbau and collected retroactively for the 1913/1914 financial year.

Rudolf Schenkel.

In principle, the above motions to increase
membership dues are supported by
Christian Schuler, Bertha Hauff, Johanna Hauff, Paul Hauff.

Motion Tübingen in favor of the
Theosophical-artistic fund

The news that this year's Munich festival made a loss of around 15,000 marks, which was only whispered and only became known in a roundabout way, aroused deep indignation in many circles of our Anthroposophical Society, especially since, according to reports, previous festivals had also ended with at least a similar deficit.

However, it must be noted that such unofficial information, which gradually leaks out, is increasingly likely to arouse suspicion about the management or financial management of an organization. It should therefore come as no surprise that otherwise generous members everywhere are very reluctant to donate through their foundations.

The unfortunate consequence of such administrative techniques is the annually recurring recourse to the capital strength of individual members who are well-to-do.

This practice must be rejected out of hand in the interest of our Anthroposophical Society, because every participant in the festival would have been willing, without further ado, to pay an entrance fee that was more in line with the expenses, even double the amount, if properly informed in a manner consistent with the spirit of truthfulness.

It must therefore be deeply regretted that following the request to exchange any incorrectly issued tickets during the last days of the Munich festival, no member entrusted or charged with managing the Theosophical-Artistic Fund reported on the deficits that were growing larger every year. And if there had been even the slightest suggestion that the reimbursement of ticket prices could be waived in favor of covering the deficit, then practically minded members would certainly have gone so far as to propose that they would rather contribute to covering the previous and also the expected deficit by paying a voluntary contribution.

This would have had two practical advantages:

1. the costs incurred by the events would have been passed on to the participants to a much greater extent – and quite justifiably – and

2. the capital of the financially strong members, who were exceptionally called upon to cover the deficit, would have been reserved for our more extensive endeavors, such as the Johannesbau.

From the above considerations arises

Proposal 3: For future festival or similar events organized by the Theosophical Artistic Fund, an admission fee should be charged that is more appropriate to the value of these events and more commensurate with the costs incurred, if possible based on the previous year's financial statements.

Furthermore, consideration should be given to how, in the future, participants in such events can be made aware of the occurrence of such deficits in a dignified way and be asked to help cover them, although ideally only while they are gathered at the event and are therefore most willing to contribute financially. This will, frankly, cause many a prejudice and other thing against the management at our events to fall away and open many a hand more willingly to further donations in support of our efforts, but above all in favor of the Johannesbau.

Rudolf Schenkel.
In principle, the above motion to increase
entrance fees for the performances is supported by
Christian Schuler, Bertha Hauff, Johanna Hauff, Paul Hauff.

Dr. Steiner: You can now include these motions in the discussion.

Mr. Schuler: The author of the motion is solely responsible for the wording of the two motions. The other signatories have only endorsed them in principle. The contributions alone should create a certain basis. We have had exceptionally low contributions so far. I take the view that the lower the contributions, the lower the efficiency. The dues would surely have to be increased bit by bit. In my experience, the truly needy and poor people are the ones most willing to pay all dues and increases. Regarding the opinion on increasing the dues, I would like to say: Those who can pay three marks can also pay five marks. The individual lodges would have the opportunity to demand higher dues on their own initiative.

Dr. Unger: It was to be expected that Dr. Schuler would present a justification for these Tübingen proposals. These proposals are a serious matter. In the final analysis, it is not a question of payment here; after all, everything is moving towards the same goal. However, it is a different matter when it comes to creating clarity about the conditions that actually exist. It is not that the proposals contain truly strange things, but rather that these things are present due to a misunderstanding of the situation. We must pay particular attention to this at our Annual General Meeting, because such things are likely to cause confusion, which then proliferates again and again. These proposals speak of mistrust arising and so on. Furthermore, these Tübingen proposals show a tremendous confusion of the most diverse things. One should gradually start to distinguish between the Anthroposophical Society, the Theosophical Artistic Fund and the Johannesbau Association. In this proposal, the Theosophical Artistic Fund is placed in a kind of opposition to the Johannesbau Association and the Society itself. It is important to point this out because one should not actually base proposals on ambiguity. The matters of the Theosophical-Artistic Fund have been treated in this application out of complete ignorance of the facts. One really has no right to stick one's nose into such things. The point is that in recent years everyone has felt a sense of deepest gratitude, of deepest respect for all that is behind the Theosophical-Artistic Fund. We would never have had mystery plays today if these plays had been based on any kind of income. This is a pure gift that we accept in the appropriate way. Income and expenses do not and cannot play a role. It is a matter of course that an entrance fee is charged, but this should certainly not give anyone the right to interfere in these matters; we can only look up and accept this gift with the deepest gratitude.

The Johannesbau Association is now endeavoring to create a framework for these mystery plays. So when people talk about the fact that funds are being withdrawn from the Johannesbau through the Theosophical-Artistic Fund, it is a gross distortion. We would not need a Johannesbau if we did not have the Mystery Plays, the gift from the spiritual worlds. It is deeply regrettable that these motions have been tabled with the best of intentions. That is precisely why they are completely unacceptable.

Fräulein von Sivers: I would just like to add to what Dr. Unger said that it is one of the greatest ironies I have experienced in my working life within the Theosophical Society, which has been so rich in experiences, that what is being discussed here in this proposal has become possible. So a gift is made out of the purest, most unselfish motives, a personal, private gift. If two months of the year were not set aside for these performances, given the demands that the members place on Dr. Steiner's time, the mysteries would probably never be written at all. And it would never be possible to put on a performance in this short time if one had to ask society whether a worker could be given 50 pfennigs more or less in tips, or whether an artist could be compensated in this or that way. Anyone who knows just a little about everything that goes into a venture would give up from the outset under such conditions. The project was born out of personal initiative, and it was not even considered to ask society for contributions. How can one speak of a deficit when only expenses are calculated! How could such a low entrance fee even cover the expenses? Out of pure enthusiasm for art, to make possible something that is considered a gift, not only for society but for all humanity, the funds are given.

The Mystery Plays have been enthusiastically received, and a worthy setting had to be created for them. The Johannesbau was created from this idea. So it cannot be said that it is the more enduring. Many of us are convinced that these dramas will live longer than a building made of wood and stone.

Now it has proved expedient for the Theosophical Artistic Fund to provide an address for donations for the building. These will be receipted with the note “Theosophical Artistic Fund for the Johannesbau”. So they have nothing at all to do with the performances and are kept strictly separate from them.

Fräulein Stinde: The Theosophical Artistic Fund was set up so that the mystery plays could be performed and only secondarily for the Johannesbau. Of course, we older members who set up the fund find it easier to understand all this than the younger members. That would be an excuse. But they could still know what it is about. Of course, most people don't appreciate the monetary value of art and performances; they don't realize that when a new play is performed in a theater, the costs amount to 60,000 to 80,000 marks. Thanks to the great willingness of our artists to make sacrifices, we are only able to make such performances possible; it would be impossible if we had to pay our artists. The entrance fee that is charged cannot be counted against the costs.

Mr. Bauer: One more comment! It would be easy to say at first that a good opinion underlies the request, and therefore the rest could be overlooked. But we don't want to cloud the issue ourselves; we have to look at this opinion at its core. It may be well meant, but if we look closely, this good feeling has a heavy shadow. Otherwise this proposal would not be possible, because it could only come about from a bad opinion of others. One does not assume a sense of truthfulness in others. We must also be clear about this; specifically, he presents a good opinion based on mistrust.

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends! We still have a great deal of work to do in the so-called business part of our General Assembly. Now, however, we must allow the time to come when some refreshment must be taken for the less intellectual organs. This point cannot be postponed any longer, because our stomachs would not be able to appear in such a way with the tea that is offered to us here at six o'clock that we would be able to achieve as much as possible. So we will now take a break and meet again here at four o'clock this afternoon to continue our negotiations.

Adjourned at 1:30.

The negotiations adjourned at 1:30 will resume at four o'clock.

Fräulein von Sivers: The many arguments about the financial situation were perhaps quite useful in order to be able to know what the situation is. But since we have to make such strong demands on the willingness of the members of the Johannesbau this year, I hereby make the request that the assembly refrain from increasing the membership fee this year and break off negotiations on this point.

The proposal is adopted.

Mr. Walther: I propose that we also not enter into negotiations on the two Tübingen proposals, but rather assign them to the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society for resolution.

Mr. Schuler: I have no objection to this, but I would like to emphasize that these are not “Tübingen proposals”. The proponent is responsible for the proposals. The others have only agreed to the increase in contributions.

Dr. Steiner: The term “Tübingen motions” was not intended to refer to the Tübingen working group; it was meant only geographically, just so that the motions came from the city of Tübingen.

The proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner: We now come to the proposal of our auditor, Mr. Tessmar, to grant discharge to the treasurer and cashier.

The assembly grants this discharge.

Dr. Steiner: It will be necessary to deal with the Boldt proposal as the next proposal. I am obliged to present this Boldt proposal and to provide a little background information so that we are able to discuss this proposal in a reasonably objective manner.

Mr. Ernst Boldt, a member of the Munich I working group, wrote a paper in 1911 that was published by Max Altmann in Leipzig at the time: “Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural and Spiritual Science”. I would like to explain Mr. Boldt's intentions with a few words from the brochure that was sent out by the publishing house at the time and from which I will read a few passages:

This book stands out from the abundance of modern sex literature in a unique and purposeful way. It occupies a special position in that it seeks to establish the scientific basis and framework of an independent philosophy of sex and thus to open up new perspectives on life, independently of contemporary research. The inadequacy of the relevant literature, which mostly only gropes around the outside and surface of these problems and not infrequently speculates on the hidden lustfulness of the reader, prompted the creation of this thoroughly honest and solemnly written book. It can therefore lay claim to attention in the widest circles, because it offers the thinking person, who must be highly dissatisfied by the common vituperation of this topic, a wealth of new perspectives and rich thought content.

This is indeed a new publication that will, over time, provide the most important impetus and will truly break new ground for all sexual research. It is a fundamental work of sexual philosophy that literature has yet to match.

The author initially bases his ideas on the results of modern science, but in order to do full justice to his subject, he finds it necessary to supplement and deepen these with the little-known and much-misunderstood extrasensory or occult findings of spiritual or secret science (theosophy). Despite his spiritual research methods, Boldt agrees with the monists insofar as they remain on the firm ground of true science and do not stray into the barren swamps of materialism through vague hypotheses; but he turns with implacable severity against the dualists and their culturally backward tendencies. The author himself stands beyond monism and dualism, since both mean only stages of human knowledge to him. Seen from a higher vantage point and illuminated by the light of spiritual research, 'the world reveals itself in a completely new form. And the author had to base his explanations on this in order to enable a real solution to such profound problems.

Boldt has a calm and confident command of his subject and thus does justice to a great task. In seven concise treatises, he reveals the deepest mysteries of the past, present and future of human nature in terms of sexuality. It is precisely these broad views of the past and the future that sharpen the eye tremendously for the present state of things. Certainty about the “where from” and “where to,” which has always been the greatest concern of the deeper thinker, also sheds light on the “why,” allowing people to most clearly recognize their most pressing tasks. In this

sense, Boldt gets to the root of the problems. The simple and clear style facilitates understanding of the complicated, occult facts, which have so far remained inaccessible to both the layman and the academic, and which are presented and explained in the strangest of images. Although the reader must initially accept these “facts” without question, the explanations that Boldt bases on them meet the requirements of a self-contained, strictly logical thought process that can withstand any criticism. The author provides more detailed information about the sources from which the occult ideas in his book are drawn in the introduction and in a corresponding appendix.

The book is of equal interest to men and women, scholars and laymen.

This is what is known in the book trade as a “blurb”, which is always added to books when they are first published. I don't know who wrote this particular blurb; sometimes authors write their own. But I don't want to claim that in this case, I just want to mention a very common usage in this instance, because not all of our members are informed about the practices of book distribution.

If I were to tell the story of how I came to write this book, which culminates in my arguments, I would have to keep you waiting a very long time. I don't want to do that, but I would like to mention that Mr. Ernst Boldt originally intended to cover this subject, which was then condensed into his 1911 book of 148 pages, in a great many volumes. Then various things led him to make this short extract from his so-called “research”. I may well admit that long before this book was written, Mr. Boldt's various views and pretensions were brought to my attention by Mr. Boldt himself, according to various practices existing in our society, and that I was not in a position to Mr. Boldt made to me at the time – with the exception of the obvious, which is to tell a younger man: He should move in this or that direction in the field of thought so that he can move forward and also to give this or that piece of advice that you yourself consider good. Then, after this advice had been given, Mr. Boldt came to write this book. He also wrote me a letter of many pages, while the book was actually already in print. I am really not always able to respond to all such requests and to deal with all the details of what is in the literary intentions of our members. I also think it better if someone has the pretension to appear scientifically literary that he proves less in need of support in such a case. Now the book was published. Mr. Boldt had the obvious requirement that not only our various Theosophical working groups should display the brochure for this book – I have read it out so that you can judge it – in the lodge rooms in order to do their part for this book, but he also had the requirement, which is evident from his current behavior, that I should recommend the book in our circles; indeed, even assumes that the various measures or lack of measures that he criticized so sharply can be traced back to the fact that I did not recommend this book, and that I—despite Mr. Boldt's statement that I personally often asked how things were going with his book—never gave any information other than one that was “neither warm nor cold” when he asked me about it. You can understand that an author may easily feel that a piece of information is neither warm nor cold to him if it is not given to him exactly as he had imagined it. But not only did I have reasons not to deviate from a judgment that is “neither warm nor cold,” but I also had my good reasons, which I did not conceal from Mr. Boldt, in a gentle way, not to recommend the book. There will be more to say about some of this later, so I will mention the main reason I gave to Mr. Boldt first. I told him, roughly, that the book still has a very immature, amateurish character, and that this is especially evident from the fact that the whole execution is such that you can't do anything with it if you really want to get involved with the subject. Despite the cover, which says that it is a new publication that will change the whole of sex research over time, the book is actually such that, in my humble opinion, no one, even if they are responsive to the issues at hand, can really learn much from it.

There would have been only one reason – I don't know if anyone of those who know me better could see this as a reason for me in this case – to recommend this book: it contains many praiseworthy and laudatory things about myself. But that is no reason for me to recommend the book just because Mr. Boldt praises me. And I must confess that I would have preferred it if what I have endeavored to produce over decades in various fields of knowledge had not been presented in such a way in a book. The fact that someone pays all kinds of adulation that refers to me will never be a reason for me to give a special recommendation about anything; the only reason for this can be the quality of the performance.

So I did something for which, in addition to all the reasons I have given, there was another reason that could perhaps be appreciated: that it is my right to remain silent about something! I don't know if anyone doubts that I am entitled to do so? If one were to doubt that I am entitled to remain silent about anything, I would have to regard that as the worst kind of tyranny. If someone, as in this case, comes to me with the assumption that I am obliged to recommend this or that and would be acting incorrectly if I did not do so, I would have to regard that as the harshest and most terrible imposition that can possibly be placed on a human being. For I would like to know what would become of the freedom of mankind if a society were founded in which the person to whom some people adhere is obliged to recommend a book or other article by a member? You can imagine the tyranny that could result. So it happened that I could not give such a recommendation. I could give you many reasons for this; perhaps that could be done in the course of the negotiations. But our friends – perhaps with the exception of the 25 percent to which Mr. Boldt refers – did not particularly enjoy this work either. So it was left out of consideration. The great “injustice” has been done: this book has been ignored, let us say, has not been bought! My friends! In the past few days, a large number of us have received a brochure that now reads as follows:

Please pass this on!
Munich, January 1914.

Dear Members of the Anthroposophical Society! The undersigned respectfully takes the liberty of personally informing the esteemed members of his recently self-published work “Theosophy or Anti-Theosophy? - A Free Word to Free Theosophists”. In it, the author seeks, in the interest of our great cause, to shed light on various abuses within our circles and to bring them up for discussion at the upcoming second general assembly. The writing is of an intimate nature and therefore cannot be published by a bookshop. It is “printed as a manuscript” and is addressed exclusively to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, for whom this topic is likely to be of particular interest.

With theosophical greetings
Ernst Boldt, Munich, Adelheidstraße 15/111

Then, at the bottom, is the order form. A few days after the brochure appeared, I received the pamphlet “Theosophy or Antisophy? — A Free Word to Free Theosophists” from Ernst Boldt. The brochure contains the following words:

The writing is of an intimate nature and therefore cannot appear in bookstores. It is “printed as a manuscript” and is addressed exclusively to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, for whom this topic is likely to be of particular interest.

In the “preliminary remarks” of the brochure, I immediately read the words:

The following observations are taken from the manuscript of a larger work in the process of being written. They formed the first introductory chapter. However, since the completion and publication of this extensive work may be delayed for years due to the unfavorable economic and health conditions of the author, it seemed advisable to publish these observations now as an independent work, initially within our circles. Whether these remarks will be taken up in the Anthroposophical Society or not will determine whether they should later be included in the work intended for the general public, which has been temporarily set aside by this announcement.

So, it is said, if the members are well-behaved and accommodating, it will be refrained from being carried out to the wider public; but if the members do not behave well, this printed “manuscript” may perhaps be presented to the wider public after all. However, it is very strange that this was only learned after the booklet had been purchased. I did not buy it, because it was sent to me for free. This booklet – which is not to be read out because it is not desired – contains many accusations against the backwardness and ignorance of the members of our “Anthroposophical Society”, who, in their developmental naivety, ignore such things that address the most important problems of the present.

My dear friends, had the whole matter come to me before the program of our present General Assembly was sent out, I would have had – not exactly because of Boldt's proposal, which has more symptomatic significance, but for other reasons that could arise from the negotiations - I would have had reason enough not to give the four lectures announced, “The Human and the Cosmic Idea”, and instead to speak about the inferiority of some scientific work in the present day. For there is much that can be said about the subject that is called “sexology and related subjects”, which could one day provide an opportunity to say a few necessary words to those who hold many dubious views on this point at the present time, not to say it to our members, but so that our members can counter many of the corresponding pretensions in the present day by advancing the thought processes presented through their own research.

In the brochure “Theosophy or Antisophy?” the author relies heavily on Nietzsche as a fighter against ascetic ideals, and Mr. Boldt finds that he needs to tell our members the truth quite bluntly. On page 28, he writes:

It is entirely in the interest of keeping the Christian-Theosophical blood of life pure when we seriously warn against its parasites.

However, Mr. Boldt does not look for these “parasites” among the 25 percent who are in favor of him, but among the other 75 percent.

However “occult” they may behave, these “believers” are nothing more than a lively swarm, a lot of love, a lot of folly, a lot of non-bearded worship... anyone who knows the fleeting, cowardly human race should not believe in these springtimes and colorful meadows!

Woe betide if these half-wits spoil everything here too – there is no lack of tendency in that regard! For the intellectual posing as a Theosophist, to whom Theosophy means little more than a fashion, a kind of sport, is undoubtedly more dangerous to the anthroposophical movement than the monist who is disappointed in Theosophy. If the yearning flirtation with ascetic ideals, which is already “good form” in Theosophical circles, also becomes dogma and an epidemic, then we can no longer refrain from exclaiming indignantly with Nietzsche: “All our ‘reverence for the ascetic ideal, provided it is honest!’ But we may 'all these coquettish...

here the printer was probably unaware that he should have used a z instead of a g; for Nietzsche writes “Wanzen” and not “Wangen”, and since I do not believe that Mr. Boldt wanted to speak of the “flirtatious cheeks” of our members, I assume that the printer stumbled here.

... cheeks whose insatiable ambition is to smell of the infinite, until the infinite smells of bugs.

One cannot demand that the members of the Anthroposophical Society always be treated politely; nor can it be said that the least has been done here to be reasonably polite. There is not much politeness in the other sentence either:

In the interest of the great cause, which seems to me to be endangered by this behavior, I long for the day when Dr. Steiner will say with Nietzsche's Zarathustra: “Let them go and fall... and do not complain! Better still blow with rustling winds among them, - blow among these leaves,... that all that is withered may flee from you even faster!

(“On the Renegades.”)

So much for the tenor of how – and I am addressing the other 75 percent – you are addressed yourself. I myself am addressed in a peculiar way. If I put before me the figure in which I appear, then allow me to characterize it with an expression that is perhaps better understood in Berlin and the surrounding area than in the circles further outside this narrower country – that I say: the person who appears under the name “Dr. Steiner” seems to me like a “Konzessions-Schulze in the disguise of a superman”. That is more or less how I must appear after what I am portrayed as in this book. I don't know how widely this expression will be understood; but members who live further away and don't understand it can ask their friends in Berlin what a “Konzessions-Schulze in the disguise of a superman” is. Among other things, it is said that I have a right to do everything I do, but that because I have to make a pact with the 75 percent of the backward ones - those who are supposed to run away and who will contribute to the fact that infinity will one day smell of bugs - I am forced to say what my true opinion is. What I should actually have said about Mr. Boldt's book, I don't know; but in any case, I am the one who wears masks and has to rely not on telling the truth, but on saying what is pleasant for his 75 percent followers. So I appear in a very peculiar light:

I repeat: a philosopher as a great educator may and must be reserved with his true thoughts and judgments; he has the right and the duty to use masks and gestures. But should there not be a limit that must not be exceeded? The logical fictions and false judgments, which are undoubtedly necessary and fruitful for the theosophical movement in a certain initial phase of development, must have a hindering and paralyzing effect as soon as this development enters a second, higher phase. In other words, if these fictions and false judgments are part of the conditions of the former group and current, they must be felt by the second as a paralyzing poison.

Then it is said that it would indeed be necessary to gradually change tack, with the following words:

But in The Will to Power there is also an essay (980) that sheds even more light on this subject and can be applied to Dr. Steiner's powerful personality: “Let us imagine a philosopher as a great educator, powerful enough to draw long chains of generations up to him from a lonely height, then we must also grant him the uncanny prerogatives of the great educator. A great educator never says what he himself thinks, but only what he thinks about a matter in relation to the benefit of the person he is educating (and wants to be thought about it, I might add). In this pretense, he must not be guessed at; it is part of his mastery that one believes in his honesty. He must be capable of all means of discipline and punishment: he can only bring some natures forward by lashes of the whip of scorn, others, the indolent, the indecisive, the cowardly, the vain, perhaps with exaggerated praise. Such an educator is beyond good and evil; but no one must know it.

It's strange: what you have had to experience over the years! I must say: I do not want to expand the term “concessionary school in the disguise of the superman” any further, but only state a few things about how the 75 percent of the members who do not belong to Mr. Boldt are treated, and how I myself am treated, so that you may know a few things even if you have not been prompted by the brochure to read it. The brochure was sent to me together with the following letter:

Munich, January 9, 1914,br> Adelheidstraße 15/III

Dear Dr.

Since summer 1911, I have repeatedly asked you for a factual statement about my book (“Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural Science and the Science of the Spirit”), which was published at the time. Since you have given me only inadequate, contradictory, evasive and confusing answers to my private questions and have repeatedly promised me “critical marginal notes” on my book but have repeatedly promised me, I saw myself compelled, for reasons of spiritual and intellectual self-preservation, to deal with this embarrassing and distressing subject in a pamphlet (“Theosophy or Anti-Theosophy? - A Free Word to Free Theosophists”) and to submit it to you as my contribution to the second General Assembly, with the urgent request that you take a stand on it in the next few days. I have announced the publication of my writing by sending 2,500 brochures to all branches of the Anthroposophical Society and have already sent out a number of copies; I may therefore assume that the content of the brochure is known at the General Assembly. Although the dam of cold objectivity may be breached here and there by the stream of feelings in my remarks, I know that you will have to call me to order strictly for this, but I would still ask you to always separate the factual content from the jagged form and not to give the latter too much weight. In any case, I ask for leniency as far as the form is concerned; not everything is meant as badly as it may appear in the rigid print on paper. I have not named any personalities and certainly did not want to offend anyone. It is in itself quite unimportant who said this or that, but the fact that it was said is what I could not get over. Should anyone feel offended, however, well, he may justify himself as best he can, or apologize and regret his behavior. I will certainly not be unreceptive to it. Whoever knows how much I have suffered from these things over these years will understand that I could not remain silent any longer. And you, dear Doctor, should know first that it was only pain that guided my pen. If freedom and independence, truth and truthfulness are not to remain empty phrases or abstractions in our circles, then these words, wherever they take on concrete life, must also be respected and duly appreciated; otherwise, the same applies to us as to what Lykophron of Phrygius says (pages 24-25): “You are all shadows without life, larvae without will” and so on. But we want to be free men indeed, over whom the sun of Christ can rejoice. I still remember exactly your wonderful words in Düsseldorf (1909) about the praise of the ability to make “first judgments”. At the time, you lamented finding this ability so undeveloped in our circles, where you would so much like to encounter it. Well, I did not wait to be shown the way to take a step – I did not need to be seduced or goaded – I had the strength, the courage and the good conscience for my “first judgment”! – I hope it is not misunderstood and held against me as a crime – I passed it with the best of intentions.

Since it is financially and physically impossible for me to come to Berlin myself, I kindly request that this letter be read at the general assembly.

With deepest admiration yours, Ernst Boldt.

In the last few days, the explicit request has been made to discuss this letter first and to add the following:

Munich, January 15, 1914.
To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, Berlin.

Dear Doctor!

As was to be expected, my brochure has caused a storm to rage against me, especially here in Munich. This is also expected to continue in Berlin at the upcoming general assembly. Since it is unfortunately not possible for me to attend the meeting for the reasons mentioned, and to defend myself against any attacks and distortions of my intentions, I would like to kindly ask you, dear Doctor, to read this written material yourself in the order given, or to have it read.

The evening before yesterday, Director Sellin delivered to me the order of our lodge board to declare my resignation from the local lodge I, otherwise I would have to consider myself already excluded. From this I may well conclude that our board feels offended by my pamphlet. It is therefore to be assumed that he will speak in his defense at the general assembly, and in the sense in which he has already spoken here. He has claimed that I have besmirched him and a number of members from top to bottom with dirt, that I have severely insulted Dr. Steiner and accused him of moral cowardice, as reported to me by Director Sellin, who also made these claims.

I must protest in the strongest possible terms against this understandable but nevertheless outrageous distortion of the facts, against these objective untruths. It is not true that I threw mud at the ladies; I only pointed out facts in strong words and castigated the excesses that will have to get out of hand if we do not work energetically against them in time. In saying this, I was only expressing the convictions of about 25 percent of our members; if they now also have the courage to openly stand up for their convictions, this would certainly be in the interest of our great cause. It is also untrue that I severely insulted Dr. Steiner and accused him of moral cowardice. Only very superficial thinking, unacquainted with deeper psychology, can make such unfounded assertions. Those who are sensitive to nuances and have eyes for true greatness of mind and character will have to admit that this serious accusation does not apply to me in any way; rather, I have fully and completely done justice to the great mind and character of this superhuman personality, who, for his extraordinary purposes and goals, must also make use of extraordinary means and methods. Even if at one point, on pages 25-26, I asked for clarification regarding some points that had long weighed heavily on me, I believe that this is my good human and intellectual right.

On pages 25-26 of the brochure, the words can be read:

My question pains me deeply, but it must nevertheless be asked: Does Dr. Steiner do the “in the field of theosophy working”, who have not only made the cultivation and dissemination of the existing treasure of extrasensory knowledge their mission, but also “wherever it can be, observe where life needs and can experience a deepening by the theosophical way of thinking' - does Dr. Steiner not do them an injustice when he ignores their honest striving, apparently as a result of their compromising with backward groups and currents, as inadequate or inadmissible? And further I ask: Theosophy, which disregards every possibility of “making the highest realizations fruitful for the most everyday things of life”, as certain circles have proved by their behavior, does not lead in the best way “to things to which it should least lead to: the formation of sects, narrow-minded dogmatics and so on, which leads to a theosophical priesthood and sisterhood, which I already warned against so energetically in Düsseldorf, because I saw it coming for sure? Dr. Steiner, forgive me for asking this last question: If he is inclined to preserve the Theosophical Society in its primitive, initial stage by suppressing efforts of my kind, then he seems to me to be cutting off the lifeblood of this movement in its progressive impulses and thus falling into an unfathomable contradiction with himself.

Should the anthroposophical movement ever need a Luther in the future, which is likely, he can refer to me as his modest forerunner, who is willing to be fried for his convictions, mindful of the words: “Here I stand - I cannot do otherwise - God help me - Amen!”

That is there, as required by “good human and intellectual law.” I continue to read the letter to you:

Not everything is immediately clear and transparent to me, because I am not concerned with mere allegiance, which is certainly very cheap. As we know from him, Dr. Steiner has to defend himself against the blind adoration of these followers, as if they were astral clouds that block his work. I don't want any part in the formation of these astral clouds, I don't have the talent for that. I have no doubt that Dr. Steiner does not feel at all offended or accused of moral cowardice by my profound remarks. I am also convinced that Dr. Steiner will take the serious questions and honest striving of an independent thinker seriously again. Those who, like me, strive to understand rather than to admire, will best protect themselves against desertion and subsequent opposition. After all, “we should not show external reverence and admiration for our teachers, but we should strive for their understanding.” (Messages No. X, p. 3.)

This “aspiration” is quoted from the messages no. X, page 3, where the sentence is: “We want to be praised less, but understood more diligently.” - Now Mr. Boldt continues:

And that is the great crime of which I am accused by the blind admirers and admirers. “O sancta simplicitas!” - If only the Theosophists would take their Theosophy more seriously, they would not have so much time to admire and criticize, and would not compromise themselves so embarrassingly with their accusations...

Anyone who was present at the cycle in Düsseldorf in 1909 will know that it was Dr. Steiner himself who drew my attention to this $4 in Nietzsche's “Beyond Good and Evil,” with the words: ” The questioner (who was none other than me) once quoted 2sche; now, he should also be familiar with $4 in Beyond Good and Evil, where Nietzsche posits the sentence: “The falsity of a judgment...” and so on. This just needs to be understood correctly, and the questioner will understand me if he understands Nietzsche. This sentence also applies to the theosophical movement: if it is to be fruitful in a certain sense, then it does not depend on the pure truth, but... and so on, as I have reproduced almost literally on p. 16 of my writing.

There are the words that a great educator can tie up anything to people if they only believe in his honesty.

Well, I have understood Nietzsche and through him Dr. Steiner better than my indignant accusers. If they want to make up for what they have neglected and work their way to a deeper understanding of their great teacher, then they will also have to acquit me of the offence of which they now accuse me. So much for now in this point for my justification.

Furthermore, I am accused of vindictiveness due to hurt vanity as a writer because the ladies did not do any propaganda for my book. I understand this argument perfectly in view of the mentality of my judges; but nevertheless I must acquit myself of this accusation in every sense. I therefore expressly repeat that I have a completely impersonal interest in these conditions and processes. When I wrote my brochure, I was well aware that the personal impact and the sharpness of my speech would make it easy for my opponents to twist it into a rope. And yet I could not bring myself to change my mind; after all, I am addressing my writing only to free and insightful Theosophists, and I expect them to be able to distinguish between the factual content of my writing and its sharp form. In this sense, the board of a larger lodge wrote to me today, whom I do not know personally, but who addresses me in the name of his lodge or in the name of the few free and insightful: “Our dear Mr. Boldt”: “Your brochure is a painful call! But the good in it will be drowned out by the reproach that will be made to you by those who think they are “chosen”: that the non-acceptance of your book is to blame!” - This, however, was the starting point of my considerations; as such and in itself it is quite unessential and accidental. Only the conditions and events that attached themselves to it as an independent event were essential and necessary. Just as I do not feel personally attacked and hurt by this rejection, so it is not my intention to attack or hurt anyone personally, which is also criticized, and to which I can only reply with Nietzsche: “I never attack people; I only use the person as a kind of powerful magnifying glass with which one can make visible a general, but insidious, and hardly comprehensible state of emergency.” – (“Ecce homo” 1.7.) So much in general; in particular, I have the following to add. After I sent out the brochures, I was asked in writing in the most amiable way by our board to pin them up in the hallway and put them on the library table or distribute them to the members at the door themselves. Nothing else could be arranged without favoritism. I then enclosed the following lines with my brochure mailing:

Munich, January 10, 1914.

Dear Countess, dear Miss Stinde!

I was pleasantly touched by your willingness to help with the publication of my last brochure. I was actually quite surprised, all the more so because I still had feelings about you that you had caused about 2.5 years ago with the brusque way in which you responded to my request to announce the first brochure. While you have given me enough time to think about the step I have now taken, you have done nothing to make up for what you neglected to do, nor to apologize for it. If you had shown me even half as much kindness back then, this brochure, dictated by pain, could have remained unwritten. I deeply regret that it had to be written, but I also hope that it will not be without effect. This in response to your kind words. More details about this matter will be discussed at the upcoming general assembly in Berlin.

Kind regards, sincerely, Ernst Boldt.

In response to this, I received the following letter, which I can share here without incurring the accusation of indiscretion, due to its factual content:

Munich, January 11, 1914.

Dear Mr. Boldt!

Even before I can read your brochure, I would like to answer your card, which arrived earlier, to avoid any misunderstandings. According to this, you are surprised that we are accommodating you regarding the announcement of your last brochure, while we had to refuse to announce your first brochure. Perhaps you missed a lodge evening about 18 months ago, when we announced the following. We said then that it had always been our custom not to publicize any programs for works or lessons or other matters of our members in the lodge, that we had never hung any programs or brochures or the like in the library or in the hallway because it could have opened the floodgates to all manner of extolling of the work, leading many of our members to believe that we or even Dr. Steiner endorsed it. (Unfortunately, we have had more than enough experiences of this kind.) We were then asked by another lodge to provide the addresses of our members so that they could send a brochure. However, since we consider giving out our members' addresses to be an indiscretion, but still wanted to accommodate our friendly lodge, we decided, albeit very reluctantly, to display these brochures in the library and to pin them up in the hallway, thereby overturning an old principle and now also allowing all our members to display their programs and brochures in the library or pin them up in the hallway. Since then, our members have made much use of this permission, as they must have noticed, right? So displaying your brochure was not a concession on our part, but simply the result of the decision made by the lodge's board at the time. This from the board. – Personally, I would add that for me, there is no reason to apologize to you and I would not want to go back to that tone and manner. If you had donated your work to the library with an inscription stating that it was given by the author, as other writers do, that would have been the best way for the members to have read the book and commented on it.

Yours sincerely,
Countess Pauline Kalckreuth.

I am enclosing my response to this letter (copy) with the urgent request that it be read at the general assembly. It touches on a topic that urgently needs to be discussed in the interest of our cause and complements the content of my brochure. This letter was not read here on the last evening of the lodge, and I had to take the severe attacks by Director Sellin upon myself without being able to refute them or defend myself because I had already been expelled from the lodge. Therefore, I ask once again, politely but urgently, that this letter also be made known.

Finally, I would like to repeat my request for leniency regarding the harshness of my writing, which I condemn in a sense myself. After all, it has helped to hit the nail on the head and provide an unambiguous description of the hardships and events discussed. But let uncompromising severity and objectivity prevail as regards the content of my writing. Here I claim no mercy, no compassion; here I want to find an incorruptible judge. Should my expulsion from the Anthroposophical Society really be necessary in the interest of our cause, then I will submit to it, for I do not wish to serve myself but the cause, and in this case I am happy to sacrifice myself for the benefit of your great work. That is, after all, the fate of the firstlings. At least I will have the satisfaction of having set the ball rolling and thus achieved what I set out to do. May I be judged on the basis of my sharp polemics – after me there will come someone who will say the same thing and much more in terms of content, but who will not take a personal starting point for doing so and will avoid all polemics on principle. I would like to have broken the ice for him and paved the way – and this too is entirely in the interest of our great and lofty cause.

I remain in the most sincere veneration and unchanging loyalty,

Yours sincerely, Ernst Boldt

Munich, January 14, 1914.

To the board of the Munich branch of the Anthroposophical Society

Frau Gräfin Pauline von Kalckreuth Munich.

Dear Countess!

Please allow me to offer a few thoughts in response to your esteemed letter of the 11th of this month. Based on this, it could appear as though you are entirely in the right and I, beset by error, have taken hasty action. To superficial thought and appearances, this seems obvious. On the basis of deeper reflection, however, this is not the case at all, as I will show.

I knew very well that some time after my first prospecting affair, such a decree was announced in the lodge, and I also noticed the application of this new decree. But I also knew that this break with the old principle was not a free, insightful act of our board. You yourself admit that you were only “very reluctant” to decide to overturn this old principle. Ideologically, in spirit, you still represent this backward principle today, and that is the crucial point – formally, outwardly, you had to break with it because the spirit of freedom and progress cannot be kept in chains in the long run. As everywhere, and at all times, it had to enforce its just rights here too, since it is never voluntarily granted.

At the time, I complained to various quarters about this restrictive principle, which is unworthy of the free spirit of our movement, and this will not have remained without effect. I knew very well that nothing more should stand in the way of the publication of this second brochure, since the same rights apply to everyone. I was only extremely gratified and surprised by your kind offer, without my having asked for permission to distribute the brochure in the lodge, because I had no intention of making use of this favor this time, since I had already sent about 300 brochures to about 50 addresses of our Munich members. I therefore expressly repeat: it was not the permission to distribute my brochure that I addressed as an unexpected concession, but only the unsolicited willingness, the kind invitation to do so, which should be very understandable. This on my part to avoid any misunderstandings.

To stay with the matter at hand, I would like to briefly discuss why I called the old principle, which you only “very reluctantly” overthrew, backward and incompatible with the free spirit of our movement. First, a preliminary question: Don't you have any sense that there is something hurtful for these members in the assumption that our members could make the “most conceivable recommendations” to us in the lodge? But let us assume that not everything that is announced is theosophically tenable; how can we develop our independence and judgment if the executive committee anxiously withholds from us everything that could help us to develop our ability to make “first judgments”; if, in other words, we are so carefully patronized. Eating alone makes you fat, thinking alone strengthens the mind. I am reminded of the unrefined way in which we were recently patronized in the case of Fidus, the lecture. An approach that caused widespread outrage - but, as so often, many fists remained in their pockets. As adults, members should be left to form their own opinions about the things that come up to them. If they are not considered capable of it, “then away with all hypocrisy of freedom and independence. Just say: the Theosophists have to wait ‘to take a step that you can ’show them the way and so on. (Based loosely on Steiner: ‘Philosophy of Freedom’, pp. 155-156, and Schur &: ‘The Children of Lucifer’, pp. 24-25).

Returning to your letter, I would like to continue. Regarding the tone and nature of your rejection at the time, to which you do not wish to go back, I maintain my view that you, as the board, were at fault on this point and should therefore have apologized to me. I would like to remind you of the inappropriate phrases you used at the time: “I cannot possibly mention such a dirty subject in the lodge” and “We do not do any propaganda for theosophical books in the lodge”. These are two objective untruths; firstly, the area of procreation and reproduction, the area of human sexuality, is neither dirty nor clean in itself; it is a neutral area of nature that we simply have to take into account in the interest of our racial and spiritual development. As a lodge executive committee, you should be clear about this. Perhaps you could find out about the nature of this area from Dr. Steiner: “Lucifer-Gnosis, first edition, issue 23, page 345, where it says, among other things: ”In fact, noble divine powers are at work in this (dirty?) area, regulating and organizing... Refinement... but not destruction... of this whole area... is what occult science teaches,” and what I too have taught and advocated in my book in a way that cannot be misunderstood. According to Dr. Steiner, their tendency to regard this area as ‘dirty’ can ”only be the result of occult principles that have been misunderstood and distorted into misleading asceticism.

From this explanation it follows that my book cannot be un-Theosophical, which any unbiased reader will confirm. Since you have not corrected these two prejudices to date, I must assume that you still hold this untenable point of view for a lodge board, which makes me feel offended and insulted in my Theosophical honor. Formally, everything would have been fine if you had simply informed me objectively about your lodge principle, which was still unknown to me at the time, but not in such a harsh, insulting way, without having read my work. I make this accusation not to you personally, but to you in your capacity as a lodge board member, as a member.

I find your belated suggestion that I should have donated my book to the library to be bluntly naive. You can't seriously be trying to persuade me that the library would have accepted my book – and even if it had, that it would then have been lent to members. If such “dirty behavior” could not be mentioned in the lodge, then it could not have found a place in the Theosophical library either. This in response to your error-correcting lines.

Director Sellin discharged his duties to me yesterday evening. In response, I have to say that I am not inclined to resign from the lodge, for the reason already stated in my brochure, because I do not want to voluntarily deprive myself of Dr. Steiner's great wisdom, because I can no longer do without it. But should my expulsion be demanded, I must resign myself to it.

I request that this letter be read at the lodge this evening, but I leave it entirely to your discretion. Had I not already been denied entry, I would have read it myself, since it is not personal but entirely factual.

Yours sincerely, Ernst Boldt.

Munich, January 20, 1914.
To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, Berlin.

Dear Dr. Steiner!

Please be so kind as to also communicate the enclosed lines to the General Assembly. I have received another letter, but I do not yet know whether I am allowed to make use of it.

With the highest regard,
Yours truly, Ernst Boldt.

Munich, January 19, 1914.

Dear Mr. Boldt!

We read your brochure with great interest. We fully support your endeavors, all the more so since we had already read your book “Sexual Problems” with great benefit.

With best regards,
Karl Pschorn, Hedwig Pschorn, Emmy Zormaier, Heinrich Perri,
Deisenhofenerstr. 8/0.

My reply:

Munich, January 19, 1914.

Dear Mr. Pschorn,

Thank you for your kind words. I am pleased about them in the interest of our good cause. I have already received a letter of appreciation from the board of a larger lodge. Please let me know immediately whether I can present your letter to the General Assembly in Berlin if necessary and whether you and the other three want to stand up for your convictions there with your names. Only recently I had to experience a severe disappointment with a theosophist who reserves the right to put me in the dock because I had included in the brochure his opinion, which he had communicated to me in a letter, about my “sexual problems”. According to this, there are theosophists who have two opinions about a matter, one private and one public. Such experiences could seriously displease one about belonging to this society.

Yours sincerely,
Ernst Boldt.

The reply to this letter is:

Mr. Ernst Boldt, Munich,
Adelheidstraße 15/111.

Of course agreed.

On behalf of:
Pschorn.

In addition, Ms. von Sivers will read a letter from Mr. Horst von Henning, because Mr. Horst von Henning is mentioned in the brochure “Theosophy or Antisophy?” in a special way that may be considered symptomatic. It says on page 10:

Mr. Horst von Henning writes to me: “The reading of your writing interested me all the more to a high degree, since I am one of the oldest students of Dr. Steiner and head of the local (Weimar) branch of the Anthroposophical Society: I will remain concerned about doing my part to spread your book in serious circles.

Fräulein von Sivers: Mr. Horst von Henning writes regarding the Boldt affair:

Weimar, January 13, 1914.
Luisenstraße 19.

Dear Fräulein von Sivers!

You have so often kindly represented the members of our small Weimar branch at the general Meetings that I would like to ask you to do so at the upcoming General Meeting as well. Please find enclosed the relevant power of attorney.

Furthermore, however, I would like to address a personal request to you, as unfortunately I have to refrain from coming to the general assembly myself for financial reasons and therefore have no opportunity to counter any misunderstandings that may arise with regard to myself in the event of a discussion of the recently published brochure by Mr. Ernst Boldt, Munich.

Some time ago, Pastor Wendt here gave me a writing by Mr. Boldt about “Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural and Spiritual Science” to read, which interested me all the more because the author professed to be a follower of Dr. Steiner and also let it be seen in the brochure that he believed he could base his views on Dr. Steiner's teachings or bring them into line with them. Even after studying the paper, I couldn't shake the impression that Mr. Boldt was stretching this assumption a bit far and I didn't want to identify with Mr. Boldt's views at all. However, the paper encouraged me to pursue the problems developed in it, which is why I turned to Mr. Boldt with the request to help me with the further material mentioned in his writing and to tell me where to find the relevant literature.

Under the impression of the writing, which, as already mentioned, I could not approve of in all its parts and up to the conclusions drawn in it, but which interested me in some respects and took me for the author because of the frank language, I gained the impression that the problems raised in it could well be discussed by serious anthroposophists at some point, which is why I wrote to Mr. Boldt: “The reading of your writing interested me all the more, as I am one of the (I believe I said) older students of Dr. Steiner and lead the local branch of the Anthroposophical Society. I will do my part to spread the word about your book in serious circles.”

I then received a letter from Mr. Boldt, from which I gained the impression that he had interpreted my words more in his favor than I had intended, and that I was dealing with a personally annoyed man. I therefore refrained from any further correspondence with him and also refrained from recommending his writing, since I had second thoughts, despite all the recognition of the good intentions, it does not provide a suitable basis for the proper discussion of this extremely difficult problem. But now, a few days ago, I received several copies of the following announcement of another of Mr. Boldt's writings, which I had sent to me in order to be informed about everything, but otherwise refrained from further promoting the writing. I only mentioned it to Pastor Wendt, who had lent me Mr. Boldt's first writing at the time.

How great was my surprise and astonishment to see the above-mentioned sentence from my letter to Mr. Boldt reproduced on page 10. Although I now have the honor of being mentioned alongside the highly esteemed gentlemen Edouard Schuré, Ludwig Deinhard and Friedrich Lienhard, I believe that these gentlemen, like myself, will not be pleased to be named in the brochure as Mr. Boldt's supporters, so to speak. In any case, I will make it clear to Mr. Boldt that I consider it to be a lack of tact to have published parts of my private letter without my prior knowledge. The entire content of the new brochure is now such that I must strongly object to being associated with it in any way. I suspect, and not without good reason, that when Messrs Schure, Deinhard and Lienhard wrote approvingly about Mr Boldt's first book, they only wanted to make it known to me that they found it commendable to discuss the sexual problem in connection with our movement, they will certainly also reject the conclusions drawn by Mr. Boldt and, in particular, strongly condemn the recent attempt to force Dr. Steiner to make a public statement. It is unfortunately often the case that writers confuse the interest shown in their work with full approval of their statements, and I would never have revealed my personal relationship with Dr. Steiner to Mr. Boldt if I had suspected that he would make such an unpleasant use of it – or rather, misuse it. In any case, this unpleasant incident will serve as a warning to me and cause me to exercise the utmost restraint in disclosing my student status to Dr. Steiner. But one can certainly recommend a book for study without identifying with the content of the same; indeed, one can do so in order to get the discussion flowing and to see the errors corrected. It was with this latter in mind that I wrote the lines already mentioned to Mr. Boldt, but not to appear as an unconditional supporter of his views. After these explanations, you will understand that I am extremely annoyed to see my name misused in this brochure, the content and overall tendency of which I am very far removed from. I would like to ask you to take the opportunity of the general assembly to make this known in a way that you consider appropriate, so that the members attacked by Mr. Boldt do not consider me to be one of Mr. Boldt's supporters. I am not ashamed to admit that I would not consider it a mistake if the sexual problems, which have such a profound impact on human development, were to be properly examined by a serious party, and that I would deeply I would express a deep desire for understanding if he found it right to step out of his reserve, which he has certainly observed for good reason up to now. However, I must absolutely condemn any desire to exert the slightest pressure on the resolutions of our great teacher in this direction. Likewise, I am willing to admit that, due to my current state of mind, I may have shown more interest in Mr. Boldt's remarks than would be the case today. However, I strongly object to being considered Mr. Boldt's partisan and attach particular importance to the statement that I never authorized Mr. Boldt to consider me as such, much less to publish my private lines in a brochure.

I am taking a keen interest in the proceedings of the General Assembly. Please extend the special greetings of the Weimar branch to those gathered. I remain with the expression of loyal sentiments and warmest thanks for your efforts

as always, your very devoted
Horst von Henning.

A second letter, which arrived on January 15, reads:

Weimar, January 15, 1914
Luisenstraße 19

Dear Miss von Sivers!

Please forgive me for bothering you a second time with a request regarding the Boldt matter.

I thought it right to address the following circular to Messrs Ludwig Deinhard, Edouard Schuré and Friedrich Lienhard, and I have already received the same, along with the attachment, back from Mr. Deinhard, who writes to me that he, too, finds it an unparalleled lack of tact that Mr. Boldt, without asking him, printed in his brochure a statement that was only made orally and which, in his (Deinhards opinion) is full of tactlessness. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Deinhard does not have Mr. Schuré's address, and since I do not know it either, I would kindly ask you to forward the circular letter and its attachment to Mr. Schur&, with the request that he then also forward it to Mr. Lienhard. I enclose a stamped envelope for your convenience and would also ask you to take note of the copy of my letter to Mr. Boldt attached to the enclosures. With warm regards to you and all dear friends there, I remain always

Your grateful
Horst von Henning

Fräulein von Sivers says: It would probably also turn out that Mr. Schure and Mr. Lienhard, like Mr. Deinhard, only gave Mr. Boldt a verbal assurance; after all, a well-meaning man like Mr. Schuré would hardly want to say anything other than, “Quite interesting!” to a young writer.

Dr. Steiner: Ms. Wolfram has asked to speak first.

Mrs. Wolfram: One could indeed just shrug off the Boldt case with a smile, and wave the application away with a hand gesture into the waste paper basket, and get on with the agenda. But since this “Boldt case” is a typical case, since there is not just one Boldt, but unfortunately many “Boldtes”, and it can happen to us again and again that our precious time is taken up and stolen in this truly unqualifiable way, I would like to present some of the facts of this case and conclude with an appeal to you, so that this Boldt case remains the only one of its kind and is not repeated. After all, we have better things to do than to waste our time on these matters, which are as tragic as they are comical.

To avoid appearing to be concerned only with what Mr. Boldt said out of annoyance at the fact that his book was not accepted, and to avoid giving the impression that the book might not have been all that bad after all, and its author might have had some reason to write his pamphlet, then I would like to quote a few passages from the book to prove that we are dealing with a work that is as stupid as it is brazen and shamefully dishonest. From this it will be clear that if Mr. Boldt had read this book in 1911, he would no longer be with us today. Because if someone could write such a book, then he no longer belongs in our midst. We want to develop a sense of who belongs in our society and who does not. On page 2 of his book, Mr. Boldt says:

The publication of this book may now bear witness to the fact that the Theosophical movement has made some progress in these six years, even if it is only a small one at first. We want this little book to be seen as a modest attempt to incorporate the theosophical truths into one of the practical areas of life. We believe that we have sufficiently trained our thinking, feeling and willing in the “eternal laws of existence” to be able to step out into life and promote the cultural process in a proper, timely manner by solving the problems at hand.

The sexual area is one of the most fundamental areas of life, in which, because it was shrouded in night and fog and held in awe and fear by the most dreadful ignorance, it has been possible to sin in quite appalling dimensions; it therefore most urgently needs the light and its spiritual reforming idea. And the naturalist and spiritual researcher who, free of all materialistic and moral blinkers, seeks to plow up this field overgrown with weeds in the spirit of Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters,” Steiner's “Philosophy of Freedom,” and in the spirit of theosophy, must necessarily arrive at the present results through logical, appropriate thinking. If the mission of the spiritual researcher is now mainly to seek out and proclaim the occult truths and eternal laws of existence as the primary foundations of all life reform, then it is our task to work on the secondary development of the individual spheres of life in the sense of these truths and laws, and to build on the existing abilities of the given human material with full understanding of the tasks of the Theosophical movement within our cultural epoch, and to raise it by one step.

* * *

In the introductory words to the essay on the “Education of the Child”, Steiner set out the program for social reform work at a higher level. Since the existing sex literature does not meet these high standards, we felt compelled to establish a new one.

Yes, what impression do you get from that? The author is not a bit megalomaniac! He speaks of himself in the greatest conceivable modesty! I say this above all to show you that these accounts are teeming with examples of the impotence of consistent thinking. But the author does not notice any of this himself; on the one hand, he contradicts what he has said on the other. This only needs to be stated once. Because it is important to me to point out: we do not want to do it like our dear Mr. Horst von Henning, who may have read the book briefly. We want to approach the book with one thing in mind: whether it is sound or not. In this day and age, it is not difficult to publish a book teeming with mistakes – it is almost painful to listen to the chaos that it presents. And everyone who values logical thinking should get used to listening to this chaos. The young man continues (p. 4):

The monistic-spiritualistic literature on this subject, as attempted for the first time in this book, contains new, future-oriented values of a higher order and leads the herd-man out of the present dilemma of the sexual Scylla and Charybdis onto the only real path of the mountain-man to the goal of his highest perfection in the super-man.

We call the tendency of this book monistic-spiritualistic because, independently of contemporary sexual literature and overcoming it, it seeks to establish new foundations for life.

In his brochure, however, he says (p. 4):

As an occultist, I stand beyond monism and dualism...

In the book, however, he says “monistic-spiritualistic,” and then it continues:

It treats this material by drawing on occult, spiritual scientific research results, without therefore leaving the real ground of monism.

Just think about this tangle of thoughts! And on this ground, Mr. Boldt now wants to graft everything that the seer gives in terms of spiritual science! This is now amalgamated by Mr. Boldt and the further ground is created from it, on which we - we “bugs” - can develop further. Furthermore:

With its head in the sky, it seeks to gain a firm foothold on earth and vice versa: rooted in the physical world, it strives with its blossoms and fruits into the spiritual world. - For this reason, we too will not be able to please any of the contemporary parties, because our premises are also - since they are theosophical - “far beyond all party politics”.

When it comes to the various issues of the day, there is no reason to ignore the gender issue in favor of the other cultural issues, for it asserts itself in all its harrowing scope. The theosophist must therefore not withdraw his attention from it. He must also allow the light of his spirit to fall on this area of life and fertilize it with the spiritual reform ideas of Theosophy. This has been admirably stimulated by Steiner's two lectures on 'Man and Woman' and 'Man, Woman and Child in the Light of Spiritual Science'. Our task was now to treat this subject in a broader developmental-historical sense and to bring together all occult knowledge about it.

Where are the Theosophists, one might ask, who have so far dared to approach the reform of sexual life in the spirit of Theosophy? And how many are there who are able to bring the necessary interest and understanding to such endeavors? It is understandable that a pioneering undertaking like this one must meet with great resistance, especially from the partisans of the dualistic and monistic schools. But if such resistance also arises in part from the theosophical movement itself, this is merely due to the immaturity of the majority of its “followers”. But this movement is certainly not concerned with followers; it needs free spirits and big hearts that see through the life of the present with a bright, clear gaze and find the right points of attack for social action.

It is really not that difficult to see that this is written by a young, rather self-confident man, in whose head it not only looks quite chaotic, but also hovers in a rather ominous way the spirit of megalomania. And it must be said that during the time this young man has been our member, he has not only forgotten nothing of his megalomania, but has also profited nothing from the teachings of spiritual science. What does the insistence that we must deal with sexual problems mean to anyone who reflects on the facts of developmental history that have been given us through spiritual scientific research? The frequent references to sexual problems are somewhat superfluous. If one has only studied and thought about what has been communicated to us, for example, about the development of the human being, about the course of development of the world and humanity, from the fact of the influence of the spirit into the world and so on, then everyone will have to say to themselves: How foolish it would be if we Theosophists were now to coin a very specific formula for how we wanted to deal with this sexual issue. After all, this is about the most personal area of each of us, and everyone will know that it is self-evident how a person should behave in their particular case. It is a different matter if we wanted to know what foolish views prevail in scientific circles. In the case of Mr. Boldt's book, however, one can only conclude that it is a stupid and brazen book; but it is also a shamefully dishonest book. And I will prove this to you.

If one wanted to say that this Mr. Boldt was not aware of the terrible things he is saying and doing, that is no excuse. It only makes it much worse that in our circles, where enough can be learned, it is possible that a person writes, dares to write, that he lies and is not supposed to know it himself. So such things are growing in our circles. I still have to show you that there are other “Boldtes”, which is why I want to treat this case as a typical one. Mr. Boldt then talks about the “sources” of his book, cites works by Dr. Steiner and then says page [7-8]:

The elementary, ethical-aesthetic content of this writing is the author's own. Nevertheless, it should not go unmentioned that it is fully in line with what Steiner has set down in his brilliant “Philosophy of Freedom” and in the magnificent book on “Friedrich Nietzsche.

If you are not careful, you will not notice anything, not notice what the “ethical-aesthetic content of ideas” is. I must confess that I could not believe my eyes when I saw where Mr. Boldt finally ended up as a result of his interesting and valuable research, what he considers to be right for the sexual life of our time (p. 54 of his book). One can only describe it: that the ideal of asceticism should already be recognized, but that it should hover over people like a very distant ideal for the future. We humans are not yet so far that we could think of realizing such an ideal. When Mr. Boldt wants to think, he always quotes Nietzsche, and then he explains what is the only right thing for our time. It is remarkable that I, of all people, always have to say such things: the unrestricted freedom of the individual to experience lovingly sexually whatever he desires; and Mr. Boldt then presents the “Oneida practice” as something worthy of imitation. He says that what he quite openly proclaims as the conclusion of his ideal, his ethical-aesthetic idea, must be based on what Dr. Steiner himself says. In the remarks that follow $135 - as is the case with all profound works, there must be a commentary on them - things are said to explain why Dr. Steiner says the same thing as what Mr. Boldt proclaims as the ideological content of this book, which is his own soul property:

11) When Foerster often finds a “hymn to the powers of procreation” in the sexual education literature of recent years and thereby “really gets the feeling that religion has not disappeared, but has been transferred from the soul to the sexual sphere, and that God no longer reveals himself in conscience, but in the organs of procreation...”, he is by no means mistaken; spiritual science fully confirms the accuracy of this feeling. God reveals Himself not only in the free, thinking human spirit, but also in the organs of procreation. The wisdom of Foerster, “that sex itself is a street urchin,” is vigorously rejected by modern spiritual research. In his journal “Lucifer - Gnosis,” issue 23 “From the Akasha Chronicle,” Steiner comments on this as follows:

And now you shall see what it is capable of when we let all those into our circles who brutally and dirtyly exploit everything for themselves.

His (the human being's) entire lower half – that which is often called the lower nature – has now come under the intellectually shaping influence of the higher beings (the Jehovah-Elohims)... One can also say that those noble spiritual powers... have now descended to unfold their power in the area of reproduction. In fact, noble divine powers have a regulating and organizing effect in this area.

But all this is done in such a way that the reader thinks that Dr. Steiner said it.

And with that, an important sentence from The Secret Doctrine is expressed, which reads: The higher, noble divine powers are related to the seemingly lower powers of human nature.

And so on:

12) To supplement this thought, read Steiner: “The Secret Doctrine”, $. 65 to 75. There is talk of a “hidden spiritual” that “works in the revelations of the body”. Because “in everything that the senses perceive, they also receive a spiritual... The lowest pleasures can be revelations of the spirit. The satisfaction that the hungry being gets from eating is a revelation of the spirit. For through the intake of food, that is brought about, without which the spiritual could not find its development in a certain respect... Sensual pleasures the I must have as long as it lives in the body, even insofar as it is spiritual. For in the sensual the spirit reveals itself; and the I enjoys nothing but the spirit when it surrenders to the light of the spirit in the sensual world... This sensual world is a revelation of the spiritual hidden behind it. The ego could never enjoy the spirit in the form in which it can only reveal itself through the bodily senses if it did not want to use these senses to enjoy the spiritual in the sensual.

And what does Boldt make of it? He reinterprets everything in a sexual way!

As long as a person is moderate in his enjoyment, “sensual enjoyment as an expression of the spirit means elevation, development of the ego”; on the other hand, if “reasoned enjoyment increases to excess and debauchery,” it has an impoverishing, desolating and destructive effect on the ego.

What has been said here regarding the satisfaction that the hungry being derives from ingesting food also applies to the pleasure that loving beings experience through sexual union; for hunger and love grow on the same wood, as Schiller also indicates in his poem “The World Sages”.

The reader can find more details about enjoyment in “Lucifer - Gnosis”, issue 13 (“How to Know Higher Worlds?”), as well as in “Theosophy” (“The Path of Knowledge”).

There are still some passages that mean an increase.

The assembly has expressed its will to refrain from further reading!

Mrs. Wolfram, continuing: What do we have here? You cannot make even more unscrupulous use of another person's intellectual property! If Mr. Boldt had read the book thoroughly, he would no longer be in our ranks.

And now I would like to make an appeal to you, after first adding something to what I said earlier: that there are many Boldtes, and that this one is just a typical case. Unfortunately, there is a view among far too many people that our movement is there to support all those who do not want to help themselves. Our society would be such a large aid institution, and one would be obliged, if one is the head of a branch, to support such and such a person in his outer life. In short, the greatest demands are placed on society. Those who now enter society with a state of mind like Mr. Boldt, for example, and who believe that they can do everything with their heads, although they can do nothing at all, these only form a choir of the discontented. It was people like that who could not play a role; they have now done what they could - which then led to their exclusion from our society.

In order to give you a proper foundation, I would like to read a few words from No. 7/8, Volume IV, 1914 of Theosophy, edited by Dr. Vollrath, part of which is edited by Casimir Zawadzki. A year ago, he wrote me a letter asking me to do whatever I could to restore the old, good relationship between him, Dr. Steiner and the Society. This Zawadzki was a member of our Society for a while, and not a very comfortable member at that. I did what I could until he plagiarized Dr. Steiner's work in an outrageous manner, until he was expelled and threw himself into the arms of Dr. Vollrath, where he still is. He then thought that since he is Polish, it would be nice if he could perhaps become Secretary General in Warsaw. But when he realized that under Besant's aegis the matter was becoming shaky, he thought he would do better if he could work under Dr. Steiner again. And now I would like to point out how really not that much is needed to know whether someone fits into our society or not. Sometimes something like an impotence of logical thinking manifests itself in a single word. The letter reads:

Leipzig, January 31, 1913.

Dear Madam!

I must thank you most sincerely for the friendly welcome you gave me last Sunday and at the same time I would like to kindly request you once more to talk to Dr. Steiner about my matter and then give me news. As I said, I would like to be a disinterested co-worker in Dr. Steiner's work, because I have never stopped deeply admiring him.

My separation from Dr. Vollrath is imminent, I will hasten the matter myself as best I can. Perhaps Dr. Steiner will be so kind as to grant me an interview, through which the old good relationship between him and me, for which I long so much, can be restored. First of all, I definitely want to become a member of the German Section, which is under Dr. Steiner's leadership, but then I want to start work in Poland in line with Dr. Steiner's thinking. ... I would like to become a member of the lodge again, also without any interest, just for the sake of the cause and unity in the spirit, if I am to remain in Leipzig for some time. ...

Anyone who can write this has not just lost their marbles, they have lost several screws!

It is completely hopeless to believe that someone who is capable of writing such a thing can deserve to be taught by us. He lacks any possibility of correct thinking when he writes this in a letter in which he wants to present himself in the best possible light. This gentleman then launched a sensational advertisement about a teaching course – again about sexual matters. I then wrote in reply to his letter that it was not acceptable, and the matter was dropped. Now Zawadzki is writing an article in No. 7/8 of Theosophy that is linked to No. III of the Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (Communications for the Members of the Anthroposophical Society). So it is possible that a person like that could have had this No. III!

This number must be judged with a sense of history. It has value for the literary historian. Today's common sense has no way of verifying the facts stated here. Only those who have been able to distill the events that are documented in it through their own sense of truth would be able to criticize; the way in which they would do so would show their attitude. Today's educated person, who has risen above domestic morality and ethics, already regards his neighbor's private life as something sacred, untouchable, as a legal sphere that is none of his business, as a circle whose author is responsible for its weal and woe.

This is now attributed to Dr. Steiner because he published the letters of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

Even higher than this person is the educated man who has gone through the training of some theosophical system of stories or is still in it. For him, not only the private but also the public duties of his neighbor are something untouchable, something sacred.

Can you understand this? I can't! And I would like to point out that there must be no confusion where it is not possible to see at first glance what is important. It continues:

Dr. Steiner settles the score with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. He has changed his style in a gratifying way since earlier. He used to get his words from the language of the servant when he couldn't find reasons.

He goes on to discuss Dr. Steiner's “servant manner” and the complete lack of feeling for human dignity and reverence, talks about Dr. Unger and Mrs. von Reden, and then talks about the “Esoteric Section”:

It was precisely this strange thing that Dr. Steiner did that made him unpopular in the Theosophical Society. Now at last people recognize the poison of this institution; they recognize the tremendous moral dangers associated with such a theosophical circle. One must distinguish between the abuse of the Esoteric Section and the institution itself. Institutions are neither good nor bad.

Now he is slobbering again, something is going around in his mind, and so is Mr. Boldt.

It is only use that falls under the law of karma and makes them bad and good tools. Mrs. Wolfram in Leipzig has often emphasized that Dr. Steiner, as head of the Esoteric School, should be given the vow of obedience by handshake. Now the “Mitteilungen” make the following statements about the Esoteric School: “The vow of unconditional and immediate obedience, as required in the Esoteric School, is a sign of a degenerate mind. It is self-aggrandizing presumptuousness towards God and man. An act that calls down the wrath of the God within man. ...

There is no other way to say this about the Besant institutions. — Another gentleman also wrote to me, saying that I should do everything I could to help him meet Dr. Steiner again; but in the same issue of Vollrath's Theosophy, he is at it again.

And now I would like to say the following. Everything must be done to counter the infiltration of certain elements by nurturing certain attitudes and feelings. There is a concept of tolerance within our society, of course we should be tolerant; but what do we mean by that?

That we have recognized that there is an unspeakably valuable teaching material that can be handed down to us, and for which we feel a responsibility. We can still be tolerant of those who appear beautiful, but not of those for whom the sensation of what is true or untrue, what is beautiful or hypocritical, is no longer there in the brain. Observe what is first presented in the cases of Fidus, Hübbe-Schleiden, Prellwitz and others, and then how it is said, “That is not at all so,” and then they still write, “... with deepest reverence,” and so on. It is not true that we are a hospital. And by this I mean that we want to make a little front against the intrusion of such elements into us! Because that means being tolerant of what is most precious to us! The lodge boards could be granted more rights – which is only right and proper vis-à-vis a lodge board. There is so much debate about what a lodge board can and cannot do, but nothing is said about the rights it should have. I do not see a lodge committee as a “jack of all trades” who only has to ensure that the lodge rooms are clean, that lectures are available – and has nothing further to say. I think that a lodge committee should above all have the freedom for the waste paper basket once they have been trusted by being elected. The patronage of all possible products of the various Theosophical members must stop. In ordinary life, I am not legally obliged to read or buy something that someone sends me; and yet the lodge boards are supposed to be obliged to display something in the lodge rooms if someone has produced it, and you get a cold if you don't do it? In this regard, every lodge board must be able to ensure the most meticulous cleanliness of the atmosphere. If he can ensure the cleanliness of the lodge rooms, he must also be able to do the other. And it is really not that difficult to know who belongs to our ranks and who does not. If only we could get rid of the eternal judging according to emotional values, according to what someone “says”! A person is not what he says – he may believe it of himself; a person is what he does. And if he has done this or that on the physical plane as an expression of his being, then I judge by his deed. If a Hübbe-Schleiden, a Boldt and so on have done this or that, I know what they have done. And if he wants to be taken up again, he must bring forth a different deed as a metamorphosis of his being.

The various lodge boards and the general board must at least have one resolution in the soul of each of them: from now on, everything must be done to ensure that the kind of people we have heard about today are the very last of their kind among us. If that were possible, then the matter could have been dealt with at our board meeting. If the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society is so sure of the trust that is so often mentioned, then it would be a matter of course that such documents as the Boldt case, when they arrive, are simply consigned to the wastepaper basket!

I would like to propose that the board be given the right, on the basis of the trust placed in it by the election, to dispose of such matters as it sees fit, so that we do not waste our time on such things, as is the case now.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps something else would happen if the “concession Schulze in the disguise of the superman” would dare to stand up for Mr. Boldt's book. If I were to be as bold as Mr. Boldt wants me to be and recommend his book to the 75 percent of our members who are lagging behind, what would happen then? On page 14 of his brochure, Mr. Boldt says:

The probable consequence of this would be that in a few weeks the most tender friendships with an erotic touch could be seen developing among Theosophists of both sexes. Of course, the tendency towards this has always been present, and not exactly weakly, and here and there many an immoral yearning has found satisfaction – as it also happens in other circles; for nature is always true and life is always right. But the situation would only become embarrassing if those living in free love could invoke the authority of Dr. Steiner. Like Ellen Key in Sweden, he would be held responsible in Germany for every illegitimate Theosophist offspring. This could have the most disastrous consequences and seriously endanger the living conditions of the Theosophical Society.

This is just an appetizer. And now I ask you to enjoy the other dishes as fully as possible!

The meeting is suspended for tea; the negotiations will be continued on Monday, January 19, 1914.

The continuation of the protocol will be published in the following issue of Mitteilungen.