The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The outcome of the four-day negotiations: At the suggestion of Rudolf Steiner, a German national society, the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany,” and a “Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany” are formed for those mainly younger members who did not feel at home in the previous society.

The leadership of the “Anthroposophical Society in Germany” continues to be assumed by the so-called committee of nine: Dr. Carl Unger as representative of the Anthroposophical Society, Emil Leinhas as director of “Kommenden Tages”, Dr. Eugen Kolisko as director of the research institutes, Johanna Mücke as director of the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer as the supreme leader of the Movement for Religious Renewal, Dr. Otto Palmer as head of the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart, Jürgen von Grone as editor of the journal “Anthroposophie”, Dr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth as head of the “Kommenden Tag Verlag” (publishing house), Louis Werbeck as representative of the anthroposophical branches.

The leadership of the “Free Anthroposophical Society in Germany” is assumed by a committee of eight individuals: Moritz Bartsch, Hans Büchenbacher, Jürgen von Grone, Ernst Lehrs, Rene Maikowski, Wilhelm Rath, Maria Röschl, J. W. G. Schröder.

Jürgen von Grone, who belongs to both committees, is designated as the liaison between the two societies.

Report on the delegates' meeting written by Dr. Carl Unger and Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, published in “Mitteilungen, herausgegeben vom Vorstand der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft in Deutschland”, No. 5, Stuttgart, June 1923. The footnotes without [] in these minutes come from the authors of the report.

The following report of the Assembly of Delegates is intended to give all friends who were unable to attend the meeting itself a picture of what took place.

In order to keep the costs of printing this report within affordable limits, the stenographic records of the individual statements of the delegates were summarized as far as possible. Therefore, only part of the statements could be reproduced in the original wording. However, an attempt has been made to give an objective and accurate account of the proceedings. The abundance of material available and the extensive editorial work involved meant that this report can only be published now.

The two lectures given by Dr. Steiner at the delegates' meeting on February 27 and 28 have been published separately by the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischen Verlag, Berlin, and are available from their well-known distributors.

The meeting was opened on Sunday, February 25, 1923, at 8:00 p.m., with a welcoming address by the chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas of Stuttgart. Mr. Leinhas warmly welcomed Dr. Rudolf Steiner and Mrs. Marie Steiner, as well as the delegates and members of the Anthroposophical Society. He pointed out that the Anthroposophical Society had reached a significant turning point in its development and that it was now important for every single member to grasp the tasks of the Society with full awareness. Mr. Leinhas spoke of the feelings of terrible pain and “grief at the loss of our Goetheanum. He then pointed out the tasks of the Society with regard to the destroyed Goetheanum, the new art of eurythmy, the Waldorf School, the “Coming Day” and the other enterprises, as well as with regard to the religious movement and also with regard to the well-organized opposition to anthroposophy. He called for criticism to be unsparing, for things to be said freely and unembellished, but also for positive proposals for renewal not to be forgotten and for everything to be said in such a way that it is felt that the whole person is behind it with his or her lively interest and will, fired by the high ideals of truth, beauty and goodness. “We represent the most glorious cause in the world!” exclaimed Mr. Leinhas. “A cause that must not perish, no matter how much Europe falls prey to the forces of decline. Anthroposophy will live; for Anthroposophy is a new world!” He pointed out in urgent words the tremendous seriousness of the situation, the responsibility to the spiritual world and the magnitude of our task, which can only be fulfilled through love and enthusiasm for the cause.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Lecture on The Situation of the Anthroposophical Society.

We have come together at an exceptionally important moment for our Society. This is the first significant meeting since the Anthroposophical Society was founded that is devoted solely to the affairs of the Society. There is an enormous difference between the circumstances of that time and those of today. At that time, all members were extremely enthusiastic about the affairs of the Society. When it was founded, leadership was taken on by three individuals, and the others followed suit. This was the beginning of the Society's self-management. The task of such independent leadership was thus already set for it at that time.

In those days there was a strong sense of union. Dr. Steiner's cycle of lectures and travels, who, through his tireless work between all branches, groups and individuals, always formed a mediating element, had contributed to this. The building of the Goetheanum, which has now been snatched from us, was a living testimony to the enthusiasm that united our members. At that time, an intense sense of belonging had also developed through the shared birth pangs of the Anthroposophical Society at the time of its separation from the Theosophical Society. Every member was aware of what was being undertaken by the opponents of the time. Each felt it as directed against his own person. What was available as achievements from individual personalities of the Society was known by everyone, and experienced by them. In the branches, intensive and constant inner work was done in the most diverse places through tireless work. In short, despite many bad habits and sectarianism that still existed as a tradition from the Theosophical Society, the Anthroposophical Society proved to be a reality in these early days. And we experienced this reality again on the terrible night of the fire on December 31, when everyone worked together in a way that was only possible because of a real sense of connection through anthroposophy.

However, a new phase of the movement began in 1919 with the founding of various initiatives by individuals from the bosom of society. I am referring to the movement for the threefold social order, the “Kommende Tag” (the coming day), the Waldorf school movement, the university movement, the research institutes and, finally, the movement for religious renewal. All the enthusiasm went into these foundations. The Society took action at that time. Leading circles emerged. Everyone flocked to Stuttgart. What disappeared, however, was the enthusiasm for the affairs of the Society itself. It was an enormous responsibility that the founders of the institutions took upon themselves. If these personalities did not stay the course, the consequences would fall back on the Anthroposophical Society. Through these foundations, something universal was to be given on the one hand, and wide circles were to be led to the anthroposophical movement. On the other hand, however, the Anthroposophical Society had to develop along with it, it had to keep pace with the foundations.

But the leading circles of the Society were not aware that the Society had to be consciously led in a new way. Dr. Steiner could no longer, as he had done before, take the leadership of the Society into his own hands. The leadership turned all its attention to representing the daughter movements. The individual members felt less and less supported by the leadership; they felt, so to speak, abandoned and isolated. The branch leaders also had no support from the leadership. They were completely alone. Members flocked to them, but no one took them under their wing. No measures were taken to turn the members into active participants in the common cause. In fact, the leadership had abandoned the periphery.

Looking back at developments in recent years, it must be said that the best forces in society went to Stuttgart, but did not give back to the membership at the periphery what they themselves gained through their work there. No information came out from the leadership to the members of the Society. There was no awareness that a continuous stream of messages about the spiritual wealth conveyed by Dr. Steiner, about the tasks of the Society, the achievements in the same, the opposition, etc. had to flow out.

And in Stuttgart, too, people had no heart for the Anthroposophical Society. We had good representatives of the individual daughter movements, good teachers, representatives of the three-folding movement, religious renewal, etc., but almost no good co-workers in the Anthroposophical Society. As Dr. Steiner mentioned in one of his last lectures here, the mother, the Anthroposophical Society, was increasingly neglected. The enthusiasm that people had from the early days was carried into the individual daughter movements, but they did not move on to working for the Society itself and looking at the necessity of continuing to cultivate the central anthroposophical life. “You can work without the Society.” That was the great error that existed in general.

This tendency developed particularly in Stuttgart. The individual personalities in the enterprises carried a scientific life, etc., that had not yet been completely transformed, into the Society from the daughter movements. Much specialization was carried into the branches in an unprocessed state, so to speak. The anthroposophical life of the branch could not keep pace with the rationalizations. In the face of the mostly successful conferences and other external events, people were unable to really solve the problems that arose for community life.

That was the “Stuttgart system”. In Stuttgart, researchers, teachers, etc. faced each other individually. A bureaucracy arose in Stuttgart. Many who came here felt a certain icy coldness. It was simply not possible to combine these two things in one person, when it was no longer possible, as it was before, to practice Anthroposophy only in one's private life and to have one's profession alongside it.

Actually, the leadership of the Society would have had to double, or even increase tenfold, its activities in order to continue anthroposophical life in the right way and to strengthen it. If the Anthroposophical Society as such does not make progress, ultimately the individual foundations will also suffer; for without the real Anthroposophical Society the foundations would not have been possible.

This duplication of concern for anthroposophical matters did not occur. There was a lack of awareness among the leaders and also among most members that the Society had to be brought to a level that could do justice to the fertility of anthroposophy in all fields. On the other hand, there was a lack of cooperation between the leadership and the members of the branches everywhere. Even at the time of the threefold social order movement, it was not pointed out that the central anthroposophical life should have been cultivated to an even greater extent than before. People heard about the tasks of the threefold social order movement, but not about the tasks of the mother, anthroposophy. The same lack of information also became apparent when the religious renewal movement came into being. Here too, the leadership did not provide the members with any information that could have clarified the situation. There was also a dwindling awareness of what anthroposophy can offer people by striving for a union of the scientific, artistic and religious.

This deficiency is also connected with the most recent events here in Stuttgart. To understand this, we must touch on the background to the appeal that has now been sent to the members. This prehistory began even before the Dornach catastrophe, had nothing to do with it, because it was rooted in the long history of the Society, as just described. The decision taken at the Stuttgart Congress (1921), when the new Central Executive Council was constituted, to create an organization of trust within the Society, had not been fulfilled. There was no real cooperation in the Central Board. On December 10, 1922, a conversation took place between Dr. Steiner and Mr. Uehli, a member of the Central Board. During this conversation, Dr. Steiner pointed out that either the Central Board had to bring about a consolidation of the Society by consulting with other prominent figures, or that it would have to address the members without the Board. Mr. Uehli did not recognize the scope and seriousness of this situation. Due to disagreements within the board of directors, this task was not carried out.¹ After the catastrophe at Dornach, a number of prominent individuals took the initiative and a large number of meetings were held, during some of which very strong criticism was expressed of the activities of the Central Board to date. Following this, Mr. Uehli resigned from his position as a member of the Central Board, and Dr. Unger did so conditionally, in case the initiative of the aforementioned prominent individuals should lead to positive goals. However, this did not happen. Dr. Steiner then gave a series of lectures here in Stuttgart on the problems of society, and further discussions also took place. Dr. Steiner had already characterized the “Stuttgart system” in his lecture on 6 January 1923 in Dornach, and this was also done in the most forceful way here in Stuttgart.

It became apparent that all these questions could only be resolved if a meeting were convened at which the entire membership would be called upon to participate.

Initially, after Mr. Uehli's resignation, a “provisional central committee” was formed by co-opting Dr. Eugen Kolisko. However, this solution could only be a provisional one. After long negotiations, this committee, which has signed the appeal, was formed as a kind of representative body for the individual institutions. It was co-opted by the provisional board. The intention was to make it clear that such a provisional body of trust could only be formed from the institutions and that these institutions intended to give back to the Anthroposophical Society what they had received from it. You can see from the composition of the committee that the most important institutions are represented in it: “Kommender Tag”, the Waldorf School, both publishers, the newspaper, the movement for religious renewal, the old central board, the scattered external interests.

We must therefore focus all our attention on the Society itself. For what is the situation of the Anthroposophical Society? We are facing a world of enemies without inner unity, and the members do not even know how strong they are and how they are working to put an end to the entire anthroposophical movement. We must be clear about this: the less is happening for the Society, the more a vacuum is forming within, and the more the opposition outside is strengthening and expanding. It will be necessary for the membership to become acquainted with this antagonism and its motives through reports, so that, through this knowledge, they can see how something can be done about it.

And then contact must be re-established between the leadership and the Society so that each individual member can take part in what is being achieved. The “Stuttgart system” must be broken. Only when there are open ears for all the needs of the membership can an anthroposophical life arise again. In the course of this conference, the individual institutions will have the opportunity to present their work and their status, so that this can also be made known to the members.

Now the Anthroposophical Society has the duty to take care of its internal affairs above all. For it is the neglect of the Society's internal affairs that has led to the current situation. Then the Society will not present an obstacle to the spread of anthroposophy, as has been the case so far. Then everyone who longs for anthroposophy can be satisfied within the Society, and those on the outside will not be repelled.

The delegates may now give a picture of the state of anthroposophical life in the branches. Then, through discussion, the possibility will arise for anthroposophical matters to be properly discussed, so that everyone can work on the reorganization of anthroposophical life.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: It will now be necessary to supplement Dr. Kolisko's report by having the friends express their views on the tasks of the Society. The debate on this is to be opened now.

Mr. Kurt Goldstein, Berlin, suggests that the usual chronological order of speakers not be followed for the debate, but rather the logical order. — The motion is rejected.

Prof. Hermann Craemer, Bonn: In the branches outside, one often misses the kind of vibrancy of intellectual life that gives strength of will and clarity of thought. But the power and strength of community life is not only, as has been emphasized so far, lacking in the relationship between the leadership and the members, but also among the members themselves. If one takes Stuttgart as a whole and compares it with other branches, one sees the same phenomena within the branches. Dr. Kolisko thought that the problems in the branches were often due to the fact that the branches were put at the service of the threefold order. But the real reason for the problems is that the threefold order was brought in without being thought through. Half unconsciously, the members said to themselves: I only accept the ideas of threefolding because otherwise I would not be accepted as a full member. — We are told that there is still a strong belief in authority in our movement, so that the strength of our movement is highly endangered. But Dr. Steiner himself never gives so-called “instructions” that we should follow. Nevertheless, people often refer to Dr. Steiner in such a way as to say, “Yes, but... Dr. Steiner said this or that here or there.” This must not be allowed to form an argument in our lives.

What is needed, therefore, is independent action based on full responsibility, even at the risk of making a mistake. And as long as one cannot follow up criticism with something positive, one can spare oneself the criticism.

Mrs. Else Pfläumer, Dresden: I came here in response to the document that was titled “Call”. And from all that came to me from what was titled “Call”, something like the air of death came; as if one wanted to organize something that is actually an organism, what the body wants to become to a human, to the human “Anthroposophy”. And so I think we would really like to profess this “human being” first, and then begin to deal with this organism.

At the last college course, Dr. Steiner spoke the word: Anthroposophy is a human being. When this word fell into me, an image stood before me: John on the cross, in his arms Mother Sophia. “Behold, this is your mother. And he took her to his heart.

And just as anthroposophy entered my life, I felt that it was the power of catharsis, the power of Mother Sophia. And so I think: we experienced on New Year's Eve how a person died in our building. And before we can think of building a new structure, we must create, we must pour our heart and soul into it, so that the structure of this body of anthroposophy can arise. Only then can we think of it becoming Vitae Sophia, with which one can establish something, with which one can enter into science, which one can carry as anthroposophy into the religious movement. When we bring what Dr. Steiner transmits to us, as he gives it to us, into science, it is sometimes as if we had stolen something, if it has not come to life, if it has not simply become the power of catharsis.

I cannot express myself very well, but that is how it surges and surges within me. And I hope that the other people who can express it, who have the strength to express what I have just been able to say from my feelings, will accept it and fertilize it so that something really comes of our meeting. That we not only say: this or that is our task, but that we simply profess what has driven us into anthroposophy; that we stand by our longing, which has become a germ in the Anthroposophical Society, and that, when we grasp this longing, which has actually brought down the germ of an Anthroposophical Society, we allow this germ to grow, so that a society has grown and not been organized.

Mr. Otto Westphal, Hamburg, speaks to the agenda. He wants to help ensure that vigilance reigns from the very beginning of our meeting. Since he is not speaking to the agenda, he is interrupted.

Mr. Josef Elkan, Munich, explains that he had come to Stuttgart with a very specific agenda. He would like to express the most important of these in the form of a few wishes. First of all, he hopes that the Central Executive Committee that comes to the fore of the movement is aware of the tasks that need to be accomplished to bring the movement to the appropriate level. But for this it is also necessary, above all, that guidelines be provided by the center, on the one hand, while, on the other, the autonomy of the branches is fully maintained. The admission of members and the type of introductory courses cannot be handled according to certain rules or directives. But if the branch leaders were sufficiently informed by the central committee, they would be able to fully execute the will of the central committee. Now it would be important to organize the deliberations in such a way that the delegates return home with positive results.

Mr. Paul Knoop, Bochum, would like to see an appeal made to young people to join the movement.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, reminds the meeting that the youth movement is still to be discussed.

Dr. Wilhelm Zitkowsky, Linz, speaks on the topic of “Organization of the Branches”. He warns against “encapsulating the branches from the outside world”. He suggests that more consideration be given to creating individual smaller working groups than has been the case so far. In particular, the “Philosophy of Freedom” should be addressed in such working groups, since without a philosophical basis, Anthroposophy cannot be brought to the outside world. The impulses of the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” must be realized.

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer of Stuttgart points out the extreme seriousness of the situation in the face of the very numerous opponents. A meeting of “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” took place, at which the well-known accusations were again put forward and widely disseminated by sending the minutes. The main problem that the Society now faces, especially as a result of the cult movement, is the question of how the Anthroposophical Society can achieve true community on the basis of its own spiritual assumptions. They have made an egoism out of anthroposophy and should have made a great love of humanity out of it. We live on an island and should stand as a visible place of pilgrimage with a human sanctuary in culture. If the word anthroposophy really becomes truth inwardly, if knowledge becomes a personal wisdom and through it a new humanity, then and only then would the working class, would young people be able to gain trust.

Mrs. Lili-Maria Eljakim-Werner, Vienna, singles out some things in relation to the work in the outside world: namely, how a certain way of working has benefited us and how another way has harmed us. This should be communicated and exchanged. For example, “encapsulation” is particularly harmful if one wants to bring anthroposophy to people. If one wants to do this, then one must know people as they are. For this it would be desirable to also occupy oneself with other movements. One should not describe such movements as inferior. The people there have good will; but we have the answers to the questions that move them. One must note that there is a difference between whether Dr. Steiner says something or we do. If we have not experienced it ourselves, it is knowledge and not insight. Above all, criticism from opponents that is condescending is harmful. Dr. Steiner presents facts, and we have presented the judgments that we have formed from them to the world. Others must realize that there is something behind anthroposophy that one must know. We Anthroposophists stand between the world and Anthroposophy.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg: Demands are being made here for things that are outdated or taken for granted. Since the congress, we have been waiting for the co-option of the Central Board via Germany to become a reality. This expansion has not materialized. It is necessary for the Central Council to have representatives in many places who work in harmony with Stuttgart. But things must be ripe. The other necessity points to community life. We need forms of communication, even if they are not exactly cultic. Things can be presented in such a way that everyone can understand them. Spiritual knowledge can be popularized in a good sense. The branches should develop into anthroposophical colleges. Each individual can achieve more than he or she realizes. Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: The difficulties in society are connected with the fact that the best minds have been called here. One could say that if only one could send them all back to where they came from, everything would be all right. What was meant by this was that all those who work in the Stuttgart institutions today have done intensive anthroposophical work in the branches, some of them even as branch leaders. But then everything that had to do with the founding would have to be undone, and we cannot simply restore the conditions of 1918. Besides, new forces that were to come from outside were more repelled than attracted. Building community is the most important problem, but it is particularly difficult here. For we cannot, as in the case of religious renewal, rely on a cult that brings about community, but we must start from the individualities and still have community building. The magnitude of the achievements of anthroposophy has not been recognized in society at all. What could not have been done for eurythmy? In many cases, the tasks that need to be solved are not even known. Unfortunately, today's discussion did not provide a picture of the situation in the individual branches: but we cannot form an opinion if the delegates themselves do not give us such a picture of the situation in the Society.

End 11 a.m.

• 1. The situation was that Mr. Uehli, not having recognized the scope of this task, saw no reason to inform Dr. Unger of it. It was only on December 24 that a conversation took place in which, among other things, steps for the reorganization of the Society were discussed. Dr. Unger only learned on January 17 that Dr. Steiner had given such an instruction.

Morning Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting at 9 a.m. Mr. Wilhelm Goyert, Cologne, Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, Miss Maria Hachez, Stuttgart, Mr. Fritz and Mrs. Ilse Wittenstein, Barmen, Miss Toni Förster, Cologne, Mr. Andreas Grunelius, Freiburg, Miss Erika Linke, Stuttgart, Mrs. Marie Wundt, Düsseldorf, propose the following motion for the agenda:

Agenda

Some members and delegates of the Anthroposophical Society are convinced that the path taken so far offers no possibility of reaching an understanding and overcoming the crisis. The discussion on the first evening showed that there is no general point of view from which a discussion could be fruitful. Even in the leadership, there was a difference of opinion. Mr. Leinhas pointed out that the expected overall report should provide “an orientation”. Mr. Kolisko, on the other hand, understood his report as something that should enable a general discussion, a description of local conditions, and was astonished that the discussion was getting out of hand. It is not possible for the delegates' meeting to continue on this basis.

First of all, the assembly should be presented with the issues on which we all agree and towards which we are all striving: the anthroposophical ideal. The lady from Dresden and Pastor Rittelmeyer tried to do this. This was not taken up by the leadership and did not find fertile ground among the assembled. The call was not designed to create such a situation.

Even if some points are rejected, an attempt could still be made to present the appeal as providing direction for the discussion. But it would have to be read backwards, so to speak. Then the following points would emerge, which could lead to clarification in an organically determined way:

1. Setting out the anthroposophical ideal.
2. Explanation of the basis for communication from person to person in the sense of the Anthroposophical Society. This would lead to
3. A new relationship with Dr. Steiner.
4. Attitude towards the opposition.
5. Statement on the existing institutions, etc.

We believe that this approach is more likely to lead to a general understanding and we request that the leadership of the Assembly of Delegates read this as “agenda” for the meeting.

The motion is put forward for discussion.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Dr. Kolisko was justified in saying that the meeting did not produce what he had expected after his lecture. The main reason for this, however, is that many friends were not sufficiently aware of the catastrophic situation in society, due to the way the call was formulated and the lecture itself. In the youth movement there was close contact with the Stuttgart office, and in these circles people were informed about the situation. Yesterday afternoon, for example, we had a really fruitful meeting in the Hochschulbund, where we were able to speak positively. The Stuttgart headquarters no longer had any lively connection with the branches. — Out of a sense of routine, the Stuttgart headquarters developed an outward-looking approach that led to unsuccessful events in many places. The anthroposophical impulses were brought to the outside world in such a way that they were met with resistance everywhere. These matters were handled in such a bureaucratic way, as in the military. We have made many enemies as a result, and have certainly not gained any connections with the outside world. On the other hand, in Stuttgart people rightly miss all kinds of branch life. This life has declined more and more, a kind of slumber has set in in many cases, or the evenings have been kept simple in the traditional way. The branches themselves are to blame for this. If in recent years someone who, through studying Dr. Steiner's works, had formed a certain idea of what the Anthroposophical Society should be like, joined such a branch, they often experienced a severe shock that made them want to leave again, or at least stay away from the evenings. It was recognized that the Anthroposophical Society had fallen behind what Dr. Steiner had given, especially in the development of humanity. The golden rule from the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” has been ignored: “When you make a step forward in the knowledge of secret truths, then make three steps forward at the same time in the perfection of your character for the better."

But in many cases, ordinary social morality has been lacking in the branches; the new members were not even introduced to the old members, they had to sit there like strangers. We would have to take it seriously, to strive for the development of the inner human being in an anthroposophical sense, then we would also find the connection with people on the outside. The outside world would have to say, we like the people who represent Anthroposophy.

Above all, however, we here on both sides must now say to each other: Oh well, enmity, quarrels or resentment, that does not exist, we must stand together. If the call and the introductory lecture have already been carried out in such a way that contact with the assembled has not been established, we delegates must try to criticize in all love and show the people of Stuttgart: This is how you can reconnect with us. It is true that the Stuttgart members are in absolute isolation; of course it is a splendid isolation (laughter and strong applause), but they cannot get out of it on their own. And when one knows how hard they have worked in Stuttgart in recent weeks to get out of this catastrophic situation, one must wholeheartedly say: We want to help these people to get out of this isolation. It will work if they express themselves in such a way that they are carried by the consciousness of striving for an anthroposophical humanity.

Mr. Alfred Reebstein, Karlsruhe, wishes to speak from the same feeling as the previous speaker. He asks for a judgment to be made on the issues at hand. Dr. Steiner had to say at the congress: I have often spoken, but people have not listened. Many would better see the seriousness and terrible implications if it were announced what Dr. Steiner said about these things in the two lectures here.

Mr. Alfred Überhahm, Breslau: We need guidelines for the Society to work on. Dr. Steiner gave two four-line sayings as a cosmic cultic act. This has not been put into practice. The speaker proposes that these words may be spoken in the branches.

Mr. Leinhas hands over the chair to Dr. Palmer.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: One can only agree with what Dr. Büchenbacher said. The participants were not satisfied with yesterday's general discussion. We are already obliged not only to criticize, but to take action ourselves and make things better.

Mr. Leinhas suggests dropping the motions because there will be opportunities to speak on the individual topics during the discussion. He asks to tie in with Dr. Kolisko's presentation because everyone is concerned. He reminds us of the importance of our cause. He then asks not to hold back with criticism. He says that the Central Executive Committee is being made out to be a bogeyman, a laughing stock. Criticism should be directed at this. It need not be unfruitful if everyone is filled with a holy zeal for the cause. It should be added what should have been done and how it can continue.

Mr. Albert Steffen, Dornach: It is not my intention to be critical here, because I am convinced that this self-destruction is of no use at all. We have known about these things for a long time and should now start to speak more positively. I believe that, above all, it should be said that anthroposophy as such should give our society its configuration, that is, that which Dr. Steiner gives us out of the spiritual should be translated into the real. First of all, it should be said that this anthroposophy has freedom as its basis. It demands of each individual that he seek the impulses for his moral action in his own I. It demands, then, an ethical individualism. “Act so that you are sufficient unto yourself, that you have love for the idea, then it will be possible for the whole to be in harmony!”

The first fundamental requirement of our society is that the individual is a personality and, as such, says “Yes” to himself; as such, has confidence in himself. If he searches within himself, finds creativity and applies this creativity, then the whole of our society will also become more consolidated. — A multitude of creative personalities is necessary first.

It was said at the beginning that our society suffers from the fact that there are so many individualities that do not go together. But if these individualities think, feel and act in accordance with freedom, a whole will come about. We need original people among us, but they must not be mere originals, village or town originals, two-part originals, or a kind of domestic fool. The only way to prevent them from becoming such is for them to absorb anthroposophy as a whole.

Yesterday, a lady said in a very heartfelt way that anthroposophy is a human being. It is a human being and it is the greatest human being. It is a spiritual-soul entity, and we have to absorb this within us so that we do not become loners as personalities. But we can only do this by making the attempt to truly penetrate into the spiritual and soul life, into the supersensible. And in my opinion, the only way to do this is through the exercises, mainly the exercises found in the book 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. This practice, in order to truly penetrate into the spiritual and soul, is the second basic condition of our society. Without it, inner consolidation is not possible at all, and even less so an external one. Above all, this must be demanded of the leading personalities among us.

For example, you all know that Goethe and Schiller were actually natures that were opposed to each other. They were unsympathetic to each other during a certain period of their lives. And the moment when they actually became friends occurred at that meeting of naturalists where Schiller began to talk to Goethe about the primal plant, where Schiller thus began to comprehend the spiritual soul life of the plant. At that moment, Goethe became his friend, and from that point on, the process began that would lead to the tremendous epoch. What Goethe found in the soul and spirit of the primal plant can be found much more easily through the exercises that Dr. Steiner has given us about the plant world. Just imagine if such exercises were carried out in one of our institutes: it would inevitably lead to the people working there becoming friends, to them becoming creative, to what they bring to light radiating out from them into the whole of culture. Nothing radiates from our universities, our lecture halls and laboratories, for example, because the spiritual and soul life is not grasped there among the professors, the lecturers and the students. In those organizations, the connection is found by having an exam ahead of you, that is, through a certain fear. That cannot be the case with us. The only motivation for us can be to seek to penetrate into the spiritual-soul, into the supersensible, as it is presented, for example, in the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings. Dr. Steiner has given such exercises for physicists, for chemists, for physicians, for sociologists, but also for human beings as such. One imagines that in our branches, too, people would really think in a lively way, which is the first exercise; this branch life would flare up again. It cannot flare up in any other way than precisely in this way. At the moment when a person who really brings something from the supersensible world speaks to us, we are a society that has a real life again. You will experience the proof when Dr. Steiner speaks himself. Then all these disputes will disappear and we will feel united among ourselves again. But for that to happen, everyone, especially every leader, would have to become a true disciple of Dr. Steiner in this respect. Or consider, for example, how and why eurythmy has flourished. But only because Dr. Steiner grasped the word as such in such a spiritually appropriate way. That is how one lives eurythmy. That is how it brings this impulse of beauty into our culture. Or think of the Waldorf School, which is to be taken quite positively. What distinguishes the Waldorf School from other schools? That the teachers there have worked something of the spiritual and soul within themselves; that a Waldorf school spirit could arise from this. All of this is very much appreciated.

When I traveled here from Dornach, I was actually very much looking forward to Stuttgart because I knew that I would find important people here. I knew that I would be enriched as a human being and as a poet through them. I was certain that I would find an important philologist here, an important historian, an important scholar of mythology, etc. And I took a notebook with me to take something home. I wanted to enrich myself. By chance, I picked up a notebook that was old, that contained a small diary that I kept before the war, four weeks before the war, when I myself worked on the construction, in which I recorded my great love for the construction, my enthusiasm for carving. I wrote a sentence: It is evening, I am very tired, can hardly move my hand. Then I look at the building again and I feel refreshed. Or I describe how I looked at the building and then went out into the quiet night and felt the stars in a completely new way. This building was a living organism for me. It was what anthroposophy should be for us, namely a spiritual-soul human being to an even greater extent. It was a being. Dr. Steiner once said to me: The building wants to hear something new, it wants lectures in which truly creative people speak. All of us in Dornach felt this building as a being, and we felt its burning down as the loss of a being.

Here, esteemed attendees, I have once again come from Stuttgart _ without actually wanting to _ to one that also seems important to me because it is important not only for Germany but for the whole world. I have the feeling that one should look further, beyond Germany, one should note that the anthroposophical cause has become an international one. We receive letters from Russia. Eminent people come from there to Dornach and tell us what is happening in Moscow, how they are working there, how they are trying to make an impact there. We receive letters from England, from Australia. An Anthroposophical Society has even been formed in New Zealand, which is joining the Dornach Society. All this is tremendously important. Therefore, the German Society, on which so much depends, must now be positive. The consolidation of the Society as a whole depends first and foremost on Germany. If we do not become a strong Society in Germany, the reconstruction of the Goetheanum is endangered; because it makes no sense to have a building if you have no Society.

It has been said that this building will not be so beautiful. Dr. Steiner will carry out this building; it will be a work of his hands and we will love it even if it is not so beautiful. I do not believe that at all. It will be different; in my opinion it will be more fortified against the outside world. It will not be made of wood but of concrete. It will have a stone armor. It will perhaps be more reminiscent of something that could be seen in the catacombs, spiritually and soulfully. It will be a castle. And I would like to end what I have said by asking you to carry this image within you. I believe that if you have this image of this armored structure, then you will also arm yourself. You will become strong. You will be able to repel the enemies. Then, what Dr. Steiner once said, will not matter at all, no matter what these enemies are, we will be armored. And if these enemies come against us with cannons, as Dr. Steiner said, we can be indifferent —- if we only have spirit in us and with it the right to exist! The gods will not abandon us.

Mr. Leinhas resumes the chair: Mr. Steffen has shown that it is possible to speak to the point.

Mrs. Gertrud Müller-Thalwitzer, Königsberg, speaks about the work in eastern Germany and suggests that branches that are close to each other geographically organize themselves together, for example, Danzig and Königsberg. One could also expect something from annual “regional conferences” of individual parts of Germany, since the individual regions of Germany are quite different. Dr. Steiner's cycles, especially the older ones, are often no longer available; making it easier to borrow for branch work would be a welcome task. Then something should be created to secure the material situation of the branches or branch offices; this is particularly important in view of the subversive work of opponents, which could cost some people their livelihoods today simply because they are anthroposophists. It would therefore also be a task to promote a spirit of helpfulness among the members.

She suggested setting up a “main relief fund” for members of the Society in need.

Rudolf Steiner: I do not really want to intervene positively, because I am convinced that in these days what is to happen must arise from the midst of the Anthroposophical Society itself and that, as far as I am concerned, it can only be a matter of a few suggestions, which I could also put forward later. What has prompted me to intervene in the discussion at this particular moment is this: perhaps I can draw attention to some points that would help to make the discussion fruitful. From various comments made in the discussion, it has become clear that our friends are not sufficiently informed about the reason why we have actually come together this time. This could be heard in the discussions, but also in the way that it necessarily had to be spoken. Therefore, I would like to save the positive things I have to say until later, by basing the two lectures I will give on this topic. Tomorrow I will speak about the conditions for community building in an anthroposophical society, and will thus deal in particular with the suggestions that Dr. Rittelmeyer and others have made. The second lecture will also be based on a topic that will arise from further discussion. But I would like to point out that our current meeting can only be fruitful if, on the basis of the realization of imperfections – which are admitted, of course – we move on to a positive development. Therefore, I would also like to suggest, in particular for the discussion of the papers in the next few hours and evenings, to mention some negative aspects, but ones that are intended to lead to something positive.

What has made the work in the Anthroposophical Society so difficult since 1918 has, I believe, been aptly brought out in the discussion, and many a word spoken by Dr. Büchenbacher, for example, could find a profound echo. I would like to take up some of the words that have already been spoken, for example the word that I also use frequently: the isolation caused by the Stuttgart system.

In 1918, under the circumstances you are aware of, the “Federation for the Tripartite Division of the Social Organism” was founded. At its founding, it could well be seen as something that had to be formed out of the intentions of the Anthroposophical Society, in line with the conditions of the time. But initially, within the overall framework of the Anthroposophical Society, work for this Threefolding League was carried out with — if I may put it this way — the apparatus, with the bureaucratic apparatus that has been set up here in Stuttgart for the Threefolding League. After all, what else could one do? But then the following happened: I came here one day and found out that a circular had been sent out a few weeks earlier, in which an appeal had been included to found the “Coming Day”. What had happened back then was a tact error, a tremendous tact error, which had to contribute to what was described earlier: One received a shock when one entered the Anthroposophical Society in 1918/19. And I simply had to point out: the two things must not be confused with each other! For what were the young members to think when they were still dealing with our idealistic things and then received the call to found the “Day to Come”? I therefore had to refuse in the strongest possible terms that such things should happen. I asked the leadership of the “Federation for Threefolding” how this had come about, and they explained to me at the time that it had happened because they only wanted to use one envelope for both. But otherwise they are not so careful about it! For in these hard times of foreign currency, I was recently given an envelope with the comment that something like that should be taken badly: an envelope with which someone received a credit note for 21 marks and which was stamped with 150 marks. It goes without saying that such thoughtlessness would not flourish on a healthy social foundation. I also made further inquiries about these matters to the leaders of the federation and learned that they knew nothing about the whole matter. So I was faced with a democracy that literally led to confusion and could not help myself but to lash out, so to speak, and say: I'm not going to take any more of this! This led to a kind of regeneration of the Federation for Threefolding - according to the personalities, but not in spirit - because what was done then was undertaken out of the same spirit.

I mention this because it shows how the things that were done here out of the intentions of the Anthroposophical Society went awry. That is why I expected that after Dr. Kolisko's lecture someone would stand up and say: We would like to hear from those who are involved in the Stuttgart system, so that they can tell us what they have to say about it! Then further discussion would have been possible. — As things have been since 1918, I was forced to work with the Stuttgart organization — because I could not ignore it once it was there. And the Stuttgart organization isolated itself more and more. But what was the result? Since I could not disavow the Stuttgart system, the result was that I was also isolated. Therefore, in the fall of 1922, I had to talk to Mr. Uehli on December 10th and discuss with the members of the central Committee how things could be different, and that if I came back to Stuttgart, the prominent leaders of the movement would talk to me about how things could be different; otherwise I would be forced to address the members of the Society directly, bypassing the organization, to make things different. — We have been asked to speak “fresh from the liver”, so I will start with that.

The isolation was almost systematic. In September 1921, a congress took place, during which a kind of assembly of the Anthroposophical Society also took place. A central board was formed there; it initially published the content of what had been discussed at the time in a 'newsletter'. From then on, the members could, in a sense, ask: Where is the central board? Because the last newsletter came out at New Year 1923, and until then the central board had never let the members receive anything of what I myself had said. So I was deprived of the opportunity to contact the Society myself. So I was isolated in the best sense of the word. I would like to ask the question – I know the answer, but here at the delegates' meeting this question must be asked: What did the Central Board do between the two bulletins of 1921 and 1923?

I am mentioning these things now because they must become the subject of the special debate. The points of the special debate have been announced; but it can only be fruitful if these things are actually answered. Because it will be possible to see from this how things have gone in the past and how they will not be able to go in the future. We must draw conclusions from what has happened in the past for our work in the future.

I would now like to point out something else that can lead us to a broader horizon. The tasks that the Anthroposophical Society has received have become ever greater. It was the duty of the leadership to grow with these tasks. To do this, it was necessary to take a keen interest in the tasks. Therefore, I would like to sketch out very briefly, because this must be incorporated into the specialist debate, that above all, from everything it does in the present, such a society as the Anthroposophical Society incurs the strictest obligations for the future. The opponents are attacking it simply because the Anthroposophical Society exists. It is not possible to do everything at once, but a start must be made. In Stuttgart things were so that we were constantly making programs and then no longer took care of them. One example is the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life). Without the will to carry it out — and this will is what matters — nothing can come to fruition in the Anthroposophical Society. We have founded the Waldorf School and educate students using the forces that arise from anthroposophy, with a pedagogy and didactics given by anthroposophy. The benefits of this can be felt even by the youngest pupils at the Waldorf School. But long before the Stuttgart system came into being, I repeatedly had to emphasize something that seemed painful to me. I had to say: When we have trained someone in this or that field, they then have to enter the world, which we are negating. Thus much of what we do is condemned to sterility from the outset. It goes without saying that someone who has been trained in our midst according to our principles comes into what used to be called “the outside world”, where he encounters conditions in which he cannot apply any of what he has achieved in our midst. Hence the great concern arises: How do we shape the future of those who receive their strength from our midst? I have pointed out this idea again and again because the most ideal tasks have found little favor. I now have a letter from those who are so young that they cannot yet be part of society, which you can summarize as a kind of conclusion.

Explanation

A number of students in the final years at the Waldorf School would like to bring the following to the attention of the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society:

At Easter 1924, the first class of the Waldorf School will graduate. In our current middle school system, this graduation is linked to the matriculation examination. However, the growing opposition directed against the anthroposophical movement and, to an equally sharp degree, against the Waldorf School, makes the exam extremely difficult for the school leaver. Furthermore, it contradicts the essence of Waldorf school education if such momentary examinations are to decide the nature of the emerging human being.

However, only this Matura examination gives us access to today's higher education system. From everything we hear about today's universities, it is clear that they no longer teach the kind of science that engages the whole person in a living way; it is only abstract, unfounded knowledge that is increasingly being put at the service of economic interests. The present situation proves that these institutions are no longer able to produce the spiritual leaders that the German people and all of humanity need in the present day.

That is why, especially today, there is a need for such universities, which fully help to develop the abilities slumbering in people and do not serve the subject of study and mere vocational training in an external way. The aims of Waldorf education must also apply to the colleges if the seeds sown in the Waldorf school are to continue to develop freely.

Waldorf students see only one way out of this situation: a free college system must be aimed for. In a free university, the anthroposophical spirit must continue what was begun with Waldorf school education. We Waldorf students hope that the anthroposophical movement will continue what has emerged from it in the Waldorf school and will meet the need for a free university. We hope that this idea will find the loving understanding and powerful support that is needed so that the forces that can be brought to bear through the Waldorf school can later also have a powerful effect and be brought to bear where they are needed.

This is where the concern of those who see what we see in the youngest, in the boys and girls who are close to our movement, speaks. This raises the question: What is the possible leadership of an Anthroposophical Society's view of the most important questions for the future? What are their thoughts on this? Of course, things cannot be done overnight. But how are things being thought about now that there has been no real thought since the program of the School of Spiritual Science was set out? So the question is to be discussed further: How does one think in the Anthroposophical Society, so to work in the future that the future is really thought about?

This failure to think about the future is very strongly expressed. We have had a series of congresses that went very well in themselves. At these congresses, outstanding work has been done by the intelligentsia within the Anthroposophical Society. But if you looked beyond the immediate horizon to consider the impact of such a congress, you would realize that, yes, what was presented was very beautiful, but the Anthroposophists are so out of touch with reality that it would never occur to us to approach them. This is something that actually had to be experienced in connection with every congress. I would like to express this in the sentence: Much has been contributed, especially by the leading personalities, through the fanaticism and narrow-mindedness that prevailed there, to repelling people whose cooperation we would very much need!

This simply followed from certain things that were unavoidable. It was not an inclination to deal with the world. And one must deal with the world if one wants its cooperation, not its opposition. This then became very clear in the real consequences. I only ask you to bear in mind that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find Waldorf school teachers. Why? Because encapsulation has become systematic. And now that the number of those who found their way into the Anthroposophical Society in its better times and these personalities have come into the relevant posts, it is no longer possible for new people to find their way in. Particularly when one comes across such systems as existed in the “Bund für Dreigliederung”, then it is obvious that personalities who could become good co-workers if they got to know anthroposophy in a human way, initially feel simply repelled, not by anthroposophy but by the treatment they receive.

These relationships must be addressed in the specialist debate, because this is where the tasks for the future lie. In many cases, the tasks lie in changing the whole tone that prevails in society. The tasks lie in the fact that it is not a matter of saying: the people of Stuttgart have no time. — Friends will not demand that hours be spent with each one; but what happens in the minutes is what matters and what has so often led to the echo from outside: Yes, when you do come to Stuttgart, it takes your breath away! And when you leave again, it takes your breath away! I am putting this in somewhat radical terms, but we were asked to speak freely about what needs to be said.

These are the things that need to be discussed by the outgoing or incoming board of directors, things that must not be kept secret. For if you ask: How did the branches fall asleep? – you will receive the answer that the board did not even send out any messages during the two years. I do not want to criticize, it is only meant terminologically. But by also discussing these things in their light on the part of the Stuttgart members, what must arise can arise and what the Society can carry forward. All that is needed for this is the will to do so. The will of the members must be able to come together with the will of the leadership in the right way. If this is not the case, then it must at least be made clear why this is not the case; then it will become clear how to remedy the situation.

So it is not a matter of our talking about very general things, but of finding fruitful ideas for the continuation of the Anthroposophical Society from the knowledge of the deficiencies. I would ask that the treatment of the individual questions be put under this point of view; then the discussion will be fruitful, even if only five minutes are spoken by each one.

In my two lectures, I would like to speak about the affairs of anthroposophical life as they arise for me from the circumstances.

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Leinhas announces that the plan is to discuss the relevant points in the afternoon and suggests that further suggestions be made in line with Dr. Steiner's suggestions.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart, wants to say a few words about the antecedents in connection with what Dr. Steiner said. Looking back, it is clear that many people in Stuttgart, especially those who were originally involved in anthroposophical work in Stuttgart, suffered terribly under what was called the Stuttgart system. As the reasons for this have been explained here, many people from outside the city were brought in to become co-workers in order to advance the enterprises. But as a result, one became dependent on what one had called up. Those called here were now also recruited to work in anthroposophical life so that they could help to bear the responsibility. But it was a time when one could not find any interest in the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. It may have been because one was not able to keep this interest alive in general. The speaker then pointed out that he felt compelled to step back because he saw no way to continue to cultivate the anthroposophical in the way it had been at the center of things in Stuttgart for fifteen years. As the Society's tasks grew, so did its justifications. Errors were certainly made in the integration of the enterprises into the Society, and in particular there was a lack of accountability of the anthroposophical leadership to these foundations. The speaker pointed out how he felt condemned to inactivity, especially in the most important matters, because he no longer found an ear for what might have been said out of the old connection with the Society.

Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart, described how he was called to Stuttgart in 1919 as editor of the newspaper, and how he was then entrusted with the leadership of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Federation for Threefolding) because its leadership had become bureaucratic. He admits that he did not succeed in leading the association out of the quagmire it had got into. When he then took on the additional responsibilities of editing the “Drei” and working on the central committee, the burden became too heavy for him. He took on tasks that were beyond him. Now he wants to try to pull himself out of his isolation. He has therefore resigned from the Central Board in order to stop doing what he cannot do and start doing what he can do. He is aware of his failings in dealing with people, but will now seek to place his work as a free human being within the development of society.

Rector Moritz Bartsch of Breslau then spoke out what the branches had failed to do. The autonomy of the branches, of which Dr. Steiner spoke, had been given too little attention. In the east, people were less affected by the Stuttgart bureaucracy. The independence of the personalities and the branches is based on the spirit of the “Philosophy of Freedom”. In the inner development there is always the danger of subjectivism. Sometimes it is like in the village church, when the one who is meant is pleased that someone else has received something.

Mr. Andreas Körner, Nuremberg: There is too much talk about the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society and too little about the principles. It seems that little has been incorporated. There is a lack of interest in the individual in the other person. We know the board from lectures and books, but the board must also know the members. Dr. Steiner once said that he thinks of every Waldorf school child every day; something similar should happen with us.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: It is not important that the Central Board apologizes, but that the concrete circumstances that led to the Stuttgart system are described, as Dr. Steiner indicated. The lack of clarification is particularly evident in the matter of religious renewal.

Mr. Uehli had been involved in all the theologian courses and in the founding of the Movement for Religious Renewal. But he was completely unaware that he had to educate the Society about the Movement for Religious Renewal. Immediately upon Mr. Uehli's return from Dornach, the Executive Council would have had to deliberate, and the news would have had to go out immediately instead of in January, and the membership would have had to be informed everywhere. It was just a very general phenomenon that there was no awareness that one had to do something for the Anthroposophical Society. It was similar at the time of the threefold social order movement. There was a time when it was as if the watchword was that it was now threefolding that counted and no longer anthroposophy. We must try to understand the psychological reasons for Mr. Uehlis's breakdown under the burden of work and Dr. Unger's inactivity. Another thing symptomatic of the “Stuttgart system” is the extent to which all sides have sinned through letters sent from Stuttgart, etc. We must be specific about such things that have happened. We will only make progress if we confront the negative and do the positive.

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, announces that the reports prepared by the conveners of the meeting are now to be presented.

This is met with general disagreement. A point of order ensues in which speakers explain that they do not want to hear the presentations now, because that would take up time and many of the friends would have to leave again without perhaps getting a chance to speak; the general discussion must continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, explains that the human and anthroposophical aspects should be mentioned before the individual topics. Dr. Rittelmeyer is the most suitable person for this.

Mr. Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, and Mr. Walter Mayen, Breslau, agree.

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Stuttgart, says that it is necessary to provide an overall picture, but he does not want to do it himself.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stutigart, points out the necessity of the presentations about the individual institutions, because the difficulties have arisen precisely from their justification.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart, asks the assembly to listen to the presentations. If they are not listened to, all the effort of preparation will be in vain, including the effort that Dr. Steiner has put into those who, after much painful self-knowledge, have undertaken to examine the methods here. The lectures will show in detail where the mistakes were made, and only on the basis of this insight can things improve. He is convinced that no one in the room, with the exception of Dr. Steiner, who is not likely to take the floor on this, is able to give an overall lecture.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner points out that we have to consider the practicalities, otherwise we will not get anywhere. Debates on the rules of procedure will not get us anywhere. Therefore, he is now also making a motion on the rules of procedure, namely:

Mr. Leinhas may ask the Nine Committee who wants to give the general presentation. If someone comes forward, that is good. If not, that is also a manifestation. In any case, only individual lectures emerged during the preparation, and Dr. Stein honestly stated the situation.

Since no one volunteers, Dr. Unger finally offers to give the overall lecture. The chairman notes that the assembly does not want this lecture by Dr. Unger.

The meeting is now willing to hear the individual presentations.

The planned presentation on threefolding will therefore follow.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: The movement for the threefolding of the social organism is at the root of the difficulties that have arisen. This movement was directed entirely towards the outside world. Its failure has done the Anthroposophical Society the greatest harm and disrupted its work. The aim of these lectures is to determine the relationship of the Anthroposophical Society as a society to the institutions that have taken root in its midst since 1919. It can be pointed out that Anthroposophy has always carried the spiritual impulses to become effective in practical life. This has found expression in the draft of the principles, which Dr. Steiner wrote. Reference may also be made to Dr. Steiner's essays in “Lucifer Gnosis”, which appeared in 1905 on the social question. Mr. Molt, whose name is associated with the threefolding movement, was advised by the speaker around 1908 to study these essays, which had been largely ignored. In his Vienna cycle in 1914, Dr. Steiner pointed to the social question as a cancer in contemporary life, and the autumn lectures of 1918 in Dornach provided such a strong impulse that after the collapse of the German situation in Stuttgart, an attempt was made to intervene in the chaos from an anthroposophical point of view. This later led to a delegation from Stuttgart seeking advice and support from Dr. Steiner. This is not intended as a historical account, but it should be noted that this movement was undertaken out of anthroposophical enthusiasm. The rapid uptake of the Stuttgart initiative by anthroposophical friends points to the accumulated anthroposophical energy that was released. The initial success was due to the tireless efforts of Dr. Steiner. When the Kernpunkte appeared, the anthroposophical background could also be clearly recognized in this work. And here it was often tried to bring this to bear. The movement suddenly collapsed, but left behind a tremendous opposition that now pounced on anthroposophy and Dr. Steiner. Now the anthroposophical aspect should have been clearly distinguished, for which the appeal of the Cultural Council could have been a prelude. But the work of the Anthroposophical Society had been largely destroyed. The branches were taken over by the threefold social order. The agitation in public had led to a certain superficiality, which now clung to the anthroposophical lecture system.

The threefolding movement left many things behind. First of all, in a good sense, the Waldorf school, which was founded by Mr. Molt out of a social impulse, and then the “Kommenden Tag” (The Day to Come), which does excellent work within the limits it has set itself. But the various scientific institutes, the clinical-therapeutic institute, the journals and the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life”, whose relationship to the Anthroposophical Society is to be reported on by special reports, are also connected with this. For the Society itself, it is now a matter of working out the social impulse within itself. There it can contribute to the development of the whole human being. The social demand contains something that is connected with the transformation of the whole human being. The representation of the social must not be neglected externally either. The lectures that Dr. Steiner gave at the Vienna Congress are an example of how this can be done. The question of the social must not be absent from the consolidation of society if it is to take place in the right sense.

The chairman, Mr. Leinhas, now opens the discussion:

Mr. Emil Molt, Stuttgart, points out that in many respects it is important for him to start over. Much harm has been done by forgetting one's duties to society as a result of being absorbed in everyday life and in one's profession. He talks about the reasons for the paralysis of his will, but in order to fulfill his responsibility, he declares himself willing to participate in the reconstruction and asks to be helped in doing so.

Mr. Karl Herdener, Schnaitheim, talks about what weighs on a proletarian. He says that he has tried from the beginning to work together with the middle classes and tells how he came to the movement. Here he had heard that there was a working group of proletarians, which he could not understand. In Heidenheim, people worked together freely. There is always talk of community building and humanity, in almost slogan-like form. The entrepreneurial point of view was reported on threefolding. The proletarian needs the other side. The anthroposophist knows this best of all. He then talks about the school and the task of helping the children when they leave school. When he talks about love being the idea of the class struggle in the trade unions, he is always met with the argument that the shareholders of L'Avenir are capitalists. He mentions the newspaper article about the prison rules at the Waldorf-Astoria. Something must be done from the point of view of anthroposophy that takes the proletarian's point of view into account, otherwise he will no longer be able to stand up for anthroposophy in the same way when he returns. There have been too many doctors and no proletarians. He hopes to leave here having done positive work.

Mr. Adolf Arenson, Stuttgart, on the matter at hand: There are many proletarians in the Stuttgart branch, and if Mr. Benzinger has founded a special branch, he should be free to do so. Besides, a special evening has now been set up for all members.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: In the work of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Threefolding League), one did not know how to speak to the proletariat in such a way that it felt that a fully human being was behind it. One did not speak from the basis of anthroposophy. The industrialists were annoyed. Later, agitators were sent out without sufficient loving work and preparation of the speakers, so that anthroposophy was discredited by some speakers. This was the reason why mistakes were made in the representation of the threefold order in Upper Silesia, despite all the enthusiasm, which then led to the unleashing of national antagonism. The association's working material was handled in such a way that even an uncorrected lecture by Dr. Steiner found its way into the editorial office of Hammer (!) magazine. Dr. Steiner's lecture to the workers of the Daimler factory was sent out indiscriminately, without regard for the fact that it was given in a special situation. With an anthroposophical attitude, such treatment of Dr. Steiner's lectures would have been impossible. The call for a cultural council has been dropped, although the important question of a free university was linked to it. Since the “Bund für Dreigliederung” no longer exists, nothing positive can be said in this debate, but it can be shown from these cases how all this would not have been possible with a proper anthroposophical attitude and how anthroposophy must now be represented to the outside world.

Rector Moritz Bartsch of Breslau does not believe that mistakes were made in Upper Silesia.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko of Stuttgart offers further explanations.

Dr. Herbert Hahn of Stuttgart: One must speak the language of the proletariat when speaking to proletarians. When Dr. Steiner gave a lecture in the Waldorf-Astoria factory, the anthroposophical aspect was as alive as the proletarian needs it to be. The other speakers did not have that, and when the backlash occurred, the way they spoke had a negative effect on the anthroposophical cause.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Dr. Unger spoke of how the threefold social order movement arose out of the basic impulses of spiritual science. It is not necessary to say any more about this, but one should speak about whether the threefold social order movement was carried out in an anthroposophical way. If one is truly an anthroposophist, one comes to a deeper understanding of human nature and of the currents of the times. This was not present in the work of threefolding. During the fight for the plebiscite in Upper Silesia, many anthroposophical speakers in Germany also presented the threefold social order as the peaceful and only healthy solution to the question. As a result, accusations of treason arose in the press due to this position. Our speakers were able to deal with these defamatory accusations in meetings everywhere. They could always point out that if it came to a vote, the threefolders would naturally vote for Germany and that Dr. Steiner had also made this clear. A rather proud declaration was issued from Stuttgart, but it did not touch on this point at all. They had to make up for it later, but they had to be told that this position had only been adopted later because of the attacks, and so the odium of treason remained with us after all. This is a concrete example of how the threefold social order was represented to the outside world in such a way that the understanding of the human being that anthroposophy can provide was very much lacking.

Mr. Fred Geuter, Stuttgart: The so-called “Stuttgart System” has its origin in the fact that it was not understood to avoid precisely that which we criticized in all our speeches and lectures - the thinking methods and will impulses of the “West”. Among other things, the Federation was given the task of working for “honest diplomacy”. Anyone who is able to follow the development of this institution has to realize the opposite. What needs to be done first is to realize in our hearts the impulses we receive, so that we also act as we speak. Otherwise, soul tensions and conflicts arise that cause dissatisfaction, crises and only unnecessary opposition.

Mr. Johannes Thielemann, Meissen, speaks of ahrimanic effects in the etheric body of society that must be overcome.

Mr. Max Benzinger, Stuttgart, rejects Mr. Herdener's accusation. He founded a branch because he wanted to see whether you had to be a doctor or something similar to lead a branch, or whether a proletarian could do it too. Besides, he wanted to continue what had been started in the threefolding period with the proletarians. The speaker criticizes the often wrong behavior of anthroposophists towards the proletarians. For example, against servants. There is an abyss between action and words. He describes some experiences from the threefolding movement, of which he was a member of the committee. The proletarians understood Dr. Steiner, but not those who otherwise spoke about it, whose actions did not match their words. He reported from Champignystraße that an employee was told, in the matter of weekly salary payments, that he was indeed descending to the level of the workers. The worker is sensitive because he feels whether the person also does what he says. He himself was decried as a rabble-rouser.

Mr. Wilhelm Conrad, Cologne, proposes that all the lectures be heard in succession.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner: I think we really should take care to achieve a fruitful outcome. It may indeed be the case, although this has not been emphasized enough, that the fate of the Society depends on these three days. If we do not come to a conclusion during these three days, there is nothing left for me to do but appeal to each individual member of the Society to carry this out. So, if a reorganization of the Society is to take place, it must happen in these three days. We are in an Anthroposophical Society, where everything is connected. You will be best able to form an opinion and also to talk about the threefold order when you have heard everything. Everything is interrelated. Therefore, it is most practical if you let the presentations run and get the full picture, then a fruitful discussion can arise, while each speaker is tempted to talk about every detail, which leads to infertility. Mr. Conrad's proposal is that we go through the reports as quickly as possible so that we know what has happened in Stuttgart as a whole. Then everything can be fruitfully discussed.

The Conrad proposal is approved.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, takes up the series of lectures with a report on the “Kommenden Tag”. He describes the emergence of the joint-stock company as an attempt to form a germinal point of associative economic life by uniting banking, industry and agriculture with economic and intellectual endeavors. The realization of the idea on a large scale failed due to the lack of understanding it was met with from influential circles in economic life. In the spring of 1922, in order to avoid lapsing into dishonesty, a “program limitation” had to be proclaimed. Within the framework of the program possible under the present circumstances, the “Coming Day” fulfills its tasks and proves to be an economically viable undertaking. Mr. Leinhas does not conceal the teething troubles that the company, which was founded in a rather difficult time, had to go through. He also points out the difficulties that have arisen in human cooperation, but which are increasingly being overcome as the company's economic tasks are successfully worked out and not mixed up with the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. Mr. Leinhas asks the members of the Anthroposophical Society to be aware of their tasks with regard to the “Coming Day” and its individual enterprises, in particular the publishing house and the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, and to support them energetically by taking a lively interest in them and their products. The attitude of the members of the Anthroposophical Society towards all the enterprises that have emerged from the Anthroposophical Society should increasingly be one of asking: What can I do for these enterprises, how can I take an interest in them? Not: How can I interfere in the affairs of those who are responsible for managing these enterprises. In general, the principle of “What can I do?” should be increasingly applied in our Society. Not “What should others do?”

Evening Session:

Fräulein Dr. Caroline von Heydebrand, Stuttgart: A talk about the Free Waldorf School and its relationship to the Anthroposophical Society

The Free Waldorf School was founded by Mr. Emil Molt out of an insight into the social necessities of our time, for which the ideas of the threefold social organism could open our eyes. All people, regardless of their social background, should be able to enjoy an education that meets the requirements of true human knowledge. Thus, the Waldorf School became the first comprehensive school in Germany (1919). In it, only spiritual and pedagogical aspects should be decisive for teaching and education. Therefore, the Waldorf School was established as an independent school that wanted to feel responsible only to the spiritual life. Its founder, Mr. Molt, could only find the basis for his educational ideas in anthroposophy, because the works of Dr. Rudolf Steiner provide a knowledge of the human being from which appropriate educational impulses can grow. They present a story of the development of the soul of humanity that could lead to an understanding of the necessity of a genuinely contemporary art of education for the present and the near future.

Mr. Molt asked Dr. Rudolf Steiner to take over the pedagogical direction of the Waldorf School. Dr. Rudolf Steiner accepted his request. The teachers of the Waldorf School feel the responsibility that arises from the fact that the founder and leader of the anthroposophical movement is the pedagogical director of the school. They receive the rich abundance of spiritual scientific-educational knowledge in lectures and individual advice with a deep sense of responsibility to the anthroposophical movement, indeed to all of humanity. The heart of Waldorf school education is the series of lectures on education by Dr. Rudolf Steiner, which convey anthroposophical knowledge of the human being. From this anthroposophical understanding of the human being, he developed a methodology and didactics as an art of education. Convincing hearts of men without prejudice, this art of education stands in the world, working as a work of art, as once the Goetheanum and as eurythmy. Thus, from its very foundations, anthroposophy has given birth to a school and education movement that could become a global movement by its very nature. Unfortunately, the idea of a “World School Association” has not yet been realized, apart from a few tentative attempts. It is recognized in many circles beyond Central Europe that the Waldorf School is not the school of a sectarian world view, but that it has a general educational significance. Waldorf education has attracted the attention of many non-anthroposophical circles. Dr. Rudolf Steiner gave lectures on education to Swiss teachers in Basel, and at Christmas 1921/22 he gave a course for teachers at the Goetheanum that appeared to be a processing of Albert Steffen and has already been translated into Swedish. During the Oxford Conference in August 1922 on the subject of “Spiritual Values in Education and Social Life”, Dr. Steiner gave twelve lectures on education and teaching to a large number of English teachers. In the Nordic countries, Waldorf education is being studied particularly actively. Many guests visit the school, including representatives of foreign governments. For example, a professor from Japan recently spent several days at the school, showing great interest. In early January, seventeen English teachers visited the school and were truly enthusiastic about their stay. Thus, the significant fact that the anthroposophical movement has brought a pedagogy into the world as an art that is not dependent on a world view but is universally human should be vividly present in the consciousness of every member of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, Waldorf education should not be perceived as something that satisfies the narrow needs or educational aspirations of a few parents, children and teachers, but as something that fulfills its task only when it grasps this task in terms of world history and places itself selflessly, as an artistic and healing element, in the midst of the phenomena of decline in our time. The cultivation of their spiritual life has remained the Germans' most precious possession; within the German spiritual life, educational issues have always come first. The members of the Anthroposophical Society warmly embrace the Waldorf School and its idea as a matter for humanity. It stands as a model school, as a model school, and seeks to realize the idea of free education. As such a model school, it must be the concern of the entire Anthroposophical Society. It needs the active support, loving understanding and warm interest of every single member in every respect. As a wonderful gift from the spiritual worlds, entrusted to human hearts and hands, we members of the Anthroposophical Society feel about this art of education and this school, which, under the loving guidance of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, is the only model school to cultivate anthroposophical educational ideals in a comprehensive way for the benefit of humanity. It needs a strong Anthroposophical Society that can protect, support and strengthen the good that has been entrusted to us all!

Dr. Otto Palmer, Stuttgart: Presentation on the Clinical Therapeutic Institute “The Day to Come”

At the beginning of my presentation to this assembly of delegates on the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, I would like to ask two questions, which I will try to answer myself during my presentation and which, if a discussion follows my presentation, I would ask you to help me answer.

The first question is: What does medicine, inaugurated by spiritual scientific research, promise not only to the Anthroposophical Society but also to all of humanity?

Secondly: What must the Anthroposophical Society do to gain recognition and importance for the treatment and healing methods based on spiritual scientific research in the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute?

We can only answer these questions correctly if we ourselves are completely clear about what we have been given in every respect by Dr. Steiner's spiritual science. This may seem paradoxical, but I believe that many members of the Anthroposophical Society are not clear about the importance of the spiritual heritage handed down to us. If we were clear about it, how could there be such appalling lukewarmness and indifference, which has basically led to the crisis we are currently facing.

Over time, we have become accustomed to to take the spiritual nourishment offered to us in such abundance for granted, and instead of being shaken to the core of our souls and developing the forces within us, which in turn should work with elemental force outwards and make themselves felt with a certain enthusiasm, we lay on the pillow of rest and did not even think of making use of what we had received as it should be.

In 1908, Dr. Steiner gave us a spiritual-scientific understanding of the human being for the first time in the Prague Course, which deals with “Occult Physiology”. In a whole series of lectures that followed this Prague Course, he incorporated additional comments about the nature of the human being in this direction. In other lectures, he described the karmic connections that arise from previous lives and manifest as illnesses in this one.

In 1917, in his “Puzzles of the Soul”, he gave us the physiology of the threefold human being.

In 1920/21, he introduced doctors and medical students to spiritual pathology and therapy in longer courses – and last October, he finally supplemented these courses with lectures he gave at the Medical Week here in Stuttgart. One fruit of the lectures in 1920/21 was the founding of the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, and a wealth of tasks arose for those who were appointed as staff to the Clinical Therapeutic Institute. Above all, however, we doctors were given the task of creating a movement among two to three thousand doctors on the basis of what we had been given in the courses.

To get a true picture of the tremendous achievements that have been inaugurated in the medical field through Dr. Steiner's work since 1908, one need only take a look at state-licensed conventional medicine and its helplessness, especially in the field of therapy. All the great things that have been discovered by it should not only be fully recognized, but it should be emphasized that we do not want to oppose it in terms of scientific research methods. We must be clear about one thing only: that all medical research on pathology is based on the development of pathological anatomy, that is, a knowledge of those changes that have occurred in organs during a person's lifetime as a result of disease processes and that can now be observed as such on the dissection table. To a certain extent, research in this field can be considered complete and it can be assumed that not much new will be revealed with the examination methods currently in use. Nevertheless, the motto of the Freiburg anatomist Aschoff at the naturalists' congress was: “Give us corpses!” As if corpses could give us information about the living! Or rather, about the disease processes that take place in the living organism!

With the exception of a few specific remedies, such as mercury, quinine and salicylic acid, the therapy is to be regarded as an experimental therapy. There is certainly no real rationale for most of the diseases. Why are there so many quacks, why so many lay doctors alongside conventional medicine? Surely only because people do not find what they are looking for in conventional medicine in many cases.

If we compare our time with a distant epoch, say from the fourth to the fifth century BC to the fifteenth century AD, where our scientific research begins, we can see that at that time people still had an idea of the influence of a spiritual world and of therapy based on certain intuitions and atavistic clairvoyance.

It is interesting that this period ends with the murder of Paracelsus, and that barely a century later, Rembrandt's famous painting “The Anatomy Lesson” came to symbolize, as it were, the dawning of the scientific era in which we are still immersed.

Dr. Steiner's achievement lies in having transformed Du Bois-Reymond's “Ignorabimus” (“we will not know”) into a “Cognoscimus” (we know). We can know if we have become able to see through the training of our soul organs, and even if we have not yet become able to see ourselves, it is still possible for us, with goodwill, to reflect on and grasp intellectually the spiritual scientific research results that Dr. Steiner gives us. For us physicians as students of Dr. Steiner, it is no longer a matter of including only the physical body in our research, but of taking into account the higher aspects of the human being in our research.

The threefold nature of the human being – the nervous-sensory system, the rhythmic system and the metabolic-limb system – is to be made the basis of a new physiology. In the case of disease processes, natural processes outside the body must be taken into account and placed in parallel. Cosmic-planetary influences on the one hand, telluric influences on the other, must be taken into account.

The human being, which until then seemed so simple to us, becomes the most complicated organism, which can only be understood and correctly assessed in the contexts just mentioned. Furthermore, we find a series of processes in the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms that also take place in some way in the human being. It would be going too far to go into these processes further in the context of a short presentation, but it should be said that these processes provide clues as to which remedies, originating from any of these kingdoms, must be applied in a meaningful and rational way in certain disease processes. It will be the task of the physicians of the Institute to explain the methods of our work and therapy in a vade mecum and to make this vade mecum the basis of a publicity campaign among physicians. We will only gain enthusiasm for our work if we see our service to humanity and our work in the laboratory as a form of worship in the most beautiful sense of the word.

It should be emphasized that our healing method should become more and more individualized. It is well worth making suffering humanity aware of this healing method and making every effort to establish it in the world.

And this brings me to the second question: “What can the Anthroposophical Society do to ensure that the treatment and healing methods based on spiritual scientific research knowledge and represented in our Clinical Therapeutic Institute receive the recognition and spread in the world that they deserve?”

If the conditions are fulfilled, that the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, for its part, does everything to fulfill the tasks that have been set for it, that is, to make a vade mecum a movement among two to three thousand doctors, then it would be most important for the Anthroposophical Society to support the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in this task, each member in his or her own way. The individual branches should request speakers from the Institute to give informative lectures in the branches. The members should tactfully draw their family doctors' attention to our writings and remedies. I say tactfully, as there is no definition for this; it has to be felt.

I could imagine that doctors could be repelled by tactlessly conducted propaganda. Furthermore, it would have to be ensured that our remedies are available in pharmacies, or that pharmacies are informed where they can obtain our remedies. This must also be done in a tactful manner, because pharmacists are a priori hostile to all such remedies that they are not involved in producing, and which they should only sell as a merchant sells his goods.

Members may recommend the remedies to relatives and acquaintances on the basis of successful healing, but preferably not by bypassing the treating physician. It would also be very effective to recommend our products to the board members of health insurance funds or other influential people within the health insurance system, pointing out that our influenza medicine, Infludoron, for example, can greatly shorten the illness and that the health insurance fund could save a lot of sick pay in this way. If young physicians interested in spiritual scientific research are at a loss to find a topic for their doctoral dissertation, we are happy to suggest a whole range of dissertation topics that arise from Dr. Steiner's medical courses.

The eurythmy therapy we practise, which has yielded good results in numerous cases, still requires further training and should be passed on to those who wish to apply eurythmy therapy in practice under medical supervision.

Above all, however, it is important that each individual member and branch be awakened to the consciousness that our healing method is born out of spiritual-scientific knowledge of the human being, and that we become more and more aware that the “theosophy” is not a gray theory, but that it proves in its effects to be extremely practical and beneficial for humanity in all medical measures. The remedies alone do not help us if the spiritual reality of their origin has not become clear and certain to everyone. Only then can they stand up for them and propagate them in the right way.

Dr. Rudolf Maier, Stuttgart: Lecture on the Scientific Research Institute “Der Kommende Tag”

The aims of the Scientific Research Institute are determined by what is already expressed in the first sentence of the draft of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society: “For a satisfying and healthy way of life, human beings need to know and cultivate their own supersensible being and the supersensible being of the extra-human world.” Applied to the work of our research institute, this simply means that without knowledge of the supersensible, present-day natural science cannot achieve fruitful progress or a true grasp of its goals. Our research institute has therefore set itself the task of ensuring the introduction and application of anthroposophical knowledge in natural science. We seek to fulfill our task by first taking measures that are likely to arouse interest in genuine and true research into nature in the widest circles, and secondly by showing, through practical examples of the application of anthroposophical knowledge in experimental research and observation of nature, how far research into nature can go beyond what has been achieved so far. Examples of this are the treatise by Mrs. Lily Kolisko on “Spleen Function and Platelet Question” and the recently published treatise by Dr. Rudolf Maier on “The Villard Experiment, an Experimental Investigation”. Mrs. Kolisko's essay shows how an anthroposophical insight sheds light on previous research into long-known facts of observation, explaining so much of what has remained mysterious about the known facts of observation, and how this insight leads to new discoveries in the biological field (blood picture, new platelet type: regulators). Dr. Maier's paper shows how the methodology of physical research as set out in anthroposophy makes it possible to uncover major errors in previous research, and how it is thus possible to learn to experiment without bias in order to grasp the facts as they really are. Dr. Maier's essay is an example of how anthroposophy makes life practical by showing that what it contains about physical research can be applied in practice and has been shown to be correct.

We are aware that our endeavors are met with many prejudices on the part of most scientists today, especially the influential ones. However, we believe that the power of the observed facts we have researched must and will ultimately break all resistance. The anthroposophical members can help us a great deal in fulfilling our task. Even if we are met with more general interest, we feel that this is beneficial to our work, but in particular, the anthroposophical members can help us a great deal by drawing attention to our publications among their acquaintances and by ensuring that these publications also become known to wider circles. We trust that scientists who are less involved with the local scientific establishments will more readily recognize our most essential aim than others, and that they too will be furthered by our publications for anthroposophy itself, namely by the systematic work that undermines the prejudice that anthroposophy is not scientific. The Scientific Research Institute has been given tasks by Dr. Steiner, including personal advice on how to carry them out. The solution of these tasks is the focus of our efforts. In the future, we will devote even more of our energy to them than we have in the past.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Lecture on Anthroposophy and Science

The scientific movement has to work on overcoming two barriers, one inward and the other outward. So far, this scientific movement has not been able to assert itself in the right way in either direction. Just as the educational movement and eurythmy have succeeded in expressing the universal human element in such a way that large circles are won over to it with a certain matter-of-factness, so too the scientific movement, if it is to succeed, must be conceived for the wide circle of people who today long for a renewal of science.

But now it must be said that it has not been possible to make oneself understood among today's scientists. We have not found the language to use with them that would have given our endeavors a natural recognition. This will only be possible if, on the one hand, a practical phenomenology emerges, that is, experimental investigations that speak for themselves, and, on the other hand, comprehensive overviews of the execution of our fruitful ideas are presented to the world, which must gain recognition by themselves. Above all, the most modern form of science must be dealt with much more, and we must adhere to the basic attitude of spiritual science: that the validity of today's natural science in the fields accessible to it is unreservedly recognized and at the same time it is shown how spiritual science provides the continuation of natural scientific ideas everywhere. Then no unfruitful polemics will arise, but we shall succeed in creating, also in the field of science, an intermediate layer of people who, without belonging to the Anthroposophical Society, recognize the results of our research as something important and significant.

Internally, however, it is necessary to develop the science to such an extent that it is completely imbued with the anthroposophical spirit. It must not get stuck in the subject-specific. Much harm has been done by carrying into the branches what has not been fully reworked, what is specialized in nature. In many cases, anthroposophy has been reduced to physics, chemistry, etc., instead of founding anthroposophical physics and chemistry, etc. In the past, good anthroposophical work had been done in the branches and groups. At that time, the scientific aspect was still not sufficiently included. Today it should be possible for the individual friends who work in the various scientific fields with the help of anthroposophy to completely transform the results into anthroposophy and thus return them to the work in the Anthroposophical Society. We have seen from the way in which Dr. Steiner has dealt with the most difficult problems of the individual sciences in anthroposophical lectures over the years, and how he still deals with them today, for example, in his Dornach lectures, that in this form, scientific work is no longer perceived and effective as a specialized scientific work, but as something that is generally meaningful for humanity. If this reworking of science does not happen, then, on the contrary, anthroposophical work will be destroyed. Only when our scientists work towards overcoming the subject-specific in their inner work and towards speaking about science in a truly anthroposophical way, can the gulf be overcome that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the time of the Congress of Vienna and at The Hague, the gulf that exists between the scientific movement and Anthroposophy in the narrower sense. Then the scientists can give back to the mother of anthroposophy what they owe to her.

For its part, the Anthroposophical Society has a wide range of tasks in relation to the scientific movement. The achievements in the field of science must come to be known and appreciated by the entire membership. There should be real enthusiasm, for example, for something like our friend Dr. v. Baravalle's book on “The Pedagogy of Mathematics and Physics”. They should know it, know what it means for pedagogy and science, etc. The new leadership will make it their task to ensure that the membership is truly aware of all the achievements within our movement. Because if there is no awareness in our society of what is being worked on in our research institutes, what our scientists are working on in general, what has been achieved, how is it supposed to be known outside? Correct knowledge will also prevent these scientific endeavors from being presented and represented to the outside world in an incomprehensible way.

The task at hand is for our scientific staff to direct their research with the greatest energy towards the enormous range of problems and suggestions that Dr. Steiner has provided over the past few years. Each of these problems, when properly investigated, leads to significant results that are of general human interest in terms of knowledge and practical effectiveness. There are countless tasks here that must now finally be tackled vigorously.

It has often been said that an artistic element must enter into science. Take, for example, the doctrine of the threefold nature of the human organism. One cannot approach it without an artistic-scientific view of the human being. When one experiences, for example, the constant struggle that takes place in the human being between the sense-nervous system, which is senile, dying, mineralized, and carries the germs of death, and the metabolic system, which is youthful, surviving, and resists this, and how the rhythmic system brings about a harmonious balance, then this can only be done by grasping the concepts artistically and imaginatively. As a physician or teacher, one then experiences the human being as nature's most powerful work of art. We must come to the point where we, as scientists, as physicists, as chemists, as physicians, can ultimately speak in concrete terms of the spiritual beings that are behind the external phenomena. Then, when we immerse ourselves in such a scientific-artistic element, we also find the bridge to truly religious feeling everywhere. If we succeed in leading science to the center of anthroposophy, if we talk about it in our anthroposophical branches and carry such a kind of science to the outside world, that we speak from an attitude as it has been characterized here, so that we do not repel what today longs for a renewal of science through anthroposophy, then the scientific movement will not be a foreign body within society, either internally or externally, but will fit harmoniously into the framework of our movement.

Dr. Herbert Hahn, Stuttgart: Lecture on The Relationship of the Anthroposophical Society to the Movement for Religious Renewal.

In September 1922, a movement came into being that wanted to receive the counsel of spiritual science and took responsibility for the effects of this counsel from the very beginning. This movement is dedicated to the work of religious renewal. It experiences as its essential task to carry the Christ impulse, which is progressing in time, in pure forms to many souls. But if it wants to fulfill this task properly, if it wants to serve the moral recovery of religious forces, then it can claim an anthroposophical understanding in the deepest sense.

What it encountered at the beginning of its development, however, was an insufficiently deep and warm understanding. It was often met with a false understanding or a lack of will to understand on the part of individuals who were striving for anthroposophy but did not fully live up to anthroposophical responsibility. In particular, the working groups of the Anthroposophical Society failed to recognize the significance of the religious revival movement in a way that would have allowed them to establish a clear and confident relationship with that movement in an independent manner.

In a Dornach lecture, Dr. Steiner had to use words that already referred to an existing emergency, which carried the necessary clarification. But since the method of philological nitpicking was applied in many cases to the words spoken by Dr. Steiner, which were neglected by the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society, instead of penetrating to their own root-fresh realization, a state of emergency remained in many circles.

However, an interesting examination of the nature of the religious renewal movement can show that anthroposophists can have a warm understanding for the task of this movement because anthroposophy in Rudolf Steiner's life's work made a religious renewal that was called for by the times possible in all essential points. The religious renewal was able to draw on the content of anthroposophy. Anthroposophy was able to play a creative role in the forms that the religious renewal movement wanted to adopt from its own research. Only through anthroposophical spiritual work could the religious renewal movement be brought forth in its present form.

This can be seen in detail. While the dispute over the meaning of the word continued to grow in Protestant theology, and while the view of the letter as handed down became increasingly rigid in Catholic theology, anthroposophy led to a new understanding of the gospel. What would a religious renewal movement be without these references to the gospel? It would be condemned to complete sterility. But when a number of younger, mainly Protestant theologians approached Dr. Steiner seeking advice on religious renewal, one of the most beautiful proofs of the fruitfulness of anthroposophy in the religious sphere was the fact that the founder of spiritual science had already accumulated treasures of new gospel knowledge in comprehensive lecture cycles. Cycles about the individual gospels and the relationship of the gospels to each other. While theology became barren in relation to the gospel experience, anthroposophy brought forth a new spring of gospel life. This could inspire confidence in drawing from anthroposophy, confidence in invoking anthroposophy as a creator.

But how could trust in religious new creation be cultivated if not all perception of religious life pushed towards a true grasp of the Christ-being, finding its center in a true grasp of the Christ-being? At a time when the conception of the personality of Jesus of Nazareth had become a controversial historical problem, Rudolf Steiner proved Christianity as a mystical fact. He uncovered the powers of love for creative, moral deeds in the depths of the soul and, in the transformation of soul forces, in the reciprocal purification of thinking and willing, grasped the transforming Christ impulse in the realm of his own freedom. The Philosophy of Freedom, experienced as a living, breathing book, was and is a preparation for a new Christ-revelation. For only in the realm of freedom can the Christ impulse reveal itself today. Anything that denies freedom or cannot establish it, and yet calls itself Christian, is today abusing the name of Christianity. Dr. Steiner led to the harrowing experience of a convincing revelation of Christianity in the consciousness and in the history of the new awakenings of moral life that the I has fought for. And in his anthroposophical life's work, he showed how human history in the large is enlightened in the preparation and in the archetypal expression of the ego-strengthening sacrificial forces that were offered in the mystery of Golgotha. Here, in a twofold way, the possibility was established for a re-creation of religious cult. It could be raised to the level of the son-experience that is being sought everywhere at the present time, and it could be brought to the consciousness of the individual in forms so imbued with freedom that they alone can be grasped by this consciousness today. Where else in our time could anything have unfolded a productivity in the realm of true cultic forms? Does not all striving in this area result in a pale, impoverished reformism, which, through its weakness, only strengthens the suggestive power of outdated forms? From the supra-historical, omnipresent Christ-experience of Anthroposophy, a movement for religious renewal was able to draw strength and form. Thus it was also allowed to invoke Anthroposophy as a creator.

But all experiences of cultic forms today fail because of a fundamental discrepancy. The modern human being experiences a becoming in the transformation of inner, moral forces. He experiences a destroying and passing away in the transformation of physical earth and world forces. One does not meaningfully fit into the other; the darkness of material death today draws all moral-religious life into its abyss. Cult and pastoral care are no longer possible in the face of this gaping chasm in the consciousness of the most honest people. Anthroposophy, which was called upon to convincingly speak of the sanctifying entry of Christ into the substance of the earth, imbued all earthly processes with morality. It truly raised the chemical experimental table to the altar. In this way, however, it was able to create the foundations anew so that the world-significant, soul-renewing change experienced on the altar of cultic connections would be grasped by real devotional forces in the heart. Thus she could and may be invoked as a creator, in order to prove herself as a bridge-builder across the rift in the consciousness of the times and of the individual.

We experience anthroposophy as the creative mother of the religious renewal movement in four essential ways. Those who recognize this understand that anthroposophy itself contains a primary source of religious life. It does not need to look for it outside of its own being. But because it experiences the coming together of the rings of freedom and the sacrifices of freedom in the effect of grace in all religious experience, it also honors and loves the forces of freedom and grace imparted by its daughter movement. It assigns the Anthroposophical Society the inner duty of watchfully supporting those who want to bring religious renewal into the world. She gives it the strength to lovingly receive those who, through religious renewal, have matured to enter into Anthroposophy.

The religious renewal movement is walking the path of its own spiritual responsibility. It works out of anthroposophical strength. But it does not work for anthroposophy when it conveys the fruits of anthroposophy to a world hungry for a new Christ-healing.

The Anthroposophical Society can become one of the instruments of the anthroposophical movement, which in turn is walking a path of the highest and most comprehensive responsibility of its own. It may only bear its name if it embodies the whole human being. Religious humanism is an important revelation of the nature of the whole human being. Anthroposophy, which created the religious renewal movement, seeks to awaken the primal gifts of religious power in anthroposophical life through constant new creation for the sake of the truth of its name. Herein lie the roots of a natural and good relationship between the Anthroposophical Society and the religious renewal movement.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Presentation on the “Association for Anthroposophical School of Spiritual Science Work”

The School of Spiritual Science Association, which I will report on first, is also one of the institutions that was founded after that year 1918, which was so significant for our movement. What is the significance of this year? This was the question that kept coming to my mind, even when it was my responsibility to reflect on the Hochschulbund in preparation for this conference. In this year, the significance of which for our movement Dr. Steiner has repeatedly pointed out recently, the independent will of the members of our movement for the affairs of external social work was first awakened. But this expression of will was still half instinctive. It was not yet possible to realize one's own intuitions in the sense of the “Philosophy of Freedom.” Therefore, Dr. Steiner was repeatedly asked for advice. In the course of time, Dr. Steiner showed ever more clearly and distinctly how his goal could only be to have free people around him. He gave advice to those who were still unfree, so that they could increasingly come to realize ideas that had been grasped by themselves. Thus, since 1918, the task that the Society gradually faced has been the same as that which it faces today: to guide and lead itself. But this is the task of human beings in the age of the consciousness soul. Thus, since 1918, the task of the Society and the task of the times have grown together. And the crisis that our Society is going through today is a reflection of the great crisis of the times, which has been brought about by the conflict between two ages. The old age of the Greco-Latin cultural epoch has not yet faded away. Long ago, the Starry Scripture in the heavens proclaimed the new spirit of the age. But it has not yet been able to fight its way into the world. The spirit of intellectuality of a bygone epoch still prevails, and the spirit of the new spiritual age is still fighting for its entry. And that must be so. For the age of the consciousness soul cannot be completely victorious through the writing in the heavens, through the will of the gods, but only when the will of man makes itself a fellow-fighter of the will of the gods, because men, in their freedom, grasp what only they can realize as their very own decision.

Look at France. There an offshoot of the Latin-Roman current of peoples and times is fighting. It is a dying nation, physically dying out and tearing itself apart by mixing its blood with that of the lower-standing black races. It is a nation that, as if abandoned by the guidance of spiritual beings that otherwise guide nations, carries out actions that are carried out in absentmindedness. But this acting in the absence of the spirit is only expressed more strongly because it makes use of more powerful means. But it is a symptom of the times. The same thing is happening in all fields. A spirit of the age whose epoch has expired still clutches people and, while it itself becomes aware of it, leads people into spiritless actions. It is time for people to awaken their own spirit, because the spirit of the spiritual age will only be able to guide the awakened.

This great world-historical event also played a role in our movement. Let me show you this with a personal example. I joined the movement in 1913. I was one of those who pushed towards anthroposophy because they could not bear the university. There I ran out of breath. There was no spiritual air for living. Everything was dead. And the great minds seemed to belong to the past and were rotting in libraries. But I was looking for life for my science, which I loved. What did I care about the Anthroposophical Society? Not it, but my science was close to my heart. I felt that science and philosophy had reached a point beyond which they could not advance by themselves. Then I found anthroposophy. I was determined to get to know it thoroughly. That's why I came to Munich. An older member received me. I said: “I have come to build a bridge between anthroposophy and science.” “That has already happened,” said the member, ‘you are too late.’ So I had come for the sake of science. But now I wanted to see the mystery plays. ‘Only members are allowed to see them,’ I was told. I was not a member and did not want to become one. I turned to Dr. Steiner. Yes, that was correct – the Mystery Dramas were only open to members. But he suggested that I could become a member for the day of the performance and resign the next day. I agreed. So I was at the performance. Afterwards Dr. Steiner came up to me and asked: “Well, Mr. Stein, how did you enjoy yourself?” I said: “I am no longer an idiot like yesterday — and I am no longer resigning from the society either.” So I became a member of the society. It is symptomatic. The one who had come to build a bridge between science and anthroposophy had been won over by the Mystery Dramas. As I said, this was symptomatic. For it was the same with the others who came after me. Dr. Roman Boos and we, who belonged to that generation that could not stand it at the universities, wanted to carry anthroposophy into the lecture halls. This was to be done by means of an appeal that was sent out to German students in the fall of 1920. Dr. Steiner had, of course, spoken to students in the auditorium of the Technical University in Stuttgart about “Spiritual Science, Natural Science and Technology” in response to a request from students. In July 1920, following this lecture, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Werner Rosenthal sent drafts of an appeal to friends in Breslau, Freiburg i. Br., Hamburg, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Leipzig, Munich and Tübingen. Many other versions were received. Finally, we in Stuttgart processed all the suggestions into the appeal that was then sent out. This appeal was very strongly worded. Since none of the so-called leading personalities really followed it up with action, it brought us a great deal of opposition but no positive gain. Above all, the university lecturers were turned into opponents. It was a mistake to believe that anthroposophy had to be brought into the lecture halls. Science should be fertilized by anthroposophy. What was needed was not polemics but the further development of science. But it was too early for that. We were unable to renew science at that time. And the young people? Did they want science spruced up with anthroposophy? No. They wanted anthroposophy. But we did not recognize that at the time. I myself had come to the Mystery Dramas, not to Anthroposophy. But this went unnoticed. The gap grew ever wider between those who wanted to carry Anthroposophy into the lecture halls and the youngest generation, who sought Anthroposophy itself. It is only now that it has become clear to me that we ourselves did not want anything other than Anthroposophy. That is why I believe that we, the somewhat older generation, the “lecturers” of the university courses - and whatever all the events are called - will now really find ourselves with the youth. Because something was living in me, too, although I did not recognize it. That was the tragedy, that was our fault, that we had inaugurated a movement that then petered out. Dr. Steiner held scientific courses in the expectation that those who had requested them would process what was given. Only now is it happening. Dr. Hermann von Baravalle is working on optics, on thermodynamics; others are working on other things. All kinds of working groups have formed. Linguists, educators and architecture students have come together. Mr. Lehrs will speak to you about the future of our youth. I only wanted to draw your attention to the historical moment, to the storm of contemporary history that also burst into our movement in 1918. Let us consciously experience this storm so that it becomes a roar that awakens the tongues of fire that speak the language that everyone, young and old, understands.

End 11 p.m..

Morning Session

Mr. Leinhas opened the meeting by asking the participants to express their congratulations to Dr. Steiner on his birthday by rising from their seats.

Dr. Steiner thanked them.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, then pointed out the abundance of wisdom, beauty and strength that Dr. Steiner had poured out over the Society in two decades of his work, but how the Society itself had lagged behind the development of anthroposophy and how its leadership in particular had lacked a guiding hand. He emphasized that there could be no excuse for the tasks that arise from the development of the matter. The criticism that had been expressed at the meeting so far was not new to those concerned, nor had it always been very polite, but the fact that there was criticism at all to such an extent was a sign that the leadership lacked a skilled hand and that it had not been able to establish an atmosphere of trust. But trust in the leadership is the basic prerequisite for their work. He hopes that the leading personalities in society will gain the strength to fulfill their difficult task out of a real insight into their powerlessness, out of their love for the anthroposophical cause and out of their love for Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: Lecture on “Youth Movement and Anthroposophy”

During the members' meeting at the Stuttgart conference in the fall of 1921, Dr. Steiner said: “A representative of the youth movement has spoken! There are a good number of student representatives here, my dear friends! The fact that members of such movements or such bodies have come to our Anthroposophical Society is something we must regard as epoch-making within the history of our anthroposophical movement!” At that time, many a young person's heart beat faster and an overwhelming feeling moved his hands to applause. And yet it was only more hopes and expectations that moved him. But now the time has come for anthroposophical youth to announce what they believe they have found, so that they can help develop anthroposophical life.

For a little over a year, an increasing number of young people have become more and more aware of something that spontaneously led them to turn first against the Bund für anthroposophische Hochschularbeit (BAH), of which they were largely members themselves. They had the experience of meeting young people who revealed a completely new soul state and tremendous future forces, but who could not relate to anthroposophy as they found it. And while some wanted to continue shaping things in a way that corresponded to the forces they themselves brought with them, the gaze of others was increasingly directed towards the not yet actively working forces in the young people they encountered and in their own hearts, and they felt the obligation to help what was germinating in them and around them so that it could truly practise anthroposophy. And while what had once been a thoroughly contemporary attempt to bring anthroposophy into the lecture halls had become an exclusionary slogan in the School of Spiritual Science, that youth had to set out to bring anthroposophy into young people's hearts. This is how Dr. Steiner himself recently put it.

How was it that even in the ranks of his own college federation there was so little understanding for what was being striven for here? The reason was that two generations were confronting each other in it. And that is no wonder. For if one has a sense of the furious pace of soul development in the present day, one experiences that the generations soon replace each other semester by semester! The older of the two generations bore the tragedy that Dr. Stein points out in his report, where he describes how he and his friends came to Anthroposophy, burdened with the whole spirit of the past. And that is truly the contrast between these two generations. The younger generation came not only without this oppressive burden, but as if with a sucking nothing on their shoulders! But how much more this contrast must still be evident between these young people and the older generations of the Anthroposophical Society in general!

When you let older anthroposophists tell you about their path to anthroposophy, when you try to relive their youth, you feel how this youth was still lived in a spiritual and soulful self-evidence. It was still embedded in traditions from all sides, and it was only out of a certain, more vague yearning that they turned to anthroposophy. But with today's youth, it is no longer a yearning, no longer a pleading for spirit, but a terrible begging for spirit, from the depths of utter nothingness! All the capital of wisdom on which humanity has lived since time immemorial has been exhausted. No knowledge helps it more than one that it acquires itself in every moment: it is truly a proletariat in the spirit! Thus there is no possibility for them to build bridges from the past spiritual life into the future, but out of nothing they have to build a new foundation in the future itself, from which the bridge arches can then be built backwards.

So this youth comes to strive for nothing but pure anthroposophy itself. They want to live anthroposophy in such a way that they want to make the morality in it a reality, an action, in every respect. And only from there does it want to work its way into the more specialized forms of spiritual life. In this, however, it believes that it can find immediate understanding, especially among older anthroposophists. Older people often come to me and say: “I often meet incredibly well-educated people who prove all sorts of things against anthroposophy. You young people, especially you students, don't have it so hard. But what am I to do as a simple, naive old anthroposophist?” And then I was able to fill such people with joyful amazement when, precisely out of the attitude of us young people, I told them: ”It doesn't help at all to prove anthroposophy out of the intellect against the intellect. That is why I prefer to leave all my university studies aside and try to lead the other person in their concepts to the point where they begin to become moral – which unfortunately in many cases means immoral. Because what is needed first is for people to stop shirking the moral consequences of their intellectual concepts!

But does this attitude not throw all the scientific endeavors in the anthroposophical movement overboard? Yes, is it not perhaps even right that this is happening? Not at all! On the contrary! The Anthroposophical Society is still far from realizing the responsibility it has to work to ensure that science, art and religion truly become one again. Many an older anthroposophist thinks, what does present-day science have to do with him in his quest for pure anthroposophy! But he has no inkling of the terrible force with which the thinking activity of present-day science alone compels the soul to be immoral in its most original activities. The result is a paralysis of the soul forces in the interaction between scientists, between scientists and students, and between students themselves, which has a devastating effect on the social existence of human beings. And this is the case in all the sciences, from mathematics to the social sciences. But the most dangerous thing about it is that it happens all the time, and the souls themselves do not even notice it, and in the end they are too paralyzed to be able to do anything about it. And this nightmare becomes so terrible that some people, who would actually be the most qualified to work out of new strength on the new, when they have finally awakened, groan: “I can no longer do otherwise!”

It is therefore important to show the coming generation a new path in science from the outset. This generation, of which the well-known pedagogue Eduard Spranger already says that it will only recognize a science in which it finds satisfaction for its ethical humanity; a generation that will call out Goethe's words to today's science via Kant's philosophy: “I feel no improvement in anything!”

But why do the members of the Anthroposophical Society still believe on average that they have no task of their own in this? Because the word “science” forces them to make an analogy to today's valid science. But from the whole description of the nothingness in which the present and future youth stand, one can actually feel compelled to call the new not “science” but “skill”!

But how can every true anthroposophist contribute to it? Yes, it is clear from all that has been said that it can only build on the most everyday awareness of the spiritual itself. And where does this most manifestly meet us? In the other person's 'you'. As we were quietly struggling behind the scenes of the Vienna Congress to shape these impulses for the first time, Dr. Steiner called out to us in his branch lecture there: Anthroposophical science does not lead to brotherhood, but it itself can only arise out of brotherhood. And it is precisely this that the youth have striven for more and more in the course of these months: this conscious collaboration of I and You. On the other hand, however, this is an extremely difficult task for young people alone. Because to experience the right sense of 'you' requires a great deal of wisdom, which an older person can gain from their life experience. And here we would like to reach out to people in the Anthroposophical Society who can help us. Because we feel that we are powerless to accomplish the task of experiencing the sense of 'you' with our life experience alone. However, a life experience, as it is usually the case with old age today, that constantly throws itself at your feet like a block, grinning as it does so, speaking of shattered illusions, of worn-out ideals of youth, we do not need that! But anthroposophy can certainly teach old age to transform experiences into wisdom.

But such a science has yet another important task, other than offering young people who are striving scientifically the possibility of a dignified path for the soul or protecting them from wandering around with their guitar in the fields, woods and meadows, only to become philistines after all, or to carry out social housing experiments purely out of sentiment. And this other task arises from the fact that the best among today's proletarians have actually grown tired of all socialist theories, all party programs, all the pseudo-science of adult education. Thinking has been compromised for them! And they are beginning to say something that is actually quite Russian: “Now we want to start just living. Life will regulate itself. With all our thinking, we have only constantly disturbed it!” But with that, they make themselves all the more easy prey to the only thing that has fully awakened humanity today: hard, cold, killing, unfeeling thinking. We cannot make any further progress unless we counter this thinking with a different kind of thinking. And so it is imperative that our new science should restore confidence in thinking to all these people.

But only anthroposophy can provide the basis for such a science. For although Nietzsche, on whose brilliant critique of educational institutions in the 1870s Dr. Steiner often referred to in his recent lectures, could only arrive at one nebulous experience of nature and at a return to the last culture to be based on a cosmic world view, the Hellenic culture. Only anthroposophy provides a context for all spiritual and physical processes in heaven and on earth that can be grasped by contemporary thinking. the human being; they will only fan out in relation to the study of the connection between the human being in all its details and all the natural and social phenomena around him. But the saying that Dr. Steiner often used about his spiritual research — everyone can understand it, but to research it, you need the organs of the spirit — will apply equally to the new science. In this science, the specialist will only have the research ahead of the layman, but not the understanding. It will carry its popularity within itself; but it cannot be understood at all by a modern university professor! We have two great examples of this: Goethe's Theory of Colours and Dr. Steiner's Key Points of the Social Question.

And how can such science now be created in a concentrated and intensive way, as the needs of the time imperatively demand? How can we find even enough future co-workers for this? Only by working on a common project, a new Free University! As long as we always appear before young people in the outer world and our words culminate in: “We would like” — ‘we could’ — ‘we should have to’, then we will mostly only awaken interest that soon wanes. But we will be able to work quite differently if we can point to this place, as it were. So the creation of such a Free University is just as much an ardent wish for us as it was for the older Waldorf students to hear. And this could be a sacred task in which all generations of the Anthroposophical Society could work together. It is only natural that we young people, out of this, what is so close to our hearts, and out of a purely human perspective at first, and only then into the specialization of spiritual life, want to reach out to the hands of the entire Anthroposophical Society. As a result of our experiences, we had been led by the 'Stuttgart system' to oppose the entire Anthroposophical Society. However, we have since gained a keen interest in the organization of the Anthroposophical Society and we have learned that it cannot be our demand: 'Reorganize the Anthroposophical Society for our benefit!' Instead, we must help with our best efforts to reorganize it! For we have experienced how we are nothing without the forces of the Anthroposophical Society, just as, on the other hand, we believe with a certain self-confidence that the Anthroposophical Society is nothing without us and the coming generations. But we ask the older friends to do what we younger ones, who come from nothing as beggars for the spirit, take for granted: to look with us at the people growing towards us, so that every metamorphosis of anthroposophy, however unexpected it may be, can be lived out in the Anthroposophical Society.

If we work together in such a common consciousness of shared love for the task of humanity, combining the originality of youth with the qualities of old age, then from now on into the future we will do something that not only can make good what has been lost, that not only can reorganize the Anthroposophical Society, not only create an organization of the spiritual, but that can achieve something that is like a plant, that is a germ for the future at every moment, that is immortal from an eternal “die and become” and from which infinite joy and infinite tasks can grow for all of us.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, asks that a committee be formed to create a Free University and calls for donations.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg: Lecture on “The Opposition” [see references]

For years, the anthroposophical movement has had to defend itself against the attacks of individual opponents. Only recently has the movement been forced to reckon with a united opposition. The unity of this opposition is permeated by internal structure: the whole of traditional intellectual life, differentiated within itself, rises up against anthroposophy and its creator.

The onslaught of this material phenomenon can only be countered methodically. Not by refuting the writings of the opponents – the enemies should have their convictions and worldviews; for differentiation is the prerequisite for the development of human spiritual life – but by methodically and unreservedly characterizing the “how” of the opponents' way of fighting.

It is in the interest of all people that the great cultural struggles, which inevitably arise at the turning points of development, do not fall outside the field in which they originate: the spiritual field. If an opponent uses subhuman or even criminal means, then the very existence of every human being is thereby fundamentally challenged.

A methodical examination of the way the entire opposition fights convincingly reveals the evil means they use in their attack on anthroposophy and its creator. All opponents present an inadequate picture of the object of their disagreement. What they present as “Anthroposophy” on the basis of a superficial study of only some of the spiritual-scientific works or even after a superficial glance at the opponents' writings is in most cases nothing more than a caricature of Anthroposophy. They popularize this self-created spectre, which they fight against.

In constructing this scheme, all the tricks of the basest journalism come into play: false or distorted quotation, reproduction of shocking facts taken out of context, suggestive influence on the reader through the form and presentation of the writings, lies, slander, forgery, imputation of absurdities, etc. These recurring phenomena can be categorized according to the individual opponents' groups.

The intrinsic weakness and hollowness of the opponents' literary output is revealed in a fourfold contradiction, which can be demonstrated with exact evidence. (1) the individual writings contradict themselves; (2) they contradict each other; (3) the individual groups of opponents contradict each other; and (4) the uniformly conceived opposition of the entire opposition to the adequately grasped anthroposophy is untenable. It dissolves in itself. It can be shown that the opposition, through its own testimony, is spiritually self-destructing in this fourfold contradiction.

But method can prevail not only in the defense against the enemy's attack, but also in the way the anthroposophical movement brings enlightenment about the perfidious opposition to its contemporaries.

The contemporary who has resigned himself to all knowledge of truth is increasingly skeptical and indifferent towards the content of literary works. Even the content of polemical writings is beginning to leave him cold. But he can still be stirred by aesthetic means. Therefore, protective writings for the anthroposophical movement should be shaped by artists, should be works of art that appeal to the will through their form and to the feelings through their imagery. Only in this way can interest be kindled for the content of such writings. Today it is important to appeal not only to the intellect, but directly to the whole person. To create such a literary defense, therefore, a society must be called upon that has such an unspeakably precious possession to defend as the anthroposophical one; it must do so all the more energetically, as it has neglected its duties in this regard for years. Today, the Anthroposophical Society has a vital interest in an organized defense. Every anthroposophist who is serious about his worldview is called upon to take part in this defensive struggle. In this struggle, the lukewarm and half-hearted will be separated from those who are truly of good will.

The meeting was then suspended at noon. To be continued at 2 p.m.

Opening by the chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, at 2 p.m.

Several speakers report on the agenda. However, since they speak about matters that are to be discussed later, they are interrupted by the chairman.

Dr. Karl Heyer, Stuttgart: Presentation on the “Bund für freies Geistesleben”

The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for Free Spiritual Life), which is to be discussed here from the point of view of the Anthroposophical Society, has its basis in the fact that there are numerous people today who, although they do not want to have anything to do with the Anthroposophical Society at first, have a keen interest in what has emerged from anthroposophy in the most diverse areas of life. The Federation should consciously address itself to them. In this way, for example, study groups for certain fields (such as physics, economics, education, theology, etc.) could be brought into being. This would make it possible to form a group of people who would form a kind of intermediate layer between the Anthroposophical Society and the “outside world”. Such an intermediate layer, which is particularly necessary in the interest of the Anthroposophical Society, is lacking today. It would be able to discuss anthroposophy in an appropriate way and also develop a healthy, appropriate judgment of the opposition to anthroposophy. Above all, it is essential that anyone who can have such an effect on the outside world also has the will to do so. Experience also shows that it is in the interest of a proper public discussion of anthroposophy that new non-anthroposophical associations have lectures on anthroposophy given by anthroposophists, and our friends can do a lot in this regard. The League will try to find speakers if possible. Another point: the German people are in danger of becoming more and more estranged from the foundations of their own nature. Pointing to this nature, as interpreted by thinkers such as Fichte and the Goetheanists, would be one of the noblest tasks of a League for a Free Spiritual Life, which would at the same time lay the groundwork for anthroposophy rooted in German spiritual life. The League can become the source of a healthy formation of judgment on all questions of contemporary socio-cultural life. Such a formation of judgment is sorely lacking in the present day. It can and must be gained from anthroposophy. By working in this direction, for example in the field of folk psychology, the League will at the same time bear witness to the fertility of anthroposophical world knowledge. When the Federation advocates the liberation of the spiritual life from the state and the economy, and in particular the founding of independent schools, it is serving both a general necessity of the times and the anthroposophical movement, which cannot achieve its full social impact without an independent spiritual life. For all these and many other tasks, the Federation needs the cooperation of active individuals. It itself can be nothing other than the sum total of those who want to work actively in this or similar ways. The Federation is not served by local groups that only exist on paper and which are formed by members of the Anthroposophical Society who then do nothing other than what they were already doing as a branch. But if anyone wants to work in the way suggested, I would ask them to get in touch with us, stating the area of work. If we succeed in making the Federation a living and growing organism, then through it the organism of trust that we want to establish within the Anthroposophical Society will extend out into the world, and we will be able to overcome the isolation in which our Society finds itself in relation to the world.

For the following discussion, speaking time is limited to ten minutes. The chairman, Mr. Leinhas, asks that we now speak positively. A procedural debate is interrupted.

Dr. Rudolf Toepel, Komotau, proposes that a new executive council be elected.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner: This assembly has come together to decide on the fate of the Society. And it is really necessary that the individual participants become aware of the importance of the moment. The Anthroposophical Society is certainly not a bowling club. It is therefore out of the question to come to the Anthroposophical Society with the pretension that a board of directors should now be elected before the circumstances as they now exist have been thoroughly discussed. That is something you might do in a bowling club, but not in the Anthroposophical Society, where continuity is above all necessary. It can only be a matter of this meeting being brought to a close by those who were the leading personalities in Stuttgart. How this can be discussed at this moment, in particular, is beyond me. We would descend into utter chaos if motions such as Dr. Toepel's were to be put forward at such a time. Such motions can only be made if the intention is to blow the whole meeting apart.

Dr. Toepel's motion was rejected.

Mr. Erwin Horstmann, Breslau, wishes to make positive proposals. The Free Anthroposophical Youth in Breslau has realized something according to the principle that where ten can live, the eleventh can also be maintained. He proposes that those who wish to devote themselves entirely to this should make 5 percent of their income available to the movement, and wishes to make a signed commitment.

Count Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz, Vienna: When one hears that the fate of the Society is being decided and that the Goetheanum as a matter of humanity is at stake, a sense of unease is bound to arise, and it is understandable if one cannot cope with the time. We need to find something that will enable consolidation. He then reports on how Austria has reacted to the situation. They said to themselves that something had to be done, that the board had failed, so a new leadership had to be established. They had decided to form a circle of trust where people could come together in regular meetings. Then personalities will emerge. The neighboring circles will then communicate with each other. Similar to Vienna, where the two branches have established a connection.

Mr. Martin Münch, Berlin: The Anthroposophical Society has no statutes, but a draft of principles. We should found an Anthroposophical Society that is committed to these principles. To do that, we need trusted individuals who are recognized. In Berlin there was a circle of trust that functioned, namely the youth movement. Here is a lesson in how to do it, because the leadership has not appointed and confirmed any trusted individuals. When admitting members, it should not stop at the registration desk. The introductory courses should not be the responsibility of the branches; we need helper groups to welcome the new members. The central committee must know who is giving the introductory courses. It is a test of the people in Stuttgart. If nothing had happened in Stuttgart, then no mistakes would have been made. He points out that the signatories of the appeal are present and that nothing should be allowed to be demolished, but that the matters must be continued. The committee of nine could be seen as something that can remain in place.

Dr. Robert Wolfgang Wallach, Stuttgart, says that he sees the essence of what Lehrs has said. The most important question in this is to establish the right relationship between older and younger people. So far, this has not been fully achieved in the right sense, because what the older generation wanted to give the younger generation was not what the younger generation was looking for. Young people are not looking for doctrinaire instruction, but for something that arises from what the older generation has worked out.

Mr. Walter Hartwig, Lörrach-Stetten: There has been enough criticism. We need to come up with practical suggestions. The committee should serve as the board for the time being. It could then be expanded to include personalities such as Lehrs and Büchenbacher. It is impossible to figure out who should be in charge in three days. Dr. Steiner is allowed to be critical because he can do better himself. One should try with the personalities of the committee, because they had proven that they had good will. Each group leader knows exactly how difficult it is to gain trust.

Mr. Eugen Storck, Eßlingen: One must not only think about the proletariat, but with it. We need an organization of trust with people from all walks of life. These should not only be thinking people, but also feeling people.

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Stuttgart, again took the “Stuttgart System” as his starting point and characterized it from his own earlier experience. He may be reproached with his own words if they fall into the same mistakes in the religious movement: the know-it-all attitude, the opinion that everything should be done from Stuttgart, while in fact it never comes to that; the unworldliness of isolation; the tendency towards intellectualism without the necessary human warmth; the inadequate leadership of the co-workers in Stuttgart itself. One had to have the greatest concerns about how things would go once Dr. Steiner was no longer physically with us. If the Society gives itself a new leadership, then this leadership must also have a new will, must feel responsible for ensuring that the best life of the whole is guided everywhere, that all the living forces in society are brought into function through help, stimulation and support, that strong slogans for joint work and orientation emanate from Stuttgart. A flexible leadership must be maintained by a trust organization of about twelve outstanding anthroposophists, who above all allow life to flow back from outside. The most important tasks for the near future are: There must be a stronger grasp of the anthroposophical task; there must be a return from intellectualism to Sophia, from specialization to the Anthropos. We must strive for a vibrant community of anthroposophical spirituality. The spiritual wealth of anthroposophy must be communicated much more widely and not just cultivated in a narrow circle, for which experience has led to a number of suggestions. The defense of anthroposophy and its leader must be conducted much more generously. In particular, an unorganized alliance of all decent people who do not want to let anthroposophy be destroyed, but want it to be taken seriously and examined, must be sought. The intermediate layer of those who stand between the anthroposophists and the opponents of anthroposophy must be enlarged. Finally, all the work must be directed towards the youth, then the old will begin to hope again and the enemies will have to suffer.

Mr. Bernhard Behrens, Hamburg, speaks of the necessity of forming strong communities among young people.

Mr. Ulrich Hallbauer, Dipl.-Ing., Hamburg: An organization of trust must be founded on freedom and trust. In the individual cities and working groups, individuals should seek their sphere of activity in a free way. The more diverse, the better. Spiritual scientific work can only be done by the branches. The other areas, especially the professional-scientific, belong outside the branches. In small groups, individual initiative can come into its own. Eurythmy could also be integrated in this way. The individual groups could join together in the community of trusted individuals. This results in larger circles, the union of which could form the board. In addition, the individual groups would have to have a direct link to the center.

Mr. Johannes Pingel, Hamburg, is interrupted after a few sentences.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, as chairman, gives a summary at the end.

End ½5 o'clock.

Evening Session

I. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [with the suggestion to form two societies. See GA 257]

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: We had decided to suggest to you that the discussion be adapted to what was given by Dr. Steiner's lecture. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: Not as a member of the central committee, I would like to take the floor at this moment, after Dr. Steiner has spoken. I would like to ask you, above all, to ask Dr. Steiner to be convinced that I stand before you out of honest will and that I want to seek the way to what is necessary for the future out of honest will. Not only out of honest will but also out of honest love, which I have felt, as far as I could, in my heart for Dr. Steiner and for the Anthroposophical Society. I was given the task of speaking today or tomorrow about eurythmy art for practical reasons and then, in the course of the lecture, I wanted to lead up to what is necessary for the further development of the Society, because I said to myself that there is something in eurythmic art that has always had a positive effect in the anthroposophical sense, but then, from such a field, it is easier to find the way for what needs to be said for the further development of society.

In the course of this presentation, I wanted to come back to the words spoken by Mr. Lehrs this morning; I wanted to come back to Mr. Lehrs' words because they spoke to my heart and moved me deeply. Admittedly, I am one of the old ones who have been in the movement for two decades. But you can believe me when I say that I have a young heart. I feel deeply what has been brought in by the youth, and I can empathize with it, and I want to throw off what has been imposed on me as alien to my nature. I would like to ask Ste, please accept it. Believe me that it is my honest will. Then I would like to mention the other thing that I wanted to say this morning. If it can be granted to me, that it can be understood and taken up by the young friends, I will want to work together in every way, as it was experienced in me, as I believe I can shape it in the future, in a truly anthroposophical sense, as it was put by Dr. Steiner in such a thorough and forceful way. I would like to make this my serious and genuine life's work in the future, and in this sense I would also like to be able to work with young people. But I would not want to see only this as my task. I would also like to be able to work where the old anthroposophists of society are. I want to grow into the Anthroposophical family more than has been possible so far, and make everything our duty and sacred task that we can bring to life out of an honest Anthroposophical will under Dr. Steiner's leadership. Believe me, it is my earnest and most sacred will to seek this. I don't want to make a lot of words about it. I will only say that it is in this sense that I want to seek my task in the future for the further development of the Anthroposophical Society.

I believe, my dear friends, that if we succeed in joining hands with the young and, on the other hand, with that which what was there before the Anthroposophical Society came into existence, and if we want to continue to work hand in hand and heart to heart and believe in the future of the Anthroposophical Society, then I hope that all that has been founded since 1919 as the most diverse institutions can be supported by all. I am firmly convinced that we can then bring the institutions to what they need. If you agree to this heartfelt request, which I can only stammer out, then we will find the way. I would like to say that from the bottom of my heart.

Dr. Unger: I feel obliged to speak from a somewhat different tone and from different backgrounds than what Mr. Uehli has just spoken to you from his heart, because at this moment it is important for me to give an account of what has happened since the time when the foundations were started here in Stuttgart, which then led to the difficulties. We know that these can lead to the downfall of the Anthroposophical Society. What does this mean when we look back at what has happened? Allow me, in this regard, to describe some things that have not yet been expressed in these proceedings. We need to realize the extent to which these foundations are among us as realities, and the extent to which we are able to take responsibility for their existence. I would like to start by saying that in the early years, up until 1918, we had an Anthroposophical Society that was striving to practice Anthroposophy as such. On the one hand, we are dealing with broad circles that are pushing towards the Anthroposophical Society in order to get to know Anthroposophy; but we are also dealing with a Society that has a history. We cannot and must not ignore it. And when we look at the fact that, in consideration of all these foundations, we have sent out the call that we wanted to report on the facts from the most diverse points of view in these negotiations, we encounter a lack of understanding for this fact. If foundations have been set up from Stuttgart that also wanted to serve the anthroposophical movement in their own way, but which took advantage of anthroposophical help, the advice of Dr. Steiner, the burden of Dr. Steiner, it is incumbent upon us to awaken interest in these foundations among all those who are inside the Anthroposophical Society. One could say that the Anthroposophical Society has allowed these foundations to happen... but to awaken interest in these things in people, that is something that we, as the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society, have perhaps not understood. Let us consider what has emerged from this movement in terms of individual, concrete foundations; let us take what has to do with the economic movement: the Society was no longer the same afterwards as it was before. The outside world took a look at what had been done; this led to the formation of opponents, especially in connection with these foundations in the sharpest sense. Therefore, we had to look at the foundations and see what was wrong. The Waldorf School is all right, the “Kommende Tag” is all right in its way; what is not all right are the foundations of the scientific movements. The scientific institutes that have been formed from the resources of the “Coming Day” are not in order because opposition has been formed from the way they are represented. It has not been understood how to keep the anthroposophical spirit so alive in the foundations that they can be expected of the Anthroposophical Society. But this demand has been made, and the question is whether the Anthroposophical Society now wants to continue to live without them or whether it agrees that these institutions dwell in its midst and rightly exist. What has led to this crisis is that we, in a large circle of co-workers of these institutions, were faced with the question: Will we be able to make them healthy enough for the Anthroposophical Society to support them; will we be able to awaken such interest in them as is necessary?

The Committee of Nine, which has been formed, in a sense also represents what is present in such foundations, what is justifiable in their idea, in their approach. The struggles we have fought were to ensure that the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society now also wants to feel responsible for ensuring that something is achieved out of an anthroposophical attitude that can be justified to the outside world. The opponents must not be right. That is what it is about. The institutions are nothing in themselves; they only have significance through the people who work in them, and they want to turn to these people to help carry them. To do this, it is necessary that those working here are truly united in a community. When the new people came here to take over the work, they also took on the obligation to carry it through.

Take the matter of the publishing house. It was founded because we needed a new one. There was already a publishing house, the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, which had grown out of the things that had come about through the Anthroposophical Society itself. But the publishing house of the “Kommenden Tages” was founded, and it first had to be given content. It is a task to awaken interest in this. It is the same with the other things. We have a Clinical-Therapeutic Institute. It must present itself in such a way that it can rightly exist within its own circles.

And now, if we want to be a unified Anthroposophical Society, we must be able to put these undertakings in order. If you have the courage to place your trust in us in this regard, we hope to be able to take the first steps to keep the living, flowing stream that should connect us to society alive. Achieving this goal will be tomorrow's task. It will be the committee's task tomorrow to explain what it intends to do.

Dr. Kolisko: I would like to reiterate the seriousness of the situation. This has not been done adequately by the old central board, by what Dr. Unger and Mr. Uechli said. Dr. Steiner has presented the possibility of a separation of the Society. It seems to me that we should be very clear about what this separation means. We have two groups in the Society. One group is attached to the institutions, the other is not. The latter includes both older members and those of the younger generation who have joined recently. In the past, anthroposophical work was carried out in a wide variety of circles. These members did not feel responsible for the institutions, nor did the young people who have now come out of a yearning for anthroposophy. We are faced with the tragic situation that we have not succeeded in convincing these groups of members that the whole Anthroposophical Society must take an interest in these institutions and support them. It was the fault of the old Central Board that it did not fulfill the task of shaping the whole Society into a unity that supports the institutions. Our departments should serve the purpose of awakening a true interest in the institutions among you. Unfortunately, we did not succeed in achieving this through these departments: they were incomplete. We would have to bury all the hopes we had in such a split society! Be clear about the consequences! The new free society would not take care of these institutions. This is the last moment when we can still come to an understanding, and I believe that it is my duty to speak from this point of view, since I have made all my strength available to these institutions since I have been active in the movement. It was the fault of the old leadership that it did not succeed in winning all members for the institutions. Now a last attempt can still be made to prevent society from having to split. I therefore ask you to be aware that this split would mean the destruction of all these hopes.

Dr. Steiner: I have only one request: you have seen from what has been discussed that tomorrow we have every reason to talk about those things that lead to a kind of consolidation of the society in one form or another. I see no need to talk about such things, which are in order, for example, the lecture on eurythmy.¹ We need to start with the previous central committee briefly setting out its view so that we can move on to something positive. I don't see why we need to talk about things that are in order! Why do we want to fill our time with this and not finally address the things that need to be put in order? I would like to point out this necessity with the perspective that I ask you to consider something tonight or tomorrow and to deal first with what is necessary to reorganize or to create anew.

• 1. This remark refers to Uehlis' statement the previous evening (see page 419) that he had wanted to give a lecture on eurythmy.

Morning Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at 9 am.

Address by Dr. Rudolf Steiner

My dear friends! After the way our meeting went on the first two days, I felt compelled yesterday to give a few guidelines — as I already said: out of my concern for the further course of the negotiations. Because today we have to come to a positive result, and it must not be the case that our dear friends who have traveled to this assembly of delegates leave tonight in the same way as they arrived on Sunday. We must arrive at a positive result. I tried to say what I said based on the reality that emerged from the negotiations. We must always take things as they appear in reality, and our present reality is what emerged from the negotiations over the past two days. We could not come to this meeting with a finished program, because then we would not have needed to meet. Otherwise, some program could have been worked out and sent to each individual, and that would have been the end of it. The point is that these negotiations are to be taken seriously and that every member of this assembly is to have a say through the delegates.

Now it has become clear that, quite apart from smaller groups, two main groups have emerged in the membership and that it is quite hopeless to expect these main groups to agree on an absolutely common program.

I will start with a completely different point to show how things really are. At the beginning of my lecture yesterday, I said: In the two decades of the Anthroposophical Society's life, something has been experienced. The Anthroposophical Society is not something that can be newly founded, something that can be spoken of as it was 15 or 20 years ago. But that is how someone who has only recently joined must speak. That can be extremely good, but it is spoken from a different point of view. I had to experience this life of the Anthroposophical Society from my point of view. And for this experience of mine, the shades that emerged in the last two years were very sharply present. How were they present? You see, my dear friends, when I came to Stuttgart, I met the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society here. That is how the really experienced circumstances had unfolded. When I came here, I came for certain reasons, there were intentions to be carried out, purposes to be carried out. When I spoke here in Stuttgart with someone who had been involved in his work here for many years, then, so to speak, I only needed to press a button and in a few minutes what I had to say was done. They understood me, they knew the needs of the Anthroposophical Society. For example: a Waldorf school teacher is immersed in his subject for a long time, because he was already immersed in education from an anthroposophical point of view before he became a Waldorf school teacher. The mistake was not that I was not understood in Stuttgart – most people assume that. I was understood – it was just that what was understood was not carried out. But that is what is needed. Of course, I do not have the time to explain all this in detail. I will explain why there is no time for that in my lecture today.

So on the one hand, here in Stuttgart, people who are really well informed and strengthened by the experience are immediately understood. In terms of understanding, everything goes like clockwork. These are the old, good members who have developed a kind of intuitive genius for anthroposophical matters. In this respect, everything is in order. And I only had to make the effort to find the committee myself, after weeks of back and forth negotiations, to tell us how it wants to find the bridge from easy understanding to the will! Therefore, my appeal to this committee is to finally tell us what it actually wants.

It was not right, how the essentials were misunderstood. It seemed grotesque to me when, out of complete ignorance of the circumstances, a proposal was put forward that we should now, in the midst of all the unfinished business, start to elect a new central committee. How impossible that is, will be understandable when I now characterize the other party.

You see, the following is quite natural: when I negotiate with someone, be it a group or an individual coming on behalf of a group, at first they understand nothing of what I say. That is quite natural — they understand nothing of it, absolutely nothing! But there is an infinite amount of activity, an infinite amount of goodwill. Anything that has not been understood will be done immediately! The speeches of those coming from outside are imbued with the noblest anthroposophical intentions. But one must grow into the old history, one must become familiar with all the details! And no matter how long these two groups may say to each other: We have the best will to grow together, they will not come together, they will always talk past each other. Do not think that I am only referring to the Youth Group. There are very old members of the Anthroposophical Society who are in the same situation. They do everything I say — but they do what has not been understood. Now we are faced with the truly worrying necessity of nevertheless continuing the Society in absolute inner solidarity and solidity. This can only be done if we find a form for it in which both groupings can flourish; in other words, if the old Anthroposophical Society continues to exist in accordance with our principles, and in such a way that it is led first by the committee of nine, which was not brought about as a mere [*] See note on p. 571.

was brought about not as a mere matter of necessity, but also arose out of historical circumstances. So that which has become historical must be carried forward historically. And the others will form a loose association, regardless of whether they are old or young, ninety-five or fifteen years old, whether they are Waldorf students or senior citizens – they are still members of the Anthroposophical Society – so that they then have an inner esoteric connection according to the karmic connections of these or those members, so to speak. Something definite will come out of this loose association. The group that represents history will have to indicate, from its experiences, which are abundant, what it and each individual wants to do next. But those who form the loose association will initially form this loose association by saying to themselves: We are genuine, true anthroposophists – these are often the youngest ones – and we will now continue to seek a form for our work. They don't need to come to any kind of election or the like right away; they will try to bring their loose association so far that we can then create the binding link between the two.

After our negotiations ended yesterday, I was asked at 12 o'clock [at night] to come to another meeting at Landhausstraße 70. At the end of the meeting, the objection was raised: We have seen that those who represent the old society, which has its leading figures here in Stuttgart, cannot properly relate to the individual institutions and enterprises from an anthroposophical point of view. Those who do not agree with this now, certainly not! If that were the case, these enterprises would be a complete failure and would have no following. I said that if that were the case, then the desirable state would have been reached, because the abstract desire to help is worth nothing. A healthy state will only come about if the enterprises here in Stuttgart – I do not mean this ironically – are left alone with good advice. The mistake made by the departments was that they always talked about the enterprises and not about the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society in relation to the enterprises. The enterprises as such are either in order or not in order. The eurythmy enterprise is in order, the Waldorf school is in order, the Kommende Tag is in order. The Federation for a Free Spiritual Life, however, is not in order. But a federation for a free spiritual life will not be founded out of this assembly; nor, my dear friends, will the two magazines ¹ can be edited by this meeting. The point at issue is that the Stuttgart undertakings must be left alone. One can have confidence in them, and there is no question of the personalities who are in these institutions being tested for trustworthiness. Every day at the Waldorf School, for example, shows that the Waldorf School has excellent leadership. We are here to talk about what the Anthroposophical Society should become in the future. The point is that we proceed in such a positive way - I ask you to discuss my proposal - that all those who can feel: are not connected historically with the time when one only had to press the pen for their joint work within the whole of anthroposophy, will find such a form that has lasting value. Then there will be absolutely no need for the concern, which can be formulated something like this: What will the old Society do with the enterprises if the young do not participate? The loose association will take an interest if – forgive the ugly word – it is organized the way they want it. Then interest will awaken. I would like a form to be found within which real interest can exist.

That, my dear friends, is what it is about: not a division into two groups, but a classification so that those who are familiar with the things that need to be present can actually continue to prevail in their way, but without disturbing the others, and so that both groups can work together in harmony. You can't try to bring them together. They will never talk to each other, but they will work together splendidly. Everyone must do what they are good at and are predisposed to do. So we actually come to find a way for society to continue to exist.

I would like to mention a grotesque fact again and again. The Federation for Threefolding has had three heads in succession.² The first head — as I have already briefly explained — remained until I declared: I can no longer participate. The second main person was someone who, when working in the right place, worked extraordinarily well; this was demonstrated in many places within the Anthroposophical Society. I had not been there for a long time when I came back. A meeting was taking place with the leadership of the Federation for Threefolding. I asked what had happened, and I was told: We have created a card index of such and such slips of paper; all the newspaper clippings are here and there; then we have larger slips of thicker paper, and then there are all the opposing articles; and then we have other slips of paper that are thinner and can be folded, with the indentations and so on. So I finally said: Yes, but my dear friends, I don't want to know what you have in your card catalogs. Don't you also have heads? I don't want to deal with card catalogs, but with heads. — The heads were not absent, but they were eliminated, and a card catalog was placed opposite me.

They laugh at it! In a sense, it's not even funny.

Those who are thinking of realizing a more original form of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society, of being in a union of smaller groups in which they are not constrained, will be able to live it up. And that is what matters first. I do hope that in this way we will get to the point where everyone knows which group they belong to. Then it can continue, then the loose union can form, can give itself a head in such a free or unfree way as it wants. A connecting link can then be created — not between the two Anthroposophical Societies, but between the brothers, the two groups of the unified Anthroposophical Society. But we will have to discuss that, my dear friends. I just threw that in as a guideline.

On behalf of the nine-member board, which has now taken the place of the old central board, Dr. Unger makes the following statement:

1. Mr. Uehli has definitively left the old central board.
2. The other two members of the central board have co-opted the members of the committee and are willing to co-opt further individuals to form an extended board.
3. These individuals on the committee are willing to take over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society as the new board.
4. The members of the new executive council residing in Stuttgart will take over the administration of the Society's affairs.
5. They will assume particular responsibility, together with the leading figures of the institutions founded in Stuttgart, for the proper integration of these foundations into the Anthroposophical Society.

The new leadership of the Society has set itself the following guidelines:

1. The leadership will feel responsible for ensuring that the life of the anthroposophical movement as a whole is led into all parts of the Society. This includes reports on lectures, research and the fruits of anthroposophical work. A newsletter as the organ of the Society should serve these purposes.

2. The leadership of the Society will feel responsible for ensuring that the individual creative powers in the Society can develop and that the personalities involved in the work feel supported by the interest that the Society takes in their work.

For both tasks, the leadership relies on trusted personalities in the sense of the draft principles of an Anthroposophical Society.

The Executive Council hopes to find support for the affairs of the Society and help in carrying out its tasks in a body of trusted individuals to be formed.

The following tasks are among the objectives that the Anthroposophical Society has set itself in accordance with the draft principles: cultivation of universal anthroposophical life — development and cultivation of anthroposophical community — imparting of anthroposophical teachings to the outside world — introduction and continuation — study groups — organization of defense against opponents - focusing the work on the future.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Our group is still in the process of coming into being, and it is therefore clear that we cannot come up with a program at the beginning of this process. That is quite impossible. So I can only give you a very brief description of how we actually view this whole undertaking, so to speak, from within. The starting point is that what we see as anthroposophical striving for development has not been realized in the narrow-mindedness of the Anthroposophical Society, so that we were initially in a position where we could not communicate at all and were the impetus for what could have ultimately led the Society into chaos yesterday. When Dr. Steiner suggested dividing the Society into two societies because of the two different directions of will, we were shocked by this conclusion. But then we realized that it was precisely through this structure that harmony in society could arise again. So we are very grateful to Dr. Steiner for helping us to find a way to continue our own anthroposophical development without having to contribute to the creation of such chaos, an atomization of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, it is now a matter of us having to try to assert our own developmental conditions in a certain independence from what has become the historical society. But it is self-evident for us – if we now have the opportunity to grow further as anthroposophists – that the fruits of this development must then benefit the whole anthroposophical movement. That the development of the Anthroposophical Society will then have its strongest supporters in us, and that we are convinced from the outset that we need the individual institutions, the publishing house, the institute and so on, but that we can bring our development to fruition better with a certain independence, with a certain distance.

If older members of society sympathize with us, then it is quite natural for us that these “young people” can also include those who are ninety-five years old, as Dr. Steiner said. For example, it is perfectly possible, according to this view, for one and the same person to be actively involved in both branches of anthroposophy, and every member of the older friends can work with us. We want to be completely free in this, depending on whether people come together out of human or anthroposophical impulses.

For us, this actually anthroposophical aspect is such that this difference between age and youth, which has often complicated the debate in a highly philistine way, does not exist. The fact is that I myself am older than some of those who did not get on with the youth. So from this side it can be said that, with regard to the danger of further disintegration and fragmentation, we are convinced that this danger does not exist. It is part of a basic impulse that there must be no difference whatsoever in age, status or occupation, that for us these things are so entwined with the anthroposophical that we would immediately become untruthful if we were to make any distinction in this regard. We must see to it that we introduce anthroposophical truthfulness.

We can try to work from these developmental possibilities to strive for a certain connection that will then lead to a free organization. But that is not really the first concern, nor what this connecting link to the old society will look like. I am thoroughly convinced that these things will arise of themselves, if, on the one hand, the Anthroposophical Society can continue to work out of its own developmental conditions, undisturbed by an opposition that cannot help it and thus does not help itself either, and if, on the other hand, the youth group can also develop according to its own nature. Then this connection will come about of its own accord, because after all, we are aware of both sides: they are anthroposophists and we are anthroposophists. Thus the connecting link, as whose representative Dr. Steiner is here, is present.

From the points of view presented by Dr. Steiner, Dr. Unger and myself, the discussion could now be continued in a truly friendly and objective manner and take on a completely different character from yesterday's. It would be necessary for us to stick to the good starting points and persevere with what we have begun as a positive path shown to us by Dr. Steiner.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, talks about the formation of a trust organization ³ and warns against letting it develop in a bureaucratic way. A real trust organization must form itself through living relationships. The minimum is the right of the trusted personalities to propose members for admission to the society. In addition, the most diverse relationships must arise between the society's board and the trusted personalities. The board must have the opportunity to work with very different personalities as trusted persons in different matters. The trusted personalities should be appointed by the board, not elected by the members, but they should be trusted by the members. In principle, the matter of the trusted organization is already regulated in a comprehensive way by the “principles”. On the basis of these principles, the relationship with the youth group can also be organized in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

When approaching such a matter as the creation of a trust organization, one must be careful not to fall into a sense of optimism. We have to go back to what was given at the starting point of the Anthroposophical Society when it was founded as a draft of the principles. There we find exactly how a trust organization must be managed.

For example, one might think that a person of trust can be appointed by one member being proposed to that effect by seven others. The persons of trust have to provide a guarantee when members register. That is, so to speak, the minimum of what the persons of trust would have to do; beyond that, the organization of the persons of trust would have to be built up. I now believe that it is important that we do not appoint trusted personalities in some theoretical way, but that such an organization is formed out of the work. The starting point would be that trusted personalities are proposed and the Central Committee recognizes these personalities. Then a basis is created for admitting members, and the relationship of trust must begin to develop. This must now arise out of the work that the Central Committee and the trusted individuals thus appointed do. It cannot be a matter of the Central Committee saying yes and amen to everything, but it must satisfy itself that it can take responsibility. Of course, it is easy to find seven people whom one does not know at all and thus bring in trusted individuals who are not really trusted at all. We cannot work only from the bottom up in the Anthroposophical Society; we must also work from the top down. This must not be forgotten, otherwise we will end up with a kind of democracy or Bolshevism.

Then there is the question of a trusting, lively interaction. But both parts belong to this. Good will must be shown by both the leadership and the members.

Furthermore, Dr. Steiner must be relieved of the enterprises, but not dismissed. Dr. Steiner has often said the same thing over the years, and it was not heard. And finally today we are coming to the realization that we actually have to do what Dr. Steiner said years ago. I could show you this with practical examples. If he is heard, then he gets by with very little time, and we have our hands full implementing it. For the rest, they have to say to themselves: We should not interfere in the enterprises. What kind of advice do you think I received in the first place regarding commitments? Everyone should say to themselves: Not what should the others do, but what should I do?

Mr. Leinhas reports that there are about 55 requests to speak and some written communications.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Now that it has been made clear that such a division is not a “split” but an “outline,” I would like to say that I do not want to hold on to what I have said about it.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, emphasizes the necessity of young people working together with old people.

Count Hermann Keyserling, Koberwitz near Breslau: The depression that has probably weighed on all of us has given way to a joyful feeling when Dr. Steiner kindly helped us out of our plight. Speaker thanks the committee of nine for the selflessness with which they have undertaken such a great task as the preparation of this conference. Speaker moves that the discussion should not continue, but that a vote should be taken on the committee of nine's program.

Mr. Otto Coppel, Edenkoben, says that the management has not made it sufficiently clear what it wants. Therefore, the attempt to break up the meeting the day before yesterday, as nonsensical as it was, was only natural. Now, before voting, the program should be discussed.

Now a procedural debate is taking place as to whether a vote should be taken or whether the discussion should continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: We are in danger of going in the wrong direction. We are all anthroposophists and differ only in the way we have become so; the question is not whether we should vote or continue the discussion, but I would like to make the following suggestion: Now that the direction for further development has been set, it would be necessary for a number of people to step forward and say: I believe that this and that is the right thing, and I think it is good for the following reasons.

Mrs. Emma von Staudt, Munich, emphasizes that one should not overlook the tremendous amount of self-criticism and self-knowledge that has been practiced from within. It will be difficult to live with two families under the same roof. Therefore, she would like to make a tactical suggestion for living together. If the three different directions: art, science and religion were represented more, without prejudice to the actual leadership of the branches, this coexistence would be easier.

Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart: It is not a matter of voting on whether to join the old or the new society, but rather of recognizing that things have become so and that we can only continue within the Anthroposophical Society if we now work on the one hand in the way history has developed, and on the other hand in the way that seems right to those for whom Dr. Büchenbacher has just spoken. It was mentioned earlier that individual parts of society do not understand each other with other parts. It seems to me that this cannot be the case, they do understand each other. But it would depend on whether it would be expressed as strongly and from as many sides as possible, to what extent they can understand each other very well, how they can establish a connection with the institutions and an understanding for these institutions among the members. It seems to me to be very necessary that it not be expressed simply through silence: yes, now it is just so, we agree with it, but that this agreement be expressed through speeches. It would be necessary to speak very briefly about how one understands the whole matter, how one believes one can work within this so-divided society.

Of course, one or two things could be said about Dr. Unger's program, but it seems to me that the important thing is not to discuss the program, but to implement it.

At the request of the chairman, the assembly unanimously approves the program.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, points out that a relatively large amount has been achieved in Hamburg; he speaks of a “Hamburg system” based on the activation of the human being. The personalities here have earned antipathy as well as sympathy because the “activation of the human being” has not happened. However, he has already found some things in the work of the committee that go in this direction. He said that he would do whatever lay in his limited power to ensure that this “activation of the human being” gradually became decisive in the committee, which would be expanded. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart: I would like to say a few words about the situation that has now been created, which I could not say yesterday because I did not understand it. As you have heard, I resigned from the Central Executive Committee because I was unable to work fruitfully. Now the situation is such that I am growing naturally into the organization of the Free Community because I believe that I can work in the way that is possible, out of friendship for people. Whether I continue with the other things or not is a matter for the committee; it does not belong here, for example, the 'Federation for a Free Spiritual Life' or the newspaper 'Drei'. I want to be able to work as a free human being.

Mr. August Everbeck, Brake: Yesterday the Society threatened to dissolve into chaos - today the difficulties no longer exist after listening to Dr. Steiner. (He wants to explain how the Stuttgart work looks from the periphery. — There is an interjection: Positive suggestions! - The speaker then summarizes his remarks: The only thing that was missing in the branches was the connection with Stuttgart.)

Dr. Josef Kalkhoff, Freiburg: If we had absorbed “Practical Thinking” and “The Philosophy of Freedom”, then we would not have needed a great physician to tell us what is missing. Anyone who believes that they have things to contribute to the discussion can send a paper to Stuttgart, and it will be processed – or thrown away.

What needs to happen is not terribly new, it just needs to be brought to consciousness. We have a medical working group. One can also continue to work in the threefold order, because it is not work that should be abolished, only the organization. What emerges from the discussion should not be thrown in the trash. We should not commit ourselves to a program; that would take care of itself.

Professor Hermann Craemer, Bonn: These are practical suggestions for the future, and what the assembly has suggested should be put into practice, and to be clear about the first steps, based on the nature of such an assembly. There are over a thousand people who are supposed to communicate with each other, and that is extremely difficult. We have also seen that within this large group there are individual groups, especially the youth movement, who, when one person stands up, understand each other perfectly without the person concerned having said much. We still have to learn the art of communicating in large gatherings and not talking at cross purposes. This can be achieved if the branches practice learning to listen to the other person, to be interested not only in the content of what he says, but in the fact that he is saying it. If we practice this coming-to-the-experience-of-you in the branches and continue to practice it in somewhat larger circles, we will gradually come to understand each other in larger gatherings as well. People who live in geographic districts should work together, starting with the simplest personal interaction and working through the problems we face. Here we have to start from scratch and spare no sacrifice so that we can grow together from fragmentation and atomization into one organism.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart, agrees with the program of the new central committee as the spokesperson for the Kerning branch in Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it was noted that there is a discord against one person of the new central committee, which he also shares; this is the person of Dr. Carl Unger (heckling). Speaker Leinhas explains that he will talk to Dr. Unger personally.

Dr. Praussnitz, Jena, fully supports Mr. Leinhas and has a request to make to the assembly: to return to the religious revival movement this evening.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: There can be no question as to whether the Neuner Committee should continue the matter or not. The matter requires that the affairs of this committee be continued.

Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, discusses the matter of founding the Free University; he reports that Mr. Emil Molt has donated ten million marks for the Free University.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: You, the members of the Committee of Nine, are wondering what we should do when we are carried by the trust. Please do not think that it is only an honor to sit here at the committee table and be flattered. That is not what motivates us; rather, we make ourselves available out of a sense of duty and responsibility. It should not be so difficult for you to say: You must!, as it is difficult for us to say: We must! When we meet again, we will not be able to make excuses: We have not had time! (A voice from the audience asks the assembly to shout unanimously: You must!)

End of the morning discussion.

II. Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The Conditions for Building a Community in an Anthroposophical Society” [in GA 257]

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Emil Leinhas opens the meeting at half past two.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, of Jena, announces that a committee has been formed consisting of the following members: J. G. W. Schröder, Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Rene Maikowski, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Maria Röschl, Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, probably Rector Bartsch and Ernst Lehrs.

Mr. Rene Maikowski, Stuttgart, announces the personalities of the committee that will deal with the founding and tasks of the School of Spiritual Science: Emil Molt, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Ernst Lehrs, Werner Rosenthal, Louis Werbeck, Rene Maikowski.

Mr. Manfred Kries, Jena, points out the necessity of working together, especially in the field of medicine. As physicians, one must begin with anthroposophy. The moral, the powers of love, are what one must start from. We can only be successful in spreading the remedies if we have the necessary support from the clinic. We cannot work only in a propagandistic way; we need the experience of those who stand behind us. There is a characteristic that shows how differently the young and the old approach medicine. We cannot appropriate a new method from our own experience and proceed from there to the physical plane. We have to start from pure anthroposophy. We have to develop to the point where we can specialize the purely human, the general, to such an extent that we can penetrate to the individual physical organ.

Mr. Otto Maneval of Stuttgart said that concern for the Waldorf School is an important task of the Anthroposophical Society. Not all members of the Anthroposophical Society are members of the Waldorf School Association. The idea of the Waldorf School must also be brought to bear on the state by professing it.

Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, believes that the basis for genuine community building is an artistic and educational approach. One should not only find common ground with anthroposophists, but also with non-anthroposophists. With such people one could work in some area. If one does it right, such work will automatically lead to anthroposophical work. If you come from the Ruhr area, you feel a particular need to speak to people in the moment, to grasp them morally in the world situation. We have to pay attention to this: what is the spiritual world saying, what is Dr. Steiner saying, what needs to be done today? If we listen to this, a rhythmic inhalation and exhalation will arise. The bridge to other people can only come from the heart, from love. Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart, points out that what Mr. Maneval said earlier should be taken into account. The financial situation of the Waldorf School is very difficult, and in this regard he must remind us of the dangers that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the last general assembly of the Waldorf School Association. It is absolutely essential for the economic survival of the school that it be the constant concern of all Anthroposophical Society members. The school would not have been able to survive at all without the help of friends abroad. But this is by no means enough. It should be pointed out to the state that the 1925 primary school law allows the admission of pupils to the first class of private schools for the last time. It is therefore important for the Waldorf School to gain such strong support that this paragraph cannot apply to it. So material means and ideal interest, that is what could ensure the continued existence of the Waldorf School.

Mr. Jürgen v. Grone, Stuttgart: My dear friends! I have been asked to serve on the provisional committee of the younger generation and am thus active in both committees. To explain my position, I would like to refer to an experience I had in Berlin in 1908.

Around this time, several young people from very different walks of life, from different parts of the world, came together and met weekly at Motzstraße 17 to study Dr. Steiner's philosophical writings intensively. It was a seemingly random community. But the significant thing was that what moved people to come together in community was the love that each person had for delving into the world of ideas. Through this collaboration in Motzstraße, the personalities involved were able to get to know each other very intimately, and, as I was later able to observe, this work created links of destiny. When I came to Stuttgart a few years ago, I met people again who had belonged to this circle, and I can assure you that we immediately felt how a shared inner experience had connected us precisely through this study of the philosophical works. Our eyes lit up, so to speak, when we saw each other again.

After the war, when I was studying the 'Kernpunkte' and realized that something needed to be done from an anthroposophical perspective that would directly address the social needs of the present, it was this impulse that led me to work on the newspaper. For me, there was indeed a strong connection between the memories from 1908, the anthroposophical experience of that time and the will to translate this anthroposophical experience into social action. On the other hand, I must emphasize that since the seemingly so spontaneous community work in the past, I have a deep, inner understanding of what today's anthroposophical youth and all those who feel connected to it want. Since then, I have taken a keen interest in working with those communities that, above all, consider it necessary to promote true anthroposophy in a group of people through intensive collaboration.

I only wanted to point out these two points of view so that you can see why I agreed to be a member of the committee and why, on the other hand, I agreed to be a member of the provisional committee for the time being.

Dr. Gabriele Rabel, Stuttgart: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak before a larger circle of anthroposophists. I want to make my personal position on anthroposophy as clear as possible. I joined two years ago in order to get to know anthroposophy thoroughly. At the time of my admission, everyone knew that I was not a follower. It was also Dr. Steiner's intention that I should be offered the opportunity to study the matter thoroughly. The result of these two years of examination is a peculiar mixture of sympathy and antipathy.

I feel warm sympathy for everything I have observed in the movement that is personal and human, in the soul, and in the honest striving for spiritual perfection; I feel the warmest sympathy for what is happening in Landhausstrasse and here in these days. It was wonderful of Dr. Steiner to have made such wise use of the burning of the Goetheanum, to have taken it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and reflection.

The spirit of self-knowledge that shone through these speeches suggests that it could easily be the case that in a few years the fire at the Goetheanum will be seen not as a disaster but as a piece of good luck. Every event is only what we make of it.

I have heard the word: the Goetheanum could not have burnt down if we had been what we should have been. That is a distinctly religious attitude. My personal conviction is that it is in this attitude, in the emphasis on the religious character, that the salvation and future of anthroposophy lies.

On the other hand, I am very skeptical about another area to which Dr. Steiner attaches great importance: anthroposophical science. I am an opponent of that. I am not just a so-called opponent, as Dr. Steiner said, I am a real opponent. I have truly shuddered at the abyss of ignorance, inability to think and arrogance of people that I have encountered in a large number of anthroposophical works. It is truly disheartening to read such works. They are written by people who have no idea of natural science. And the people in question have doctorates. Unfortunately, it is one of the saddest chapters of the universities today that a doctorate can be acquired very easily.

Of course, I cannot prove these assertions in detail here. I have already begun to provide evidence in the last article in “Drei,” and I want to continue doing so as long as the editorial staff of “Drei” is so loyal and kind as to publish my critique. I feel obliged to offer a critique. It is necessary to address the details objectively. But it is not enough to say that the whole polemic is insubstantial. It is necessary to show in detail where the errors in thinking lie. I will endeavor to do this as clearly and distinctly as possible.

This discussion about atomic theory has made me clearly recognize the dangers of the Anthroposophical Society in another way. These are dangers that have been pointed out many times, including by myself. But it is quite a different matter whether one speaks of something in general or whether one has concrete examples that can be used to show: There it is. In the first article I wrote the following: the position of anthroposophy on atomic theory is completely unclear. Dr. Steiner himself did not believe in the reality of atoms in the past, but has since been persuaded by the facts, as he mentioned in conversation, and now believes, like us, in the existence of atoms. In response to this, I was told by the anthroposophical side that this is yet another myth that is being peddled solely for the purpose of undermining trust in Dr. Steiner's personality. A scientific person is completely baffled and at a loss in the face of such an attitude. It would be natural for me to lose all trust in him if he could not be belied by facts and stubbornly clung to something he had once said just because he had said it.

But what about anthroposophy? If you believe that Dr. Steiner is not dependent on considering the facts, that he sees through all connections from his own thinking, then of course it is only logical when one comes to such views. There is a gulf between anthroposophy and science. As anthroposophists, you believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner; as scientists, you cannot believe in it. I know very well that you will tell me: We do not believe in the infallibility of Dr. Steiner, on page so and so much it says: The clairvoyant can err. Yes, there it is, you can read it there, but in practice I have never known anyone to express doubt about what Dr. Steiner said. If he took the floor in a procedural debate or in some kind of scientific discussion, then the case was settled. And now Dr. Steiner spoke recently about the atomic discussion and confirmed the legend that I had told at the time. He explicitly said that I (this opponent) was right, that it was useless to deny the results of science. Yes, what do these gentlemen do now, who have been so fanatically committed to the fact that atoms do not exist? If you have arrived at this conviction, not through blind faith in authority but after careful consideration of the facts, then you cannot just let go of your conviction so easily. This thought seems quite absurd to you, that one of you could polemicize against Dr. Steiner. That is the great cancer. That is what we cannot understand. It is a religious attitude. I use the word religious here in the best sense, that one's own judgment is subordinated to something that one perceives as a higher power, to which one looks up in humility and reverence. I do not want to disgust you with this attitude. But it is not the scientific attitude. The scientific person must be completely free to form his or her own judgment. And so, the more I delve into anthroposophy, the more deeply I am convinced — earlier it was only a hunch — that no synthesis is possible between faith and science, because the scientific person must be free and independent, and the religious person desires to be the opposite. Both attitudes have their good and beautiful aspects. But you cannot mix them. I have the impression that what is being criticized as the system of double accounting is the only possible clean separation: on the one hand, a scientist, on the other, a religious person. I just wanted to say that these are some of the reasons why science must view anthroposophical science with skepticism. I cannot see at present that this conflict can be resolved unless anthroposophical science teaches me better.

There is one more point I would like to mention, which is also a major stumbling block for science. I know you and I are already bored by this, but it is the unholy mystery of Dr. Steiner's changes. It is not possible to get past this point. This question must be thoroughly addressed.

Recently, I have read all the articles that Dr. Steiner wrote between 1886 and 1903. I have read all the articles and found much that is beautiful and good. But I absolutely do not see how one should get over these contradictions.

Speaker reads the following passages:

“But however hard one may try, no one will ever succeed in reconciling the Christian and the modern scientific world view. Without a personal, wise leadership of world affairs, which announces itself in times of need by pointing the way, there is no Christianity. Without the denial of such a leadership and the recognition of the truth that all the causes of events lie in this world accessible to our senses, there is no modern way of thinking. Nothing supernatural ever intervenes in nature; all events are based on the elements that we reach with our senses and our thinking. Only when this insight has penetrated not only into thinking but also into the depths of feeling can we speak of a modern way of looking at things. But our modern minds are quite far removed from this. It works with thinking. The minds of contemporaries are gradually coming to terms with Darwinism. But the feeling, the feeling, are still thoroughly Christian.“ ⁹

"We are entering the new century with feelings that are essentially different from those of our ancestors, who were educated in Christianity. We have truly become ‘new men’; but we, who also profess the new world view with our hearts, are a small community. We want to be fighters for our gospel, so that in the coming century a new generation will arise that knows how to live, satisfied, cheerful and proud, without Christianity, without an outlook on the hereafter.” ¹⁰

I cannot bring myself to read this and then read the essays that appeared five years later in Lucifer-Gnosis and then assume that the man who wrote the two essays has not changed. If a conversion has taken place, I would find it understandable. I have given myself the interpretation that it happens very often in world history that one condemns everything one preached before and vice versa. But that without such a transformation both opinions can be reconciled, I do not understand. I have not received any explanation about this from anyone. The agreement with Haeckel goes so far that he could say: We, the small Haeckel community, are the community of the future, we proclaim the gospel. In an article in the journal Drei, he tried to say what would have captivated him, and it would have been the artistic element. I must urgently ask, also in the name of all the scientists who are trying to have faith in Dr. Steiner: Well, the gods are on this side; the gods also belong to nature. These are conjurer's tricks. I request that this question be addressed. I am very willing to be educated and will gladly proclaim, publicly and loudly, as I stand here with my accusation, that Dr. Steiner has been wronged and that the matter has now been clarified for me.

The speaker concludes with a request that Dr. Steiner himself comment on this question if possible.

Dr. Praußnitz, Jena: I must first express my appreciation of the extraordinary courage that Dr. Rabel has shown by presenting her point of view calmly and unconcernedly. I know what it takes for an anthroposophist to speak in the face of opponents. Regarding the question of the atomic theory, I must state that I am also a specialist in the field; I have encountered the same difficulties as Dr. Rabel, and for me, too, the path from the philosophical side was the only possible one to approach it for the first time. I also openly admit that I have not yet been able to deal with the anthroposophical treatment of science.

One must ask the question: has anthroposophical science, as represented in Stuttgart, actually taken the path it must take to make itself understood to other, outside natural science? I believe that this is where the catch lies... Our young friends want us to become different people through anthroposophy, not just to concern ourselves with anthroposophy. I myself have been involved in the movement for a long time and have not yet had the time to immerse myself in the science as you have. We can only approach this science when we have become different people. —Speaker discusses further details of atomic theory.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein: Dr. Steiner pointed out in his lecture that all the individual actions of our opponents are ultimately based on the fact that they say to themselves: “How do we force the spiritual researcher to defend himself?” Dr. Rabel's remarks culminated in her request that Dr. Steiner comment on what she had said against him. Dr. Steiner should therefore defend himself.

Now, I don't know if he will do that, but I would like to present what I have to say in the way that he has asked us to behave towards our opponents. Dr. Steiner called on us to immerse ourselves with all our love in the souls of our opponents. It is far from my mind to believe that something like what I am about to mention is consciously present in Dr. Rabel. But it works in her, as in every opponent, that which Dr. Steiner just said underlies all opponents' actions. And we should pay attention to this fact. Dr. Steiner said that it is of the utmost importance to know the limits of the different states of consciousness and not to blur them. One must not carry dream consciousness into the sense world, nor what is right for the sense world into the supersensible world. One must change one's way of thinking when moving from one realm to the other. But that is precisely what Dr. Rabel does not do. What she does not understand in Dr. Steiner's work and attitude is because she uses the same habits of judgment and forms of thinking that are right for the field of ordinary science, but she also wants to include what belongs to the spiritual realm of the supersensible. Of course, this would have to be shown sentence by sentence, but one could show that Dr. Steiner's lecture answers point by point what he himself has to say about Dr. Rabel's objections, with the exception, of course, of the quotations that have been put forward, but otherwise really everything. You see, what Dr. Rabel cannot properly observe is what we call the right crossing of the threshold, that is, the actual demand of reality that one must have a different way of behaving in the sensual than in the supersensible. She says: I can sympathize with the religious, but not with the scientific. She also sees a separation between these fields. But what is the reason that forces her to speak of double bookkeeping? The reason is that she does not bring to consciousness the act that a human being must perform when crossing the threshold from one to the other in the right way. Therefore, she does not understand why Dr. Steiner behaves in one way in one area and in a completely opposite way in another area, even for the different areas of life or the objects of knowledge. For her, the areas stand side by side, and she would like to embrace them all in one way or keep double books for them, instead of recognizing the metamorphosis as factually grounded in the area. That is where the difficulty lies for her, and she does not have the right understanding for it. Nor does she have the right understanding for what Dr. Steiner discussed today: tolerance. For the essence of tolerance is that one always speaks from the heart of the matter. When Dr. Steiner arrives at certain forms of judgment in his essays in the 'Magazin', he does so on the basis of very definite presuppositions, and these must be taken into account.

I have repeatedly tried, and really tried in good faith, to make it clear to Dr. Rabel how things stand in this area. But the misunderstanding is surely due to the fact that two basic conditions have not been sufficiently taken into account.

1. As Dr. Steiner explained, the consideration of the changeover when crossing the threshold between the sensory world and the supersensible world.
2. The consideration of the changeover when moving from one area of fact to another.

Of course, all the sentences that were read by Dr. Rabel and that are quoted in the “Magazin für Litteratur” are written in such a way that Dr. Steiner could write them down today word for word exactly as they are there. For when he rejected Christianity there, he did not mean the Christianity that he later presented in his spiritual scientific works, but rather he wanted to show how he had to reject at that time the Christianity that was known at that time as the only one in the world: namely, the Christianity of Christian theologians. And these theologians reject Dr. Steiner today just as much with what they call Christianity as they reject him. So I don't see how there could be any change in Dr. Steiner's position. There is none in the sense that Dr. Rabel suggests. It is simply a matter of getting fully involved in the matter and judging it from that point of view. Then one understands Dr. Steiner, understands his behavior, and does not speak of sleight of hand out of one's own lack of understanding. But for us anthroposophists, something else is important. We must be vigilant in our society in the future. And vigilance also means noticing this powerful phenomenon, which consists of Dr. Steiner's appearance and self-defense in his lecture, and the fact that the accusation is brought forward with the demand that Dr. Steiner be forced to make a statement, to defend himself.

Evening Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting.

Dr. Hans Theberath, Stuttgart: If Dr. Rabel sees something dangerous in anthroposophical science, she cannot be referring to my atomic essays, since Dr. Steiner himself described these essays as anti-anthroposophical. However, there is no reason to oppose anthroposophical science on the basis of these essays.

Dr. Steiner has not denied the existence of atoms in the past either, but only opposed interpreting atoms into phenomena. Therefore, I referred this alleged change of heart by Dr. Steiner to the realm of myth.

Dr. Rabel asks what those gentlemen who did not believe in atoms in the past are doing now. I do not know, because I have always believed in the existence of atoms. [See Notes below.]

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: I would just like to say a few words about the fact that the events that have taken place here in the Anthroposophical Society are connected with the destruction of the Goetheanum. It has been repeatedly emphasized here that all these events are completely independent of the Dornach catastrophe, since the origins of this crisis go back to December 10, when the aforementioned conversation with Mr. Uehli took place. It is necessary to emphasize this in view of the misunderstandings that could arise if one speaks ironically about matters that should be most sacred in the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot allow ourselves to be treated in this way.¹¹

In response to the polemic in the “Drei”, I would like to say that Dr. Rabel's essay has been accepted and will appear at the same time as an essay of mine that will attempt to lead this entire polemic out of the deadlock in which it has been mired.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena: The words spoken by Dr. Rabel in her “Farewell Address to the Anthroposophical Society” vividly reminded me of what Dr. Rittelmeyer said during the conference when we were dealing with the question of opponents. He said that we must achieve a situation in which the many people of good will who, although they could not profess anthroposophy themselves, consciously had the attitude: “But it is something whose seriousness and high striving we have recognized too clearly to allow it to be destroyed by wickedness,” that they, as a ‘league of decent people,’ could be a wall around the movement. Well, I could feel that Dr. Rabel belongs to such people, and I sincerely hope that she will continue to belong to them! And we can be grateful that, among all the muck and filth of opponents, we were able to hear a person who has really tried to engage with anthroposophy.

I would like to address two points in Dr. Rabel's words: first, Dr. Steiner's article from the “Magazin”, and then the atomic theory.

With very few exceptions, which are also known to the public, I was previously unaware of any of the passages quoted by Dr. Rabel from the “Magazin”. However, I immediately noticed the exclusivity with which Dr. Steiner refers to the actual results of sensory research. In those articles he does not once acknowledge the mental speculations about the background of the phenomena of the senses! And conversely: at the very latest scientific course at the last turn of the year in Dornach, the call went through Dr. Steiner's entire cycle to recognize the tremendous results of sensory research, yes, it is to be redeemed at all from their sleep of magic, in which the intellectualism has banned, by spiritual research methods! If, therefore, we look closely, we see that the opposite of the alleged 'break in world-view' is the case. Nevertheless, we may perhaps wonder at first why Dr. Steiner once championed with such energy the world-view that had emerged from Darwinism. When I heard Dr. Steiner's words for the first time, as I said, I had a wonderful experience. I realized what a situation he was in with regard to a world view. And it cannot be better described than with Nietzsche's words, which he used in the speeches “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions”, already quoted on another occasion, where he talks about the grammar school. In the few words that I will quote, all you have to do is replace the word “grammar school” with “ruling world view”. With this change, the passage reads:

"We both know the prevailing worldview; do you also believe, for example, with regard to this, that the old tenacious habits could be broken up with honesty and good new ideas? Here, in fact, it is not a hard wall that protects against the battering rams of an attack, but rather the most fatal tenacity and slippery nature of all principles. The attacker does not have a visible and solid opponent to crush: this opponent is rather masked, able to transform himself into a hundred forms and in one of them to escape the gripping attack and always confuse the attacker anew through cowardly yielding and tenacious rebounding."

That was the terrible situation in which Dr. Steiner found himself at the time! No one before Haeckel had had the courage to be a materialist not only on weekdays but also on Sundays! A muggy, soft haze obscured the view of the consequences of the life of knowledge. Dr. Steiner's words swept in like a fresh spring wind. A viscous paste of philistine mental and spiritual laziness was spread by the spiritually dominant class around everything. And if Dr. Steiner saw it as his task to break down the wall of materialism, then he himself had to first help harden and erect this viscous mass into a wall. But what was the hardening agent? Consistency! Dr. Steiner first had to force the world to be consistent! No call for spiritual consistency could find resonance without materialistic consistency. And that is what is so close to the hearts of us young people, the consistency of thinking, feeling and morality that the world still does not know! And so those decades-old words of Dr. Steiner are said precisely from the heart to us youngest in the Anthroposophical Society!

And now to the controversy over the atomic theory, which Dr. Steiner has so vigorously opposed of late. What has happened here, and what has Dr. Steiner, and in fact every anthroposophist, had to oppose? In the discussions as they were conducted in the “Drei”, our scientists allowed themselves to be drawn by Dr. Rabel from the field of anthroposophy into their own field, instead of forcing them to enter the anthroposophical field! The whole battle was not at all in the anthroposophical field, but in the intellectual field! For they have fought with proofs. Just during the conference, we were able to hear again from Dr. Steiner what is to be thought of “proofs” in the field of anthroposophy. One can actually “prove” every assertion and its opposite: it just depends on one's attitude! Dr. Rabel cannot be refuted because she is right! Anyone who tries to refute her by providing evidence is wrong!

An example from a different area that I recently experienced can shed a bright light on the point at issue here. An anti-Semitic publishing house has issued a pamphlet entitled “Moses, a dynamiter and manufacturer of explosives!” It claims that Moses was a great initiate. The initiatic system consisted of certain personalities having power over the higher forces of nature. The higher forces of nature are those that have been accessible to all people since the dawn of the scientific age: the physical and chemical energies. There are no others. This explains the fire on Sinai, the untouchability of the Ark of the Covenant, etc., etc. Moses instilled in the Jewish people a fear of God by means of fireworks and the like, by which he could make himself their lord, and under the lying sign of which all Jewish development has stood since then. Etc.! Here then we have the strange fact that this book, just as we do, calls Moses a “great initiate”! But the terrible thing is that it is right in its conclusions if one asserts: there are only material energies! Can the opposite be proved? No! Two world-views are confronting each other: both call Moses a great initiate, one recognizes only material forces, the other also supersensible ones; one comes to the conclusion that Moses was a swindling explosive bomb manufacturer, the other sees in him a messenger of the gods! What alone can bring the decision here? Only by pursuing these trains of thought to the point where they become moral, where they touch on human value and human dignity. And there it shows that if you try to experience yourself in the stream of becoming human with all the consequences, with the attitude of those books, you can't do anything but hang yourself from the nearest window nail, while the other attitude lets you carry your head higher, makes your step more proud and yet lets humility and love prevail in your heart! Only in this way does Anthroposophy “prove” itself!

And only in this way can Dr. Rabel prove the validity or invalidity of the atomic theory. She continues to assert it, to pursue it, to teach it, because it is her duty, as long as she has not experienced “the other”! But she never will, as long as she is attacked where she is right by herself! Rather, I call out to her in farewell: “You spoke of your religious feeling, to which anthroposophy is so sympathetic. Now I ask you from the bottom of my heart: Go through the coming decades of your life with an ever clearer view of the souls of the people you meet! Become more and more alert in these experiences! Take them deeper and deeper into your heart and let them grow and grow in the warmth of your religious feeling! And when you begin to suffer from the fact that it is increasingly cold and unworldly souls that may still be interested in your atomic theory, but that all those whose nature you affirm from the bottom of your heart will call out to you more and more: Oh, how I suffer from your atomic theory, how it kills my noblest, how I freeze in the coldness of your science! Where, where is the science in whose warming light the flower of my life can flourish! — When these calls will resound to you, shaking you to the marrow of your life, then perhaps the reality of the atomic theory will prove itself to you!"

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer of Stuttgart, speaking on behalf of the religious movement, first expressed his deepest gratitude to Dr. Steiner for the tremendous benefit to life that he has provided to humanity through his help and advice in this movement, in the most selfless purity and greatness. He then also thanked the anthroposophists, who have prepared the way by their voluntary support in the movement's first most difficult days. In many places, it has not yet been possible to reach non-anthroposophical circles, for which one is determined to work. Also, before Dr. Steiner's Dornach lecture, Steiner's lecture in Dornach, the dangers that arise particularly from the new movement of the Anthroposophical Society were not sufficiently perceived, both in that financial help is withdrawn from it, and in that the satisfaction of human community needs in the cultic community distracts many from the Society, and above all in that many exchange the path of knowledge, which they once embarked upon, for the more beneficial path of cult. The Christian Community cannot take pleasure in Anthroposophical members who neglect their financial responsibility to the Anthroposophical Society in favor of the Christian Community, or who cannot find a way to remain fully loyal to their path of knowledge. On the other hand, he asks the Anthroposophists to regard those members of the Christian Community who, now or in the future, wish to work with both movements out of their own free will and with knowledge of the material, as fully Anthroposophical, since the cult offers many opportunities for inner participation and does not necessarily have to be celebrated only by emotionally immersing oneself in it, which is certainly un-Anthroposophical, but also spiritually, not soul-like and passive, but spiritually, actively. He further asked the Anthroposophists never to expect any special privileges as members of the Anthroposophical Society in the Christian Community, since the new movement must place itself on an equal footing with all people if it is to fight its way through successfully. And finally, Dr. Rittelmeyer asked for ongoing support in the The Christian Community finding the people it needs, and for inner understanding and support in the tremendously difficult task it has to fulfill.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: Mr. Weishaar did not speak this morning. However, it is extremely important to me to do and say what I consider necessary on my own initiative, so that in the future, as far as my relationship with the Kerning group and its leader, Miss Völker, is concerned, there will be no further misunderstandings. I regret that remnants may still be apparent from a time when it was necessary to make a point of distancing myself from the Theosophical Society and to act against various phenomena that were connected with the unjustified mysticism or mystical eccentricity in the Anthroposophical Society. Perhaps I sometimes overshot the mark. But as far as my relationship with the group and its leader is concerned, I would like to emphasize that for many years I have always advocated that the fully-fledged working method of this working group and its efforts to carry out this work in a closed circle must be respected. As for my personal relationship, I can only say that I have known Ms. Völker for many years, that we have been together frequently and have discussed anthroposophical matters, and that I hope this will continue to happen in the future.

Mr. Heinrich Weishaar, Stuttgart: Miss Völker cannot yet be completely satisfied with these explanations. But I do not want to bother the assembly with this. I would like to hand over the whole matter to the new central committee for further action and hand over the relevant files to them.

A distinction must be made between the personal relationship between Ms. Völker and Dr. Unger. In this regard, Ms. Völker is completely satisfied and in agreement with what Dr. Unger has said. But we must also consider another point of view: that Fräulein Völker, as the chair of an old working group, is on one side and Dr. Unger, as a member of the old central committee, is on the other. It is therefore necessary to provide clarification with regard to matters that need to be addressed; but the matter will then be settled.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Lecture on “The Opponents” [see references below]

Our opponents want to block the source from which spiritual knowledge flows. Because they consciously or unconsciously serve a current of spiritual world view that believes the publication of spiritual knowledge must be prevented. The first sentence in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is: “There are abilities slumbering in every human being through which he can acquire knowledge of higher worlds.” This is the voice of a school of thought that wants to include all people in the transcendental knowledge, who want to attain such knowledge themselves or want to know how others attain it. In this way, anthroposophy documents itself as a spiritual path that cannot include any aspirations to power. Power arises from knowledge that is withheld from others. The schools of thought that have aspirations to power have a different cosmic goal than the school of thought that wants to develop freedom and love for all beings.

To give you an idea of what the unfolding of these effects is based on, the following should be presented to you: In his book “Exercitia spiritualia”, Ignatius of Loyola gives the following meditation: “Imagine Lucifer planting his standard on a desolate rock near Babylon, where everything is in the greatest confusion and turmoil; how he sends the demons into the world to lure human souls to follow him. Christ, on the other hand, planted the cross banner in a field near Jerusalem, where everything is at its most beautiful and peaceful; he sends out his holy “soul zealots” to invite the whole world to follow him, with the assurance that everyone who swears obedience to the cross banner, patiently endures contempt and suffering, will possess his heavenly kingdom for all eternity. Here you have initially placed two images, which will be discussed in more detail in a moment. Both show that we are dealing with a spiritual-military organization that is not based on freedom but on obedience. This obedience even extends to the ability to comprehend: “[...] it cannot be denied that obedience includes not only the execution – that one does what is commanded – and not only the will – that one does it willingly –; but also the judgment, so that everything the superior commands and judges appears both right and true to the subordinate, so that, as I said, with his strength, the will is able to bend the power of judgment.” (Quote from a letter by Ignatius of Loyola from April 1553. Cf. ‘Jesuitica’ by Roman Boos, Dreigliederungszeitung No. 40, April 1920.) So we are dealing here with a spiritual-military organization that exerts power deep into the innermost being of the human being. But now let us see – let us see by means of an historical example – how such power works. In Schiller's 'Thirty Years' War', in the first book, we read about Ferdinand II that he was educated and taught by Jesuits at the Academy of Ingolstadt. And then it says: “On the one hand, he was shown the indulgence of the Maximilian princes towards the followers of the new doctrine and the confusion in their lands, and on the other hand, the blessing of Bavaria and the relentless religious zeal of its rulers; he was given the choice between these two examples.” Here you have a historical example of how a prince received a meditation, the effectiveness of which is proven by the course of history. That was the case during the Thirty Years' War. At that time, it was necessary to eradicate a spiritual current that can be symptomatically grasped in the work of Comenius, which was entitled Pansophia. Why did Comenius call what he represented a pansophia? Because he wanted to create a wisdom for all people. He was moved by the same impulse to which the first sentence in “How to Know Higher Worlds” refers: he wanted to address what lives in every human being. That is why he spoke of a pansophia. It has been eradicated by impulses that have already been characterized.

In our age, however, people speak differently. They say to young Solothurn: “Gather together! Storm the Goetheanum!” (See “Das Goetheanum” of January 7, 1923.) These words were spoken at a meeting of Catholic associations from Dornach, Arlesheim and Reinach. It was in the afternoon of September 19, 1920 at the Hotel Ochsen in Dornach-Brugg. The speaker at this meeting was Pastor Kully. A brochure written by this pastor Kully and directed against Anthroposophy concludes with the words: Christus vincit / Christus regnat / Christus imperat.

It is not without significance that another book, the Jesuit Baumgartner's biography of Goethe, ends with the same words. I characterized the book in a lecture that was then printed in issue 8 of “Die Drei”, November 1921, first year of publication. No one would want to compare the two-volume, gold-edged, painstakingly and scientifically written biography of Goethe with Pastor Kully's pamphlet. But both books serve the same impulse. It is significant that they end with the same words. One book is directed against Goethe, the other against everything that comes from the Goetheanum. Goethe's true nature is overlooked and denied. What he himself fought against is presented as his true nature. And this is because they want something very specific in the world. Goetheanism, Pansophy, Anthroposophy have their enemies. Because they address everyone, and that must not be. For higher knowledge should be possessed only by a few, to whom the many owe obedience, obedience graduated in degree. And that is to be achieved by a spirit-military system. And the reflection of this system? Where is it? There is also a militarization of economic life. The extreme end of this is Bolshevism. What was it invented for, for example, to organize the working class? Why teach them party opinions? Because there are powers that want to eradicate individual judgment and free will. In theory, this lives as a will in the materialistic conception of history, and in practice in everything that this conception of history, which is as one-sided as can be, increasingly makes the only correct one. The mirror image of a world view built on freedom and love is an associative economy in which one selflessly sacrifices one's life experience to the other, thereby renouncing any display of power, as it lives, for example, in competitive struggle. But a militarized spiritual life is reflected in a militarized economy. However different the things of the world often are, if you look deeply enough, very dissimilar things reveal a power. We could also learn a lot from the lectures given by Father Muckermann S.J. here in Stuttgart. He spoke about scientific problems. The undertone of his remarks was that science should be a mere physical science. As such, it is rightly materialistic. But science finds its limits everywhere. Beyond these limits, the Church rules. It administers souls just as science administers the body. There is no need to talk about the spirit today. It was abolished in 869. Materialistic science serves the same impulses as the Church, which administers souls. The two belong together. If science dared to embrace body, soul and spirit, then the souls would begin to govern themselves. Therefore, there must be no spiritual science. There must only be physical science. That is, materialistic natural science is needed. It serves the same impulse as all the striving for power already mentioned.

In the lectures that Dr. Steiner gave in Dornach on Thomas Aquinas, it is clearly shown how Goetheanism and Anthroposophy are straightforward continuations of what was present as realism in the Middle Ages. And in brief summary, what can be said about the position of anthroposophy in relation to Catholicism can be found in the first part of the writing “The Smear Campaign Against the Goetheanum”. There, especially on pages 24 and 25, it is shown how fully in line the methodology of the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is with what the most orthodox Catholicism has declared to be correct. Nevertheless, the Catholic side declares, as does Father Zimmermann SJ, for example, that anthroposophy is incompatible with true Catholicism. There, anthroposophy is also deliberately mixed with Anglo-Indian theosophy and presented as gnosticism and all sorts of other things. In reality, however, all sorts of things have been incorporated into Catholicism that are certainly not Christian. For example, the doctrine of the eternity of hell punishments is Aristotelian and not Christian. To prove this, I quote Brentano's words here, with which he reproduces Aristotle's teaching on page 146 of his book on Aristotle and his world view: '[...] When the departed human spirits behold the plan of the world and see themselves interwoven with their life on earth, one recognizes himself as identical with one who practices the noble, and another with one who accomplishes ignoble deeds. The knowledge they attain is at the same time an eternal, glorifying or condemning judgment of the world. .. ."

Likewise, the doctrine of creatianism is Aristotelian. This doctrine consists in denying pre-existence and thinking that the higher human being that descends into the incarnation is created by God at the time of procreation. Likewise, the mass is largely a continuation of Egyptian initiation rituals. Thus a close examination would show how Catholicism contains within itself elements that are older pre-Christian spiritual material, partly of oriental origin. The assertions that say similar things about anthroposophy are not only wrong, but project onto anthroposophy precisely that which is characteristic of the accuser himself. Anthroposophy has something of a mirror in itself. The opponent sees himself in it and, by supposedly describing anthroposophy, sketches his own portrait. Anthroposophy does indeed teach pre-existence. In doing so, it goes against the Council of 869. The aim of the latter was to eradicate the spirit. All orientalism, which always pointed to the prenatal, was covered up by Aristotelianism. Only the after-death could be talked about. This also applies to Protestant theologians. They began by appealing to the soul's egoism. The soul has an interest in outliving death, but not in having existed before. A kind of horror of the prenatal, spiritual, cosmic realm emerged, from which the soul descends into birth. This horror can be clearly observed, for example, in Professor Traub. He is afraid that the ethical significance of the mystery of Golgotha will be lost if its cosmic significance is brought to the fore. This fear is based on an important fact. This fact will be demonstrated by means of a symptomatic case. Thomas More presented the results of supersensible experiences in his work Utopia (= non-locality). He describes how Egyptian and Roman ways come to his island, but not Christianity. That is, Thomas More must form the opinion through the experiences he has that in the supersensible world he describes, Christ is not to be found. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has beatified Thomas More. So the paths of those who are beatified into the higher worlds are such that they do not find Christ there. So one can understand that a kind of horror develops before entering the supersensible world. There are reasons for it when on one side the spiritual cosmos, from which Christ once descended to earth or from which the soul descends into birth, must be thought of as being incompatible with ethics or morals. And one must understand why one needed Aristotelianism from this side, which denies pre-existence. In this case, which Dr. Steiner pointed out, one can see that certain realities underlie the horrors of the opponents, which do not have to be conscious to all those who have such horror.

Another thing became clear to me in a long conversation I once had with our opponent Gogarten. He had a different horror. He took offense at the fact that we interpose hierarchies between God and people. From what Gogarten told me, I had to assume that he had inner experiences. He described how he felt united with God, indeed experienced it. He described God. If I apply his description to what we know, I would have to say that he described what we call an angel. Now we have to understand Gogarten. We do not insert hierarchies between angels and humans either. We also believe that the angel stands directly above the human being. But we do not worship this being, which is so close to man. For the angel is, after all, the higher self of man, and each person has his own special angel. So if someone prays to his angel, he would worship a god that is not the general god of man. The result would be self-idolatry, and besides, everyone would have their god and someone else would have theirs.

You see, but these are again things that one accuses anthroposophy of. It promotes self-redemption, yes, self-deification. There are already such things, Dr. Steiner has also pointed this out - but they are not to be found in anthroposophy. If you say something about anthroposophy – that it is this or that – and it isn't, then it is just some thought form that people think, and so it must come from somewhere. Usually, those who claim something about anthroposophy that is not true attach to anthroposophy something that characterizes them. So Anthroposophy is a being that defends itself, with a shield that shines brightly, that reflects, that holds out its true face to everyone. And when you see the true face in the mirror, then you know how all our opponents are striving towards the same goal.

They live in a spiritual cosmos that they consider immoral because the Christ does not appear to them in this spiritual cosmos, or because they do not want him to appear through the paths they take. Therefore, they deny the entire prenatal spiritual world, or at least want to admit only a few into it. They lay claim to the souls for an earthly church. They teach a mere physical science and shape social economic life in such

that initiative of the will weakens and individuality dies. And over this a network of power is organized. Where does this lead? It leads to the fact that after the spirit and soul have been killed, mere bodily automatons remain, without judgment, without their own will, subordinated to higher ones, whom they obey. A subhuman race, directed and led by one or more directing group souls. They want to encircle the Earth, the Earth that will one day disintegrate into dust, and eternalize it and populate it with those subhuman beings. That is a terrible cosmic goal. They are all working towards it, consciously or unconsciously. Then the Earth's goal will be gone. Then no Jupiter development will be possible.

These powers that strive for this create a fog. A fog in which error and truth become indistinguishable. Flocks of thoughts and emotions swirl in this fog. Snatches of quotes and thoughts, enveloped in what instincts can provide as a cover, an elementary flood of fog, sweeps around the earth. In this fog, power is born. All dishonest power is based on campaigns of lies. These power instincts today arise from all kinds of group souls. Family and racial souls stand up against the movement that is based on the individuality struggling for freedom. Anthroposophy fights for a cosmic goal. Last time I was able to show you how the Zeitgeist wants to take hold of our society, today I must point to the spirit of the planet. Anthroposophy fights for the future of the earth. Its shield shines brightly, its sword flashes brightly. But this sword is the word of truth, which unfolds no power that rules, which develops love that forms. Those who fight for the future of the Earth must feel themselves to be knights not of the sword but of the word. For heaven and Earth will pass away, even if dark forces seek to perpetuate what should become dust – but the word of truth will remain if we feel responsible for the evolution and future of the Earth and humanity through love for all beings who are human beings and fellow human beings.

Rector Moritz Bartsch, Breslau: Dr. Rabel said that we are too dependent on the authority of Dr. Steiner in our views and decisions. We faithfully accept everything from him, do not see the contradictions in his work, etc. Is that right? Are we so unfree as people or do we have a different concept of freedom than many people today? Well, many of you will have felt the same way I did. If you take a superficial look at Steiner's works, you will initially come across contradictions. Many years ago, I asked Dr. Steiner about this myself. Dr. Steiner is a true modern educationalist. He does not point the facts out to you, but expects you to make an effort to find the solution to the riddle yourself. Dr. Steiner also pointed out to me that if I understood such sayings in context, I would recognize that there are no real contradictions. I did so, and after years of arduous searching I succeeded in finding the red, uninterrupted thread of development in Steiner's career: the “contradictions” dissolved. Today it is almost incomprehensible to me how one could once be so foolish, so terribly superficial. In the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings, which were written by Dr. Steiner as early as the 1880s, the idea of communion with the world spirit in the act of knowledge is put forward, among other things. In my defense, however, I must say that I had not yet studied these books at the time. — When studying spiritual science, one has strange experiences in general. Our intellectually steeped consciousness initially finds it quite difficult to understand Steiner; since we see ourselves as very clever people, we consider the spiritual-scientific writings to be unclear, confused or foolish and wrong. Over time, however, we realize that such obscure passages express very profound truths. One realizes that Fichte is right when he says that a person must be born or educated to philosophize. Indeed, a person must mature to receive the truth. One must recognize, as Fichte did, that a person's world view is what he is like. Wisdom alone knows nothing of the content of the world; thinking only provides the form for the idea content of being. In order to be able to receive it, a person must purify his character, and above all, he must have respect and reverence for the wisdom of the world. The path from modesty to reverence can be found by experiencing one's own maturing during the study of Steiner's writings and by realizing that the limits of one's own knowledge are not yet the limits of knowledge for all people, that there are spirits with much broader horizons than one's own. One becomes modest and grateful to people whose horizon extends beyond the portals of the beyond into the supersensible world. In the presence of such a person, a feeling of reverence arises as a human matter of course. And is it such a great crime for modern man to learn to look up to a greater being again, to be cured of his self-important subjectivism!? Does he thereby surrender his freedom? Not at all! Even today I have a completely free relationship with Dr. Steiner. I represent that part of spiritual science that I have made my own through years of work, and what I do not yet understand, I leave for the time being in the hope that I may yet mature to these deeper truths. Of course, before one has gained this point of view, one sometimes fears for one's independence. I once had a conversation with Dr. Steiner about this matter years ago. I believed that I would become somewhat dependent on representing Steiner's spiritual ideas in lectures. But I was persuaded that in the spiritual realm it is similar to the physical plane: the farmer did not produce the field, but he regards what he produces on it through his labor as his own. Spiritual wealth is also given to the majority of people by a few creative minds; what the individual acquires through his own efforts he may regard as his own. Today man has a false concept of freedom. He seeks it in that subjectivism which believes it knows everything better and criticizes everything. But only the person who has made the content of the world his own, and allows it to become the motivation for his actions, is truly free. Such a person follows his own path and is allowed to follow it; he is free. But this freedom is not achieved through arrogance, but through humility. Sophia only condescends to the one who worships her. — One can see: our worship of Dr. Steiner does not lead to bondage, on the contrary, it is the forerunner of true freedom. — The speaker then humorously comments on the youth movement and declares his approval of the election to the board of the Free Anthroposophical Society.

Final words from Mr. Emil Leinhas

(The event cost an awful lot of money... there are baskets set up outside for collecting money.

The committee has made a decision: to provide a report on this assembly of delegates shortly in the form of a newsletter that can then be made available to all members.

I believe that we are all convinced that we have lived through an important piece of the history of the Anthroposophical Society together during these days. After the intense preparations that have taken place, we entered the delegates' meeting with anxious concerns. And the delegates' meeting itself proved that these concerns were not unfounded. And if we emerged unscathed from some of the chaos that occurred, we owe that primarily to the fact that Dr. Steiner himself intervened in the right way at the right moment. We must therefore express our gratitude to him for his active help at the end of this delegates' meeting. If we can look to the future with joyful confidence, it is thanks first and foremost to Dr. Steiner's intervention.

We also thank Dr. Steiner and the eurythmists who contributed to the fact that not only unpleasant things were dispelled but that there was also the opportunity to find recreation in the realm of art and beauty.

Thanks on behalf of the committee to the various speakers, who, whether they received more or less applause, made a sincere effort to deliver their presentation.

Thanks also to the speakers in the discussion, who have ensured that things have got into a certain flow here. In addition to the speakers, we must not forget the delegates and members who have come here and who have made an effort to endure a great deal as hosts. We must give special thanks to the youth, who, through their intervention, have brought a certain freshness and liveliness into the deliberations of the Anthroposophical Society for the first time. May they retain this, for there are some signs of it.

It is still the most beautiful society in the world, one of our friends told me yesterday, and his joy was evident despite all the clouds. Another friend from out of town said, “Yes, when I was here in the summer, my throat felt like it was tied up, that was because of the icy air; but now I have hope again.

This gathering has had some success after all. May it also have the effect that an understanding of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society takes root in all our hearts and souls in the right way. May there not only be understanding, but may the will be ignited to fulfill the tasks. A start must be made, then the right action will also be found through the work. The progress of the work cannot come out of discussions and deliberations, but only by finding the strength in the work itself and through the work itself for ever greater and more extensive work.

The blessing must lie in the doing, not in talking about what others have to do. The doing itself, not talking, but working, should be our task. If we look at things this way, we can look forward to the future with joy.

May we all look up to our cause with great enthusiasm, and also to the example set before us, which can give us courage and strength in the face of the difficult tasks that lie ahead. May this conference help to make it very real in all our hearts, so that we all say and feel, not only when we are together here, but also when we go out to our work, that our work must be ennobled by the conviction that we represent the most glorious cause in the world today.

With that, I declare the meeting closed.

Dr.-Ing. Carl Unger, Dr. phil. Walter Johannes Stein *

• 1. “Anthroposophie” and “Die Drei”
• 2. They were: 1) Mr. Hans Kühn, 2) Mr. Walter Kühne, 3) Mr. Ernst Uehli.
• 3. See page 463 of this volume.
• 9. The passage quoted here from ‘Magazin für Literatur’ can be found in the article ”Charles Lyell. On the 100th anniversary of his birth], Magazin für Literatur 1897, No. 47 [today in GA 30], and reads:
  ”...I cannot speak of Lyell or Darwin without thinking of Haeckel. All three belong together. What Lyell and Darwin began, Haeckel continued. He expanded it in the full knowledge that he was serving not only the scientific need but also the religious consciousness of mankind. He is the most modern spirit because his world view is no longer tainted by old prejudices, as was still the case with Darwin, for example. He is the most modern thinker because he sees in the natural the only field of thought, and he is the most modern feeler because he wants life to be arranged according to the natural. We know that he celebrates the anniversary of Lyell's birthday with us because for him it must be the day that brought the one founder of the new world view. The festive day that is celebrated in honor of Lyell makes us realize that we belong to the Haeckel community. When Haeckel talks to us about the processes of nature, every word has a secondary meaning for us that is related to our feelings. He is at the helm; he is steering hard. Even if at some point we don't want to go where he is taking us, he still has the direction we want to take. He has received the rudder from Lyell and Darwin; they could not have given it to anyone better. He will hand it over to others who will lead in his direction. And our community will sail swiftly forward, leaving behind the helpless ferrymen of the old worldviews. These are the ideas that the 14th of November, on which Lyell's birthday was celebrated for the hundredth time, has stirred in me."
  In a lecture at the Stuttgart Anthroposophical Congress on September 1, 1921 (reprinted in ‘The Three’, 2nd year, issue 7/8) [today in GA 78] Dr. Steiner said the following about the passage quoted above:
  "And when I had to write in 1897, on the hundredth birthday of Lyell, a founder of the modern scientific-monistic way of thinking, Haeckel also stood before me alive in the soul's eye. A community appeared to me in spirit that could be capable of continuing the process of living in nature, which can be found in the line of spirits from Lyell to Haeckel, in the direction in which it must be continued. That is why I wrote for this ideal community, which should seek the path that had just begun with Haeckel's monism, those words which, if understood correctly, can suggest that with this monism, a wall has now been crossed, beyond which one must no longer return to earlier times if one does not want to deal with the decline of if one wishes to deal with the rising, not the declining, forces of human evolution. Yes, my dear ladies and gentlemen, we must advance from this monism; we must never go back to the old worldviews that have been overcome by this monism. That is why I wrote the words at the time: Even if in some places we do not want to immediately move past the one he leads us to (namely Haeckel) – nobody can do that when anthroposophy is germinating in their soul – he still has the direction we want to take; he has taken the rudder from Lyell's and Darwin's hands, they could not have given it to a better person, and our community is sailing forward quickly! Yes, may it absorb into itself the strict scientific spirit that true natural research has brought forth, and may it quickly advance into those depths of world existence that lie in the supersensible and yet can only be fathomed by supersensible research!"
• 10. Magazin für Litteratur 1898, pag. 310. [Today in GA 33, page 129.]
• 11. This protest was directed particularly against Dr. Rabel's statement that Dr. Steiner “made wise use” of the burning of the Goetheanum and “took it as an opportunity to inaugurate a great movement of repentance and inner reflection”.

When one tries, now that some time has passed since the delegates' meeting took place, to visualize this event, which was so important for the Anthroposophical Society, one does not feel particularly uplifted. Certainly, there were many encouraging signs at this meeting that the longing for new life in the Society is strongly felt in many hearts. On the other hand, however, this fact could not be avoided: the Society in its present form is quite inadequate for the overwhelming size and importance of its task. This must be clearly recognized and openly stated.

Anthroposophy is a matter of global significance. The writings of its founder, although they certainly make no ordinary demands on the reader, are already in circulation throughout the world in print runs that surpass those of any other contemporary scientific author. Many of them have been translated into all the languages of culture, and there are few educated people who have not at some time or other tried to engage with them. Dr. Steiner's public lectures and courses are attended by people from all walks of life in almost every country in Europe. You will find there the simplest manual laborer and student alongside members of the highest aristocracy of every kind. The press of the whole world deals with the figure and work of Dr. Steiner, albeit mostly in an uncomprehending way. The most vehement opposition to anthroposophy is coming from the most influential societies in the world. The Goetheanum in Dornach was the only modern monumental building on earth that revealed a new style. A later cultural history will determine what was taken from humanity by the fact that this building fell victim to one of the most terrible crimes committed in a long time. A new art was born out of the spirit of anthroposophy: eurythmy. Those who have followed its wondrous development in recent years with loving understanding and sense its magnificent potential can glimpse the hope that future centuries may see in it the first beginning of a new culture. The education founded on anthroposophy attracted the attention and interest of the entire educational world within the first four years of its existence. One senses that when this education is fully understood, the impact on growing humanity and on the culture of the future will be felt throughout the world as a kind of liberating sigh of relief. In some other areas of life, the impulses of anthroposophy have not yet been able to reach their full potential due to the lack of understanding in the world or because the forces of decline in these areas have already gained the upper hand. We stand mourning at the grave of many a hope for humanity that Anthroposophy could have fulfilled if its impulses had been taken up in good time by the relevant circles with full seriousness and a full sense of responsibility. Numerous most valuable seeds have been cruelly destroyed here by a spiritless and uncultured age. Meanwhile, the inner development of anthroposophy through Dr. Steiner's regular lectures at the Goetheanum (in a simple carpenter's hall) continues, which must fill everyone who is fortunate enough to hear them with the deepest reverence and boundless admiration. These lectures, of which a single one would often be enough to give a person's life content, will continue to have an effect for centuries. Perhaps in the not too distant future no one will understand that they did not already evoke storms of shock and enthusiasm in the broadest circles in their own time. (What some of Dr. Steiner's students have already achieved or are capable of achieving in individual fields is not to be discussed in this context. But this too, measured against other cultural phenomena of the present day, is not without significance.)

This is Anthroposophy! It has been sensed by some, but its full significance has been recognized by only a few. It is a subject so great and glorious that the present generation, which seeks its joys of existence only in the lowlands of life, turns away from it, blinded as if by its beauty.

The task of the Anthroposophical Society would be to advocate this cause. How it has done so far, this assembly of delegates did not present a very encouraging picture. Truly, Anthroposophy needs a different representation. It demands a society worthy of it; one that stands in the world in awe; a society belonging to which should be felt as an honor for every cultivated person; a society whose members, without arrogance but with a noble pride, know how to present themselves to the world as Anthroposophists; a society that neither shuts itself away in sectarian circles nor goes around to the markets and tries to attract attention by conspicuous behavior.

Now efforts are being made to consolidate the Society. There is a feeling that things must change. But when it comes to the question of how, there is general confusion. People rack their brains and get hot heads. They take measures and think of forms of organization. But perhaps all these things are not what is needed in the first place! Perhaps here too we cannot see the forest for the trees – or for the undergrowth in which we get caught. Perhaps it is much more important that instead of exhausting ourselves with external efforts and external measures, we should reflect more on anthroposophy itself and on the tremendous significance it has for the future of humanity, and that we should have a heart for this cause and a living interest in everything that is connected with it, and a great love! And in itself that strong hope that trusts that in the end, what is great and divine will prevail!

What efforts have been made in the interest of society! How much work and effort has been expended! How many sleepless nights have been sacrificed – without any far-reaching effect having been achieved! It cannot be said that there is a lack of diligence. There is enough activity. But all in all, the right love for the cause is still missing. Not that it is not present here and there! But it is not yet present as the great driving force that permeates society as a whole. But this is the necessary prerequisite for any fruitful work in society. For only when society as such is imbued with real love for the cause can that living interest, that warm inner sympathy come about, which then takes hold of all the individual members, and without which a spiritual movement in the world cannot succeed.

What is to endure in the face of time must be carried by a pure enthusiasm that wells up from the depths of the soul. Love and enthusiasm open the mouth of the singer so that he may praise the beauty of the world in song. These songs are what we lack. How often do we speak about anthroposophy in a language that is without inner beauty and without the spark of enthusiasm! Because our mouths do not overflow with what our hearts are full of – and not just our heads.

Because there is no love that wants to worship shyly and devoutly, the right tact is often missing to represent the movement in a dignified way before the world; the happy ability is missing to know at every moment what one can do for the cause, and to always find the right word in the right place.

Where love speaks, everything becomes simple and great. Thoughts do not wander wearily into nebulous distances, but hands reach for what is closest and do it with joy. They find their happiness in it. That is where hard duty turns into affection. And all heaviness becomes light. An atmosphere is created in which one can work because the work of each individual is supported and carried by the interest and concern of all the others.

This mood, this feeling, this spiritual atmosphere, is a fundamental prerequisite for fruitful work in our society. A prerequisite that has not been met so far, but which must be created if our work is to be blessed. It can only arise from sincere love for the cause, born out of serious work of knowledge. May this increasingly become a fundamental feature of the society! For is there any cause that one can love more justly than Anthroposophy? Is there any cause that one can love more than this?

Out of right love for the work, right love will then also develop for the people who work on the work. But this will teach us to see not only the weaknesses and imperfections in our co-workers (as happens now to a sufficient extent), but also their positive qualities, which are present in our society to an extent not found in any other community in the world. Let us learn to see and recognize these qualities! In doing so, we will release forces that can achieve more than the most astute criticism could ever do. This is not meant as a criticism of criticism as such, which unfortunately is all too justified. Only against its exclusivity. Only against the fact that it does not always come from a bleeding heart and that it is not always coupled with the desire to recognize what is worthy of recognition and to love what is worthy of love.

Emil Leinhas.

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society

As you already know, we, the undersigned, took over the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society as the new Executive Council at the Assembly of Delegates of the Anthroposophical Society, which met here in Stuttgart from February 25-28. This took place with the unanimous consent of the meeting and by cooption by the old Central Council. Since we still need an active co-worker in the midst of all the work, we have coopted Dr. Walter Johannes Stein into the Council after the fact. Accordingly, he has co-signed this letter. One of our most urgent duties, as set out in the 'Draft Principles of an Anthroposophical Society', is to create a body of trusted individuals. The first step in this direction is to approach those of our friends in whom we recognize the same ideals for our cause, and by whom we ourselves wish to be guided in our work. To this end, we wish to establish two institutions:

1. an extended board of directors
2. a body of trusted individuals.

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to join the circle of trusted individuals and to let us know of your agreement. The extended board is in the process of being formed, and we will let you know which friends will be on it as soon as it has been constituted. The extended board will form a body whose relationship to the local board will develop in the course of the lively cooperation of all those involved. The members of this extended board will have to represent the views of the Society as a whole, but they will be involved in the work in the individual localities to a much greater extent than would be possible with a single central management. The members of the extended board will also have all the powers that are intended for the trusted representatives.

Since we understand our tasks entirely in the sense of the “Draft Principles of an Anthroposophical Society” ¹, what is said about this on pages 4 and 5 of the draft will also be decisive for the work of the trusted personalities. It will therefore be their “responsibility to accept the registration of members” and they will “take over the guarantee for the members they propose to the board.”

In view of the seriousness of the situation in which our society finds itself, we may well assume that you are aware of the importance of admitting new members. An unusual degree of responsibility arises here, because it is important to enable the many people who long for anthroposophy in their essential being to enter our circles, and even to find such people. But at the same time, the greatest care is needed to avoid harming our society through new members joining. Our worst opponents draw on the material provided by former members. Of course we know from our own experience how tremendously difficult it is to do the right thing when admitting members.

But surely there is a way to do justice to these tasks through a close collaboration between the trusted individuals, the leaders of the working groups and those friends who give introductory courses and public lectures on anthroposophy, insofar as these activities do not coincide. It will always be necessary for those friends who are involved in the admission of new members to make it their heartfelt concern that the newly admitted are also received in the right way within the Society. In larger working groups, special arrangements will have to be made for this. We will take the liberty of sharing some thoughts on this at the earliest opportunity, and we are always grateful for friends sharing their experiences with us.

The Anthroposophical Society draws its life from the spiritual impulses at work within it. For each person, joining our Society marks an important stage in their life. The welcome in our midst can become an expression of this spiritual fact; then we will grow in our community-building power. Dr. Steiner spoke of this community-building power in his lectures on February 27 and 28.² We must seek ways to give effect to these impulses in the handling of such concrete matters as the admission of members.

It will make the tasks of the trusted representatives easier if they see themselves as a cohesive body that can provide support to the individual in their togetherness. We would like to be in close contact with each trusted personality, but we would also be delighted if the trusted personalities of one place and neighboring districts could establish a lively relationship with each other and with the members of the extended board. Here, too, a piece of joint anthroposophical work can emerge.

We would be grateful if you would comment on the questions briefly outlined here, as this will lead to many beneficial results for the task of our society of creating space for anthroposophy in people's hearts.

With warmest anthroposophical greetings

The Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society

Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Johanna Mücke, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Louis Werbeck.

A list of those personalities who have received the same letter is attached.

Provisional list of trusted third parties:

1. Miss Lina Arnold, Bochum, Bergstr. 125

2. Mr. Franz Alwes, Breslau, Heiligengeiststr. 7
3. Mr. Adolf Arenson, Stuttgart-Cannstatt, Paulinenstr. 13
4. Mr. Moritz Bartsch, Breslau, Gottschallstr. 8
5. Mr. Otto Baster, Düsseldorf, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Str. 12
6. Mr. Michael Bauer, Breitbrunn am Ammersee
7. Mr. Max Benirschke, Düsseldorf, Gartenstr. 99
8. Mr. Max Benzinger, Stuttgart-Ostheim, Rotenbergstr. 164 a
9. Mr. Martin Borchart, Dresden, Schnorrstr. 49
10. Mrs. Luise Cayard, Frankfurt a. M., Suchaystr. 5
11. Mr. Walter Classmann, Vohwinkel b. Elberfeld, Emilstr. 161.
12. Mr. Willi Conrad, Cologne, Hohenzollernring 37
13. Prof. Hermann Craemer, Bonn, Rheinbacherstr. 13
14. Mr. Otto Daeglau, Breslau, Schuhbrücke 81
15. Mr. Felix von Damnitz, Elberfeld, Kluserhöhe 11
16. Prof. Dr. Fritz Dauner, Konstanz, Schützenstr. 22
17. Mr. Heinrich David, Bielefeld, Freiligrathstr. 7
18. Mr. Claus van der Decken, Hannover, Bodenstedtstr. 13
19. Ms. Clara Dennhardt, Magdeburg-Werder, Zollstr. 12a
20. Mr. Dipl.-Ing. Hugo Detert, Karlsruhe, Klauprechtstr. 35
21. Mr. Anton Deutzmann, Barmen, Lindenstr. 14
22. Dr. Friedrich Doldinger, Freiburg i. Br., Reiterstr. 20
23.* Mr. Anton Dibbern, Hamburg 20, Geffkenstr. 10
24. Mr. Wilhelm Eggers, Hanover, Voßstr. 43
25. Dr. Otto Eisenberg, Kassel, Obere Königstr. 221.
26. Mr. Josef Elkan, Munich, Karlsplatz 24
27. Mr. August Everbeck, Hanover, Meterstr. 211.
28. Mr. Bernhard Gantenbein, Berlin, Krausenstr. 39/39 a
29. Mr. Ernst Gerst, Eßlingen, Ehnisstr. 2
30. Mr. Karl Greber, Heidelberg, Zähringerstr. 6
31. Mr. Wilhelm Goyert, Cologne, Habsburgerring 23
32. Baroness Gumppenberg, Munich, Neuberghauserstr. 11
33. Mr. Richard Hannemann, Wierow near Greifenhagen in Pomerania
34. Mr. Hugo Harder, Karlsruhe i. Baden, Edelsheimerstr. 5
35. Mr. Walter Hartwig, Lörrach-Stetten, Dammstr.
36. Mr. Horst von Henning, Weimar, Luisenstr. 19
37. Miss Elfriede Herrmann, Halle a. 5., Humboldtstr. 40
38. Mr. Friedrich Hirsch, Memmingen, Ulmerstr. 13
39. Dr. Caroline von Heydebrand, Stuttgart, Werastr. 13
40. Mr. Bernhard Hubo, Hamburg, Hohenfelderallee 12
41. Mr. Johannes Jung, Erfurt, Alsenstr. 18
42. Dr. Josef Kalkhof, Freiburg i. Br., Katharinenstr. 1
43. Mr. Carl Kälber, Eßlingen, Olgastr. 10
44. Mr. Carl Keyserlingk, Koberwitz near Breslau
45. Mr. Karl Kieser, Stuttgart, Schützenplatz 16
46. Miss Luise Kieser, Heilbronn, Mörikestr. 8
47. Mr. Andreas Körner, Nuremberg-Loher Moos, Heroldsbergerweg 67
48. Mr. Friedrich Kiem, Berlin-Steglitz, Hollsteinischestr. 30
49. Mr. Werner Klein, Düsseldorf, Viktoriastr. 5
50. Mr. Wilhelm Korth, Berlin-Schmargendorf, Breitestr. 3 III.
51. Mr. Eugen Kuenstler, Cologne, Belfortstr. 9
52. Mr. Georg Kugelmann, Rostock, Schröderstr. 42
53. Mr. Friedrich Kutscher, Dresden-Weißer Hirsch, Querstr. 11
54. Dr. Willibald Lehmann, Bremen, Wartburgstr. 8
55. Graf Otto Lerchenfeld, Schloß Köfering near Regensburg
56. Frl. Anna Mahn, Vitznau, Canton of Lucerne (Switzerland), at
57. Frau v. Brandenstein Herr Walter Mayen, Breslau, Lehmdamm 6811.
58. Mr. Alfred Meebold, A.-G. Stahlwerke-Weißenfels, Julisch-Venetien (Italy)
59. Miss J. Charlotte Mellinger, Frankfurt a. M., Bürgerstr. 90
60. Mr. Rudolf Meyer, Berlin, Cottbuser Ufer 25
61. Miss Anna Mollwo, Lübeck, Overbeckstr. 8
62. Mr. Emil Molt, Stuttgart, Spittlerstr. 8
63. Mr. José del Monte, Stuttgart, Spittlerstr. 8
64. Mrs. Gertrud Müller-Thalwitzer, Königsberg i. Preußen, Ht. Trag. 19
65. Mr. Emil Mund, Leipzig A, Posadowsky-Anlage 17 II.
66. Mrs. Henny Mustert, Osnabrück, Friedrichstr. 221.
67. Dr. Ludwig Noll, Stuttgart, Gänsheidestr. 88
68. Dr. Felix Peipers, Stuttgart, Gänsheidestr. 88
69. Carl Picht, Ulm a. D., Olgastr. 4
70. Dr. Hermann Poppelbaum, Frankfurt a. M., Holzhausenstr. 30
71. Mr. Hans Raether, Berlin NW 87, Solingerstr. 3
72. Mrs. Thekla von Reden, Berlin, Motzstr. 54
73. Mr. Dipl.-Ing. Alfred Reebstein, Durlach near Karlsruhe, Schloßstr. 6
74. Dr. Paul Reiche, Greifswald, Knopfstr. 4
75. Ms. Helene Röchling, Mannheim, L. 9. 10
76. Prof. Dr. Oskar Römer, Leipzig, Windmühlenweg 25
77. Miss Dorothea von Schmehling, Wiesbaden, Adelheidstr. 91
78.* Mr. J. G. W. Schröder, Stuttgart, Schwarenbergstr. 84
79. Mr. Friedrich Schuster, Essen, Papestr. 59
80. Mr. Hans Schwedes, Bensheim a. d. Bergstraße, Schönbergerstr. 35
81. Mr. Richard Seebohm, Zwätzen near Jena
82. Mr. Albert Seel, Pforzheim, Zähringerallee 25
83. Mr. Franz Seiler, Stuttgart, Champignystr. 17
84. Mr. Wilhelm Selling, Berlin, Motzstr. 17
85.* Mr. Carl Stahlbusch, Berlin-Zehlendorf, Annastr. 5 86. Mr. Carl Stavenhagen, Hamburg, Klosterallee 49
87. Mrs. Gertrud Stein, Fahr near Neuwied, Haus Hohenstein
88.* Mrs. Johanne Stockmeyer, Waldhaus Malsch, Amt Ettlingen near Karlsruhe
89. Mr. E. A. Karl Stockmeyer, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
90. Mr. Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Strakosch, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
91. Mr. Otto Thorwirth, Gotha, Leesenstr. 23 a
92. Mrs. Joanna Thylmann, Darmstadt, Herderweg 62
93. Mr. Wilhelm Trommsdorff, Stuttgart, Gerokstr. 65
94. Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart, Hohenheimerstr. 67
95.* Ms. Hildegard von Veltheim, Munich, Ohmstr. 15
96. Miss Toni Völker, Stuttgart, Falkertstr. 72
97. Miss Ellida Wagner, Quedlinburg a. H., Heiligegeiststr. 5
98. Mr. Günther Wagner, Frauenalb near Karlsruhe i. B.
99. Mr. Kurt Walther, Frankfurt a. O., Gurschstr. 6
100. Mr. August Wegfraß, Erfurt, Schmidstetter Ufer 4
101. Mrs. Anna Weißbrod, Freiburg, Badstr. 50
102. Mrs. Ella Weißhaar, Wildberg Castle on the Nagold
103. Mr. Wilhelm Wittkopf, Lehe on the Weser, Kronprinzenallee 40 104. Prof. Dr. Hans Wohlbold, Munich, Adalbertstr. 55 105. Mr. Max Wolffhügel, Stuttgart, Maienstr. 2
106. Mrs. Elise Wolfram, Leipzig, Karlstr. 26
107. Mr. Wilhelm Zeuch, Gera, Flanzstr. 8II.
108. Mrs. Magda Zoeppritz-Ney, Mergelstetten, Felseck, Wttbg.
109. Mrs. Clara von Zychlinski, Bonn, Schumannstr. 43

n October 1923, the definitive list of trusted persons was published in No. 8 of the “Mitteilungen”. Of the 109 names listed above, those marked with an asterisk (*) no longer appeared. The following new ones had been added:

Mr. Cornelis Apel, Stuttgart, Landhausstr. 95
Dr. Hermann v. Baravalle, Stuttgart, Landhausstr. 14
Mr. Paul Baumann, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
Mr. Eugen Benkendberfer, Cannstatt, Paulinenstr. 13.
Mr. Christoph Boy, Stuttgart, Rechbergstr. 4
Colonel Max v. den Brincken, Sondershausen, Marienstraße 60
Mr. Albert Dibbern, Stuttgart, Werfmershalde 10
Miss Emmi Dresler, Siegen i. Westf., Burgstr. 5
Mr. Wilhelm Fink, Stuttgart, Ameisenbergstr. 1
Mr. Ludwig Gauf, Darmstadt, Annastr. 36
Mr. Wilhelm Gaum, Pforzheim, Nagoldstr. 9
Mr. Jürgen von Grone, Stuttgart, Villastr. 14
Mr. Max Gümbel-Seiling, Kaiserslautern i. d. Pfalz, Finkenstr. 1
Dr. Herbert Hahn, Stuttgart, Landhausstr. 95
Mr. Georg Heins, Bremen, Besselstr. 40
Dr. Karl Heyer, Stuttgart, Im Kühnle 4 B
Dr. Friedrich Husemann, Stuttgart, Gänsheidestr. 88
Countess Pauline Kalckreuth, Munich, Adalbertstr. 55 III
Mr. Georg Klenk, Munich, Arcisstr. 49 III
Mr. Rudolf Köhler, Bremen, Humboldstr. 141
Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
Dr. Bruno Krüger, Stuttgart-Obertürkh., Cannstatterstr. 20
Mr. Hans Kühn, Stuttgart, Ameisenbergstr. 1
Mr. Theodor Lauer, Stuttgart, Kornbergstr. 7
Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, Werastr. 13
Ms. Erdwine Lindemann, Brake (Lippe-Detmold), Detmolderstr. 113
Dr. Rudolf Maier, Stuttgart, Werfmershalde 8
Baroness Nora von Malchus, Ravensburg, Rudolfstr. 8
Mrs. Meta Meier, Bremen, Humboldtstr. 133
Mr. Oskar Meyer, Freiburg i. Br., Weberstr. 4
Miss Johanna Mücke, Berlin W 30, Motzstr. 17
Mr. Martin Münch, Berlin, Zahlendorf-Mitte, Gertraudstr. 10
Dr. Otto Palmer, Stuttgart, Gänsheidestr. 88
Mr. Wilhelm Pelikan, Stuttgart, Fraasstr. 14
Dr. Kurt Piper, Stuttgart, Urbanstr. 31 A
Dr. Paul H. Praußnitz, Jena, Johann-Friedrich-Str. 1 pt.
Mr. Otto Reebstein, Stuttgart, Landhausstr. 70
Mr. Otto Rennefeld, Charlottenburg, Kantstr. 130 A
Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Stuttgart, Urachstr. 41
Dr. Ludwig Roesel, Leipzig, Georgiring 5
Miss Dr. Maria Röschl, Stuttgart, Landhausstr. 90
Mr. Wilhelm Ruhtenberg, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
Mr. Diplom-Ing. Lothar Schäfer, Bremen, Osterholzerstr. 35
Mr. Franz Schäffler, Eßlingen, Urbanstr. 36
Mr. Werner Schlitte, Naumburg a.S., Friedenstr. 5
Mr. Wilhelm Schrack, Cannstatt, Teckstr. 4
Dr. Erich Schwebsch, Stuttgart, Alexanderstr. 26 B
Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart, Kanonenweg 44
Dr. Simon Streicher, Stuttgart, Falbenhennenstr. 5
Dr. Hans Theberath, Stuttgart, Maienstr. 5/7
Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart, Werastr. 13
Mr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Stuttgart, Bopserstr. 19
Mr. Louis Werbeck, Hamburg, Holzdamm 34
Dr. Rudolf Zoeppritz, Mergelstetten, Felseck, Wttb.

• 1. See under Notes.
• 2. Coming soon – for members only – from the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischen Verlag Berlin. More details will be provided. [Now in GA 257]

On the day following the delegates' conference, Rudolf Steiner was still in Stuttgart and took part in a meeting of the “Bund für Freies Geistesleben” (Federation for an Independent Spiritual Life). The following wording of his vote has been handed down by Dr. Karl Heyer, to whom “Dr. Carl Unger gave a document in March 1923 with the remark that it was a free reproduction of remarks made by Rudolf Steiner (shortly before) about the Bund für Freies Geistesleben in a meeting in Stuttgart, written down by Dr. Unger. (That meeting may have been one held on March 1, 1923).

If the “Association for Free Intellectual Life” is to be given tasks, it can only be with due regard to reality. As early as the ¹ constitution, I pointed out what was important. Until the last third of the 19th century, this bond actually existed and consisted of people who, as free spirits, stood out from the philistine intellectual life. The difference between old and young, as it stands out today, is superficial. In the past, there was a natural authority stemming from the fourth post-Atlantic culture, but even in Goethe's time, people entered into philistinism in their old age. Goethe himself, in his old age, was of course always the man of genius, but he was also the corpulent privy councillor with the double chin. Now we have entered the epoch of freedom, and this finds expression in youth. For example, in his “Conversations of the German Emigrants,” Goethe describes such a circle, which existed instinctively. People from the most diverse spheres discuss matters on completely free, neutral ground; a spiritualist is also present. Such people have always distinguished themselves from the philistine intellectual circles, such as theologians, lawyers, physicians and whatever emerged from the fourth faculty. Such a federation must be consciously developed. At the time of the Congress of Vienna [meaning the international congress of the anthroposophical movement in June 1922 in Vienna] a so-called cultural alliance was founded by seven people, of course in the wrong way, there was also a Jesuit among them. But it is a matter of a worldly concern. This cultural association described the idea of threefolding in the first issue of its journal, albeit in a hidden way, but quite appropriately. There is talk of the philistine industrialists on the one hand, and the Bolsheviks on the other. Between them there is a certain social class that knows it belongs to them: the declassed nobility, people who are otherwise educated but who have fallen by the wayside, will constitute themselves internationally and recognize each other everywhere. The “Bund für Freies Geistesleben” must found itself on such a real basis, but with full consciousness. Then spiritual people will also have their place. The people are certainly there. I do not think much of existing connections. Things must happen naturally. Lectures are useful if one can make use of latent success. You find people if you let them approach you and do not push them away. These are people of a special spiritual nature, people who actually have the need to get in touch with something spiritual outside the mould into which they have been placed by their education. In the disintegrating society of Europe, these people can be found everywhere. They have the need to be with like-minded people in a community on spiritual ground. Those who are interested in a free college grow out of this. It will be easiest in the artistic field. The idea of a free college within Central Europe could arouse the greatest interest in America, especially financially, but we also need the lecturers for this, because we cannot always burden the same people with everything.

• 1. In July 1922, there is no protocol.

written between March 7-11, 1923

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

1. With regard to the external constitution of the Free Anthroposophical Society, the aim should be to ensure that this society corresponds to the “Draft Statutes” ². This makes it possible to unite people in a society while allowing them complete individual freedom, without constantly threatening dissolution. Anyone who truly understands the “Draft” in the right sense will have to find all this fulfilled in it.

2. First of all, it is necessary to bring together all those personalities who are already members of the Anthroposophical Society and who, in the opinion of the committee formed, started from the points of view that legitimately had to cause the separation into two groups of the overall society. Mere dissatisfaction with the old leadership cannot suffice, but only a positive orientation towards an anthroposophical goal, which must be assumed to be unattainable by the old leadership.

3. First of all, the Free Anthroposophical Society, formed in this way, is to appoint trusted individuals who are recognized by the committee. Only those who have an interest in giving anthroposophy to contemporary civilization should be appointed as trusted individuals. Then, in addition to the personalities already in the Anthroposophical Society, others will be added who will only be accepted. But it is precisely with these that care must be taken to ensure that they have made the positive of the anthroposophical the basic direction of their own lives. People who have only a general social interest, without an intensive anthroposophical impact, should not be appointed as trusted individuals, even if they are accepted into the Society with the idea that they will grow into real anthroposophists.

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

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

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

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

8. A committee of trust should be established for each of the two committees, one for the Anthroposophical Society and one for the Free Anthroposophical Society. These two committees are responsible for handling the common affairs of the entire Anthroposophical Society.

9. All institutions of the overall Anthroposophical Society should fall within the sphere of interest of both the Anthroposophical and the Free Anthroposophical Societies. This can be quite beneficial if a central administrative office is set up to manage the affairs of the overall Society on behalf of the two committees (mediated by their committees of trust). The division into two groups should not lead to a situation in which an anthroposophical institution – especially one that already exists – is regarded as the concern of only one group.

Quotas – to be determined by the committees – of the membership fees should be paid into the central fund so that the affairs of the entire society can be adequately provided for.

10. It should be understood that the two groups have come into being only because there are two sharply distinct groups among the members, who both want the same anthroposophy but want to experience it in different ways. If this is properly understood, the relative separation cannot lead to a split, but to a harmony that would not be possible without the separation.

11. The Free Anthroposophical Society should in no way attempt to destroy the historical developmental forces of the Anthroposophical Society. Those who want freedom for themselves should leave the freedom of others completely untouched. The fact that there are imperfections in the old Anthroposophical Society should not lead to further feuding, but to the formation of a Free Anthroposophical Society, which, in the opinion of the leading personalities, avoids these imperfections.

12. The separation means that all the conditions are in place for young people in particular to feel at home in the Free Anthroposophical Society. This is because the life communities will be free groups of people who understand each other; and this will be able to form the basis for ensuring that no one in the general Free Anthroposophical Society feels restricted in their freedom.

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

Since ¹ Steiner took part in the meeting for the first time again.²

First of all, Dr. Rittelmeyer's appeal for a collection for the Goetheanum was discussed. Dr. Steiner advised against it because it would mean money flowing abroad, which is prohibited by current laws. He suggested, on the other hand, that the impulse be allowed to take effect by setting up a “Goetheanum Foundation Fund”, for example (see S. 167).

Once the matter had been settled in this way, Adolf Arenson noted with great satisfaction that he had proposed exactly the same thing as Dr. Steiner in the meeting two days ago, using almost the same words. He said that he had been ignored, but that Dr. Steiner's advice was now readily accepted. He would like to present this as a symptom, after all. Rittelmeyer replied that it was also something else to simply want to let a matter fall by the wayside or to make something better out of it by thinking and guessing, as Dr. Steiner had just done. Arenson's remarks were only perceived as paralyzing.

He defended himself against this, and the discussion went back and forth, referring to the penultimate session with Dr. Unger, who, together with Benkendörfer, had already raised objections to Rittelmeyer's first call for this sacrifice, which had to be a spiritual act and in which he would give his wedding ring.

• 1. The minutes of the meetings from the beginning of January to the Delegates' Assembly, see Part III, page 201 ff.
• 2. The Stuttgart Delegates' Assembly at the end of February; see Part III.