The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Not a few intelligent people will find every word spoken about the strange meeting that took place a few days ago in Basel under the name "Zionist Congress" superfluous. The fact that a number of Europe-weary Jews came together to propagate the idea of establishing a new Palestinian empire and to bring about the emigration of Jews to this new "promised land" appears to these clever people to be the mad imagination of a pathologically excited fantasy. They calm down at this judgment. They do not discuss the matter any further. But I believe that these clever people are ten years behind the times in their judgment. And ten years is a small eternity in our time, when events flow so quickly. Ten years ago, one could justifiably consider a Jew to be half-mad if he had the idea of moving his fellow Jews to Palestine. Today he can only be considered oversensitive and vain; in another ten years things may be quite different. In the case of Mr. Herzl and Mr. Nordau, the current leaders of the Zionist movement, however, I believe I perceive more vanity than heightened sensitivity towards the anti-Semitic current. The banal phrases that Herzl put forward in his brochure "Judenstaat" (M. Breitensteins Buchhandlung, Leipzig and Vienna 1896) and the verbal fluff with which the sensationalist Nordau regaled his audience in Basel certainly did not spring from the deepest depths of troubled souls. But they do come from intelligent minds who know what has the strongest effect on those Jews who have a sensitive heart and a highly developed sense of self-respect. These latter members of the Jewish people will, I suspect, form the following of Mr. Herzl and Mr. Nordau. And the number of these members is certainly not small.

What use is it if it is emphasized so often that the Jews who feel this way are in serious error? They turn their eyes away from the great progress which the emancipation of the Jews has made in the last decades, and see only that they are still excluded from so and so many places, abridged in so and so many rights; and besides, they hear that they are insulted by the anti-Semites in the most savage manner. They do so because their offended minds cloud their understanding. They are incapable of recognizing the impotence of anti-Semitism; they only see its dangers and its outrageous excesses. Anyone who tells them: look at how hopeless the machinations of the Jew-haters are, how all their endeavors end in disgrace, they look at them doubtfully. Only those who, like Theodor Herzl, tell them: "Anti-Semitism grows daily, hourly in the population and must continue to grow because the causes persist and cannot be remedied. ... There seems to be something provocative about our welfare, because for many centuries the world has been accustomed to see in us the most despicable of the poor. Yet, out of ignorance or narrow-mindedness, people do not realize that our well-being weakens us as Jews and erases our distinctiveness. Only the pressure presses us back to the old tribe, only the hatred of our surroundings makes us strangers again. So, whether we like it or not, we are and will remain a historical group of recognizable togetherness. We are one people - the enemy makes us one without our will, as has always been the case in history. And those with whom such sentences resonate most powerfully today were, only a very short time ago, passionately prepared to allow their own ethnicity to be absorbed into that of the Western tribes. It is not real anti-Semitism that is the cause of this Jewish hypersensitivity, but the false image that an overwrought imagination forms of the anti-Jewish movement. Anyone who has dealings with Jews knows how deep-seated the tendency to form such a false image is among the best of this people. Distrust of non-Jews has thoroughly taken hold of their souls. Even in people in whom they can detect no trace of conscious anti-Semitism, they suspect an unconscious, instinctive, secret hatred of Jews at the bottom of their souls. I consider it one of the most beautiful fruits that human inclination can bear when it wipes out every trace of suspicion between a Jew and a non-Jew in the direction indicated above. I would almost call such an inclination a victory over human nature.

It is not impossible that in a short time such inclinations will be impossible at all. There may come a time when the emotional sphere of Jewish personalities is so irritated that any understanding with non-Jews becomes impossible. And the so-called Jewish question depends on the pulling of intimate strings from Jew to non-Jew, on the development of emotional inclinations, on a thousand unspeakable things, but not on rational arguments and programs. It would be best if there were as little talk as possible in this matter. Only the mutual effects of individuals should be emphasized. It makes no difference whether someone is Jewish or Germanic: if I find him nice, I like him; if he is disgusting, I avoid him. It's so simple that you're almost stupid if you say it. But how stupid you have to be to say the opposite!

I think the anti-Semites are harmless people. The best of them are like children, they want to have something to blame for an evil they are suffering from. When a child drops a plate, he looks for someone or something he has knocked that is to blame for the accident. They don't look for the cause, the blame, in themselves. That's what the anti-Semites do. Many people are in a bad way. They look for something to blame. Circumstances have brought it about that many currently see this something in Judaism.

Much worse than the anti-Semites are the heartless leaders of the Europe-weary Jews, Mr. Herzl and Mr. Nordau. They turn an unpleasant childishness into a world-historical current; they spend a harmless banter on a terrible cannon fire. They are seducers, tempters of their people. They sacrifice the understanding that all reasonable people should desire to their vanity, which thirsts for programs, because - where deeds are lacking, a program arises at the right time.

As harmless as anti-Semitism is in itself, it becomes dangerous when the Jews see it in the light in which Herzl and Nordau put it.

And they understand the language of the tempters, these gentlemen: "People will pray in the temples for the success of the work. But in the churches too! It is the solution to an old pressure from which everyone suffered. But first there must be light in the minds. The thought must fly out into the last miserable nests where our people live. They will wake up from their dull brooding. For a new content is coming into all our lives. Everyone need only think of himself, and the train will be a mighty one. And what glory awaits the selfless fighters for the cause! That is why I believe that a generation of wonderful Jews will grow out of the earth. The Maccabees will rise again." Thus Mr. Theodor Herzl in his writing "The Jewish State".

I fear that a time will come when the Jews will no longer believe anything we non-Jews tell them about anti-Semitism, and will instead pray to their Jewish seducers. And like so many infatuated people, the sensitive Jews will translate the empty phrases of these seducers into the language of their hearts. The seduced will suffer; but the seducers will triumph over the successes that their vanity has achieved.

In Basel, the question was basically decided: what should be done to make the solution of the Jewish question as impossible as possible? Whether Mr. Herzl and Mr. Nordau really believe that the Palestinian empire can be established, I am not in a position to decide. In honor of their intelligence, I hypothetically assume that they do not believe in it. If I am right in this assumption of mine, then one must reproach these leaders for putting more obstacles in the way of a confrontation between Jews and non-Jews than the anti-Semitic rabble-rousers.

The Zionist movement is an enemy of Judaism. The Jews would do best if they took a good look at the people who are painting ghosts for them.

Report on the 13th General Assembly of the German Goethe Society

On October 8, the members of the German Goethe Society gathered in Weimar for the thirteenth time to celebrate their beloved Goethe Festival. For the first time, they had to celebrate this festival without seeing the personality in their midst to whom the Goethe community owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude: The Grand Duchess Sophie of Saxony. On March 23 of this year, this woman, whose name is forever linked to German literary studies through the founding of the Goethe and Schiller Archive, passed away.

Her presence gave the festival a special glow in past years; the memory of her, the mourning for her, gave it its character this time. Goethe Day was therefore to be celebrated in connection with a memorial service for the deceased woman. The two societies that owe their prosperity to the deceased, the Goethe Society and the Shakespeare Society, decided to do so. And the management of the Goethe and Schiller Archives, the Schiller Foundation and the Grand Ducal Court Theatre joined forces with the aforementioned societies to organize a celebration in memory of their caretaker and protector. Kuno Fischer was called upon to dedicate a memorial speech to the memory of the deceased. He is bound to the Weimar court by ties of friendship. The loyalty and devotion to the Princely House that his relationship with it inspired in him were expressed in his memorial speech on October 8. His view of life and the world, his attitude and feelings enabled him to understand the Grand Duchess's way of thinking like few others. The deceased was a princess in the most genuine sense of the word, a personality who set herself great tasks because she had a high conception of her princely profession and because this task gave her a rare energy. There is greatness in this conception; and Kuno Fischer had taken on the task of describing the nature of this greatness. The speaker wanted to make clear how much of this power, which was her own, was due to her descent from the determined and energetic Orange family. This energy is expressed in the motto of the House of Orange: "Je maintiendrai". The Grand Duchess Sophie also made it her own and translated it into the German words: "Rule over oneself is the prerequisite for any activity and for the serious, conscientious execution of duties assumed." From studying the history of the house, the Princess developed a mastery over herself and a strong sense of duty. The speaker sought to clarify the extent to which the fortunes of this house are particularly suited to creating such an awareness by means of a historical account. He clearly explained what a misguided upbringing and a favorable school of life had contributed to raising this woman to the heights of her views. He described the Dutch nature of her character. He deduced her love for German literature from the fact that she found the deeds of the heroes so close to her celebrated in this literature. Schiller and Goethe made Dutch greatness the reproach of their poetry and works. In German literature, the Grand Duchess found her home again. The history of her fatherland confronted her in German art.

The musical part of this celebration has already been mentioned. It has also been mentioned there that the court theater offered an atmospheric performance of Gluck's opera "Orpheus and Eurydice" on the evening of the same day. We will only add that the performance was highly successful under Bernhard Stavenhagen's excellent direction. Miss Hofmann (Orpheus) and Mrs. Stavenhagen (Eurydice) made a strong impression on the guests.

October 9 was dedicated to the actual Goethe meeting. The participants of this meeting will take home a lasting memory. The director of the Goethe and Schiller Archive, Professor Suphan, shared the part of Grand Duchess Sophie's will in which she secured the future of Goethe's estate for all time. Kuno Fischer's words could not have found a stronger affirmation than they have received through this will. The care of Goethe's estate, which was given to her as a gift by the last grandson of Goethe, was a matter close to this woman's heart and a great duty during her lifetime. She made material sacrifices and devoted a great deal of time and effort to it. She cared for her like a mother. Her beautiful words speak for themselves. The will reads: "I, Sophie of Saxony, Royal Princess of the Netherlands, hereby certify the following: By accepting the legacy of Baron Walter von Goethe, I have also assumed responsibility for the reverent preservation of the treasures from Goethe's estate for all time. I bear the same responsibility towards the legacy of Schiller, as well as all the manuscripts of other outstanding German poets acquired by donation and purchase. At the same time, it gives me particular pleasure not only to have seen to the completion of the Goethe edition and the Goethe biography, but also to have ensured that the treasures in my possession are made usefully accessible and that Weimar is preserved so that it will continue to be the intellectual center of Germany. I have therefore ordered that a family entailed estate be established for the preservation of these treasures, which shall be inalienable. In notarizing this family fideicommissum, I ask my lord husband to give the sovereign's confirmation in the form of a statutory provision." The Goethe and Schiller Archive will be the property of the respective head of the Grand Ducal House. The latter is obliged to ensure the preservation and management of the treasure accordingly.

The chairman, Dr. Ruland, concluded his report on the Goethe National Museum with this important announcement by Suphan. He drew attention to a picture newly acquired by this museum and exhibited in the June Room of the Goethe House. The personality depicted and the painter are unknown. It dates from the end of the last century or the beginning of this century. Anyone who has looked at the picture will have to agree with Ruland's opinion that it depicts Frau Rat in old age. Her and Goethe's features are unmistakable. The picture was formerly owned by William Candidus in Cronberg. Ruland also mentioned another addition to the museum. The Countess Vaudreuil, the wife of the French envoy, was on friendly terms with the Goethe family during her stay in Weimar. Goethe's hand drawings were found in her estate. Her descendants have added these to the Weimar treasures.

In the afternoon, the guests gathered for the usual lunch. The old heads of the Goethe community and the young strikers, who despite naturalism and "modernism" look up to Goethe with admiration, sat side by side. Julius Rodenberg, Karl Frenzel, Marie von Bunsen and Lina Schneider, Freiligrath's daughter, were present. The Minister of Education under the second Auersperg Ministry, Dr. von Stremayr, and Professor Oncken from Giessen were in our midst. One of the "youngest", Otto Erich Hartleben, who has repeatedly appeared in Weimar on this occasion, was also present this time. The festive toasts had a serious character this time. The impression of the loss suffered was felt. Ruland toasted the Grand Ducal House; Stremayr brought greetings from German-Austria. His kind words, which came from a good German-Austrian heart, had a beneficial effect. One could hear from his toast that the German spirit and German sentiments are still alive in Austria. Oncken proposed a toast to the ladies.

The Goethe and Schiller Archive, which opens its rooms to visitors during the Goethe Days, exhibited manuscripts by Freiligrath and Gustav Freytag, among other papers from the classical and post-classical periods.

As they do every year, Goethe's guests gathered in the evening hours at the Weimar Artists' Association. The atmospheric rooms, which the Grand Duke made available to the artists of Weimar for their cozy get-together, are gladly visited by the members of the Goethe Society. A free and unfettered life prevailed there until the early hours of the morning. And artists such as Burmester and Stavenhagen, then the excellent singers Heinrich Zeller and Gmür delighted the guests with many an artistic gift, which was often received with greater enthusiasm than the official performances. What was difficult to find during the course of the day: informal enjoyment, mutual open-heartedness, was enjoyed here for many hours.

The celebration concluded with a performance in the Grand Ducal Court Theater of Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale" with Miss Richard as Hermione and Karl Weiser as Leontes.

Since 1885, a circle of Goethe admirers has gathered in Weimar for a few days every year. These are the members of the Goethe Society, which was founded after the death of Goethe's last grandson. Goethe's last scion bequeathed his grandfather's estate to Grand Duchess Sophie. This woman had enough sense and understanding to make the valuable treasure that had been placed in her hands as fruitful as possible for literary studies. She founded the Goethe Archive and made it a place for the cultivation of Goethe scholarship. She later built her own stately home for this precious legacy. The magnificent building, an ornament of Weimar, will always remain a monument to the heyday of the German spirit. Every day, a small number of scholars work quietly and painstakingly in this house on the Goethe edition, which is being produced with the help of the manuscript estate. From time to time, a stranger comes into these rooms to consult Goethe's papers in order to make them useful for his particular scholarly studies. But every year at Whitsun, these rooms come alive. The most harmless connoisseurs of Goethe's works and the most learned Goethe researchers gather in the Ilmstadt to celebrate the memory of the spirit to whom so many lines of modern cultural development can be traced. A festive lecture and a theater performance are the intellectual delights offered to the "Goethe guests". A tour of the Goethe and Schiller Archives and the Goethe National Museum takes these guests back to the great era in which Weimar was the center of German intellectual life. The Grand Duchess Sophie, to whose work the entire festivity was owed, always appeared at the ceremonial lecture. Following the founding of her archive and under her special care, the Goethe Society was established. The guests were grouped around this woman. The relationship she established with German literature by founding the archive found its living expression in the Goethe Assembly.

Since the spring of this year, Sophie of Saxony is no longer among the living. The Goethe Assembly will now have to take place without its first head. For the first time since the death of the Grand Duchess, the Goethe guests gathered again in Weimar yesterday, October 8. They gathered to first celebrate the memory of the deceased.

A picture of this woman's spirit and personality was to be presented to the gathering by a man with a calling. No-one was more qualified than the aged philosopher Kuno Fischer, who had become a loyal admirer of the Weimar court and a warm eulogist of its deeds thanks to his long-standing relationship with the court. Kuno Fischer would undoubtedly have conveyed the warmth with which he is attached to the Weimar royal house to his audience if he could still speak with the power of speech that was once his own. One could hear in every word of the memorial speaker that it came from deep within; but this time one did not feel it within oneself. The most celebrated academic speaker no longer has the power to ignite the audience. And that is why his speech could not put people in the mood that was necessary to celebrate the day. The speaker sought to explain the high spirits of the deceased princess, her generosity, her energy and her sense of purpose from her descent from the House of Orange. He sketched the spiritual physiognomy of the deceased with the strokes available to this witty philosopher who was attached to beautiful words. He sought to place her personal development in the appropriate light. Kuno Fischer tried to explain the pleasure she must have taken in German classical literature from the connections this literature had with the princess's fatherland. Dutch heroes and Dutch life have been artistically portrayed by our intellectual heroes. The Grand Duchess found her own feeling, her own attitude, when she immersed herself in the works of the spirits to whom she erected a monument in Weimar.

A strictly conservative attitude, even something of a belief in the divine grace of God ran through Kuno Fischer's speech. He believes that a special destiny determines the circles of influence of personalities who rule like the Grand Duchess. He imbued the Grand Duchess with an almost mystical force of personality. A religious air permeated the entire speech. The piety of the mourned woman stood in the right light, because Kuno Fischer revealed that he himself had pious feelings. A man was speaking about a princess who is a good supporter of the monarchical principle, an admirer of the ruling powers, a man who wears with love the medal that shone from his breast. What was said by an ancient philosopher: The same can only be recognized by the same, has proven itself again in Kuno Fischer's speech. The world is reflected in the head of this speaker no differently than in that of a prince. He understands the princes. That is why he can speak well about them. He likes to put his mind at the service of princely persons. To a younger person of modern times, these sentences sometimes give the impression that they come from an attitude that belongs to a bygone era. Younger people are at a loss for words when they have to praise princes. And when they do, they are not really believed. The old historian of philosophy is well clothed in his attitude. He formed his views in a time that had no idea of the radicalism of our present day. With these views he is called upon to appreciate the classical epoch of Germany and its present princely caretakers. The other views of the present would probably never have led to an attitude that is necessary to preserve the traditions of Weimar. One must have made peace with certain currents if one wants to be fully involved in the cultivation of these traditions. You can't do it with a heart that is attached to the present and longs for the future. Kuno Fischer allowed a piece of the past to emerge before us. He spoke of past deeds with a past attitude.

There were listeners in the hall who were not satisfied with the speech. I believe these dissatisfied people are wrong. Kuno Fischer's spiritual affinity with the circles to which the deceased belonged enabled him to paint a genuine, credible picture. A little more religious candor and a little less conservatism would have led the speaker to deliver a distorted picture. If the lecture had been at the height of content and spirit: the audience would have left the hall in a solemn mood. The image of the deceased would have stood before their eyes in clear, distinct and true features. Because Kuno Fischer's fire of speech is weaker today, his image also seemed dull and sometimes even tiring. But even if the colors were not bright enough, they were applied correctly. They were used in a way that only a deep and precise connoisseur of the deceased princess can. Many a word came out of intimate connoisseurship that no one else would have found. That is why Kuno Fischer was the right speaker for this day.

His speech will appear in the November issue of "Cosmopolis". It will be a memorial to the departed princess that is worthy of her.

Report on the 13th general meeting of the German Goethe Society

In the previous issue, I spoke about the speech given by Kuno Fischer in memory of Grand Duchess Sophie of Saxony, who died in March. This speaker's remarks were beautifully illustrated the following day at the General Assembly of the Goethe Society. Prof. Bernhard Suphan, the director of the Goethe and Schiller Archive, explained how the deceased had taken care of the future of Goethe's manuscript estate and the other literary treasures that had been added to Goethe's papers in recent years. It has understood the mission in the highest meaning of the word, which has fallen to it through the legacy of Goethe's last descendant. It has been ensured for all time that the Weimar Literary Archive will be preserved in a worthy manner and made available for the purposes of German literary studies. The Grand Duchess has made her archive an inalienable family legacy of the Grand Ducal House of Weimar. In future, the head of the family will always be the respective owner of the legacy. He will have to ensure that science derives the appropriate benefit from it. The next heir to the archive is the present Hereditary Grand Duke Wilhelm Ernst. In her will, the Grand Duchess speaks in words that arise from full realization of the obligations she has assumed with the archive. Suphan's messages made a deep impression on the gathering. It is now known what the fate of the literary treasures kept in Weimar will be.

After Suphan's remarks, the chairman of the Goethe Society spoke of the recent growth of the Goethe National Museum. A portrait from the beginning of this century or the end of the previous one deserves special mention. Neither the painter of the picture nor the person portrayed have survived. But anyone who has seen the picture in the Goethe House will have no doubt that Ruland is right in thinking that it depicts Mrs. Rat at an advanced age. The features of Goethe's mother are unmistakable. Another interesting novelty is a number of Goethe's drawings from the estate of the French Countess Vaudreuil, which her grandchildren donated to the Goethe House. The countess once lived in Weimar and was a friend of Goethe's house. She received the drawings from the poet.

The Weimar Court Theater did its utmost to enrich the content of this year's celebration. Before Kuno Fischer's speech, the Adagio from Beethoven's Trio (op. 96), arranged for orchestra by Franz Liszt, was performed by members of the Court Opera under the direction of the aged General Music Director Ed. Lassen, followed by the final movement from the Mass by the same composer (in C, op. 86). On the 8th there was a performance of Gluck's opera "Orpheus and Eurydice" under Bernhard Stavenhagen's excellent direction and with the ladies Fräulein Hofmann (Orpheus) and Frau Stavenhagen (Eurydice), which made a strong impression on the audience. On the 9th, the theater offered visitors Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale" staged by Karl Weiser and performed in the leading roles by Miss Richard (Hermione) and Karl Weiser (Leontes).

The following is a reprint of contributions by Rudolf Steiner that were inadvertently not included in the first edition of this volume.

One of the events that brings life to quiet Weimar every year is the Goethe Festival, which has been held there annually since 1885. The members of the community, which bears the name "Deutsche Goethegesellschaft" (German Goethe Society), gather every time the Whitsun days have passed to refresh Goethe's memory. This year, the death of Grand Duchess Sophie of Saxony on March 23rd made it impossible to hold the festival in the spring. This woman had previously been the soul of the Goethe Day. She considered it a serious duty to cultivate the memory of Goethe in a worthy manner since she came into possession of Goethe's estate through the poet's grandson Walter. She built a splendid house for this treasure; she did everything she thought necessary to make the stay of the Goethe friends who came to Weimar more pleasant. Several months had to pass before the management of the Goethe Society could decide to celebrate the Goethe Day without this woman. The first Goethe Day, which she was no longer able to attend, was to be held in connection with a worthy memorial service for the Grand Duchess. The boards of the Goethe Society, the Goethe and Schiller Archive, the Schiller Foundation, the Shakespeare Society and the Weimar Court Theatre joined forces to organize the celebration. It took place on October 8 and 9.

Kuno Fischer, the philosopher of beautiful speech, was called upon to present a picture of the deceased woman to the mourners. He deserved the floor on this day. For he has been on the most friendly terms with the court of Weimar for years. He knows the Grand Duchess's way of thinking like few others. And he has an attitude and a view of life that enable him to appreciate a woman who derived all the strength for her work from her view of the profession of a princess. You have to be as conservative as he was to see into this woman's soul; you have to have as much of a religious view of life as he did if you want to show how the deceased's deeds flowed from a pious, godly emotional life. Something of the belief in the divine grace of God could be felt in Kuno Fischer's speech. In a certain sense, he believes in powers that control the destiny of people who are placed on princely heights. The aged historian of philosophy obviously feels very comfortable in the air of the court, he wears the title of Excellency with satisfaction and he likes to pin on the medals that princely favor has bestowed on him. He derived his character from the traditions of the House of Orange, from which the Princess descends. She is a true member of this house, who has translated the saying of the Oranians: "Je maintiendrai" into the German words: "Dominion over oneself is the prerequisite for any activity and for the serious, conscientious execution of assumed duties." The deceased was Dutch to the core. And the German literature of the classical period was dear to her because she found so much of the Dutch spirit she was familiar with in it. After all, Goethe and Schiller made Dutch heroes and their deeds the reproach of several of their poems. Kuno Fischer explained the Grand Duchess's peculiarity as a result of a misguided upbringing and a good school of life. In childhood she was taught things from which she learned how the world is not and how it cannot be influenced. Her upbringing was largely self-education. Her energy, her sense of purpose grew out of the history of her home.

Kuno Fischer is no longer the great orator he once was. If he still had the oratorical power at his disposal that was once his own, he would have instilled the soul of every listener with the solemn mood from which his speech arose. The tones that were heard only told of the deep affection he had for his deceased wife, but they sounded dull. This time the speech was not in harmony with the sentiment and warmth of feeling.

The speech was preceded by the Adagio from Beethoven's Trio, which Liszt arranged for orchestra (opus 96). It was followed by the final movement of the Mass in C by the same composer (op. 86). These pieces were performed by members of the Court Opera under Lassen's direction.

On October 9, the actual Goethe Assembly took place. The participants were particularly interested in the announcements made by Prof. Bernhard Suphan about Grand Duchess Sophie's decree. She has secured the existence of the Goethe and Schiller Archive, which she founded, for all time and ensured that its treasures will be as fruitful as possible for German literary studies. The valuable manuscripts and the house in which they are kept form an inalienable family fideicommissary of the Grand Ducal House of Weimar. In future, the owner will always be the respective head of the house. Initially, the archive will become the property of Hereditary Grand Duke Wilhelm Ernst. The owner is obliged to ensure the worthy preservation and appropriate utilization of the papers. Kuno Fischer's speech was given a significant illustration by these messages from Bernhard Suphan. The Grand Duchess has shown that she has been able to fulfill the mission entrusted to her by Walter von Goethe's will in the most beautiful way imaginable. Dr. Ruland made interesting announcements about additions to the Goethe National Museum. First of all, there is a painting that was created at the end of the last century or at the beginning of the present century. There is no record of who painted the picture or who it depicts. Anyone who has looked at it in Goethe's house will have to agree with Ruland that it probably depicts Mrs. Rath, Goethe's mother, in old age. Her features and those of Goethe speak to us from it. Another piece of news are the hand drawings by Goethe which the grandchildren of the French Countess Vaudreuil have donated to the Goethe National Museum. This woman, who once lived in Weimar, frequented Goethe's house and received the drawings from Goethe.

The usual lunch took place in the afternoon. This time it was quieter than in previous years. People were under the impression of the loss they had suffered. Privy Privy Councillor Dr. Ruland expressed the painful feelings about this loss in his toast to the Grand Ducal House. Karl von Stremayr, the Minister of Education of the Austrian second ministry Auersperg, spoke beautiful words. His speech had a beneficial effect because it flowed from a heart that had preserved the old good German-Austrian spirit in the gloomy times that have now befallen the Germans of Austria. Professor Oncken from Giessen touched on political circumstances in a less than tactful manner in a subsequent toast to the ladies. Julius Rodenberg, Karl Frenzel, Erich Schmidt, Freiligrath's daughter, Lina Schneider, Professor Minor and Otto Erich Hartleben were among us at the banquet.

The Court Theater heightened the significance of the celebration with two performances. On the 8th, Gluck's "Orpheus and Euridice" was performed under Stavenhagen's excellent direction and with the ladies Hofmann (Orpheus) and Agnes Stavenhagen (Euridice); on the 9th, Shakespeare's "Winter's Tale" was staged by Karl Weiser and performed by Miss Richard (Hermione) and Weiser (Leontes) in the leading roles.

When the official festivities are over, the "Goethe guests" gather in the magnificent "old smithy", which the Grand Duke gave to the Weimar artists and in which they have set up a comfortable artists' home. The longest Goethe meetings take place here. The oldest gentlemen do not leave these cozy rooms before dawn; and when they have grown tired, the younger Goethe community stays together for a long time. Our dear friend Otto Erich Hartleben then takes matters into his own hands; and he never leads the crowd that joins him out into the darkness of the night.

Professor Theodor Mommsen has just presented to the public an announcement whose significance extends far beyond the realm of mere day-to-day politics. Even those who quickly turn their ears away when they hear talk of practical politics must listen with interest to the sentences addressed by the famous historian to the Germans of Austria. Mommsen speaks of "unheard-of dishonors and acts of violence" done to the Germans of the Danube Empire. He speaks of the fear that every German must feel when he sees that "the apostles of barbarization are at work to bury the German work of half a millennium in the abyss of their lack of culture". The Slavs and Magyars are endangering the mission of the Germans, pushing back German culture. How is it possible, asks Mommsen, that the Germans of Austria are not currently united in the one goal of fighting the enemies of their education with all the means at their disposal? How is it that there are German Austrians for whom the rosary is above the fatherland, and who abandon their national interests because they believe that the rule of non-German elements brings advantages to Catholicism? How is it possible that, "when everything is at stake, a question as relatively trivial as the position of the Semites in the state jeopardizes unity?" Be united and tough, our historian calls out to the brothers in Austria. United in the struggle against the advances of the other nationalities and tough in the choice of means you use in this struggle.

If the members of a community are to be united, then they must be united in the content of their goals, in the thoughts that underlie their effectiveness. Mommsen's exhortation says nothing about the content of these goals, about the ideas from which the Germans of Austria should draw the strength for their actions. This must first of all be noticed. Mommsen's omissions are remarkable for what they do not say. For it is precisely because of this that the Germans of Austria have been pushed out of their favored position within the monarchy in recent times, because they lacked what Mommsen does not talk about: a great politically fruitful thought content. Whoever wants to govern in Austria must be able to set the state a task and bring with him substantive, effective ideas for the solution of this task. To regulate Austria's constitutional system in such a way that the various nations can develop according to their abilities and wishes; to carry out economic reforms that the people are crying out for, and to solve the questions that Austria has been given by its position in the world: this must be understood by those who are to take on the role of leader in Austria.

There is no doubt that the political situation in Austria has developed, as Mommsen suggests, because the Germans have gradually run out of substantive political ideas, and because they have turned more and more to the task of defending their nationality against the claims of the other Austrian peoples and cultivating the "national idea". The power of the Germans in Austria will always grow to the same extent that they develop political ideas that correspond to the living conditions of this state, in which many languages are spoken. And this power will diminish to the extent that they limit themselves to emphasizing and cultivating national sentiments.

Taaffe's strength lay in the fact that he had views on the above-mentioned political tasks. His weakness was that these views were not definite enough, because they did not owe their origin to a deeper political education, but to a dilettantism that failed at the most important moments. Badeni cannot govern because he has no thoughts of his own, but only imitates Taaffe's ideas in an ineffective manner. The day will come when the Germans of Austria will regain a position of power commensurate with the height of their culture, when they will have political leaders who can answer the question: what is to be done in Austria? The Slavic nations want to give the state a certain structure. They want institutions in which national individualities can develop freely. This free development cannot be prevented by force. Why should it not be possible for the Germans to create an Austrian state in which the other nations feel comfortable? The old constitutional party did not succeed. Under its rule, the non-Germans felt violated. It had political ideas. But these did not move in the direction in which the state must develop. This constitutional party has now been replaced by a purely national party. This party initially seems to have no interest in the overall organization of the state. Its members do not speak of specifically Austrian political ideas. They merely want to defend German nationality. This defense will succeed best if it is no longer an end in itself.

Mommsen's rally lacks any reference to what has brought the Germans to their current situation. It will therefore not be able to contribute to the recovery of the Germans' lost sense of purpose in Austria either. The twelve-hour-long speech by the Member of Parliament Lecher, who has achieved European fame through his speaking skills, is a symptom. If you had thoughts, you wouldn't need to talk so much.

We have experienced a rare event these days. Once again, a book has been successful in Germany. The former Reichsgericht official. D. Otto Mittelstädt has put his political wisdom down on paper in his retirement home in Montreux. Today, the whole world is talking about this wisdom, which fills 146 printed pages and has been released to the public under the title "Before the Flood". In just a few days, these 146 pages have gone through several editions. At the moment it is not easy to find a copy in Berlin. In 8 to 10 bookshops you are told: "Currently out of print". In the eleventh, you meet glances from the bookseller that say: Consider yourself lucky that you can still get the booklet here; if you had come a quarter of an hour later, you could have spent a long time looking for the "sensational" brochure. There hasn't been anything like it since the Rembrandt German surprised the public with his immense book on education, and since the pamphlet "Caligula" brought Roman stories to the people with little witty reference to the present, which you can read in any book on Roman history without the failed joke.

"Rembrandt as educator" was a strange spectacle. If you wander through inns for two weeks and sit down near "better" regulars' tables, you can hear the phrase-like science served up by the Rembrandt German. All you have to do is take a piece of paper with you and quickly write down what you have heard. Then write a suitable - or even better, an unsuitable - quote from an important man on each of these pieces of paper at home. Then you send these little pieces of paper to a printer and have them printed one after the other. The result will be a book about the character, nature and significance of "Rembrandt as an educator". After reading this stitched-together book filled with cheap wisdom, I kept asking myself: how could clever people proclaim such a thing to be a European event? But you have to get used to believing in the absurd as reality if you want to ponder the secret of a literary success.

And today we are witnessing the same spectacle with Mr. Mittelstädt's political insignificance. Apart from the fact that Mittelstädt writes in a fairly good style and knows how to express his commonplace wisdom tastefully, there is nothing to be found in his 146 printed pages that can claim any attention. Truths such as the following form the content. "Parliamentarism in particular has become physically disgusting. In Germany, moreover, the unitary needs of the nation must already favor a certain tendency towards autocracy. In the face of all this, countless difficulties and dangers are piling up, especially in the present, which every personal regiment should be able to cope with." "By vigorously developing the idea of empire, we must strive to overcome the dangerous transitional state of today as quickly as possible." "Germany is not on a desert island, but in the heart of old Europe, exposed to all the storms and upheavals that threaten to break loose here and there." If there were no coffee houses in Montreux where one could read such science in the newspapers every day, Mr. Mittelstädt would have to hold one and the other newspaper himself so that he would know how unnecessary it is to say such things in a special publication. Even worse are the self-evident statements that the pamphleteer writes in a tone as if they were the product of unheard-of insight. "The emperor and the empire must either move forward in the sense of state unity or they must develop backwards along the path of multi-statehood - as things stand in Germany, there is absolutely no standing still, no insistence on what already exists."

One could forgive the criticism, which is made up of such self-evident or commonplaces, if the author had something sensible to say about what he would like to replace the conditions of the present, which he so strongly disputes. But he is no happier with his positive suggestions than with his grumblings. "If I look over the conditions of the German present, the general and individual powers on which we are dependent, if I completely disregard everything that is desirable and stick exclusively to what is feasible, then today I know of only one heroic means that would be suitable for tearing the monarchy and the monarchical unitary state out of the democratic mire: that is war. For and against the majesty of war, much effort has been expended with moral indignation and pathetic enthusiasm. ... For my part, I agree with the great Florentine: every war is just and holy that is waged for just and holy ends. All our lives are a struggle against the hostile forces of nature around us and within us. The dull, heavy, animalistic masses of elementary humanity are also part of the forces of nature, the taming or destruction of which is an unavoidable prerequisite for moral development." So in order to tame the dull, heavy, animalistic masses of elementary democratic people, a war should be unleashed voluntarily? It is not a fable, it is written in the book by Mr. Mittelstädt. What do the peace fighters say to such wisdom? You don't need to be a follower of them to find Mittelstadt's war cries more unreasonable than the utopian bickering of the peace congresses.

It would be sad if the success of Mittelstadt's book were due to anything other than curiosity. It is understandable that everyone wants to read what is brought into the world under strange conditions. It would be a bad thing if there were again people who took Mittelstadt's writing for high political wisdom, as there have been those who have presented the phrases of Rembrandt's German as a European event.

It is not easy to form an accurate judgment of an individual person. It can happen that we think we know someone down to the very depths of his soul and yet one day he surprises us with an act that we would never have expected him to do. Much darker than the individual soul, however, is the mysterious power known as the people's soul, the epitome of the people's instincts.

This people's soul can prepare unbelievable surprises. If the events now taking place in France, of which Captain Dreyfus is the unfortunate object, were presented to me as the content of a novel, I would probably describe the author as a fantasist whose imagination distorts, even falsifies, reality in an outrageous way. You have to relearn almost every day if you want to understand reality.

Dry and sober, I will say what I mean. I always thought Captain Dreyfus was innocent. None of the impressions I received from the first day of the negotiations on his case could have made me waver in this conviction for a single moment.

I will deliberately mention only the weakest of the reasons for my conviction. Those who can judge human characters will understand me. I say to myself: whoever really committed what Dreyfus is accused of did not behave before and after the conviction in the same way as the captain did. Everything he said and did had a character that indicates the deepest consciousness of innocence. If someone were to bring me irrefutable proof of this man's guilt today, I would almost be tempted to believe in a miracle.

And yet the instincts of a people have condemned Dreyfus! The driving forces behind these instincts seem unfathomable to me. Anyone who talks about national chauvinism seems to me to be uttering a banality. He wants to get over great puzzles with a single word. How easy it is to use such a word to get over the incomprehensibility of reality!

And what is going on in France today! Read what the best of the nation are saying about the matter, and read what the many others are doing about it. Zola, the profound connoisseur of the human soul, wants to make Dreyfus' cause his own. The subtle Octave Mirbeau thinks the same. And a man like Scheurer-Kestner, whose nobility of spirit it would be an outrage to human nature to doubt, champions the unfortunate captain. And all this is not enough to lose a day in order to gain clarity about the guilt or innocence of the sorely tried man. The wonder of the matter would be the most excellent feeling one could have if it were not completely eclipsed by the sadness of the matter.

Nevertheless, I can only call it marvelous when writers, whose talent I must hold in the highest esteem according to their achievements, speak out about the matter in the way I recently read in the "Zukunft", for example. Of all the marvels that a clever mind can utter against naive human sentiment, the most marvelous seems to me to be when it is said that we Germans have no reason to interfere in the affairs of the French. Indeed, does human compassion end where the penal laws of a state end? Is nationality a tyrant that blunts our feelings towards every foreigner? I cannot understand the wisdom of people who organize their feelings in the manner of diplomats. Thanks to Bismarck's great example, such gagging of sensibilities is outdated even for diplomats.

Nothing can stop us from sympathizing with a person who, in our opinion, is suffering innocently. Of course, this is not denied by those who arrange their expressions of feeling along the lines of the diplomats of old.

But there are people who resent it when we express our feelings sincerely and openly to a Frenchman. Do people speak and write to conceal their feelings? It seems to me almost a duty that in this matter everyone who is able to wield the pen should speak out as clearly as possible against the voice of an entire people. It is a matter which interests the whole of educated mankind. He who feels vividly cannot restrain his feelings even towards a Frenchman; even if he wanted to.

A feeling of insecurity comes over us when we see that in a rather simple and yet momentous matter large masses of people judge differently from ourselves. We are used to such disharmony between the popular instinct and the judgment of the individual in major matters that require deep insight. But the Dreyfus case does not require deep insight. It seems to me that anyone who wants to see can see clearly. Anyone who has the impression that the captain is innocent could only be swayed by things of which not even a glimpse has yet reached the public.

We ask ourselves: How should we organize our lives if our faith in the correct course of world events can be shaken in such a way every day? In order to live, we must have the faith that our insight into the development of humanity cannot be turned into dull uncertainty and insecurity every day.

The treatment of the centurion languishing on Devil's Island must inspire such thoughts in us.

I don't begrudge the people who laugh at me for linking such a single fact with the whole development of humanity. And if it contributes to their health - they say laughter is always good - I am even pleased. At most, I allow myself to remark to such people that nothing is small enough not to provoke questions that shake us to the depths of our souls.

Zola's personality seems to grow with every day that passes before us. It is as if we are only now coming to understand him fully. His fanatical sense of truth has often disturbed us in his artistic creations. Now that this fanaticism for truth has led him to bold, heroic action in a purely human cause, we can only have feelings of unreserved approval and admiration. What he has striven for decades as an artist, to bring the pure, naked truth to victory: he now sets himself this task in a matter that he believes to be distorted by lies, slander, cowardice, vanity and miserable prejudice. Whatever one thinks of the unfortunate captain on Devil's Island, the way in which Émile Zola takes up his cause will always be one of the most remarkable phenomena of our time.

As an admirable man of action, Zola has been living out his life before us for weeks. Every detail we hear about him digs deep into our hearts. Every word he speaks in the trial that is being held against him is the expression of a great man. The fact that he is unhelpful in verbal speech and finds it difficult to find the words to express the grave feelings that live in his soul fits wonderfully with the image of the great personality.

I have before me the letter he recently addressed to the youth of France. This letter is a document of our time. It does not have any particularly great truths to say to young people. There is only one subtle thing that distinguishes Zola's sentences from the things that any number of freedom and equality enthusiasts could also address to young people. But this something is an infinity. It is the emotional content of a personality that emanates all the ideas that separate us from past times as the deepest content of its own soul.

I can imagine sober judges who find only liberal everyday phrases in Zola's Letter to Youth (it was published in translation by Hugo Steinitz, Berlin SW.). They do not know how to read between the lines. Between the lines are the feelings, which are the most valuable thing about the letter.

I can remember smiling when I heard the words in some demagogue's speech: "O youth, O youth, remember the sufferings your fathers endured, the terrible battles in which they had to win in order to conquer the freedom you enjoy today. If you feel free today, if you can go and come as you please, express your thoughts through the press, have an opinion and express it publicly, you owe it all to the intelligence and blood of your fathers. You young men, you were not born under tyranny, you do not know what it means to feel the foot of the ruler on your neck every morning when you wake up, you have not had to flee from the sword of a dictator, from the false scales of bad justice." That something of which I have spoken makes these sentences seem monumental to me.

There seems to be a very deep meaning in the sentence: if two people say the same thing, it is not the same thing.

We live in a time that is rich in contradictions. To feel these contradictions, we Germans don't have to look at the French first. There are also enough phenomena in our own ranks to make us blush.

What is called "youth" is not even the worst. The confusion is greatest among men who are now in their thirties. There are those who think they are modern, who are not ashamed to express their sympathies for reactionary ideas. We can hear such moderns in their prime agreeing with the tendencies of Junker cliques; and from their mouths we must hear that the liberal ideas of our century are a childhood disease of our time. How "wisely" such men do not often speak of the "abstract" idea of freedom, which is supposed to contradict what they proclaim to be a real necessity of the state.

It is outrageous when the feeling for simple, banal justice is lost because the necessity of the state is supposed to demand that this feeling should not be given free rein! Above all state necessity stands humanity, which must become its right. I have to smile at the journalistic statesmen who say: "The French courts have spoken about Captain Dreyfus, and we Germans have no part in it; what would we say if the French wanted to sit in judgment over a verdict that was handed down in our country in the external forms of justice!"

Zola made the most serious accusation against the sentence passed on Captain Dreyfus. A crime

He called this verdict a crime. He branded the people who brought about this verdict as criminals. He is being accused of it. Whether he is right or wrong can depend on nothing other than how one thinks about the guilt or innocence of Alfred Dreyfus. But this must not be mentioned at all during the trial of Zola. State necessity forbids talking about Dreyfus. I have no words to express the feelings I have about this fact.

Where will we end up if we continue to develop in this direction?

How convincing, how clear, how plausible Zola's words sound to the unbiased sensibility: "An officer has been condemned and no one thinks of doubting the good faith of his judges. They have condemned him to the best of their judgment on the basis of evidence which they considered reliable. Then one day, first one and then several doubts arise. These people finally come to the conclusion that one piece of evidence, the most important, or at least the only piece of evidence on which the judges are known to have relied, has been falsely attributed to the convicted defendant, and that even this piece of evidence undoubtedly comes from the hand of someone else. They name this other person, and he is accused by the prisoner's brother, as his duty required. In this way they force a new trial to begin before they proceed to bring about the revision of the first one, which must take place on the basis of a conviction in the other trial." How mysterious, not to use another word, the spectre of state necessity appears in comparison with this unambiguous speech!

Zola says: "The thing is this: a false judgment has gone out into the world; conscientious men have been won over, have joined forces, are devoting themselves to the cause with ever greater zeal and are risking their fortunes and their lives just so that justice may be done!"

But the journalistic statesmen say: "The French government is not obliged to initiate a retrial against the will of the majority of the population because Dreyfus has been convicted once according to the rules in force in his country". It is not for a newspaper writer to state that it is the custom in all countries to proceed with treason trials in a similar way to the way in which the Dreyfus case was handled in France. It is better for him to characterize the repugnance of such a custom.

However, what am I talking about the voluntary tugs of statesmanlike insight! As a representative of a magazine that is supposed to serve the development of freedom, I would rather send my heartfelt greetings to the great artist who today, before the barriers of the court, serves all that is pious to true progress in the most fearless way.

There is now a lot of talk about grammar school reform. If you read the reports about negotiations on this matter, you get a strange impression. There is talk about all sorts of things, but little about the main issue. Whether or not a few more or fewer hours should be set aside for Latin and Greek lessons, whether the German essay should be cultivated in this or that way: there are endless debates about this. And yet these things are the most indifferent in the world. The main deficiency of our grammar school is palpable. It does absolutely nothing to bring its pupils to the point where they are able to grasp modern intellectual life.

Or is it not true that today's graduates are at a loss when faced with the actual basis of our view of the world and life, the modern scientific ideas? What Socrates taught, what Plato taught, what Caesar wrote, is not a living part of our intellectual life. What Darwin revealed, what modern physiology, physics and biology reveal, should become so.

I cannot think of underestimating the educational value of the Greeks and Romans. But I am of the opinion that the past only acquires the right value for the education of our time if it is seen from the perspective of the present. Anyone who does not know the content of our contemporary education can only have a skewed relationship with Socrates and Plato.

All teaching at grammar school should be filled with the spirit of the present. People who are imbued with this spirit should be the only teachers. Let it not be said that it makes no difference whether the teacher of Greek or Latin knows anything about modern science or not. In the spiritual life everything is connected. A modern mind will teach a thousand details differently than one who is rusty in classical philology and knows nothing but his "subject".

It would have unforeseeable consequences for our entire intellectual life if our grammar school pupils were educated according to the scientific world view of our time. Our entire public life would have to take on a different shape. We would be spared numerous discussions about the relationship between religion and science, faith and knowledge, etc. It would no longer be possible to put forward things that have long been dismissed from the standpoint of modern thought.

Do not argue that the views of the scientific worldview are for the most part still hypotheses that still need to be tested. Every doubt about them is justified. I would have to reply: this is true of every view, the old no less than the new. But we do not have the task of handing down convictions to our younger generation. We should teach them to use their own powers of judgment, their own powers of comprehension. They should learn to look at the world with open eyes.

Whether we doubt the truth of what we pass on to young people or not: it doesn't matter. Our beliefs are only for us. We teach them to young people to tell them: this is how we see the world; see how it presents itself to you. We should awaken skills, not pass on convictions.

Youth should not believe in our "truths", but in our personality. Adolescents should realize that we are seekers. And we should show them the ways of seekers. We tell our descendants how we come to terms with things and leave it up to them how they manage to do the same.

We must therefore not withhold from secondary school pupils the content of what we have gained as a replacement for the religious ideas we have overcome. They should not grow up with sentiments that contradict modern thinking.

Many will consider what I have said to be the figment of the imagination of a person who is so taken with the ideas of the scientific world view that he does not even realize how much he is overlooking the opposing feelings of others. That is not the point. Those others emphasize their demands. We want to do the same with ours. No Catholic bishop will shy away from reforming the school in his sense; we also want to express our opinion without consideration about the path that must lead to where we want the world to be. Moderation blunts the weapons.

Report on the 14th General Assembly of the German Goethe Society

This year's Goethe Assembly took place on June 4 in the presence of the Grand Duke, the Hereditary Grand Duke and the Hereditary Grand Duchess and an impressive crowd. The following distinguished and well-known friends were present from Berlin: Professors Erich Schmidt and Carl Frenzel, bookseller Wilhelm Hertz, banker Meier-Cohn, Reichstag deputy Alexander Meyer, Ernst von Wildenbruch, Dr. Paetow as representative of the "Rundschau", Dr. Osborn and others. From Frankfurt a.M. were present: Professor Veit Valentin and the sculptor Rumpf. The University of Jena was represented by the curator Eggeling and Professor Michels. Friedrich Kluge came from Freiburg i. Br. Apart from Lewinsky, we noted the eternally young Carl Sonntag and Edward von Darmstadt among the important foreign stage artists. Privy Court Councillor Dr. Karl Ruland opened the meeting with a. He referred to the commemorative publication of the Goethe-Gesellschaft, which will be published at Christmas under the editorship of Bernhard Suphans and Erich Schmidt and on which Dr. Karl Schüddekopf (Weimar) and Dr. Walzel (Bern) are currently working. It will deal with Goethe's relationship to the Romantics and will gain particular interest through the publication of previously unknown or little-noticed letters by Schlegel, Arnim, Zacharias Werner and others. The Chairman also noted that a new translation of the first part of Goethe's Faust into English had recently been published by Mr. E. Webb and that several copies had been made available to members of the Society (published by Longmans Green & Co, 39 Paternoster Row, London). Mr. Ruland then drew attention to a new bust of Goethe from the studio of the well-known sculptor Rumpf in Frankfurt am Main, which was unveiled to the public for the first time today and which greeted the audience promisingly from the living green of the leafy plants behind the speaker's platform. The work, which was rightly admired by those present, depicts the young Goethe around the time he came to Weimar (1775).

Then Professor Dr. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf from the University of Berlin took to the stage and gave a perfectly formed lecture on Goethe's "Pandora" that was deeply thought-provoking. This last testimony to Goethe's strict classical style, the speaker began, had already been the subject of much in-depth research, but it had never become popular. Most of the readers today would probably still agree with Frau von Stein, who had said that only some parts were enjoyable. Goethe also admitted this in an amiable manner. But even if we take offense at the antique rhythm imposed on our language, we must not give up the attempt to get closer and closer to the core of the poetry. Whether Goethe portrays himself in Epimetheus, whether Frau von Levetzow's daughter and Minna Herzlieb are reflected in the daughters of Epimetheus, as is claimed, is of psychological value, but completely irrelevant to understanding the artistic organism. In the following summary, Redner points out some mysteries that seem unsolvable, such as the origin of Prometheus' son, Phileros, who symbolizes the impulse to higher things, to love. The love relationship between Phileros and Epimeleia, on whose realization Pamino and Pamina do not seem to have remained without influence, has been happily transformed by Goethe from the symbolic into the purely human. The scheme of the continuation of the poem does little to clarify this relationship; in any case, Pandora should appear with the olive branch, the symbol of peace, she herself as the representative of beauty. Art and science, represented by Phileros and Epimeleia, should be seen as the mediators between heaven and earth. Prometheus, reconciled, will wear the oil wreath and rejoice in his creations; and Elpore's appearance at the end inspires courage and hope. After the first step towards human culture through fire, the way seems to be paved for art and science. But Pandora's Ark is dark, incomprehensible. Could art and science suddenly fall into people's laps from heaven? That was a completely alien idea to Goethe, for man could only rise through his own work. In order to bring order and clarity to these feelings that arise through reading, one must firstly look at the poet's objective model, the mythological precipitation of the fable, and secondly consider the circumstances of the time and the mood of mind that influenced the poet in his work. Goethe was probably familiar with Hesiod's tradition, even if he deviated from it. He was probably also familiar with Plato's fable (Protagoras) about Prometheus' theft by fire, through which man becomes capable of existence, even if he initially remains raw. Aidos and Dike as goddesses are sent down, as are timidity and a sense of justice. Plato's school was focused on Eros, i.e. man's longing for infinity, the return of Pandora stimulates people to work, that is the main idea. On the other hand, it is important to remember how things looked in Weimar and in Goethe's soul after the Peace of Tilsit (1807). Anna Amalia was dead and the glorification of the prelude was dedicated to her: "To the opening of the Weimar Theater on 19 September 1807." Deep thoughts occupied the poet on November 19 in Jena, as the diaries reveal; he was studying ancient philosophy at the time, and the olive tree in Prometheus' garden also blossomed for him. Pandora points to the goods that cannot be lost: Freedom and ideals. Plato had founded his academy above a ruined state; the Ark of Pandora led up from the ruins of the German Empire. But who is Pandora? Epimetheus possessed her; he must therefore have known her. She is beauty in a thousand forms and the revelation of form to ennoble content. 'Iδ'εα is the best explanation of what form means; think of Schiller's "Ideals", and the combination of Phileros and Epimeleia demonstrates the maturity of humanity for art and science. Have our people, whose character traits also include the formless, the unbound, understood this admonition? What has not yet been achieved must bring forth the activity of future generations, the fire of the children of Titan must be preserved on the altar of beauty.

In the foregoing, it has only been possible to give a very brief sketch of the content of the important lecture, which will appear in the next volume of the Goethe Yearbook.

From the proceedings that followed the lecture, we should first mention the extremely witty cash report by the Society's treasurer, Kommerzienrat Dr. Moritz. The speaker emphasized that in the past year the Society had unfortunately not been able to fill the gaps in its membership caused by the natural course of events and various personal circumstances. Compared to the corresponding number of members in 1896, a loss of around 4o members was recorded in the past financial year 1897. However, given the solidity of the publications published each year alongside the yearbook, which could only have a stimulating effect, a renewed upswing was to be hoped for. On December 31, 1897, the Society consisted of 2635 members. There were no significant changes in the Society's income and expenditure compared to the previous year. - On the other hand, the construction of the building for the archive gave rise to extraordinary expenses (20,000 M.), which, however, were covered by ordinary income, except for a small remainder, without drawing on the reserve fund of around 66,000 M. As already mentioned, the report was interspersed with all kinds of delicious flowers of delightful humor. The speaker showed particular affection for the female members, who used to make up 23 percent of all members, but now only 15 percent. Among other things, the presentation of the reasons why some former members have recently decided to leave the Society was a source of great amusement. Before the Treasurer read out an authentic letter from these circles, no one would have dreamed that the pressure on the "ailing agricultural sector" could also have reduced the number of members. Mr. Redner concluded with a witty application of Goethe's words about "cold music, which is only able to capture the heart and mind five hours after listening to it". He hoped that his arguments would have a similar effect on the audience. Loud applause followed the delicious interlude by the witty speaker.

Then Privy Councillor Dr. B. Supban announced that not only was the library, which now amounted to more than 41,000 volumes, growing at a pleasing rate, but that the collection of manuscripts in particular had recently received very significant donations of great value. Thus, on June 3, the son of the late poet Viktor von Scheffel had presented the Grand Duke with the original manuscripts of "Trompeter von Säckingen", "Ekkehard", "Gaudeamus", "Juniperus" and the "Bergpsalmen" (some with illustrations), all "wonderfully composed". The Hereditary Grand Duchess had donated valuable and extensive original manuscripts of the former contributors to the "Tübingen-Stuttgarter Morgenblatt für gebildete Stände", which was edited by the poet Hauff's brother, to the Goethe-Schiller Archive. Dr. Suphan went on to explain how unjustified the occasional complaints about the slow progress in printing the edition of Goethe's works were. On the other hand, he had to declare loudly and publicly that work was being done honestly, but that due to the nature of the matter, some things could only progress slowly, and he gave a few examples, not lacking in humor, of how often the strength of the staff was put to the test by answering countless inquiries of all kinds. Then Dr. Suphan, referring to an essay by Herman Grimm on "The Future of the Weimar Goethe-Schiller Archive", which appeared in the last issue of the "Deutsche Rundschau" and was well worth reading, announced that a new work, a monumental Goethe-Schiller dictionary, was to be tackled soon. Preliminary work had already been done, such as a program by Otto Hoffmann in Steglitz on Herder's vocabulary, etc. Scholars of the first rank had promised their cooperation, and only the entire German people could participate. A giant sample postcard made by Dr. Suphan with a scheme for filling in materials for the dictionary on the open side caused much amusement. Finally, Privy Councillor Dr. Ruland, the director of the local museum, reported on the Goethe National Museum, where work was also continuing. Some time ago, Professor Dr. Furtwängler in Munich had carefully examined the cut stones collected by Goethe, and as a result of this examination some of the existing errors had to be corrected. The results of this examination would soon be made available to a wider audience through printing. Of the gifts recently received by the museum, the bust of the old Goethe from the studio of Professor Eberlein in Berlin, a gift from the Grand Duke, is to be kept in the garden room of the Goethe House in the future. Furthermore, a bust of Duchess Anna Amalia made of Fürstenburg pottery and a letter from Goethe to Count Gneisenau dated ı2 July 1829 should also be mentioned. Dr. Ruland concluded his remarks with the wish that the friendly attitude of all friends and patrons of the Society may continue to be preserved for the museum in the future.

This was followed by a break of several hours, part of which was used to view the collection, and in the afternoon the banquet took place, which was spiced up by various witty speeches and consumed in the most comfortable atmosphere. Alexander Meyer's toast to the ladies was particularly witty, indeed of sparkling humor, in which the speaker expressed in an amiable, mischievous manner the personal benefit he had derived from the morning's festive lecture. In the evening, Joseph Lewinsky's recital of Schiller's and Goethe's ballads met with grateful applause in the packed court theater. After the theater there was a routine with the Hereditary Grand Duchess; only many of the guests woke up the next morning in the well-known Osteria near the court theater with singing and cheerful conversation.