The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Now just a few remarks following on from what I said the other day, because I am almost afraid that some things could be misunderstood again. From a variety of symptoms, it is clear that some things could be misunderstood. Just remember that it must not be believed that I disapprove of or somehow complain about or even find it incomprehensible when articles appear that are opposed to spiritual science and take a factual point of view. Such articles cannot, of course, do any harm to the cause. Even what the privy councillor Max Seiling wrote about the alleged contradictions cannot harm the cause of spiritual science; for everyone can see from the literature what it is about. Therefore, when I speak of the damage to society, it cannot be the case that society could now have the task of dealing with what is factual from a social point of view; that is the concern of the individual. The individual who stands up for spiritual science – whether positively or polemically – will be able to do a great service to spiritual science as such. But spiritual science is most certainly not a matter for the Society as such in this context. I have to say this, otherwise it will seem ridiculous to say that meetings or discussions are being held on how to deal with the attacks on Dr. Steiner.

Of course anyone who wants to can write about the matter; that is their business. But it cannot be a matter for the Society. It can be a matter for individuals, but not for the Anthroposophical Society. So, for example, if special meetings have been held in one place and one of the main topics there was what should be done about such attacks, then that is of course completely off the mark. Such attacks, which are factual – even if they are not factual – want to be factual, must also be countered in writing, in the usual way that it generally happens. What is at issue now is that this method of trying to kill spiritual science by drawing people into a web of lies, slander and defamation is not used, but that spiritual science is made impossible because people find it too uncomfortable, or for other reasons, to engage with spiritual science themselves. They have to deal with it themselves. But someone who tells you the most stupid, fantastic orgies - you don't need to get involved in spiritual science for that. But with today's human disposition, it is something through which you can achieve a lot. But this is something that is quite connected - I say this fully consciously - with what has often been played out in the Anthroposophical Society, and also earlier in the Theosophical Society.

You see, after printing an article that is a pack of lies from beginning to end, an editor finds it appropriate to talk about how, I don't know, admirers or female disciples of Dr. Steiner everywhere emphasize that they consider him to be the Christ returned. This is not something that occurs in one place only, it occurs everywhere. Just yesterday it occurred to us again, in the following form: someone claimed that they could find witnesses that I had given a public lecture in a city from which it could be inferred that I had spoken of repeated embodiments of the Christ and pointed out that I myself was claiming such an embodiment.

But, my dear friends, do not believe that this does not already relate to certain murky things in the development of our society. Those friends who observe things with understanding will have found that from a certain point in time, which was very early on, I had begun to assert with complete determination, to emphasize again and again, that the Christ event is a unique one, and I emphasized it because, as I well knew, coteries had formed among us very early on that spread this, well, you can't even call it a fairy tale, but this nonsense, that it has penetrated everywhere, now it is appearing. Do you think I don't know those who in 1905, 1906, 1907 were already toying with all kinds of ideas of incarnation, who were spouting nonsense back then, and had connected with that what - I can't even repeat it because it's such trite stuff. Not only when the Alcyone swindle first appeared did I speak of the impossibility of repeated Christ incarnations, in order to counter what was going on here in this society. It became apparent very early on that a small group, small coteries, were forming, each of which wants to have been this or that, and of course, if one wants to be a Baptist, they need the other complementary piece, because they have to appear together again. Such John the Baptists, Apostles John - they just walked around like that, didn't they.

A lot of it also has to do with the fact that one has a selfish joy, a typically selfish joy, when one can say to someone: This is a secret! I am not allowed to tell you! This is only for the inner circle! - A lot of it has to do with all these things. These things have now been pushed far enough; these things have led to the gossip and scandal that has proliferated. I recently spoke not to counter this, which apparently or really deals with the facts, but about what threatens to let society sink into gossip and rumor, into slander and defamation, because spiritual science can be drawn into gossip and rumor as a result.

And what is a social matter is what has led to the fact that measures had to be taken. Do you think that articles that challenge one or the other sentence have led to such measures having to be taken now? No, they have not! But if you have powers of observation, you can see the intertwined paths everywhere, especially in what has been appearing for some time. As some of you may still remember, it all began with a mean article that appeared in the “Deutsche Tageszeitung” [German Daily Newspaper], which actually contained gossip that had been exaggerated in a very specific way. Since that time, no protest has ever been raised in the Anthroposophical Society against gossip and idle chatter, but it has been thought — as I generally emphasize, that as a rule the opposite of what I mean happens; I have always been misunderstood. As if I believed that this or that, which is apparently or really factually objected to spiritual science, should be dealt with by society. That can certainly be asserted by members, but that is a matter in itself. But we cannot continue the society if such swamp flowers arise as they are now; we cannot possibly do so. All kinds of things are sought after in one direction or another that have nothing to do with spiritual science, that depend on whether one has a society, so it happens that everyone in the society, no matter whether they represent the greatest nonsense, belongs to the society. So people say: This is the society that Dr. Steiner represents! He is responsible for all the nonsense that is carried out. And what a lot of cabbage it is! People go to the doctor and explain to him without any coercion: Yes, Dr. Steiner knows all this better than you do; he knows how to find the illnesses through the spirit.

It is obvious that these things, which accumulate and are always there in one form or another, make it impossible for society to continue in its present form. Apart from many other things that make it impossible, which in particular mean that there is hardly any kind of impudence to which we have not been exposed over time. Above all, everyone understands their membership in such a way that they can scold us according to their needs, preferably in writing or in some other way. We have not been spared any kind of unjustified impudence over time.

Now, these are not really impertinences, there is no need to get annoyed about them, you can accept them objectively, they do not harm you; but the things that then happen are factual. The person who writes an impertinence represents it in every respect; the impertinence becomes a lie, becomes a lie, and then it leads to gossip and slander. That is why it is so important to keep pointing out the factual judgment.

Do we have to overheat everything? Do we always have to put everything in a false light? Things on the physical plane are not so that they can be deified in every single link, in every single small phase. And can we not, when it comes to emphasizing as a social issue what has been said often and for the purpose of being said, so that what our society should be can really learn to distinguish itself from all the ghastly sectarian societies with which it is repeatedly and repeatedly confused. But what is happening?

Please take the whole stack of the Zyklen (a series of lectures) – I don't even want to mention the books – take the Zyklen, the lectures that were given, and please look up how much is in them about the purely physical question of nutrition: what one should eat or drink, what one should not eat or drink; please look up what is in them! Then ask how many members of the Anthroposophical Society are going around saying: Dr. Steiner said you shouldn't eat that, I know what, you shouldn't eat roots, that and that. - All sorts of things that make the Society look ridiculous! But it is arranged so that not only the Society is ridiculed, but I am always ridiculed with it; that is the technique that is followed.

It depends on the spirit in which things are done, because that is the spirit in which they are then driven. And I can observe this spirit from other symptoms. It is almost unbelievable when I see the kind of rubbish that is sent to me from members. If someone comes up with nonsense like cutting potatoes and placing them on warts to heal them, a member will ask whether this is right or not, or what should be done in such a case. This spirit also leads to telling members whether they should drink coffee, eat cheese, or consume mustard and paprika, and the like. I beg of you, take a look at the whole bunch of cycles and see if you can find any of these things there! So anyone who, even with the best of intentions, advocates these things as they are advocated and makes stories out of them that appear to be made in the name of the Society is falsifying what this is all about in the worst possible way.

Of course, I know that many, many, hopefully the majority of the members, feel the same way, but it is important to judge the things. If you have a society, you have to consider: everyone is a member of this society; but does that blind you to the qualities of the society? Is it necessary that it blinds you to the qualities of the society? Isn't it true that sometimes one has to deal with a person, one should also deal with him, one can perhaps do him some good by dealing with him. But does one then have to be blind to the person? Can't one walk alongside a person with seeing eyes? Does one have to justify oneself to oneself when one is friends with a person, that he is a high I or even a terribly great incarnation or the like?

I am talking about very specific things that have happened. Really, a lot would be kept back if one were to make the effort to judge. So it can happen, of course, as attitudes develop in our society, that I can't save myself whenever a certain personality, when I went on a trip, also bought a ticket and of course sat down in the compartment where I sat. That is something I can't prevent. I can't forbid any passenger to sit with me in the compartment, otherwise I would have to buy up all the tickets. — That is harmless; but if people from the Anthroposophical Society then come and, because the person in question always sits in my compartment and travels with me, they consider this person to be a highly initiated one, that is, an especially highly developed personality, then the damage of considering someone to be something begins. It is precisely this that matters, that one has first formed one's opinion.

I really don't always want to be 'betrayed' about these things, but the way these things are coming out of all 'clusters' now, how we really can't go on a journey and see in all places how far people go with the most sacred things. Of course, I never spoke in that place in the most distant of successive incarnations of Christ, but I least noticed that I myself was that incarnation, as in 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907 it was constantly whispered to the world, but not trumpeted, that is precisely the worst thing, that bears its fruits today.

But here we have a person who claims to have heard it, because he claims that he was sitting at the lecture and can also point to others who heard it too. So things go so far that you hear things that could never possibly have been said. But do you think, my dear friends, after the experiences I have had, that I would dare to be completely sure if someone were to say: Yes, there was someone there who took notes, who gave me the transcript, I can prove it! – Do you think I would claim that there can be no such transcript? I am even willing to believe, after all the nonsense that has been spread in the postscripts, that this too can be found in the postscripts.

Just as my dear friends, such nonsense, such ridiculous nonsense in such a hateful way has not really been written at all yet, as is now being written against us, so one must also say: the Anthroposophical Society had to be founded to bring such things to light, which would not actually be possible on any other ground. Nevertheless, many of those who engage in such things are, according to the state of their consciousness, fully convinced that it never occurred to them to ever participate in such things. They may not even know, those who do it.

It is only under such conditions that we are able to see the result that arises, among other things, from this. I will mention only the mildest: Dr. Steiner spoke about the Lazarus miracle, how the human being can be transformed. And then it is shown that he also wanted to perform the Lazarus miracle in a special case with a member. The member felt that the miracle should be performed on her. The way was that Dr. Steiner, when the person concerned was in a sanatorium, sent chocolate biscuits “to thicken the blood”. So, because chocolate biscuits were sent to the sanatorium, as the person concerned herself says, “to thicken the blood”.

Of course, Dr. Steiner only sent them to eat. If she had not walked past a pastry shop, but an orange and apple shop, she might have sent oranges or apples, but she sent chocolate biscuits.

But once the aspiration has arisen, my dear friends, to seriously tie in with the cultural movement of humanity in general, the society was generally not the right instrument for doing so. I once talked about the first attempts of this or that painter or sculptor and tried to show them. One would like it if one were interested in something that, even if it is only at the beginning, is hung in lecture halls for the sake of shame, and people walk past it; but all such endeavors were ignored. A boycott of everything that is not dilettantism is also an ingredient of the Anthroposophical Society, which weighs heavily on the soul.

On the other hand, if you came into the individual branches, the seven red “patches” over the black cross were everywhere, of course! Whether or not it was a work of art was not the point! Rather, the ugliest and most inartistic was that which was the deepest. And once when I was speaking in Dornach about how the big problem, if one can call it that, with Dürer's 'St. Jerome', but especially with 'Melancholy', lies in the use of chiaroscuro, in the entire spatial arrangement, and how I was trying to place that in the development, since we were able to show the picture as a slide at the time, and one could discuss this particular aspect of the Dürer picture, a voice suddenly arose that found this quite Botokudisch, of course, that I saw the important thing in the actually artistic problem: Can't you see anything deeper in it? He meant that one had to start explaining according to the pattern of how it had happened once – well, we had presented something and someone came and asked: Which person is Atma, which one is Buddhi, which one is spirit self? Everything should be an abstract symbol.

This, of course, leads to the factual, but I also had to mention it for the reason that these aberrations in the factual form the centerpiece; for on the other hand they lead into the abyss of that which presents itself as a love of the nebulous, which is then no longer far removed from all possible subjective deception and which is no longer far removed from objective untruth.

But today it is important not to confuse social issues – and these are very much social issues – with issues of spiritual science, which are something completely different. Otherwise, one could come up with the absurd idea, which someone has already come up with, of setting up a press committee to which anyone who wants to write something, in particular wants to write counterattacks or wants to make attacks, would have to submit. My dear friends, firstly, I believe that if such a committee had existed, Seiling would hardly have bothered to go and ask whether he could write his articles. And neither would the others. If they were forbidden to do so, they would at most resign. That is the second point. The third is that the whole thing would be nonsense.

Speeches by Rudolf Steiner at the preliminary meeting of the fourth ordinary general assembly of “Futurum A.G.”

Emil Leinhas greets the members of the Anthroposophical Society who are present and who represent about 80% of the share capital of “The Coming Day”, and asks Dr. Steiner to take the chair.

Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! Today we will probably have to hold the most sober and uninspiring meeting possible within the Anthroposophical Society, and therefore we may well ask that pure reason alone prevail in today's meeting, otherwise we will hardly be able to cope.

The point is that today we have to talk to each other in a certain way about the fate of the “Coming Day”, which is connected with many ideals that members of the Anthroposophical Society have embraced in recent years. We have in the “Coming Day” an institution that emerged, so to speak, as the last major institution from the once emerging threefold social order movement, and it is only with a certain pain that we can turn our attention to the fact that this “Coming Day” is now in a truly serious crisis that absolutely must be resolved. Above all, it is important to see things as soberly as possible.

The hopes have not been fulfilled that the things connected with the “Coming Day” could proceed as one had wanted, that the Central European economic crisis, so to speak, would pass by the “Coming Day”, but the “Coming Day” is now just as any other business, fully participating in what the declining economic life offers. The “Coming Day” is not doing better today, but also not worse than any other Central European business.

The crisis has come about in the following way: if, [after the currency was converted to gold marks], the “Coming Day” had cash today, the possibility of continuing its economic and intellectual operations with cash, if it could count on being able to take out loans, then it would be able to continue working, just as other businesses are truly not working under better conditions today. However, the “Coming Day” does not have any cash, and so it cannot continue its economic and spiritual activities as they have existed up to now. The material value of the “Coming Day” is - and this must be emphasized again and again - such that if cash were available or could be raised, there would be no objection to simply letting the leadership go. Of course, there may be other reasons why “The Coming Day” is unable to find cash at the moment, but the main reason is that German economic life has taken on forms that make it impossible for the “Coming Day” to continue as other commercial enterprises do, because to do so it would have been necessary for the “Coming Day” to be treated with the same goodwill from outside as other commercial enterprises have been. That did not happen. A large part of the reasons why the “Coming Day” is in this crisis due to the lack of any cash funds - soberly this cannot be put differently than this: a large part of the blame lies in the way the “Coming Day” was vilified in the world. A project that is presented to the world in this way could only continue to function if it had a core of people who would take financial responsibility for it. But if only what has happened so far within the Anthroposophical Society is continued, the only thing that can be counted on, this is not the case either, and so today we can do no other than objectively present the situation of the “Coming Day” as it is. Therefore, I will take the liberty of organizing today's agenda in such a way that I will first ask Mr. Leinhas to present the situation of the “Coming Day” objectively to you, and as the second point on the agenda, I will make the proposals that need to be made in view of the serious situation. So I ask Mr. Leinhas to give an objective presentation of the situation of the “Coming Day” as a prerequisite for our further negotiations.

[Emil Leinhas describes the situation on the basis of the balance sheet. The situation is such that the economic enterprises can no longer support the spiritual ones.

Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! You have listened to the description of the situation of the “Coming Day”, and I will now take the liberty, with a heavy heart but purely rationally, as I ask you to take it, of discussing the only way we can get over this crisis of the “Coming Day” in my opinion.

The essential thing here is that, in view of the description of the situation that has just been given to us, we now have to divide the “Coming Day” into two parts: one comprising purely economic enterprises and the other comprising spiritual enterprises. If we draw the conclusion from what has just been said, it is actually the case that we, who, as anthroposophists, have to reflect on the situation, have to say that The “Coming Day” is no longer able to provide any cash for the spiritual activities, which essentially include the Waldorf School, the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, the Research Institute and the publishing house. Therefore, the question is – since the prerequisite that I believed I had to make, that the purely economic operations had to be organized first, has failed due to the impossibility of somehow managing today with the sale of these operations or the like – how we manage to separate the spiritual operations of “Coming Day” in a certain way. But this can only be done through extremely difficult measures that require heavy sacrifices on the part of our anthroposophical friends. It is not possible in any other way. You must bear in mind that these spiritual enterprises are now in a situation in which they have no possibility of being continued in any way out of the situation of the “Coming Day”. They have, so to speak, been abandoned, not by any decision, but by the facts.

The question arises: how do we get out of this situation? We have to consider the following: the “Coming Day” has issued 109,000 shares. Let us do the math based on the number of shares. If we make an estimate, but probably a fairly accurate one, of the share capital underlying these 109,000 shares, and divide it between the purely economic and the spiritual enterprises, then 74,000 shares are accounted for by the economic and agricultural enterprises and 35,000 by the spiritual enterprises. So, we have possessions for the spiritual enterprises, which correspond to 35,000 shares of “Tomorrow”.

Now, my dear friends, how can these enterprises, these spiritual enterprises, be continued? That is the fundamental question. And however you may look at it, these spiritual enterprises cannot remain as they are in the face of the situation of the “Coming Day”. For what would then have to happen? Then the “Coming Day” would have to proceed in the same way as other enterprises have to proceed today. The holdings would have to be consolidated, and the total mass of shareholders of the “Coming Day” would be faced with exactly the same situation, only with a significantly reduced number of shares. Perhaps this would somewhat increase their creditworthiness, but it is something that cannot be done, given all the prospects that have to be considered.

But if this cannot be done, what can be done? There is nothing else to be done – and I am now saying what I have to say with the greatest reluctance, but it must be said because of the situation, and if I were to present the matter to you in a long-winded way, it would not be any better: the only thing that can be done is to get rid of the 35,000 shares that correspond to the ownership of the spiritual enterprises. But this is only possible if enough people of influence can be found within the Anthroposophical Society who are willing to simply renounce their shareholdings in favor of the most important spiritual enterprises, so that the spiritual enterprises receive the 35,000 shares as a gift. It is just as if spiritual enterprises were to be founded and if a number of self-sacrificing personalities could be found who would contribute the sum corresponding to these 35,000 shares.

So, my dear friends, is it possible that the owners of 35,000 “Kommenden-Tag” shares renounce ownership of their shares? Then the 35,000 shares of Coming Day stock that are being given away could be left to the German Goetheanum fund, which would then have to be at my free disposal. This would give me free rein to run the spiritual enterprises. I see no other possibility for any other solution to the problem we are facing now than for this measure to be taken. You will understand that it is extremely difficult for me, one year after I myself resigned from the supervisory board of “Kommender Tag”, to have to make this enormous demand on the shareholders of “Kommender Tag” today: Give me 35,000 shares so that the spiritual activities can be continued in the way I will explain in a moment.

So if today there are shareholders willing to make this donation, then the matter is such that the “Coming Day” as such will continue to exist as an association of purely economic enterprises. How this continuation is envisaged will be discussed later. This continuation would correspond to a shareholding of 74,000 shares. We can discuss the matter in this area later. At this moment, I consider it my task to explain what can happen to the spiritual enterprises if the 35,000 shares are donated to the German Goetheanum Fund. It would then be clear that this willingness to make a sacrifice would at least express an anthroposophical attitude. The donors would say to themselves: Of course we are making a sacrifice, but we are doing so out of the anthroposophical spirit. There are shareholders in the “Coming Day” who will be able to make such a donation. Since they can, of course, only be placed in a position to make such a gift voluntarily, one can only say: Those who will give will also be able to give. It will be a group of shareholders who can give. On the other hand, there are shareholders of the “Coming Day” who cannot renounce their shareholdings; they are referred to purely economic enterprises. They would be in no different a position than other shareholders. And in order to preserve the full ownership of the 74,000 shares, it would be necessary for the spiritual enterprises to have no influence whatsoever on the economic administration of the “Coming Day”. If this condition were to be fulfilled today, that 35,000 shares of stock be made available to the German Goetheanum fund, and the economic enterprises were to be thought of separately, then the following would emerge:

First of all, the Waldorf School has 300,000 German Marks booked in the “Coming Day”. What the Waldorf School needs cannot really be covered by any kind of equivalent value. As you all know, the Waldorf School is entirely dependent on school fees and voluntary donations for its cash resources. Therefore, if the situation is to be rectified, the Waldorf School cannot be provided with the equipment it needs unless it receives a gift of the full amount. What corresponds to the Waldorf School [in terms of land, buildings and facilities], which is therefore listed in the “Coming Day” with 300,000 marks, must be donated outright.

The following then remains: the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, which is currently linked to the sale of remedies, that is, to the pharmaceutical laboratory. I will discuss the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute later. Regarding the sale of remedies, the balance sheet shows that it can be said that there is every prospect of it no longer requiring any significant sacrifices from today onwards. It is self-financing. However, cash will still be needed in the near future. And because it is a solid economic asset, it will be taken into account as such, and it must also be possible to buy it. Now it occurs to me that the Internationale Laboratorien A.G. in Arlesheim also handles the sale of remedies for all those countries in the world that have not even been ceded to the Stuttgart laboratory in a treaty, that this Internationale Laboratorien A.G. Arlesheim handles the sale of these remedies for the world. It is a joint-stock company. And in view of the balance of the local sales of remedies and in view of the general circumstances relating to our sales of remedies, which are extremely favorable in ideal terms, the International Laboratories A.G. Arlesheim will be persuaded to take over the sale of remedies and carry out the purchase of the laboratory. But again, given the circumstances there in Arlesheim, I cannot imagine that the purchase price could exceed 50,000 francs. These 50,000 francs will of course have to be added to the Goetheanum fund, since if the spiritual enterprises are now independent, if they are given as a gift, but the donation does not receive any cash, so that there could actually be no question of this purchase having the consequence that compensation - which would in any case be quite minimal - could be paid to the donating shareholders.

Regarding the publishing house, I would like to say the following: I can only feel an obligation to the publishing house to save from it the anthroposophical books that I have written myself, the books that are the result of the extraordinary and meritorious research of Dr. and Mrs. Kolisko, the two brochures and another book by Dr. Wachsmuth, a member of the Executive Council at the Goetheanum, which is currently being published. That would make a total of books that could be worth between 25,000 and 30,000 francs. This is something that should be acquired and the income from it should go to the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press. The other mass of books is such that, speaking purely financially and from the point of view of the Coming Day, I not only cannot feel any obligation towards it, but must not feel any obligation towards it. In the case of this mass of books in particular, it occurs to me that despite all the objections I raised at the time when this book publishing house was founded, this publishing house has only behaved over time in such a way that it has essentially counted on the consumers of the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House within the Anthroposophical Society; that basically those who at the time created a competing company for the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag with the “Coming Day” publishing house with an alleged enthusiasm that was actually foolishness, could easily be taken to task for this. Therefore, I do not feel morally obliged in any way to take care of the remaining book stock of the “Coming Day” publishing house.

This remaining book stock brings me to another thought. In the future, I will have to work hard to ensure that no anthroposophical funds flow into economic enterprises that have nothing to do with the Anthroposophical Society as such. In this regard, there was a time when we gave in, but today it is imperative that no economic enterprises be fed anthroposophical funds in the future. Therefore, it was also necessary for me to ensure that in the future, the entire sale of remedies worldwide would not be based on capital that comes from anthroposophical pockets, but on capital from people who want to manage their own assets with these things, in other words, only by people who do not give the money for anthroposophical reasons, but only out of consideration for those who consider the sale of remedies profitable, without taking into account that this has anything to do with anthroposophy. In the future, these matters can only be dealt with from this point of view. The sale of remedies can be organized in such a way that, if it is also managed commercially in the future, it can become a profitable business in a purely commercial sense, given the great recognition that even those remedies find in the world that I myself have only, I would say, half-hoped for. But it can only be managed with funds that are given for the risk involved in selling the remedies. So I can also recommend to the Internationale Laboratorien A.G. Arlesheim, which will be based on the above principles in the future, the purchase of the sale of remedies here.

That leaves the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart, my dear friends. Although its finances are quite healthy at present, it cannot be thought of as needing any other kind of leadership than that provided by cash. In accordance with the intentions that emerged from the Christmas Conference in Dornach, the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Arlesheim can no longer be a member of the International Laboratories A.G. in Arlesheim, but only the local laboratory and the sale of remedies. In the future, a spiritual institute cannot be associated with purely economic enterprises. For this reason, the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute in Arlesheim has also been separated from the International Laboratories A.G. in Arlesheim and has become an integral part of the Goetheanum. The same cannot be said for the ClinicalTherapeutic Institute in Stuttgart, because the Goetheanum could not guarantee or take on the risk of a penny subsidy. So the situation of the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart is such that it cannot be connected to the International Laboratories A.G. in Arlesheim, nor can it be connected to the Goetheanum for the simple reason that the Goetheanum cannot take on any risk. The only way to set up the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart is to make it a financially independent enterprise that can be taken over by a doctor or non-doctor who, if subsidies are needed, will take them on at their own risk. On the other hand, if subsidies are not needed, anyone with a little business sense can take them on at their own risk. But if subsidies are necessary, then the Goetheanum certainly cannot take them on. So there is no other option for the clinic than to make it an independent enterprise. As for Gmünd, I do not count it among the enterprises for which I am responsible; the “Coming Day” will have to continue to take care of it and find a way to make it profitable.

What remains, my dear friends, is the scientific research institute, which is almost heartbreaking when you have to talk about it in this situation. But as things stand, the fact is, on the one hand, that the “Coming Day” has no cash for this institute, that the Goetheanum in Dornach is in no position to take on any obligation for this scientific research institute, not even a single penny , so that there is no other possibility — not out of any wish or anything like that, but purely out of the economic situation — than, if no enthusiast can be found to take over and finance the scientific research institute, to dissolve it, to dissolve it completely. We may be burying the idea that we had in mind as one of the most sacred, I would say, to establish economic enterprises to serve the spiritual life. But the possibility of continuing this does not exist.

So the following situation would arise for the spiritual enterprises: the Waldorf School will be supported by donations. The Clinical Therapeutic Institute in Stuttgart will become independent and will be made into a separate enterprise; Gmünd will remain in the care of the “Coming Day”. The scientific research institute will have to be dissolved if no individual or consortium can be found to maintain it. My books and the others mentioned will be removed from the publishing house and it will be ensured that these books fall to the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House for further distribution. The rest of the book inventory must be sold on the open market to outside publishers. I would consider it inadmissible if any steps were taken within the Anthroposophical Society itself to sell the rest of this book stock and to found anything further on what lies within the Anthroposophical Society, because that would create competition for the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, and no one can demand that what the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag is doing should also be undermined by further competition.

That, my dear friends, is the stark and sober truth, which is the only thing that is necessary in the current situation. If we succeed in appealing to the willingness to make sacrifices of so many shareholders in the “Coming Day” today, so that 35,000 shares of stock for the spiritual enterprises are freely available and allocated to the Goetheanum fund, then we can undertake the reorganization of these spiritual enterprises in the way I have described. I would advocate for the order itself and then the remaining 74,000 shares would have to be dealt with for the further operation of the purely economic enterprises that are part of the “coming day”.

Do you believe, my dear friends, that what I have just presented to you briefly, soberly and dryly has really caused me the most serious concerns for weeks, has led to the most difficult struggles. But when Mr. Leinhas came to me at the Goetheanum in Dornach a few weeks ago and told me that the last of the economic enterprises with which the “Coming Day” still had to reckon, which, in a spirit of complete sacrifice, had actually raised the lion's share of the subsidies up to that point, it was clear that this enterprise would no longer be able to raise these subsidies either. Then it was clear: this would mean the end of the possibility of continuing the “Coming Day” in its old form. Then, despite its material assets, the “Coming Day” would be without the possibility of creating cash; then a reorganization would have to take place at all costs. Since that time, the whole matter has been a great concern to me. As long as there was hope that the economic enterprises could be sold first, and the spiritual enterprises would remain as a kind of rump of the “Coming Day”, one could think that what remains could be organized in some way. But now that things have progressed so far that we are standing before the General Assembly and have asked you to come together beforehand in confidence, it is not possible for me to put anything other than what I have just said before you as a proposal.

That is the point at which I would like to open the discussion. I therefore ask friends who want to participate to speak up. We can then, after the things that have been presented have been discussed, move on to discussing what possibilities can be considered for the continuation of the purely economic enterprises. I should also mention that one shareholder, who owns the corresponding number of shares, has made available to me the amount that the Waldorf School in “Kommender Tag” is currently worth. It can also be assumed that a number of others will definitely give it. So it will be possible for the shareholders who are willing to transfer their shares in the way described to add their number of shares to a list that is being passed around.

During the discussion, Emil Kühn asks whether it would not be possible for the shareholders who are donating today to participate in some way in the real values of the spiritual institutions.

Rudolf Steiner: As far as the economic enterprises are concerned, I myself would certainly be open to discussing the question that Dr. Kühn has just touched on. But as far as the spiritual enterprises are concerned, I would like to say the following: If the experiences that have been made in the economic management within the Anthroposophical Society in recent years are taken as a basis, then I can only say that I myself would not participate in the reorganization of the spiritual enterprises differently than if, in every respect, such conditions were created that would only make possible an administration in the spiritual sense for these enterprises.

As far as the Waldorf School is concerned, I would not be able to participate in a reorganization if, in any way, an economic administration were to be associated with this reorganization; and that would be the case if, in some way, the current shareholders of the Waldorf School were to participate. The Waldorf School can only obtain its operating funds from school fees and voluntary contributions, as I said before. And even if the property were there to begin with, it would always have to mean something quite imaginary for those who participate in it. The only healthy relationship is when the Waldorf School itself has this property, when it is given to it. On this condition alone, the spiritual enterprises of “Coming Day” can be detached from my proposal. I can say that I would only participate if a sufficient number of people were to give up their shares as a free gift - and this can only be done of their own free will - in order to find a solution. I myself would not participate in this solution if it were tied to the condition that gifts be made on condition that there should still be a participation. For that, financial administration would be necessary again, and I do not want to be associated with that. So I ask only those friends to sign up who are able to make their donations unconditionally, who want to place these spiritual enterprises on purely spiritual ground.

As you have seen, I have only made the proposals with a heavy heart. The proposal that has now been made is the most obvious one and has also been well considered. Otherwise it would be a matter of issuing bonds that would only represent an imaginary ownership. I want to keep away from anything imaginary. If the Waldorf School is not detached from an economic connection with the “Coming Day”, then I also don't know how the question can be solved, that I could remain the spiritual director of the Waldorf School. So I can't say what influence it would have on my own decisions if such a reorganization, as it has been suggested, were to take place. I have not appealed to a decision by you, but to the willingness of individual anthroposophical friends to make sacrifices. We do not have to bring about a decision if 35,000 shares are donated to the German Goetheanum fund as a gift – if Gmünd is dropped, it is only 29,000 shares – if 29,000 shares are donated to the German Goetheanum fund as a gift. I am not appealing to a decision, but only to the willingness to sacrifice in order to finance the spiritual enterprises in a certain way à fond perdu.

[Further discussion of the donation of shares to save the spiritual enterprises, which would also relieve the economic enterprises. These should become independent and, if possible, be taken over again by their former owners.

Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! The words contained in my proposal have, I am deeply moved to say, fallen on extraordinarily fertile ground. I do not wish to miss this opportunity to emphasize what seems to me to be important and significant, namely that despite the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen within the Anthroposophical Society as a result of various foundations - I have often spoken about this over the past few years - it has become apparent that the trust in the general anthroposophical movement is so great that we can only look on with the deepest satisfaction that this trust is so great that it has hardly been weakened at all in recent years, despite all the unfortunate measures that have been taken and that were intended to accommodate those who had the faith that such measures could do anything for the anthroposophical cause. I have already emphasized in various places how the reliance on purely anthroposophical ground since the Christmas Conference has been shown everywhere in the most energetic way, that trust in the actual anthroposophical cause has not diminished in recent months, but has become much greater. So that within Anthroposophy we can look with the deepest satisfaction at what is alive among us in this direction.

I must say that today, with an extraordinarily sad and worried heart, I set about making the proposal that I once had to make to you, my dear friends, after becoming aware of the situation of “Kommendes Tag”. And I could have well understood if this proposal had been rejected in the broadest sense. I must say that it is deeply touching and heart-warming that this did not happen, but that we can see that right from the outset, in the first hour, friends have agreed to donate 20,700 shares to the Goetheanum Fund. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for this very beautiful result, that we can look at this result, that the indicated number of 20,700 shares has been made available, so that in the very near future we will be able to achieve full financial recovery of the spiritual enterprises in this direction, as far as possible, and thus also be able to contribute indirectly to the recovery of the “Coming Day”.

This is an extraordinarily distressing result, and we can only look back on the proceedings of this meeting with the deepest emotion. I thank all those who were able to donate and did so, truly from the bottom of my heart for what you have done, which means an extraordinarily significant deed not only for the “Coming Day”, but especially for our anthroposophical movement. For if this willingness to make sacrifices is now being shown in spite of the failures of recent years within anthroposophical circles in such a way, we will nevertheless be able to achieve what needs to be achieved on our main path in the near future. And what needs to be achieved is what can be done through anthroposophy in spiritual terms for humanity and for modern civilization. Even if our material undertakings have not had the desired success, even if everything that has emerged from the threefold social order movement has basically fallen through today, we still have the opportunity – and this is solely due to the unlimited trust that our anthroposophists have in anthroposophy – to make further progress in the spiritual realm.

This, however, also imposes an obligation on me to continue in the way I have tried to make the Christmas Conference fruitful so far, by making the Anthroposophical Society ever more esoteric and esoteric, in an active way. It is precisely from what our friends have done today that I feel how strong the obligation is to continue in this direction in the most energetic way. If we stick together in this way, each doing what he can do, we will make progress on the appropriate path.

You see, my dear friends, there is still work to be done: the threefolding movement was founded here years ago. Individual enterprises have emerged from it. The part of the threefolding movement that should have been carried out in a purely practical way, for which practical collaboration would have been necessary, did not initially prove itself. On the other hand, far beyond the borders of Europe, especially in America, there is a great deal of interest in these impulses. Let me use this word, which has been so much maligned: These are realities of the threefold social order. It is becoming apparent that these impulses are nevertheless being taken up with a certain understanding more and more. And perhaps it will be good for these impulses in particular if we do not try to translate them into unsuitable practice in a hasty manner, but instead follow what I have often said at the beginning of our explanations of our magazine Anthroposophie: Threefolding can only take effect when it has entered as many minds as possible. We have seen the failure of applying threefolding to the outer practice of people's lives, but it will make its way into the world as something that is, after all, on anthroposophical ground. All indications show that our strength must be applied in the anthroposophical-spiritual field. And in this sense, I would like to tell you that I feel it is my duty and my gratitude to do everything in my power to further and advance the esoteric-spiritual character of our anthroposophical movement. If we succeed, and we must succeed, because the spiritual does not encounter obstacles in the same way as external material things, then the friends who have shown this willingness to make sacrifices will feel even more closely connected to our life in the Anthroposophical Movement in a renewed way.

Since it is already late, we may perhaps close today's meeting with this.

The background mood out of which I shall be addressing you today is not the same as that that prevailed on earlier occasions when I was privileged to speak here. Since New Year's Eve 1922, that mood is conditioned by the dreadful picture of the burning Goetheanum. The pain and suffering that picture inevitably causes anyone who loved the Goetheanum because of its connection with anthroposophy are such that no words can possibly describe them.

There might seem to be some justification for feeling that a movement as intent on spiritual things as ours is has no real reason to grieve over the loss of a material expression of its being. But that does not apply in the case of the Goetheanum we have lost. It was not an arbitrary building for our work. During its erection, a process that went on for almost ten years, I often had occasion to explain that a structure that might suitably have housed some other spiritual or similar movement would not have been appropriate for our Anthroposophical Movement. For, as I have often said, we are not just a spiritual movement, which, as its membership increased, found itself with a number of people in its ranks who wanted to build it a home in some conventional style or other. The point here was that anthroposophy is built on a spiritual foundation that is not one-sidedly religious or scientific or artistic. It is an all-embracing movement, intent on demonstrating every aspect of mankind's great ideals: the moral-religious, the artistic, and the scientific ideals. There could, therefore, be no question of erecting any arbitrary type of building for the Anthroposophical Movement. Its design had to come from the same source from which anthroposophical ideas receive their shaping as an expression of the spiritual perspective gained on the anthroposophical path of knowledge, and it had to be carried out in artistic harmony with that outlook. For almost ten years many friends worked side by side with me trying to incorporate and demonstrate in every single line, in every architectural and sculptural form, every choice of color, what was flowing from the wellsprings of anthroposophical investigation, anthroposophical life, anthroposophical intention. That was all incorporated there, and the building was intimately associated with the artistic and scientific striving in the Movement. Friends who attended eurythmy performances in the Goetheanum will surely have felt how, for example, the architectural forms and decoration of the auditorium harmonized with and responded to eurythmic movement. It was even possible to have the feeling that the movements of the performers on the stage there were born of those architectural and plastic forms. If one stood on the podium speaking from the heart in a truly anthroposophical spirit, every line and form responded and chimed in with what one was saying. That was our goal there. It was, of course, a first attempt, but such was our goal, and it could be sensed. That is why those who worked on the Goetheanum at Dornach have the sensation that the very feelings they put into their efforts went up in the flames of New Year's Eve. It was just this intimate connection of anthroposophical feeling and will with the Goetheanum forms—forms that were artistically shaped by and for spiritual contemplation and that can never find a substitute in any thought forms or words—that makes our grief at the loss we have suffered so immeasurably deep.

All this ought to become part of the memories of those who grew to love the Goetheanum and to feel the intimate connection with it just described. We must, in a sense, build a monument to it in our hearts in memory form. Even though the very intimacy of our connection with it is the reason why we are now shelterless, we must seek the more intensively for a shelter in our hearts that will replace the one we have lost, We must try with every means at our disposal to rebuild in our hearts, for all eternity, this building that has been lost as an external source of artistic stimulation. But the terrible flame into which all the lesser flames of New Year's Eve were drawn is there in the background of every effort yet to be made in the field of anthroposophy. Though living, spiritual anthroposophy came to no harm in the fire, a great deal of work that we had been trying to accomplish for anthroposophy in the present day world was brought to naught.

I do believe, though, that if what we experienced on that occasion becomes properly rooted in our members' hearts, the grief and pain we suffered can be turned into strength to support us in everything we are called upon to accomplish for anthroposophy in the near future. It is often the case in life that when a group of people find themselves faced by a common disaster, they are united by it in a way that gives them strength and energy to go on together in effective common action. Experience, not grey theories or abstract thoughts, should be the source on which we draw for the strength needed for our anthroposophical work.

My dear friends, I want to add these comments to those I will be making in connection with the theme I have had to choose for this conference, to a description of the conditions that must prevail in anthroposophical community building. I would like to include them not only because they are graven on my heart, but because they point to a fact on which we would do well to focus our attention in these coming days. A great deal of sacrifice and devotion went into the work on the Goetheanum. The impulses from which that sacrifice and devotion sprang have always been there to count on in the two decades of our work, wherever anthroposophy really lived. They were born of hearts filled with enthusiasm for anthroposophy, and the Goetheanum was the product of deeds done by anthroposophically-minded individuals. Though, for a variety of reasons, we are thinking—are having to think—today about how to regenerate the Society, we should not forget on the other hand that the Society has been in existence for two decades; that a considerable number of people have undergone experiences of destiny in their common work and effort; that the Society is not something that can be founded all over again. For history, real history, history that has been lived and experienced, cannot be erased. We cannot begin something now that began twenty years ago. We must guard against any such misconceptions as these as we proceed with our current deliberations. Anyone who has found his way into the Society over the years certainly sees plenty to find fault with in it, and is justified in doing so. Many a true and weighty word has already been uttered here on that score. But we must still take into account the fact that the Society has been effective and done things. There are certainly people enough in the Society who can express the weight of their grief and sorrow in the words, “We have suffered a common loss in our beloved Goetheanum.”

It makes a difference whether a person joined the Society in 1917 or later, and whether one's relation to it is such that these grief-stricken words issue from long and deep experience in it. That should influence our deliberations. It will do much to tone down the feelings that some of our friends had good reason to express here. I heard someone say (and I certainly felt the justice of the remark), “After what I have listened to here I will go home unable to continue speaking of anthroposophy as I used to when I was still full of illusions.” Part of what that sentence conveys will disappear if one considers how much those individuals who have been anthroposophists for two decades have gone through together, and how much they have had to suffer with each other recently, because that suffering is the product of a long life in the Anthroposophical Society. The load of worry we are presently carrying cannot wipe out all that human experience; it remains with us. It would still be there even if events here were to take a much worse turn than they have taken thus far. Are we to forget the depths for the surface? That must not be allowed to happen in a spiritual movement born of the depths of human hearts and souls. What has come into being as the Anthroposophical Movement cannot rightly be called sunless. Even the sun sometimes suffers eclipse.

Of course, this should not prevent our dealing with the situation confronting this assemblage in a way that enables us to provide anthroposophy once again with a proper vehicle in the form of a real Anthroposophical Society. But our success in that depends entirely on creating the right atmosphere.

It will, of course, be impossible for me to cover the whole situation today. But in the two lectures I am to give I shall try to touch on as much of what needs to be said as I possibly can. Some things will have to be left out. But I do want to stress two matters in particular. Those are the pressing need for community building in the Society and the symptomatic event of the entrance into the Anthroposophical Movement of the exceedingly gratifying youth movement. But in anthroposophical matters we have to develop a rather different outlook than prevails elsewhere. We would not have taken our stand on ground that means so much to many people if we could not see things in a different light than that in which the modern world habitually views them.

Community building! It is particularly noteworthy that the community building ideal should be making its appearance in our day. It is the product of a deep, elemental feeling found in many human souls today, the product of a sense of definite relationship between person and person that includes an impulse to joint activity.

A while ago, a number of young theologians came to me. They were preparing to enter the ministry. They were intent above all else on a renewing of religion, on a renewal permeated through and through by the true Christ force, such as to be able to take hold of many people of the period in the way they long to be taken hold of but cannot be by the traditional confessions as they are today. I had to bring up something that seemed to me to have vital import for the development of such a movement. I said that a suitable method of community building must be found. What I had in mind was to develop a religious and pastoral element capable of really uniting people. I told these friends who had come to me that religious community could not be effectively built with abstract words, the usual kind of sermon, and the meagre remnants of a divine service, which are all that most contemporary churches have to offer. The prevailing intellectualistic trend that is increasingly taking over the religious field has had the effect of saturating a great many present day sermons with a rationalistic, intellectualistic element. This does not give people anything that could unite them. On the contrary, it divides and isolates them, and the social community is reduced to atoms. This must be easy to see for anyone who realizes that the single individual can develop rationalistic and intellectualistic values all by himself. Simply attaining a certain cultural level enables an individual to acquire increasingly perfect intellectual equipment without depending on anyone else. One can think alone and develop logic alone; in fact, one can do it all the better for being by oneself. When one engages in purely logical thinking, one feels a need to withdraw from the world to the greatest possible extent, to withdraw from people. But the tendency to want to get off by oneself is not the only one man has. My effort today to throw light on what it is in the heart's depths that searches for community is called for by the fact that we are living in a time when human nature must go on to develop the consciousness soul, must become ever more conscious.

Becoming more conscious is not the same thing as becoming more intellectualistic. It means outgrowing a merely instinctual way of experiencing. But it is just in presenting anthroposophy that every attempt should be made to portray what has thus been raised to a clear, conscious level in all its elemental aliveness, to offer it in so living a form that it seems like people's own naive experiencing and feeling. We must make sure that we do this.

Now there is one kind of community in human life that everyone over the entire globe is aware of, and it shows that community is something built into humankind. It is a type of community to which a lot of attention is being given in modern cultural and even political and economic life, and this in an often harmful way. But there is a lesson of sorts to be learned from it, though a primitive one.

In a child's early years it is introduced into a human community that is absolutely real, concrete and human, a community without which one could not exist. I am referring to the community of human speech. Speech is the form of community that we might say nature presents to our contemplation. Speech—and especially our mother tongue—is built into our whole being at a time when the child's etheric body is not yet born, and it is our first experience of the community building element. We can lay it to the rationalism of our age that though people nowadays have some feeling for languages and nationality and conceive folk groups in relation to the language they speak, they do so from the political-agitational standpoint, without paying any heed to deep and intimate underlying soul configurations, to the tremendous aspects of destiny and karma attached to a language and to the spirit behind it, all of which are the real and intrinsic reason why human beings cry out for community. What would become of us if we passed one another by without hearing resounding in the other's words the same life of soul that we ourselves put into those same words when we use them? If everybody were to practice just a little bit of self-knowledge, we would be able to form an adequate picture, which I cannot take the time to develop now, of all we owe to language as the foundation of a first, primitive building of community.

But there is a community building element still deeper than language, though we encounter it more rarely. On a certain level, human language is indeed something that unites people in community life, but it does not penetrate to the deepest levels of soul life. At certain moments of our life on earth we can become aware of another community building element that transcends that of language. A person feels it when his destiny brings him together again with others whom he knew as children. Let us take an ideal example. Someone finds himself in later life—in his forties or fifties, say—in the company of several companions of his youth or childhood whom he has not seen for decades but with whom he spent the period between his tenth and twentieth years. Let us assume that good relationships prevailed among them, fruitful, loving relationships. Now imagine what it means for these individuals to share the experience of having their souls stirred by common memories of their youthful life together. Memories lie deeper than experiences on the language level. Souls sound more intimately in unison when they are linked by the pure soul language of memories, even though the community experience they thus share may be quite brief. As everyone knows from such experiences, it is certainly not just the single memories that are summoned up to reverberate in the souls of those present that stir such intimate soul-depths in them; it is something quite else. It is not the concrete content of the particular memories recalled. An absolutely indefinite yet at the same time very definite communal experiencing is going on in these human souls. A resurrection is taking place, with the countless details of what these companions experienced together now melting into a single totality, and what each contributes as he enters into the others' recollections with them is the element that awakens the capacity to experience that totality.

That is how it is in life on earth. As a result of pursuing this fact of soul life into the spiritual realm, I had to tell the theological friends who had come to me for the purpose described that if true community were to come of the work of religious renewal, there would have to be a new form of worship, a new cultus, suited to the age we live in. Shared experience of the cultus is something that quite of its own nature calls forth the community building element in human souls. The Movement for Religious Renewal understood this and accepted the cultus. I believe that Dr. Rittelmeyer spoke weighty words when he said from this platform that such a development of community could conceivably become one of the greatest threats to the Anthroposophical Society that the Movement for Religious Renewal could present. For the cultus contains a tremendously significant community building element. It unites human beings with one another. What is it in this cultus that unites them, that can make a commonality out of separate individuals atomized by intellectuality and logic, and that most certainly will create commonality? For that is surely what Dr. Rittelmeyer had in mind, that this is the means of building community. Since community, however, is also a goal of the Anthroposophical Society, the Society will have to find its own way of building it if the Movement for Religious Renewal is not to pose a threat to it from that angle.

Now what is the secret of the community building element in the cultus developed for the Movement for Religious Renewal with that specific end in view?

Everything that comes to expression in the various forms of worship, either as ceremonial acts or words, is a reflection, a picturing of real experiences, not earth experiences, of course, but real experiences in the world through which man makes his way before he is born; in other words, experiences of the second half of his path between death and rebirth. That is the part of the cosmos he passes through from the midnight hour of life after death to the moment when he descends again into life on earth. In the realm thus traversed are found the beings, the scenes, the events faithfully reflected in all true forms of worship. What is it, then, that a person is experiencing in the cultus in common with others whom some karma or other has brought together with him? For karma is so intricately woven that we may ascribe all encounters with our fellow men to its agency. He is experiencing cosmic memories of pre-earthly existence with them. They come to the surface in the soul's subconscious depths. Before we descended to earth, we and these others lived through a cosmic lifetime in a world that reappears before us in the cultus. That is a tremendous tie. It does more than just convey pictures; it carries super-sensible forces into the sense world. But the forces it conveys are forces that concern man intimately; they are bound up with the most intimate background experiences of the human soul. The cultus derives its binding power from the fact that it conveys spiritual forces from the spiritual world to earth and presents supernatural realities to the contemplation of human beings living on the earth. There is no such reality for man to contemplate in rationalistic talks that have the effect of making him forget the spiritual world, forget it even in subconscious soul depths. In the cultus he has it right there before him in a living, power-pervaded picture that is more than a mere symbol. Nor is this picture a dead image; it carries real power, because it places before man scenes that were part of his spiritual environment before he was incarnated in an earthly body. The community creating power of the cultus derives from the fact that it is a shared, comprehensive memory of spiritual experiences.

The Anthroposophical Society also needs just such a force to foster community within it. But the ground this springs from need not be the same for the Anthroposophical Movement as for the Movement for Religious Renewal. The one by no means excludes the other, however; the two can co-exist in fullest harmony provided the relationship between them is rightly felt.

But that can be the case only if we acquire some understanding for a further community building element that can be introduced into human life. Memory, transposed into the spiritual realm, rays out to us from the form the cultus takes. The cultus speaks to greater depths than those of intellect: it speaks to man's inwardness. For at bottom the soul really does understand the speech of the spirit, even though that speech may not be fully consciously perceived in present day earth life.

Now, in order to grasp the further element that must come to play a corresponding role in the Anthroposophical Society, you will not only have to contemplate the secrets of language and memory in their relationship to community building; you will also have to consider another aspect of human life. Let us study the condition in which we find a dreaming person and compare it with that of someone going about his daytime activities wide awake.

The dream world may indeed be beautiful, sublime, rich in pictures and in significance. Nevertheless, it isolates people here on earth. A dreaming person is alone with his dreams. He lies there asleep and dreaming, perhaps in the midst of others awake or asleep, the content of whose inner worlds remains completely unrelated to what is going on in his dream consciousness. A person is isolated in his dream world, and even more so in the world of sleep. But the moment we awake we begin to take some part in communal life. The space we and those around us occupy is the same space; the feeling and impressions they have of it are the same we have. We wake at hand of our immediate surroundings to the same inner life another wakes to. In waking out of the isolation of our dreams we awaken, up to a certain point at least, into the community of our fellowmen, simply as a result of the way we are related to the world around us. We cease being completely to ourselves, shut in and encapsulated, as we were when absorbed in our dream world, though our dreams may have been beautiful, sublime, significant. But how do we awaken? We awaken through the impact of the outer world, through its light and tones and warmth. We awaken in response to all the various impressions that the sense world makes on us. But we also wake up in ordinary everyday life in the encounter with the external aspects of other human beings, with their natural aspects. We wake up to everyday life in the encounter with the natural world. It wakes us out of our isolation and introduces us into a community of sorts. We have not yet wakened up as human beings by meeting our fellow men and by what goes on in their innermost beings. That is the secret of everyday life. We wake up in response to light and tone and perhaps also to the words someone speaks in the exercise of his natural endowment, words spoken from within outward. In ordinary everyday life we do not wake up in the encounter with what is going on in the depths of his soul or spirit, we wake up in the encounter with his natural aspects.

The latter constitutes the third awakening, or at least a third condition of soul life. We awaken from the first into the second through nature's impact. We awaken from the second into the third at the call of the soul-spiritual element in our fellowmen. But we must first learn to hear that call. Just as a person wakes up through the natural world surrounding him in the right way in everyday life, so do we wake up rightly at a higher level in the encounter with the soul-spirit of our fellowmen as we sensed light and tone on awakening to everyday life. We can see the most beautiful pictures and have the most sublime experiences in our isolated dream consciousness, but we will scarcely be able to read, for example, unless highly abnormal conditions prevail. We are not in a relationship to the outer world that would make such things possible. We are also unable to understand the spiritual world, no matter how many beautiful ideas we may have garnered from anthroposophy or how much we may have grasped theoretically about such matters as etheric and astral bodies. We begin to develop an understanding for the spiritual world only when we wake up in the encounter with the soul-spiritual element in our fellowmen. That is where the first true understanding of anthroposophy sets in. Yes, it is indeed necessary to base our understanding of anthroposophy on what can be called a waking up in the encounter with the soul and spirit of another person.

The strength needed to achieve this awakening can be created by implanting spiritual idealism in human communities. We talk a lot about idealism these days, but it has become a threadbare thing in the culture and civilization of the present. For true idealism exists only where man reverses the direction he takes when, in presenting the cultus, he brings the spiritual world down to earth; when, in other words, he consciously makes himself capable of lifting to the super-sensible-spiritual, the ideal level, what he has seen and learned and understood on the earthly level. We bring the supernatural down into a power-permeated picture when we celebrate the ritual of the cultus. We lift ourselves and our soul life to the super-sensible level when our experiences in the physical world are experienced so spiritually and idealistically that we come to feel we have experienced them in the super-sensible world itself and that what we perceive here in the sense world suddenly comes all alive on being lifted to the ideal level. It comes alive when properly permeated with our wills and feeling. When we ray will through our inner being and infuse it with enthusiasm, we carry our idealized sense experience in a direction exactly opposite to that taken when we embody the super-sensible in the ritual of the cultus. Whether the anthroposophical community be large or small, we can achieve what I am characterizing when, infusing living power into the spiritual ideas we form, we put ourselves in a position actually to experience something of that awakening element, something that doesn't stop at idealizing our sense experience and leaving it at the stage of an abstract thought, but that endows the ideal with a higher life as we live into it and make it the counterpart of the cultus by raising it from the physical to the super-sensible level. We can achieve it in our life of feeling by taking care to imbue everything we do for anthroposophy with thoroughly spiritualized feeling. We do this when, for instance, we feel that the very doorway we reverently enter on our way to an anthroposophical assemblage is consecrated by the common anthroposophical purpose being served in the room it leads to, no matter how mundane the setting. We must be able to feel that everybody joining with us in a communal reception of anthroposophy has the same attitude. It is not enough to have a deep abstract conviction of this; it must be inwardly experienced, so that we do not just sit in a room where anthroposophy is being pursued, a group of so and so many individuals taking in what is being read or spoken and having our own thoughts about it. A real spiritual being must be present in a room where anthroposophy is being carried on, and this as a direct result of the way anthroposophical ideas are being absorbed. Divine powers are present in sense perceptible form in the cultus celebrated on the physical plane. Our hearts and souls and attitudes must learn similarly to invoke the presence of a real spiritual being in a room where anthroposophy is being talked of. We must so attune our speaking, our feeling, our thinking, our impulses of will to a spiritual purpose, avoiding the pitfall of the abstract, that we can feel a real spiritual being hovering there above us, looking on and listening. We should divine a super-sensible presence, invoked by our pursuit of anthroposophy. Then each single anthroposophical activity can begin to be a realizing of the super-sensible.

If you study primitive communities, you will find another communal element in addition to language. Language has its seat in the upper part of man. But taking the whole man into consideration, you will find that common blood is what links members of primitive communities. Blood ties make for community. But what lives there in the blood is the folk soul or folk spirit, and this is not present in the same way among people who have developed freedom. A common spiritual element once entered groups with common blood ties, working from below upward. Wherever common blood flows in the veins of a number of people, there we can discern the presence of a group soul.

A real community spirit is similarly attracted by our common experiencing when we study anthroposophy together, though it is obviously not a group soul active in the bloodstream. If we are able to sense this, we can form true communities.

We must make anthroposophy real by learning to be aware in anthroposophical community life that where people join in anthroposophical tasks together, there they experience their first awakening in the encounter with the soul-spiritual element in their fellows. Human beings wake up in the mutual encounter with other human beings. As each one has new experiences between his encounters with these others, and has grown a little, these awakenings take place in an ever new way as people go on meeting. The awakenings undergo a burgeoning development.

When you have discovered the possibility that human souls wake up in the encounter with human souls, and human spirits wake up in the encounter with human spirits, and go to anthroposophical groups with a living awareness that only now have you come awake and only now begin to grow together into an understanding of anthroposophy, and on the basis of that understanding take anthroposophical ideas into an awakened soul rather than into an everyday soul asleep to higher things, then the true spirit of community descends upon the place where you are working. Is truth involved when we talk of the super-sensible world, yet are unable to rise to awareness of a spiritual presence and of this reversed cultus? We are firmly grounded in our understanding of things of the spirit only when we do not rest content with abstract spiritual concepts and a capacity to express them theoretically, but instead grow into a sure belief that higher beings are present with us in a community of spirit when we engage in spiritual study. No external measures can bring about anthroposophical community building. You have to call it forth from the profoundest depths of human consciousness.

I have described part of the path that leads to that goal, and tomorrow we will follow it further. Descriptions of this kind are intended to show that the most important thing for any further development of the Anthroposophical Society is that it become absorbed in a true grasp of anthroposophy. If we have that grasp, it leads not only to spiritual ideas but to community with the spirit, and an awareness of community with the spiritual world is itself a community building force. Karmically preordained communities will then spring up as an outcome of true anthroposophical awareness. No external measures for achieving that can be indicated, and a person who offers any such is a charlatan.

Now these matters have been understood to some degree during the two decades of anthroposophy's development, and quite a good many members have also understood them in a spiritual sense. I will perhaps return to this subject and discuss it more fully tomorrow when I continue with these reflections and go on to point out a further goal. For now, I would like to add just a few words on matters that may have been occupying you after hearing my description of the spiritual bases of anthroposophical community life. On the one hand, things in the Anthroposophical Movement are really such as to necessitate my describing them as I have done. The Anthroposophical Society may present this or that appearance in a given phase. But anthroposophy is independent of anthroposophical societies and can be found independently of them. It can be found in a special way when one human being learns to wake up in the encounter with another and out of such awakening the forming of communities occurs. For one undergoes ever fresh awakenings through those with whom one finds oneself foregathered, and that is what holds such groups together. Inner, spiritual realities are at work here.

These matters must be increasingly understood in the Anthroposophical Society. Every consideration brought up in connection with the Society's welfare ought really to be pervaded with forces intimately related to anthroposophy itself.

It was deeply satisfying to me, after spending weeks attending larger and smaller conclaves where preparations were being made for these delegates' meetings, and listening there to debates reminiscent of the ordinary, everyday kind of rationalistic considerations in which parliaments and clubs engage, to go to an assemblage of young people, a meeting of young academicians. They, too, were pondering what ought to be done. For a while the talk was about external matters. But as time passed, it changed, all unaware, into a truly anthroposophical discussion. Matters that first appeared in an everyday light took on aspects that made anything but an anthroposophical treatment impossible.

It would be ideal if, instead of dragging in anthroposophical theories in an artificial, sentimental, nebulous way, as has so often happened, a down-to-earth course were to be pursued. Taking life's ordinary concerns as a starting point, the discussion should lead to the conclusion that unless anthroposophy were called upon, no one would know any longer how to go about studying such subjects as physics and chemistry. This spirit could serve to guide us.

But no solution will be found by tomorrow evening if things go on as they have up to this point; they can only lead to a state of tremendous, tragic chaos. The most important thing is to avoid any sentimental dragging in of all sorts of matters, and instead fill our hearts with anthroposophical impulses, conceived in full clarity.

As things are now, I see two parties, two separate groups of human beings sitting in this room, neither of which in the least understands the other, neither of which is able to take the first small step toward mutual understanding. Why is this the case? It is because what one side is saying issues inevitably from the experience of two whole decades, as I explained briefly earlier today, and the other side takes no interest whatsoever in that experience. I say this not in criticism, but in a spirit of concerned pleading. There have been occasions in the past when well-meaning people, in their own way genuinely enthusiastic about anthroposophy, have simply cut across our deliberations with such comments as, “What possible interest can these reports have for us when they keep on being served up at a moment when the important thing is that people unacquainted with the great dangers the Society faces want to learn about them?” Here, on the one side, we see an elemental, natural interest in the life of the Anthroposophical Society, a life that may have certain familial characteristics, but that has the good aspects of the familial as well. On the other side we find no interest in that life, and instead just a general conception of an Anthroposophical Society.

As things stand today, both points of view are justified, so justified that unless we can quickly develop a wholly different form of discussion, the best thing we could do (I am just expressing my opinion, for the decision will have to be made by the Society) would be to leave the old Society as it is and found a union of free anthroposophical communities for those who want something entirely different. Then each party could carry on in the way that suits it. We would have the old Society on the one side, and on the other a loose but closely related confederation of free communities. The two societies could work out ways of living together. It would be better to solve the problem this way than to continue on in the hopeless situation that would present itself tomorrow evening if the discussion were to go on as it has thus far. So I ask you to put on the agenda the further question whether you would not prefer to avoid the false situation that would develop from keeping the two groups welded together, regardless of whether things stay as they have been or undergo some modification. If the situation remains as it is, with each side failing to understand the other, let us go ahead and set up the two suggested groups within the one movement. I say this with an anxious, a very anxious heart; for surely no one will deny that I understand what it is to feel concern for our anthroposophical undertaking and know what it means to love it. But it is better to have two devoted sisters, each going her own way and united only by a common ideal, than to settle for something that would again lead in short order to a state of chaos.

My dear friends, you simply must not let yourselves overlook the fact that it is the various single enterprises that are causing our troubles. That should have been worked out in clearest detail. I am certainly not stating that the last Central Executive Committee accomplished a great deal more, materially, than the one before it, not any more, that is, than I accomplished when I was similarly active at the center in my role as General Secretary. But that is not the question. The real question is: What should have happened, anthroposophically speaking, after all the various enterprises were started here in Stuttgart? This will have to be answered. We cannot at this point dissolve what has been brought into being. Once these enterprises exist, we must find out how to keep them flourishing. But if we fail, as we have in the past four years, to learn how to go about this in an anthroposophical spirit, if we introduce enterprises as foreign bodies into the Anthroposophical Movement, as we have done, these institutions that have been in existence since 1919 will ruin the whole Anthroposophical Movement. They will ruin any Central Executive Committee, no matter what name it is given.

We should therefore keep our discussions objective and impersonal, and try to reach some clarity on what form the Society ought to take, now that it embraces all these institutions, and among them one as wonderful as the Waldorf School. Not a single word has yet been spoken on this subject, for those who are most familiar with what is going on in Stuttgart have thus far kept fairly silent. I would particularly like to hear what the two members of the Central Executive Committee would say to this. [The members of the Central Executive Committee were Ernst Uehli, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Carl Unger.] (I am not including Herr Leinhas, the third member, as he was the only one who helped me in a problematical situation and who continues to help. Indeed, for his sake I hardly like to see him go on devoting himself to the Central Executive Committee, ideally fitted for it though he is.) It is not a question of these two gentlemen defending themselves, but simply of saying what they think about the future shaping of the Anthroposophical Society, which is capable of amalgamating the enterprises that have been in existence since 1919; otherwise, it would have been an irresponsible deed to launch them. We cannot leave it at that, now that they exist.

These are very, very serious questions. We have to deal with them and discuss them objectively and impersonally. I meant what I said objectively, not as an attack on any member or members of the Central Executive Committee. Nobody is being disparaged, but in my opinion these problems, thus again sharply enunciated by me, had to be brought up. If the two proposed societies are to be established, the group that would be a continuation of the old Anthroposophical Society could make itself responsible for the projects the Society has undertaken, and the other group, that feels no interest in them, could pursue a more narrowly anthroposophical path.

This is what I wanted to put before you in a brief sketch. Tomorrow at twelve I shall speak in detail about matters of business.

Meeting between Rudolf Steiner, Dr. Ita Wegman, Albert Steffen and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth regarding the future composition of the Executive Council. After Rudolf Steiner had finally decided to take over the management of the Society himself and had discussed the composition of the Executive Council with Marie Steiner, he now informed the other potential members. Dr. Ita Wegman had already been informed before December 2 (see page 864), Dr. Elisabeth Vreede in some way on December 10, Albert Steffen and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth in the presence of Dr. Ita Wegman on December 16. Albert Steffen reported on the discussion at the extraordinary general assembly of December 16, 1930, as follows, according to the protocol:

"In December, before the Christmas Conference, on December 16, 1923, a meeting took place, a short meeting. Dr. Steiner called Dr. Wegman, Dr. Wachsmuth and me and spoke at that time, so that I heard it for the first time, how he thought the board should be composed, and then he said – I wrote it down –: “Vice President Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen.” Then he said: “Dr. Wegman = Secretary, Dr. Wachsmuth = Treasurer.” Dr. Vreede was not yet mentioned at the time.1 However, Rudolf Steiner had already made a comment to her in a conversation on December 10, “which basically implied that he was considering including me on the board”. (E. Vreede, “The History of the Anthroposophical Society since the Christmas Conference of 1923”, Arlesheim 1935.)

Albert Steffen's diary entry, to which he referred here, reads literally:

"On December 16 at Villa Hansi (Dr. Wegman, Dr. Wachsmuth, myself). Dr. Steiner reads the statutes and then says how he imagines the leadership. He: president. Dr. Steiner and I: vice-presidents. Dr. Wegman, secretary. Wachsmuth, treasurer (Wachsmuth suggests “treasurer”, to which Dr. Steiner says with a laugh, “The name is not important.”) Then there are the heads of the individual subjects. Dr. Steiner is head of the entire school. I am head of belles lettres. Wachsmuth is head of economics. He would rather be head of natural sciences. But Dr. Steiner says it is a shame that he is not a mathematician.

Albert Steffen twice gives December 16 as the date: in his diary entry and at the extraordinary general assembly in December 1930. Only at the general assembly of 1934 does he give December 19 as the date. Dr. Heinz Matile of the Albert Steffen Foundation in Dornach explains:

A report by Albert Steffen to Marie Steiner in his letter to her dated August 8, 1943 sheds light on the reasons why Rudolf Steiner included Guenther Wachsmuth on the board:

”...It was on April 22, 1923, when Mr. Storrer resigned and I had to propose a helper on behalf of the delegates' assembly [of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, of which he was the general secretary] for the work in the secretariat. I had discussed this proposal with Dr. Steiner and accordingly proposed Dr. Wachsmuth. This choice was unanimously accepted by all delegates in the presence of Dr. Steiner. Dr. Wachsmuth declared that he was very willing to take on the work in the secretariat to support Mr. Steffen, and to do so free of charge.

Dr. Wachsmuth himself reported the following at the 1943 general assembly (according to the minutes):

The present lectures for members given in Dornach in June 1923 are based on the attempt by Rudolf Steiner to encourage the Anthroposophical Society to reconsider the real foundations of anthroposophy and the inner requirements for tackling the tasks of the age. After the First World War, the Society had increasingly splintered into a variety of external initiatives and practical projects. Although Rudolf Steiner had spoken warning words from 1921 onwards, and at the end of 1922 had called on leading members to make proposals for its reconsolidation, a real rethink did not take place until New Year's Eve 1922, when the destruction by fire of the first Goetheanum provided the catalyst. As a consequence, regional societies were founded in a number of countries in 1923. On 10 June, immediately preceding the first lecture in this volume, the General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland decided, on the basis of a motion from the Society in Great Britain, to call a meeting of delegates from all countries for the end of July to decide the measures for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum. This international delegate meeting further decided to combine the individual regional societies into an International Anthroposophical Society at the Goetheanum at Christmas 1923. Its leadership was to be assumed by a General Secretary to be elected at that time, but shortly before Christmas Rudolf Steiner decided to take over the chairmanship himself.

Textual basis: These lectures were taken down in shorthand by Helene Finckh. Her own transcription of these notes forms the basis for this volume.

The first edition was published by Marie Steiner in 1931 with a Foreword by her. The second edition was undertaken by H.W. Zbinden. The third edition in 1981 included an expanded Contents and additional Notes.

Works by Rudolf Steiner which have not been translated and which have appeared as part of the Complete Edition (Gesamtausgabe = GA) are referred to in the Notes by their bibliographical number.

My dear friends!

I would like to combine the two lectures today and tomorrow into one unit, so that today we look up at certain ideas and facts of the spiritual world, which we then want to summarize tomorrow in a certain world view that is particularly important for the present time.

Perhaps it will already be understandable to some today that we are currently living in a time that, for all those who, in one form or another, are participating in and living through this time, means a time that demands the development of the soul in a way approaches the soul in such a way that this way cannot easily be compared with anything we know from before, whether it be through our own human experience or through anything else we have been able to take in. One could say many things. One could express through many symptoms and images what this very special thing about soul development consists of.

Let's start with an image. You know – either you have heard it or read about it in lectures or in cycles of lectures – that over the years in which we have spoken to each other in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, I have often referred to the name Herman Grimm, to Herman Grimm as a spirit who, in the most eminent sense, has grown directly out of the development of German culture and has placed himself in this development of German culture and spirit. I can say, my dear friends, that when I spoke of Herman Grimm in the years up to 1914, it always seemed to me as if he were standing beside me spiritually, as if one could have had the thought: What does such a personality say, which - albeit in a completely different form than spiritual science makes possible - has participated intensively in German spiritual life? The feeling that such minds as Herman Grimm's — he died in 1901, at the age of 70 — such a feeling that such minds are standing beside you and quietly asking the question: What do I myself have to say about what is being brought forth from the spiritual life of humanity, be it in one form or another, and thus also in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science? This feeling, we have not had it since 1914. That is significant. Today, my dear friends, there is no possibility, from the outside, to ask oneself: How would a personality like Herman Grimm behave in the context of our times and in relation to anything that is taking place in the development of the spirit in the sense of this time? Of course, Herman Grimm would be almost 90 years old if he were still alive, but if he were still alive today, one must imagine that, from the thoughts that such a personality could have, from the way he way of experiencing the present life of humanity, it would hardly be possible for such a personality, to gain a judgment, a position to that, which has gone on in these three years since 1914 over the development of humanity.

Now we can certainly ask ourselves the question differently from our point of view, we can ask ourselves the question like this: How does such a soul, after passing through the gate of death and having lived through almost twenty years in the spiritual world, look down on us and on what is happening here on earth? We come to the conclusion that it does not look down so uncomprehendingly as it actually should have done, considering how alien everything is to what such a personality has felt on earth.

It is not without reason, my dear friends, that I draw your attention to such a thought. We have thus hinted at a thought that, to a certain extent, cannot be completely real to us, cannot be completely real, a thought that asks: How understandingly or unintelligently would a personality like Herman Grimm face the present, the external present? We know very well that this thought has no reality, namely because the soul, when it passes through the gate of death, continues to develop in a completely different way – and that is the reality – in a completely different way than it would have developed if it had remained in the body for years. But to pose the question of how such a personality would face the external present today, to virtually present us with this unreal thought, the unreality of which we can be well aware of, is good material for meditation. Above all, such thoughts have great significance for our spiritual life, and it can be said that they will gain ever greater importance for our spiritual life. More and more, people will have to become accustomed to thinking that takes into account factors such as putting oneself in the place of such a thought: this is how it would have been if such a personality had remained on earth.

It will become more and more necessary for our thinking to become more agile through such thoughts than it unfortunately is in this day and age. For what is around us, my dear friends, what humanity is experiencing with such terror, what makes our feelings so different, is largely connected with the development of thoughts – or one could also say with the lack of development of thoughts in recent times. If I am to correctly supplement the thoughts expressed earlier, I would like to say that since 1914, when I think of Herman Grimm and his school of thought and world view, I feel something as I used to feel when I looked back centuries to a personality who was centuries before us, to a personality who had long since become historical. But, my dear friends, it will only gradually dawn on humanity that these years are now in reality a much longer time than they are in terms of the external, physical course. We have actually - it can be said that it is not an exaggeration - we have actually lived through centuries in these three years. But, my dear friends, we must not be afraid to add something else to the concept that we have acquired over the decades within our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, to the “we have lived through centuries”; we must not be afraid to add: in many, many respects, these times have not only been lived through, but in a certain higher sense they have also been slept through. What do we mean when we say that they have been slept through in a higher sense? These years contain so many possibilities for life and experience that for many souls these possibilities for life and experience pass by in much the same way as the events that take place around a person when he is asleep. They are there when he sleeps, but he does not perceive them.

I would like to speak to you today about some of the conditions of awakening in our time, of being awakened in our time, my dear friends, in these preliminary discussions. It will be necessary for humanity to see many things in a different light than it has been seen before. And so let us point out a basic fact, an important, important basic fact, which can bring our thinking in the direction, in the current, that we need to understand what is already preparing for many in this time. Let us look, my dear friends, at what is being said, thought, and expressed in words from various places around the world. From the outset, one must of course believe that when this or that is expressed in thoughts or in words, these words, these thoughts mean what – yes, I would like to say, what is found in the dictionary as the meaning of these thoughts, these words; one must believe this to be the case from the outset. But in many respects in our time this is not the case. And one should know that in our time it is not the case in many respects.

In our time, many things happen, and many highly significant things happen, that I would characterize as follows: Let us assume that two people come into a difference with each other, and we listen to the one person who is in difference with the other. He tells us: I came into difference with this person, I quarreled with him. We ask him why he has come into difference, why he is in conflict with the person in question. He answers us, “Yes, because this person has a bad character, because he has done this or that.” Of course, sometimes if you look into the facts, you may find something justified. If you are completely honest in looking into the facts today, you will very often not find something justified. The man says that the other man did this or that, or was such and such, and that is why he came into conflict with him. But why does he say that? Not because the other man is like that, but perhaps he says it for the same reason, because he needs to be reassured about the real reason why he came into conflict with him. What could this real reason be? This true reason can simply be that the soul life, the life of experience of this person who is telling us this, has developed in such a way that at a certain point in time it must discharge itself with a certain amount of hatred. Let us hold on to this, my dear friends, that this can simply be a primal fact of the soul of some human individualities. They grow up, they develop, and the soul develops in such a way that at a certain point in time it simply needs a certain amount of hatred. Just as a certain constitution, an abnormal constitution of the organism needs a fever, so a soul needs a discharge of a certain amount of hatred before itself, for the sake of what it has developed within itself. Because this certain amount of hatred is present in the soul, this soul mysteriously seeks someone on whom to discharge this hatred. But you can't say to yourself, without being frightened in a certain sense: I attack the person concerned because I have to discharge a certain amount of hatred. You have a sedative, a kind of anesthetic for the soul. This calming, this numbing of the soul occurs when one describes the other. The description may be true, the description may be false; but what it expresses is in any case not the real reason, but lies in the soul itself in the accumulated amount of hatred that must be discharged.

With this example, I wanted to show that anyone who is truly able to observe the world and makes an effort to do so can see today, wherever they look, how common it is to confuse cause and effect in our judgment of people. It is easy, my dear friends, to agree that in ordinary science, cause and effect are confused at every turn; but this confusion only occurs because in general human life there is a tendency to confuse cause and effect in the way described. Mankind, and I mean all of mankind, must learn to observe life and to live wisely. Without this observation of life, without this wisdom of life, my dear friends, which human beings must strive for, the complicated life that will come upon this earth cannot be lived through by mankind. For only through such striving will one come to feel with the necessary weight that which one needs to live. And in saying this, my dear friends, I may perhaps point out a certain fact that has occurred over the years of our anthroposophical endeavors within our previous considerations.

You can think back many years, a whole series of years, and you will remember that even in public lectures the question was quite often asked: How do repeated earthly lives relate to the increasing population of the earth? After all, the population of the earth is constantly increasing. If the same individuals keep reincarnating, how does this fact fit in with the increasing population of the earth? You will recall that I have given various reasons for understanding the apparent increase in the earth's population despite repeated lives on earth. But you may also remember that whenever this question came up, I always added a sentence to the other reasons I had given. I always added the sentence: “We shall wait, and perhaps the time will soon come when people will realize in a terrible way that the population of the earth will also be reduced in an extremely significant way by horrific events.” Of course, many will be able to remember these sentences. Many things could be remembered, but today I would like to remind you in particular that you will find in the cycle held in Vienna before the war, which dealt with life between death and new birth, how I tried to describe the general possibilities of the disease of social life across the globe. At the time, I even used the expression – it can be read in the cycle – that something like a social carcinoma is going through the world. The expression can be found printed in the cycle.

Such things, my dear friends, have been said to point out that much is going on around us that is as elusive to the ordinary consciousness as the tables and chairs of our bedroom are to us when we are asleep. And many, many passages in the lectures that have been given, they were given with the intention of touching souls, of touching hearts, to point out the utter seriousness of the forces that go through time in one direction or another. Because it does not help us, my dear friends, if we only try to gain, I would say in accessible concepts, some general ideas about the spiritual worlds. What we need, especially if these ideas that we gain are to be fruitfully integrated into our time, what we need is to acquire such concepts, such ideas from the experience of the spiritual world, that can intervene in reality in every area of life. But our present time is altogether poor, tremendously poor, in such concepts that can intervene in reality. And it is a concomitant of materialism, my dear friends, that the concepts that develop in the materialistic age have no power to intervene in reality in a directing, ordering, comprehending way. Man must learn to place himself in the world in a realistic way. This is only possible if spiritual science opens up an understanding for something without which understanding one knows nothing at all: for the relationship of man to the world.

If we are to take up the important things we have to say in this regard and bring them before our soul in the right way and with the utmost seriousness, we must start with three concepts that every religious mind today will inevitably see as the three most important concepts. We must start with the concept of the Father-God, with the concept of the Christ, and with the concept of the Spirit or Holy Spirit. Let us first consider today what spiritual science can say about the relationship of the human being to that which can be expressed by the three concepts of the Father God, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Today, we are indeed confronted with a world in which materialistic development has led to there being people who do not accept all these three ideas, the three concepts, I will not say, but do not experience them in their full seriousness, in their full depth. They will not be able to doubt, my dear friends, that many people today go through life without dealing with all their soul forces with these three concepts of Father-God, Christ, Holy Spirit.

What then does spiritual science have to say, based on what it can experience, about the just-mentioned lack in human souls, about this inability to deal with these three concepts? If you enter into the full meaning of our spiritual science, you will always be able to understand the following, because in what follows I would like to express a basic phenomenon for the soul's life in words that, I believe, express this basic phenomenon succinctly and precisely. I think that spiritual science can say from its point of view: the denial or misunderstanding of the Father-God is an illness; the denial or misunderstanding of the Christ is a misfortune of fate. Note the words carefully; I am using them in such a way that the matter is expressed very precisely. The denial or misjudgment of the Father-God is an illness; the denial or misjudgment of the Christ is an accident of fate for the soul; and the denial or misjudgment of the spirit is a blindness of the soul. I believe that anyone who combines the right approach with these three characteristics has much of what is needed to understand materialism in our time. I also believe that anyone who understands these three characteristics in the right sense has the key to understanding much, much more in our time.

Let us consider the first characteristic: the denial or misunderstanding of the Father-God is an illness. As an anthroposophically oriented spiritual scientist, I have to say this because, if the totality of the human being is organized in a healthy way according to the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of this being and the person does not physically, mentally or spiritually oppose themselves to allow their whole being to work healthily, then there is no possibility of not recognizing that which can be called the Father God. Every human being with a healthy organization, my dear friends, who does not allow prejudices to stand in his way – prejudices that have such an effect that everything organic no longer works properly – every human being, if he looks at the world in a healthy way and really applies his healthy spiritual power to this healthy view, comes to think of nature and the life of history as imbued with a Father-God. And the strange thing that offends today's materialists – the denial or misjudgment of the Father God – is not possible at all, except that something is not right in the human organization. So one can say: atheism is, under all circumstances, a real symptom of illness for spiritual science; something must be wrong in the human organization when atheism is present.

If people want to develop a relationship to human evolution, if they want to make sense of earthly development, then they have to be able to look at a certain point in time in this earthly development, when the mystery of Golgotha had to take place. But you can't say – just as you can say: that an atheist is actually more or less physically ill, one cannot say that anyone who does not find the Christ is ill. For finding the Christ is really something that is connected with a power to which the name 'grace' is fully applicable. The Christ must be found in such a way that He approaches the human being as an entity, so that the person can find His way to Him. Not to recognize God as such, to be an atheist, means — also in the physical sense — to be ill. But one can be healthy without finding the Christ. Therefore, not finding the Christ is not an illness like not finding God, but not finding the Christ is an misfortune of the soul. It is something that affects us, the failure to find Christ, that plunges the soul into misfortune. You can see this from the deeper meaning of the many discussions that have been held in our field for years: the soul needs the connection with Christ in order to find its way in the overall development of humanity. It was only until the Mystery of Golgotha that it was possible for the human soul to develop its entire life without coming into contact with the Christ. Since the Mystery of Golgotha, the Christ must permeate the human soul with His power, the Christ must connect with the human soul so that this human soul can find its way through the entire development of humanity. You can really find this within the development of spiritual life itself.

Just think of what a beautiful flowering of human spiritual life Greek culture was. People today have no real idea of what life was like for the ancient Greeks. And really, sometimes the only way to express one's admiration for Greek culture is to be negative. Spiritual science will first allow us to become positive again with regard to our admiration of Greek culture. Today, people take it for granted that they can read Sophocles or even Aeschylus, or perhaps even recite or act them. And so one is often asked: Is it possible to do anything with Aeschylus in terms of acting or reciting? It is possible if one has the right sense of Greek culture. If you have Aeschylus or even Sophocles as they exist today in modern languages as Aeschylus or Sophocles, then that is a shadow of the matter. Only the full, dense, reality-imbued concepts will be able to lie in the words again, when there will be [true] translations of Aeschylus or Sophocles or when the Greek words are to be understood. We must not forget that those whom we call intellectuals today, in the cultural life to which they go back in reality, only go back to Roman times. Our high school students may learn Greek, but they only learn Latin-Roman ideas. We have Roman law, Roman ideas in other areas of life as well. But Greece is actually a fairy-tale land. But it is deeply, deeply rooted in this Greekness, my dear friends, that we have been handed down the significant word of the Greek hero: Better a beggar in the upper world than a king in the realm of shadows. Why? The soul concept of Aristotle answers that. No one has dealt so thoroughly with Aristotle's soul concept as the recently deceased excellent psychologist Franz Brentano. It can be said that spiritual research can agree with what Brentano discovered by philosophical means with regard to the soul and immortality concept of Aristotle, the Greek sage, for the reason that it is the Greek concept, but elevated to philosophy.

Aristotle was not initiated. The initiated Greeks knew something else about the immortality of the soul. But Aristotle was not initiated. He could only rise to that conception of the soul to which an uninitiated wise thinker of the Greeks could rise in the centuries before the entrance of the mystery of Golgotha. What is this conception of the soul and immortality? The ancient Greeks knew, they knew from an experience that people today no longer have, that everything they accomplish in the body as human beings is imbued with soul. The ancient Greeks did not speculate about whether their soul somehow lives, but they knew that when I move my hand, my soul moves with it. The ancient Greeks knew that the soul lives in everything they did, physically and mentally. But he had the idea that soul and body belong together internally. For him, it was a whole: soul and body. That is why Aristotle says: If they cut off one of your arms, then you are no longer a complete human being. If they cut off two of your arms, then you are even less so; if they take away your whole body, as death does, then you are no longer a complete human being. Aristotle speaks of human immortality, but he says, when man has gone through the gate of death, he is no longer a complete human being – he says this as a Greek – because he lacks the possibility of coming into contact with the environment in any way, which is only possible through the body. A person who has passed through the gateway of death is, for Aristotle, a maimed person. Although Aristotle still clings to the idea of immortality, within this immortality the soul lives in such a way that one is an incomplete human being. And that it can actually do nothing but continue this existence, I would say spiritually vegetatively, to reproduce, without coming into any contact with the environment. That is the concept of Aristotle, which could arise before the Mystery of Golgotha, when man was left to his own devices. And now think about what the concept of immortality would look like today if this had been propagated. Something new had to occur in human development to give the human soul the strength to come to the concept of immortality again: that is the Mystery of Golgotha. Since the Mystery of Golgotha, the power of Christ has permeated the evolution of the earth. But it must happen to people in a merciful way that the power of their soul coincides with the power of Christ. Otherwise, misfortune would befall them, and they would know nothing of the soul that has passed through the gate of death except that it is only an incomplete, mutilated human being.

These are only preliminary remarks, my dear friends, who want to explain the word, want to explain the characteristic: misjudgment or denial of the Christ is a misfortune of fate for the soul. You can be healthy, but you must be unhappy in soul if you do not find the Christ. People must be brought to make clear distinctions regarding the most important concepts if life is to go on and what the future will demand of people is to be achieved. But it is precisely such ideas that some people, especially those who are otherwise close to us, shy away from.

You see, for someone who is a humanities scholar, there is a theologian – such as Adolf Harnack, for example – in terms of the inner structure of thought, the Father God, but there is no actual Christ. Harnack does, of course, introduce the concept of Christ, but it is not organically connected with what he thinks. And what Harnack says about Christ are basically only the attributes of God the Father. The most important attributes Harnack presents about Christ and His nature are only attributes of God the Father. It will be a fundamental requirement of our time that humanity finds the way to the real Christ, that the confusion between Christ and God the Father ceases. Otherwise, some might believe that they have the Christ, when in fact they only have God the Father. We only need to remember that some Christian mystics of the Middle Ages claimed that they had found the Christ by delving into their souls. There is no reason for them to say that they have found the Christ – they have only found the Father God. One can find the Father God in this way, but not the Christ. Take the term that I initially developed as a characteristic. When our soul appears healthy for the organism, when it properly comprehends itself in the whole person, then it says “Ex Deo nascimur” – “I am born of God”. This saying “Ex Deo nascimur” should be nothing more than an expression of the complete health of human nature. So just living your life in the right way, living a completely healthy life, allows this life to culminate in the recognition of the Father God: “Ex Deo nascimur”.

The good fortune of being able to connect one's own soul with the power of Christ brings the gracious possibility to know oneself beyond death, not as a mutilated human being, but on the contrary, not only as a whole human being, but as a human being illuminated in the illuminated spiritual world. Therefore, “In Christo morimur” – “In Christ we die”.

But in order not to recognize the spirit, blindness of the soul is necessary; this is now more than ever characteristic of materialism. For if the soul really sees all that is around her, if she does not pass by in sleep but sees what is around her in an awakened state, she is therefore not blind but sees awakened, then she sees the spirit at work in all things. Therefore, it must be said that to fail to recognize or to deny the Spirit is blindness of the soul. I particularly want you to grasp this distinction: Not being able to see the mysterious working of the Spirit in world events when the soul is blind comes from not being able to see the Spirit. Being unhealthy in oneself, so that the soul does not fully experience itself, causes atheism, the non-recognition of the Father-God. The recognition of the Father-God therefore comes from the healthy inner being, the recognition of the spirit comes from the alert observation of the world facts and world events around us. The materialist is only a sleeper to the world facts and world events around us.

If what has just been said is plausible – and it is well-founded in spiritual science – then perhaps the question will arise: Yes, but why has there been no real possibility for so long in humanity to develop complete clarity precisely about these three ideas? Why is that so? Yes, you see, that has to do with what I would like to call the historical “misdeity” — “misdeity”. Three is the number: mis-deity, just “misdeity”. I had to coin a new word, and you will soon hear that it is quite good to coin a new word for this idea. In the future, we will have to coin many new words. People will coin many new words in general, because the old words are no longer sufficient for what we need to understand now. And for what we have to say to each other now, we take the word “abuse”, where three is taken from the number three.

You see, my dear friends, in the presentation that I have given in my “Theosophy”, I have pointed out from the most diverse sides in a clearly noticeable way that in order to understand the entire essence of man, it is necessary to consider the human and also the worldly trinity of body, soul and spirit - body, soul and spirit. If we go back to those times when there was only an atavistic, dream-like consciousness, but within this atavistic, dream-like consciousness there was an ancient view of reality, we find everywhere, especially in the wisdom of the mysteries, the threefold division of the world and man into body, soul and spirit. For neither the world nor man can be understood otherwise if one does not grasp the meaning of the threefoldness of body, soul and spirit.

Now something strange has occurred. The Council of Constantinople took place in 869; with it, the spirit was actually abolished. Until then, there was widespread awareness that one must distinguish between body, soul and spirit. Among the things established by the Council of Constantinople, the most important is that one should not assume a difference between soul and spirit, but in the soul one should only think of a thinking and a spiritual part. And from that time on, throughout the entire world-developmental currents of the Middle Ages, it became necessary that one no longer distinguished the human being into body, soul and spirit, but only into body and soul, whereby soul and spirit were conflated with each other. It was heretical to speak of the so-called “trichotomy” since the Council of Constantinople in 869, after which it was only permissible to distinguish the human body and the human soul as a thinking and spiritual being, but not the threefold nature, the trichotomy into body, soul and spirit. This is tremendously significant. Those who are familiar with medieval philosophy know how some medieval philosophers struggle with the fact that they still had the feeling from ancient times that the human being consists of three parts. But the misappropriation had occurred since the Council of Constantinople, and anyone who wanted to claim or philosophically teach the trichotomy of body-soul-spirit would have been declared a heretic.

We are experiencing the highly remarkable fact today that the gentlemen who pursue unconditional science, exactly according to the Council of Constantinople, divide man into body and soul, and have no idea at all about the division into soul and spirit, except at most as something that is only a verbal skirmish. Look at Wundt and other enlightened minds of the present day; they all have the division into body and soul. That is why these gentlemen are also “presuppositionless”, because they have only the Council of Constantinople as a presupposition. They just don't know that they have this presupposition, which is why they call this philosophy “presuppositionless science”.

In certain directions, order and, above all, strength and world understanding are not created if one does not penetrate the secret of “dreiung” again, if one does not overcome the “missdreiung” that has been going on for centuries through the world view, through the view of humanity in general. The deep significance of the division of the human being into body, soul and spirit must be recognized again. But then, in precisely this most important and essential area, one will find the possibility of speaking concretely, imbued with reality, and expressing the truth, whereas in this area, the present time speaks not in terms of reality but in abstract terms; it believes that it is not speaking abstractly but is presenting the greatest real ideals of humanity.

It was at the end of the nineteenth century, as you know, that three ideals of humanity resounded through Europe and as far as Asia: fraternity, freedom, equality. And you know that within the European discussion - which today is no longer a discussion, but is being written in blood - that within this discussion the three words keep coming up that are supposed to say: But let us ask the question that must be asked in relation to these three words, let us ask it from a spiritual scientific point of view: if we simply talk in general terms that man or humanity must strive for fraternity, freedom and equality, we are dealing with an abstraction, three abstractions that are still under the complete influence of “misdeity”. Why? Man is in reality a trinity: body, soul and spirit, and as body, soul and spirit man lives with other people, who are also body, soul and spirit, here on earth together. This gives rise to a relationship between those forces within people that experience each other here in the physical world, and that comes from the fact that a person is incarnated in a body, a relationship that arises from the fact that we interact with each other in our bodies.

If we are to formulate an ideal for the future, a social ideal based on the truth that man is incarnated in a body, then it must be the ideal of brotherhood. From what man is for man, because man is bodily, from that must grow brotherhood, my dear friends; that is a social ideal for the future. But there is no point in speaking of the ideal of freedom from the same point of view. That would be to speak in the abstract. Speaking of the ideal of freedom only makes sense if one knows that only the spiritual relationship between people can be free. Just as people can only develop a social relationship according to the ideal of brotherhood if they are incarnated in the body, so too can this striving for the ideal of freedom only be realized if one understands how one soul can live from another. People become free as souls, people can become free as souls just as they can be fraternal if they are incarnated in bodies. Equality is an ideal that only makes sense if it refers to man as spirit. For the way we are placed in the world means that we are specialized in having one body and one soul. In terms of our spirituality, we are equal. Therefore, when we have discarded the body and with it the specialization of the characteristics, the saying that aptly characterizes the event comes to mind: In death, all men are equal, because they all become spirits.

The three ideals are meaningless when they are mixed up in “misuse”; they only become meaningful when these three ideals will sound through humanity in such a way that one can recognize them.

Man is body, soul and spirit; he must become brotherly according to the body, free according to the soul, equal according to the spirit. You see, these three abstract, unreal words will only make sense when spiritual science can find this meaning for them.

But why were these words spoken at the end of the 18th century? You see, you say words – I gave you the example on a small scale earlier – you say words, you believe you have come to a difference [with someone]; in truth it was hatred that has been unleashed. I have shown you that. And now we have the application of this small example to the great world-historical event. And so these words were also spoken in historical time, not to express what one thought one could find in these words, but to compensate, as it were, for something else. In a sense unconsciously, the three words came historically from the human mouth as if in a play, out of ecstasy. Out of full reflection, the words should have been: Fraternity from the body, freedom from the soul, equality from the spirit. One speaks the words half consciously, not fully consciously, for only spiritual science will speak them fully consciously. One speaks the words half consciously, like a person in ecstasy, a visionary speaks the words. But of course no one will understand this who swears by the supposed weight of these three words today. What will he say? He will say: Are you saying that these words were spoken in ecstasy? They are something that is most imbued with self-confident human reason. That is the belief that is poured out over the whole fact. Because why? Because in the depths of the soul of the times, when these words were spoken, Ahriman was lurking; and Ahriman is the one from whom these words really emerged. That is why they rashly croak.

And Ahriman needed to unburden his soul. Just as a soul usually unloads hatred, so Ahriman sought to unload himself. And just as a soul that is discharging would say that so-and-so did this or that to me, Ahriman had above all to bring out of his soul a certain impulse towards the material. And this was expressed not by letting people say — imagine what would have been the fate of people if they had had to say: We must not oppose materialism, we must now forget that there is a soul and a spirit, we must ascribe everything to the material; not to the body fraternity, not to the soul liberty, not to the spirit equality, but we must ascribe everything to material man; we must finally wipe the slate clean with this trichotomy.

That did not work. Therefore, the three things had to be conjured up as an ideal. And because Ahriman was at work in these, they came out under ecstasy. When a person does something like this, he numbs himself, he is in ecstasy. When Ahriman raves in him, then he can believe that he is saying the wisest thing, that he has complete control over himself and is saying something quite natural, while in fact he is saying nothing else that is perfectly apt for outer development, but which in truth is the life of an Ahrimanic power in the human soul.

We will take up these matters again tomorrow, for they are truly important if we want to understand the present time. And tomorrow I will have many more important things to say, especially with regard to the present time.

But now, following these discussions, allow me to say something that I would rather not say, but must say. We have fulfilled our task today. But it is necessary because I am obliged to observe certain measures for the near future within the Anthroposophical Society, and I need to give some motivation for them.

You see, my dear friends, spiritual science is something that must — I have motivated you from a wide variety of perspectives, quite objectively — that must become part of human development. It is not something that has an end in itself, like the program points of other societies, which one can be passionate about, but something that must become established because humanity itself, if it understands itself correctly, demands spiritual science. Only a few people still know this objectivity over time to observe what really presents itself as a yearning in human souls. But from certain laws, which are already understandable through spiritual science itself, my dear friends, what I have indicated in the most diverse ways is being realized more and more. And those who have heard me speak often know that I have often pointed out that the forces that would like to extinguish the light of spiritual science are indeed already at work. These dear friends who have heard me speak often know this for certain. For those who observe things, they have not come as a surprise, but they must still be treated in the right way.

Is it not the case that spiritual science is something that has to become established? In a sense, the Anthroposophical Society should be an instrument for spiritual science. It is an instrument that is difficult to handle, that must be readily admitted. But my dear friends, we must also truly face the fact that the Anthroposophical Society must be taken extremely seriously. Otherwise it would be better to have very small groups of friends in different cities trying to organize public lectures, and spiritual science would be able to fulfill its current mission for humanity in this way. But if there is an Anthroposophical Society, then it must be something real. Now, from certain backgrounds, it is extremely difficult for this Anthroposophical Society to fulfill its ideals, but on the other hand, it must not be ignored that one must look at what is necessary in this Anthroposophical Society in order to advance it as a society - I am not talking about spiritual science now, but about the society.

You see, above all it is necessary to acquire a clear and healthy judgment within the Society, also for what exists in society, and about the way society works outwardly, and to shape one's feelings and one's judgment of the world in the sense of this judgment. I am not saying that I demand this of society, but society cannot be what it wants to be if it does not strive for it. I have nothing to demand of society, I emphasize that, but it cannot be what it should be and wants to be if it does not strive for this healthy judgment of the world and life, if this striving does not really take root in society.

Look, let me start from a specific point: there are things that, as they happen, are only possible within our Anthroposophical Society, that would not actually be possible outside. Take the most blatant case of Heindel-Vollrath. What I mean is this: a Mr. Grasshoff applied for admission to the Anthroposophical Society a few years ago. That is, he was one of those people who are dragged into it by other members, sometimes in a rather unjustified way. But he had an urgent desire to become a member of our society. He became one, attended all the lectures, perhaps even spent some time in Hamburg, took part in public and branch lectures, but he also borrowed all kinds of individual lectures from all kinds of members and diligently copied everything down. So that when he said one day that he wanted to go back to America, he not only had all the public lectures in his head, but also pretty much everything that had been presented in our cycles and branch lectures.

Now you may say: Why was the person accepted at all? Yes, my dear friends, you cannot anticipate the future in such a case. You cannot – I must ask for forgiveness for using a harsh word – you cannot reject someone and say: I am rejecting you because later on you will be a bastard! You cannot give prophecies as a reason for rejection. This is a dilemma that occurs in such a society, and it makes it necessary for every member of the society to develop correct judgment.

So Mr. Grasshoff went back to America one day, took all his things with him and said that he wanted to spread our spiritual science in America. The dependency was so great that he himself said, before he took leave and made the solemn promise, that the way he would represent spiritual science would be a thoroughly honest one. The matter went so far that he said at the time: How should one actually translate “Rosicrucian worldview” into English? Back then, it was very difficult to translate “Weltanschauung” into English, and we still discussed the “Rosicrucian World Conception”. Except for this word, it is from me, which is a word that had not been used before: “Rosicrucian World Conception”. So he packed this word into his suitcase and left.

What did he do? He sat down in America and wrote down in his own way what he had found in the lectures and in the printed books, changing it in his own way. But there is nothing in his books that he did not get here. But in the preface he wrote the following: He had learned many things in my lectures that he wanted to share in America, but it was not enough, and after he had listened to the lectures here - here with me, with us - he received a call from a wise master down there in Transylvania, in the Transylvanian Alps, who introduced him to the deeper secrets of the matter. Therefore, he would not only give what he had from me, but also what he had received from that wise master there in the Transylvanian Alps. But if you check what this wise master told him, it is what he copied here from the cycles, lectures and branch lectures. It is all worked into it. The book was published in America.

Well, that could still be tolerated, right? But it didn't stop there. This book was translated into German and published years ago in German translation as “Rosenkreuzerische Unterrichtsbriefe” under the aegis of Mr. Hugo Vollrath years ago, and on the bookplates and in the preface, you can read that some building blocks of this Rosicrucian worldview did indeed come to light here in Germany, but they were impure; they first had to be purified by the bright Californian sun. That is where Grasshoff, who later called himself Heindel, later lived. So not only was it possible in America, but the things were retranslated into German. That is possible. This is a scandal, my dear friends, and deserves to be made known. I have even mentioned it in public lectures. It has not become known. But if the Anthroposophical Society wants to fulfill its task, it is important that our cause be presented to the world in the right way; that it is not just said by me, but that one also gains the right attitude towards these things. Of course, it is wonderful and desirable to hear lectures and read cycles about spiritual things, but for that we do not need an Anthroposophical Society. The Anthroposophical Society must work and develop a field of activity.

Of course, where such things can develop, things move forward. What have we experienced recently? Recently we have seen that a man who for a long time truly appeared to be the most honest of the so-called followers of anthroposophy, was a member of the Anthroposophical Society who called himself true, he was so true that he even wrote a book that was published by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, and then he wrote a small booklet “Who was Christ?” In this booklet, he used some material that is also from the Cycles. Now, that might still be acceptable, but Dr. Steiner did not think it was quite right to introduce it. I did not take a stand on the matter, but Dr. Steiner did not think it was right – and she is the one who runs the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House – that if you take things from the cycles and then say: some hints have been given, but I must first explain them clearly. For these and other reasons, the booklet “Who Was Christ?” had to be rejected. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - after a thing, therefore because of a thing. This is often a disputed dictum, but I believe it is often a very correct dictum. What became of this man who had lived among us as a loyal anthroposophist and who had sought to find his own place for his work? This man became the most vehement and swollen opponent because his little book was not accepted by the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag. That is the only reason. All the foolish talk he has developed about alleged contradictions in “Psychische Studien” is just added. And one does not do justice to the matter if one believes that one has to go into this talk, but one has to know, in order to see the whole enormity, that a person who has last sought to publish his writing in the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag posophical publishing house, and thus had every intention, had his writing been accepted, to remain an anthroposophist as he had been before, that he would become a person producing defamatory writings if his writing were rejected. One has to - forgive me - found the Anthroposophical Society in order to experience such things, because otherwise this cannot actually happen with such intensity.

Now don't misunderstand me! Opposing writings must also appear, I will have no objection to that. Please do not take my words as if spiritual science should be afraid of opposing writings. They may appear, but they should be objective. But there is nothing objective here. This will become immediately apparent when we see what ground the whole matter is taking. Everywhere it is actually only seemingly a matter of all kinds of refutations, I might say, of contradictions that are pointed out; in truth, it is a matter of spreading gossip and scandal, most of which is even invented, but sometimes presented with great sophistication. So this is not said because of factual opposition, but because the aim is not to engage in a factual fight – that is far too uncomfortable – but because the aim is – by virtually driving the anthroposophical movement into scandal, into defamation, into slander, into inventing facts that have absolutely no connection with reality - to make this Anthroposophical Society impossible.

But so much can happen in the realm of this Anthroposophical Society! A man from a town in central Germany once wrote to Dr. Steiner: He is now at a particular point in his soul life, he does not know what to do next. He would like some advice, should he become involved in a business or should he seek his new soul path in some other way. Since he had been informed that it could not be our task to give advice on marrying into a family, he turned up one day. He made himself noticed by reciting Schiller's “Cassandra” with furious emphasis, although he had no idea of any art of recitation, and unleashing it on the unsuspecting members of the Anthroposophical Society. In this way he made himself felt in the Society; to individual members he made himself felt by, as I was credibly told, energetically exercising the will to marry the young girls of the Society.

Now, of course, such things happen in the course of the flow of anthroposophical life, but sometimes they take on even more forms. One day the good man was seized by the urge to be a genius, a painter genius. He was seized not by the urge to become a genius, but to be a genius, not by the urge to become a painter. If anyone expected him to become a painter, he took it as an insult.

He couldn't paint, couldn't do anything, but he wanted to be a painter. He moved to Munich, and we tried in every way – didn't we, to a certain extent anyone can become a painter – to get him teachers. He has been supported, but we just couldn't make him a genius. And this whole matter developed into what is now called the “Bamler case”, which is supposed to characterize the entire disgrace of the anthroposophical movement with invented stuff about exercises causing bruises on the skin and similar things. These articles are accepted with open arms, and not only that, by busy editors, by editors who are sometimes of such a nature that they make any old remark, and someone writes to them – I am only telling facts, a correct judgment can only be based on facts and I am accustomed to telling only facts —, someone wrote to the editor: Well, haven't you read the essay in your own magazine, which should have told you that this [illegible] is completely unjustified [illegible]? The editor replied to the person concerned: “Yes, do you think that I have time to read all the essays that are printed by me?”

Well, it is not about that when someone enters into a factual discussion, but rather that one wants to avoid it. For spiritual science has no need to fear factual discussions. One wants to collect all that is simply invented today from such things. For the things that are invented are indeed enough to make one want to climb up the walls – and are partly invented in the most obscene way.

I do not want to tell you obscenities today, which are already being printed, but I do want to give you a small sample of what is possible in this day and age; I will give you a sample that is sweet but no less ridiculous. I could come up with very thick chunks that would taste quite different, through which, in order to drive them into a scandal, anthroposophy is to be made impossible. I would like to give just a small sample. There is a nice / gap in the transcript] essay that contains things that are all made up. What matters is that they are made up. And what is not important is that attention is drawn to the fact that the personality who wrote this did so in a mentally ill state; that is not important, but that the things are objectively untrue. It says: Dr. Steiner often explained the Lazarus miracle to his students, the transformation of the human being through the Lazarus miracle. Dr. Steiner sent chocolate to a certain person who had to be taken to a sanatorium “to thicken the blood.” This chocolate had been chosen to bring about a transformation in the person in the sense of the Lazarus miracle.

There you have an example – as I said, I have chosen one that is still the most appetizing, but that does not make it any less likely for you to invent. But there are editors who write: “Even a healthy person could be put in an asylum because of such craziness.” - So you can imagine: someone thinks that Dr. Steiner wrote about the Lazarus miracle; Dr. Steiner wants to perform the Lazarus miracle by sending chocolate biscuits - now imagine during the war - to a sick woman in the sanatorium to send chocolate biscuits to thicken the blood so that the Lazarus miracle will take place. This will be printed today, and an editor can be found who says: “Through such follies, even a healthy person could end up in an insane asylum.”

Yes, it is ridiculous, but the very campaign that is starting today is characterized by the fact that on the one hand it is ridiculously ridiculous and on the other hand it is downright spiteful. For it has become possible for articles to appear in the “Psychische Studien” with comments by the editor that ridicule the anthroposophical movement and drive it into scandal. It has become possible for such an article to appear that one would have to experience first hand to believe that such things could appear. For against the prevailing attitude, everything that has been written in the scandal press so far does not come up. For to proceed in such a way would have been avoided until now – I will say, if not towards a man, then at least towards a woman, but that has also become possible.

And it has become possible that just people who cannot be rejected when they enter society – because the one who wrote this was, of course, a member of the Anthroposophical Society – because one cannot anticipate the future, one cannot reject them; it is possible for these things to happen. It is possible, my dear friends, that now, in the most incredible way, what really did not happen to my pleasure and at the request of the members, that the most incredible gossip and slander about the personal relationship between me and Dr. Steiner and the members – that all of this is being dragged into gossip and slander and – not to speak with my own words, but with the words of a friend who was at the Nuremberg lectures and heard the matter – into meanness. Not only did the Imperial Privy Councillor and Professor Max Seiling explain quite tastefully, despite the fact that he had come repeatedly over the years and did not even request brief private discussions, and now declares: the cycles would have a better style if they were corrected by me, instead of having private discussions with the members. Nevertheless, the imperial court councilor Professor Max Seiling knows very well how the cycles were wrested from me, because it was not my wish that they be published, but it was done out of two necessities: it was desired by the members, although I said there was no time to review them; on the other hand, the mischief that was done with the rewritten lectures. The rewriting went so far that one day we came across a lecture that had been rewritten. This transcript actually stated that I had said in a cycle that prostitution had been set up by the great initiates. This is just a sample of the things that were present in the private transcripts that were passed from hand to hand.

It was necessary that at least once the matter was taken in hand, that at least the follies that were passed from hand to hand in society in the form of private notes should cease. Nevertheless, the imperial court councilor Seiling had the nerve to say: if the private conversations had not taken place, then these lectures - while he was calculating and indicating prices - could have been corrected. All this is possible, other things are possible that I do not want to mention for the time being. All these things are possible, but it is precisely the private conversations that lead to things being invented, purely invented, and that are now beginning to be used because people do not want to fight objectively, that are now to be used to proceed in the most unobjective way against what the anthroposophical movement is.

What has been said over the years, and how have I emphasized: Those who know me know how opposed to everything sectarian what I have in mind is. And where is there more of a tendency towards it than in our society! I need only mention one external manifestation. We once wanted to travel to a course in Helsingfors. We arrived at the Stettin train station and found, walking on the other platform, a whole company of female members - I don't want to say anything against the female members, it could also be male members - so we saw a whole bunch of ladies with purple bishop's caps in incredible costumes heading for the Helsingfors train. When the ladies got off in Helsingfors: One should have seen the fright that the poor Helsingfors Anthroposophists got. They no longer had any sense of the aesthetics of these bishop's caps and so on, but only the sense of accommodating the ladies in such a way that at least the rest of the Helsingfors population would not notice that they belonged to the Helsingfors Anthroposophists.

But this is only an outward sign of the urge for sectarianism. Again and again, people on the outside have to hear: This is a society built on authority. They do everything that Dr. Steiner wants. I don't think there is a society where it is like ours, where if something is to happen according to my opinion, it certainly won't happen. I do not consider myself the master of the Society, so I cannot demand that what I want should happen; but I can demand one thing: that I should not be asked. But on a small scale it has been shown time and again: some lady or man, it can also be a gentleman, feels the need to justify to her husband or a friend why she is traveling on a cycle. What does she say? “Doctor Steiner said so.” — What do I care whether she goes to the cycle or not? — ‘Do you have anything against it?’ she asks me. — I can't have anything against it, that would be an infringement of human freedom, which I respect and value. But then one says: ‘Doctor Steiner said I should travel to the cycle.’

Well, these are the kinds of insinuations that make it necessary, after years of talking about these things, to take measures once, not to take them, but because they are necessary, even if they are as difficult for me as they are for some people, but to emphasize the seriousness that is necessary in these measures.

Firstly, I now have to stop having private conversations with members for the time being. I can no longer have private conversations with members. I can only say that I am as sorry as anyone can be, but you will have to turn to those who made this necessary. It was not I who made it necessary.

The second thing is – but I ask that the one not be told without the other, the one is not right without the other – the second thing is: I explain to everyone who has ever had a private conversation with me that they can tell everything that has been said in these private conversations or has otherwise occurred, that they can tell everything completely, as far as they themselves want. I urge no one not to tell anything, insofar as he himself wants, that has ever occurred in such conversations. Nothing need shun the light of day if it is truthfully communicated.

So first, the private conversations must stop; second, I authorize everyone, insofar as he himself wants, to tell everything that has ever been spoken or occurred in any private conversation. It remains to be seen whether, under the seriousness of these measures, one or the other may yet be achieved. For my part, I am completely convinced that those of our dear members who are seriously and with dignity seeking that which must now be sought through spiritual science within humanity not only understand these two measures, but also approve of them and find them necessary. For those who seriously want to advance esoterically – just give me a little time, and even without the private conversations I will find ways and means to ensure that no one is held back in their esoteric development; a fully valid substitute will be found, it just has to be created first.

I have only given you a small part of the characteristics of the campaign as it is now being launched, but something must be done, because it is not acceptable to be caught between personal spite and ridicule. After all, it could be said in Munich: One of the most serious attacks is yet to come, that of Goesch.

Yes, my dear friends, that can be said, even though Goesch's attack is typical of the stupid and ridiculous on the one hand, because he engages in magical effects of handshakes and the like, and on the other hand, just in mere spite.

Perhaps if we just have a little awareness / gap in the transcript] some things can be improved. I know that those who take the Anthroposophical Society and spiritual science seriously will understand me.

following the last lecture of Supersensible Man

It only remains for me, following on from what I have been allowed to express to you from the contemplation of the spiritual worlds, and linking up with what has happened for the founding of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society, to say how it is my heartfelt wish and hope that something may now come from this conference that may ignite in your hearts and minds.

If we are able to absorb anthroposophical knowledge not only by reading or listening, but if, through living anthroposophical contemplation, we come more and more to experience the content of anthroposophy with our hearts, our soul, then it will be as if not just the meaning of ideas penetrates into our souls when we are together in the anthroposophical branches and practice anthroposophy with other people or when we stay in our lonely rooms; but then it will be as if living world beings were entering our souls. Then Anthroposophy itself appears to us more and more as a living being. And we then become aware of something knocking at the door of our heart with Anthroposophy and saying: “Let me in, for I am you yourself; I am your true human being!”

Anthroposophy does not just want to tell you about this true human existence, but wants to fill the human soul and human mind with this true human existence. And you will best accomplish what you set out to do today if you remember more often — whether you are on your way to a meeting, picking up a book, or starting something else that you believe should bear fruit in the anthroposophical movement — if you remember more often how, from a true anthroposophical contemplation of the world, the feeling and the sensation can radiate in us that anthroposophy is actually knocking at our hearts to bring us our true human being, our actual human being, to us — ourselves and thus to bring that which in turn finds the way out in genuine human love for the other human beings. When we let Anthroposophy into our hearts after it has knocked, then Anthroposophy, through what it itself is, brings us true human love.

Oh, in our present time it is very necessary that we consider the content of Anthroposophy in this way. For just take a little look around you: the time has come when humanity is being severely tested. Why is humanity being so severely tested? Yes, few people are paying attention to what is taking place in the depths of historical world events, where not today's human consciousness, but only the unconscious, penetrates. Most of humanity today lives rather thoughtlessly and sleepily with ordinary consciousness. But while we have this ordinary consciousness in our heads, our deeper consciousness, which takes hold of the heart, is passing through the threshold to the spiritual world, especially in historical terms for modern civilization. Upstairs in the head, people live with everything they talk about today, especially with everything they lie about public affairs, and downstairs, all of humanity passes through the threshold without suspecting it, as if walking on a volcano. And on the other side, man must either perish or advance with good will to a knowledge of the supersensible world. Anthroposophy is already connected with the actual progress of human civilization. But the misery that can be seen within this civilization today should be an invitation to approach a supersensible view of man and the world. However, we can only do this if we keep an open eye for everything that is going on in the world.

And so, consider today as the beginning of a process in which you do not just gather in your anthroposophical groups to shut yourselves off from the world, but to look out into what is happening in life. Take the word that I have used many times today ¹ – a word that I have, so to speak, “kicked to death” – the word “worldly”, “worldly-wise”, in all seriousness: try to grow together with the world! That will be the best and most important program. It cannot be written into statutes, but we should be able to carry it in our hearts as a flame. I cannot serve you best by program points, but by guiding you to the right perceptions, the right feelings, which should accompany anthroposophical life. And if you can warm to the stimulation of these right feelings, then some of what I actually wanted to achieve with the reflections I presented to you about the supersensible human being, how one can grasp him anthroposophically, will be fulfilled. And if you should ever have the feeling that some of the things you want to achieve in the Anthroposophical Society are not possible, it will always help to remember what these lectures, even if they could only hint at it, have suggested about the supersensible human being. For it will always be able to remind you of the importance of anthroposophy. And we can do nothing better for the dissemination, for the proper presentation of anthroposophy to the world, than to become more and more aware of the important impulse that anthroposophy is meant to be for the further progress of our civilization.

With this, my dear friends, I would like to conclude today and these lectures and warmly recommend to you what I actually wanted to convey through the words I have spoken to you about the supersensible human being during these days. If we keep such thoughts alive and warm in our hearts, then we will indeed always be able to be together, even if we are physically separated. Then we will be able to let the opportunities for being together again become starting points for further spiritual togetherness. Then such physical togetherness will be the cause of a real spiritual togetherness. May such spiritual togetherness between us all become even stronger and stronger as a result of what we have been able to experience together during these days.

• 1. at the founding meeting of the Dutch national society that took place this afternoon.

Lecturing is an art that requires command of many technical aspects. The novice tells all he knows, or worse—what he has read about a subject. He either bores or overwhelms the listeners with his flow of information. The master knows his audience and calls forth wonder and insight. How is it done?

In 1921, to provide prospective lecturers with some guidance, Rudolf Steiner gave two courses on the art of lecturing: one in Stuttgart and the one published here, in Dornach. The illustrative material—needed in all lecturing—was taken from the theme and purpose of these lectures: speaking on the need for a threefold social organism. The Swiss political and social situation at that time was relevant to the audience of about fifty Swiss members of the Anthroposophical Society.

These lectures were not intended for publication and were printed only fifty years later, in 1971. They were translated into English for the Newsletter of the Anthroposophical Society and serialized in nine issues, Autumn 1976 to Winter 1978.

To make this valuable text available at an affordable price, Mercury Press has printed 1,000 copies, using mostly the original pages of the Newsletter. The illustrative material of the Swiss scene of 1921 (in lectures three and four) omitted earlier, ahs been added for the sake of completion, thanks to Maria St. Goar who also translated most of the other text. A new paste-up, combining old and newly typeset material, resulted in some type variation, which the grateful reader—aware of the devotion that has gone into making this translation available—will surely forgive.

Summer 1983
Gisela O'Neil, editor of the Newsletter of the Anthroposophical Society in America

Dr. Steiner:

My dear friends!

We are in the middle of the reports by the General Secretaries and the representatives of the groups working in all kinds of places outside Dornach. In a moment we shall continue with these reports. But first I would like to speak a few words in the midst of these reports, words to which I am moved by what has been said in such a satisfactory way by these speakers. From what we have been told we may gather how very devoted is the work being carried on out there. We may add what we were told yesterday to the names I allowed myself to mention the day before. There, too, despite the ruins on which we stand, we may see what can encourage us during this Conference not to be pessimistic in any way but rather to strive actively for a genuine optimism.

During this Conference we must everywhere, in every realm, consider the activity of building-up rather than the activity of dismantling. So today, early on in the Conference, I want to suggest that we give it a certain definite direction. During the meetings of members over the next few days there will of course be opportunities for discussing various matters. But today, early on, I want to say the following: As we saw in the necessary content of the Statutes, we have to connect total openness with the Anthroposophical Society. Anything less, dear friends, is not permitted by the signs of the times. The present age can no longer tolerate any tendency towards secrecy. This presents us with a fundamental problem which we shall have to solve.

By this I do not mean that we shall have to discuss it a great deal during the Conference, for it is in our hearts that this fundamental problem will have to be solved. We must be absolutely clear about the fact that our Society, before all others, will be given the task of combining the greatest conceivable openness with true and genuine esotericism.

At first under the obstacles and hindrances of those terrible years of the war, but then also through all kinds of inner difficulties, we have indeed experienced the establishment of this problem in every direction. Indeed lately no meeting within the Anthroposophical Society has taken place which lacked, as it were, the backdrop—though unnoticed by many—of this problem: How can we combine full openness with the profoundest, most serious and inward esotericism? To achieve this it will be necessary to banish from our gatherings in the future anything which smacks in any way of the atmosphere of a clique. Anthroposophy does not need the atmosphere of a clique. When hearts truly understand Anthroposophy they will beat in unison without the need for heads to knock together. If we solve this purely human problem of letting our hearts sound in harmony with one another without the need for our heads to knock together, then from the human side we shall have done everything necessary, also in the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society, to prepare for the achievement of the things that have been depicted.

We must achieve these things; we must reach the point at which we can feel in all our deeds that we are connected with the spiritual world. This is the very aspect which must be different in the Anthroposophical Society from any other possible association in the present time. The difference must be that out of the strength of Anthroposophy itself it is possible to combine the greatest conceivable openness with the most genuine and inward esotericism. And in future this esotericism must not be lacking even in the most external of our deeds. There is in this field still a lot to learn from the past ten years.

What I am saying is also related to our responsibilities. Consider the following, my dear friends: We stand in the world as a small Society, and this Society has a peculiar destiny at present. Even if it wanted to, it could not reject this characteristic of openness which I have been emphasizing so strongly. It would be unable to reject it. For if out of some leaning of sympathy we were to decide today to work only inwardly with our groups, which would of course be very nice, if we were not to concern ourselves with the public at large, we would discover that there would soon be an increasingly inimical concern for us on the part of the public. The more we fail to concern ourselves with the signs of the times, the more will be the inimical concern for us on the part of everything that can possibly be against us. Only if we find the path, only if with courage we find the straight path to what we should do shall we succeed in navigating the ship of the Anthroposophical Society through the exceedingly stormy waves which surge and break around it. What we should do is the following: As a small Society we face the world, a world—you know the one I mean—which actually does not love us. It does not love us. This is a fact we cannot alter. But on the other hand there is no need to do anything on purpose to make ourselves unpopular. I do not mean this in a superficial sense but in a deeper sense of which I speak from the foundations of occult life. If we ask ourselves over and over again what we must do to make ourselves better liked by this circle or by that circle in the world, by any circle which does not like us today; if we keep asking ourselves how we should behave in this field or in that field so as to be taken seriously here or there; if we do this, we shall most certainly not be taken seriously. We shall only be taken seriously if at every moment in whatever we do we feel responsible towards the spiritual world. We must know that the spiritual world wants to achieve a certain thing with mankind at this particular moment in historical evolution; it wants to achieve this in the most varied realms of life, and it is up to us clearly and truly to follow the impulses that come from the spiritual world. Though this might give offence initially, in the long run it is the only beneficial way. Therefore we shall also only come to terms among ourselves if at every opportunity we steep ourselves in whatever impulses can come out of the spiritual world.

So now, having given these indications, which I shall bring to completion over the next few days, I once more want to repeat before you at least a part of those words which were spoken to you yesterday in accordance with the will of the spiritual world. May they stand as an introduction in our souls again today as we enter into our discussions.

Soul of Man!
Thou livest in the limbs
Which bear thee through the world of space
In the spirit's ocean-being.
Practise spirit-recalling in depths of soul,
Where in the wielding will
Of world-creating
Thine own I
Comes to being
Within God's I.
And thou wilt truly live
In the World-Being of Man.
Soul of Man!

Thou livest in the beat of heart and lung
Which leads thee through the rhythm of time
Into the realm of thine own soul's feeling.
Practise spirit-awareness
In balance of the soul,
Where the surging deeds
Of the world's becoming
Thine own I
Unite
With the World-I.
And thou wilt truly feel
In the Soul-Weaving of Man.

Soul of Man!
Thou livest in the resting head
Which from the grounds of eternity
Opens to thee the world-thoughts.
Practise spirit-beholding
In stillness of thought,
Where the eternal aims of Gods
World-Being's Light
On thine own I
Bestow
For thy free willing.
And thou wilt truly think
In the Spirit-Foundations of Man.

We can work rightly with words such as these, which are heard coming from the Cosmic Word, if we arrange them in our own soul in such a way that they cannot depart from us again. And it will be possible for them to be so arranged if, amongst all that has resounded, you first highlight that part which can give you the rhythm. Dear friends, let me write down here first of all the part that can indicate the rhythm:

In the first verse: Spirit-recalling,
in the second verse: Spirit-awareness,
in the third verse: Spirit-beholding.

Contemplate this in its rhythmical connection with what is brought about in the human soul which is called upon, the human soul which is called upon by itself, through the words:

Thine own I
Comes to being
Within God's I—,

consider the rhythm linked with ‘spirit-awareness’ when you hear:

Thine own I
Unite
With the World-I—,

and the rhythm linked with ‘spirit-beholding’ when you hear:

On thine own I
Bestow
For thy free willing—.

Take in this way each phrase so that it can only stand as I have written it here. Take what comes rhythmically out of the Cosmic Rhythm: ‘own I within God's I’, ‘own I in the World-I’, ‘own I in free willing’. And take what rises up from ‘comes to being’ to ‘unite’ to ‘bestow’, where there is the transition to moral feeling. Feel the connection with ‘spirit-recalling’, ‘spirit-awareness’ and ‘spirit-beholding’. Then you will have in the inner rhythm what it is during these few days that the spiritual world is bringing to us to raise our hearts, to illumine our thinking, to give wings and enthusiasm to our willing.

I now have a telegram to read to you: ‘Christmas greetings, best wishes, Ethel Morgenstierne.’ And now may I ask the representative of Honolulu, Madame Ferreri, to speak.

Madame Ferreri reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I now ask the representative of Italy, Baroness de Renzis, to speak.

Baroness de Renzis reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I perhaps suggest that certain questions raised here, such as that of accepting applications for membership on the basis of correspondence only, and similar matters, shall be discussed later when we consider the Statutes.

Dr. Steiner: The Duke of Cesaro will also give a report concerning Italy on behalf of the Novalis Group in Rome.

The Duke of Cesaro reports.

Dr. Steiner: Now may I ask Fräulein Schwarz to speak on behalf of the other Italian group.

Fräulein Schwarz reports on behalf of the group in Milan.

Dr. Steiner: Now would the representative of the work in Yugoslavia, Herr Hahl, please speak.

Herr Hahl reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I ask the representative of the Norwegian Society, Herr Ingerö, to speak.

Herr Ingerö speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Now may I ask the representative of the Council of the Austrian Society, Count Polzer, to speak.

Count Polzer speaks.

Dr. Steiner: Now may I ask the representative of the group in Porto Alegre in Brazil, Dr Unger, to speak.

Dr. Unger: Allow me in a few words to carry out a commission which I was most delighted to accept. For quite some time we have been corresponding with friends over there, mostly from Germany, who had emigrated and had begun to work there anthroposophically. Herr Brandtner in particular has been writing lately. He has made great efforts to get something going in Porto Alegre. And connected with this, work is also going on in other South American towns which will gradually be co-ordinated so that independent centres from which to work may be set up there too. For this purpose Herr Mayen from Breslau was asked by the friends over there to go out, first of all to Rio. He will gradually take on work in a number of towns. I have been particularly asked to give voice to the sympathetic interest of the friends over there. Everything that comes to us from over there expresses the most intimate interest in all that has to do with Dornach and whatever continues to come from Dornach. As often as possible someone comes to Europe and we hope most fervently that anthroposophical life may soon start to blossom there in the most intensive way. Just as I bring greetings from our friends over there, so I hope that when I report back to Porto Alegre I may also be permitted to send them from here our good wishes for the prospering of the work in Porto Alegre.

Dr. Steiner: May I now ask the representative of the Swedish Anthroposophical Society, Fräulein Henström, to speak.

Fräulein Henström reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I now ask the representative of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, Herr Aeppli, to speak.

Herr Aeppli reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I now ask the representative of the Council in Czechoslovakia, Dr Krkavec, to speak.

Dr. Krkavec reports.

Dr. Steiner: May I now ask the other representative of the Council in Czechoslovakia, Dr Eiselt, to speak.

Dr Eiselt reports.

Dr. Steiner: This brings the reports to a close. I believe I may be allowed to say that you are all, with me, exceedingly grateful to those who have given them. For they enable us to see that we have a foundation on which to base our new work, since now we know how much truly great, devoted and varied work is being done and has already been done in the Anthroposophical Society.

Now I should like to move on to the third point on our agenda, consideration of the Statutes. First the Statutes must be read out. Though you all have a copy, I would nevertheless like to ask that they be read out once more, so that we can then commence the discussion of each point. Would Dr Wachsmuth now please read the Statutes in accordance with point three of our agenda.

Dr. Wachsmuth reads out the Statutes of the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: As you will have gathered from various remarks I have made, it would be really good if on the one hand our meeting could be allowed to run as freely as possible amongst its individual members. However, on the other hand, if a proper discussion is to take place, it is necessary for us to be quite strict in conducting the debate. So please take this not as pedantry but as a necessity applicable to any gathering. Today we have run out of time, so I would ask you that we continue this meeting tomorrow after Dr Wachsmuth's lecture. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock Dr Wachsmuth will give his lecture. Then we shall break for a quarter of an hour before continuing the meeting. At this meeting I should like to conduct the proceedings as follows. Not in order to be pedantic but so that we can be as efficient as possible there will first be a kind of general debate on the Statutes, a debate in which first of all the whole attitude, meaning and spirit of the Statutes in general is discussed.

Then I shall ask you to agree to the Statutes in general, after which we shall open a detailed debate in which we take one Paragraph at a time, when contributors will be asked to speak only to the Paragraph under consideration. There will then be a concluding debate leading to the final adoption of the Statutes. This is how I would ask you to proceed tomorrow when we discuss the Statutes.

Now I have to announce that our Conference continues this afternoon with a eurythmy performance at 4.30 and my lecture at 8 o'clock this evening. Tomorrow at 10 o'clock we shall hear Dr Guenther Wachsmuth's lecture in the field of natural science about the face of the earth and the destiny of man. Then after a quarter of an hour's break we shall continue with this meeting.

I also have several more announcements to make. As I had to stress earlier, before we began our meeting, it is quite difficult, because there are so many of us—and it is of course wonderful that there are so many dear friends here—to hold this gathering together. You cannot tell, just by coming to the meetings, how difficult it is. Of course we are deeply sorry that the primitive quarters here are causing such discomfort and so many problems for our dear friends. Nevertheless, I have to ask that in future not more than three seats are held by any one person. I have to say this because it has happened that whole rows of seats have been held by a single person, and this has led to innumerable discussions with those who have come in later.

Then I should like to remind you of the wish we expressed earlier that the two front rows be reserved for those dear friends who are either disabled or deaf or need special consideration for any other reason. If there are any seats left in these two rows, which is sure to be the case, then please leave them free for the General Secretaries of the different countries and for the secretaries who might be accompanying them. It will become necessary in the next few days to have the General Secretaries together here where they can be seen rather than scattered all over the hall.

Thirdly I would perhaps like once more to ask our Dornach friends—truly I have nothing personal against them—to take their seats next door in the ‘summer villa’.⁴⁴ I know it is most inhospitable in this rainy and snowy weather, but all we can do is ask our Dornach friends to put up with the rain so that the friends from further afield can sit here in the hall away from the rain.

Also I would like to mention that from today the upper canteen will be open in the evening for those friends who are quartered in the dormitories or other inhospitable places, so that they may have somewhere to go that is heated. Food and drink will not be served then, but I hope that the conversations that can take place there will be all the more stimulating and encouraging. So although it will not be possible to quench hunger and thirst, it will be possible to keep as warm as may be in the evenings after my lecture until 11 o'clock at night.

Furthermore I want to draw your attention to the following: Mr Pyle in the most admirable way has modelled a very fine money-box⁴⁵ which he has had produced. You will find these money-boxes outside the doors. If you look at them carefully you will find that the beautiful forms tempt you to want to own such a money-box yourselves. They are for sale, so you can buy one and take it home and put something in it every day. When it is full you can use what you have collected to put towards the re-building of the Goetheanum, or for any other purposes related to the Goetheanum. Let me point out that even if you only put in 10 Rappen every day—think what you might spend this on each day—by the end of the year you will have saved quite a tidy sum. I can see my respected friends here are already working out how much! You will find that it will be a worthwhile amount. But I don't want to encourage you to put in only 10 Rappen. I would rather you put in whatever amount you consider proper, or whatever you feel obliged to put in even if you don't think it proper.

Those who find it difficult for one reason or another to take a money-box home with them will see that similar money-boxes have been set out here into which they may put something. Naturally if you do not have your own money-box to take home, it would be a good thing if you could delve deeply into your purse while you are here, so that these money-boxes may be filled. We shall have no trouble in seeing to it that they are rapidly emptied.

Finally I would please ask that spectators at the Christmas Plays refrain from booking their seats for the evening lectures.

You see, without all these many wishes—let us not call them prohibitions—we shall be unable to keep the Conference going in an orderly manner.

Now, my dear friends, I adjourn this meeting until the appointed hour tomorrow.

• 44. This designation for the extension built on to the carpentry workshop for the occasion of the Christmas Conference referred to ‘the chilly draught which blew there permanently’ (Ernst Lehrs Gelebte Erwartung, Stuttgart, 1979).
• 45. On the basis of a pencil drawing by Rudolf Steiner.

Mr. Albert Steffen welcomed Dr. Steiner and the members of the Anthroposophical Society present on behalf of the Congress Bureau. He first thanked Dr. Steiner for the cycle he had begun the previous evening on the topic “Three Perspectives of Anthroposophy,” which would give the soul to the events of these days. He thanked the delegates from the Anthroposophical Societies of America, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, England, Finland, France, Holland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Czecho-Slovakia, etc. for attending. From the most diverse places on earth, people are thinking in a unified way of Dornach, the center of the Anthroposophical Society. Despite individual and national differences, people feel united in one spirit in this place. Here one feels like a citizen of the world. This fact alone is worthy of note in view of the fragmentation of humanity today.

International travel generally unites people across the face of the earth, but only on the outside. Technology can just as easily serve negative forces by being misused as a means of destruction. It must ruin civilization if it is not inspired.

What idea, what worldview, what aspiration is capable of inspiring it?

If we look towards the south, we find the Catholic Church. Its mighty will seeks to unite all mankind, but at the expense of the freedom of the individual. Dogmas forbid to explore the spiritual world from the point of view of the I. As a result, Catholicism remains at the level of the Middle Ages. It does not go along with the impulse of the consciousness soul.

This impulse is coming to fruition in the West. Shakespeare's dramas (the conflicts of Hamlet, Lear, etc.) are the expression of the modern soul. Slowly, the consciousness of the spiritual world fades. Humor and morality prevail in writers such as Swift, Dickens, Bernard Shaw. But their cultural criticism no longer has the power to stop the disintegration of intellectual life.

Decline is particularly evident in Central Europe today. Only the fulfillment of the Faustian striving to conquer the supernatural could prevent it. But the leading thinkers in Germany are surrendering to a skeptical way of thinking, like Spengler, to a depressive art, like Hauptmann, and the people are blindly following.

In the East, we see the spiritual breaking in overwhelmingly, but in an unhealthy way. The Russian who is touched by the supernatural wants to be overly good or overly evil. He acquires infantile or hysterical traits, as the novel characters of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky show.

Thus, whether we look to the south, west, north or east, we find forces that are regressive, hardening, demoralizing and wounding, forces of crucifixion.

Today, only one spiritual current brings resurrection forces: anthroposophy. It counters dogmas with a religious renewal based on a philosophy of freedom.

It revives consciousness by expanding it through the spiritual world. The eurythmic revival of the spiritual content of Shakespeare's plays (e.g. A Midsummer Night's Dream, of which some scenes were performed that day) is the greatest thing that has been done for this English genius since Schlegel and Tieck.

It purifies the Faustian striving for a spiritual science that will heal not only the soul but also the body. One thinks here of the successes of the remedies that have emerged from our clinical-therapeutic institutes.

Finally, it is creating a new art. What powerful poetic impulses have emerged from it: Dr. Steiner's mystery plays, the architecture, sculpture and painting of the Goetheanum, among others.

Anthroposophy brings renewal to every field because it carries the forces that come from the spiritual realm, where developmental forces prevail. It is a being that is not subject to death. But it has no house in which it can fully express itself. After the old Goetheanum burnt down, we came together to discuss the construction of the new one. The old Goetheanum was built entirely from sacrificial donations. So far, we have little more than the insurance money to rebuild the new one. There is certainly no blessing in this. We have to create a counterweight to this money, which comes from reluctant taxpayers. We have to develop even more of a spirit of sacrifice and community than we did for the first building. We have to join together as a society in the strongest possible way. We have to stand up for the greatest thing in the world.

Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth reported on the results of the preliminary meeting of the country delegates the previous afternoon. He mentioned that at a general assembly of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland on June 10, 1923, the following resolution had been unanimously adopted:

"The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland expresses the wish in today's meeting: Dr. Steiner may take the reconstruction of the Goetheanum in Dornach into his own hands. It grants him, as the leading artistic director, full authority to carry out the construction in every respect, both in terms of the use of the funds earmarked for this purpose and the selection of the personalities involved, at his own discretion and arrangement, without any interference on the part of the members.

A report of this decision, which had been sent to the foreign branches, had met with enthusiastic approval everywhere, and since the current conference had been suggested by English friends, the opportunity had now been given to discuss how to raise the funds. The most effective plan was probably Dr. Wegman's, that 1000 francs be contributed for each member over a period of 12-15 months. A weekly saving of 20 francs, for example, would yield such a sum over the course of a year. This was much more easily achieved than one might think. Usually only those who had not yet begun collecting were sceptical. Those who have already actively sought support for the rebuilding effort have often had surprisingly positive experiences. For example, out of 37 members visited in Dornach, 35 members each subscribed 1,000 francs, payable in 15 months, and mostly members who are not wealthy. Similar reports would be forthcoming from outside the area as soon as truly enthusiastic and committed activity was developed. A fine example was given by a lady, as Dr. Steiner said the day before, who explained that there were 25 members in her branch who were workers and therefore could not give a full 1000 francs each, but that she herself wanted to subscribe 1000 francs for each member of her branch, thus giving a total of 25,000 francs herself. Another suggestion from Mr. Pyle was that in each country there might be members who could give 15,000 francs, others 10,000 and 5,000 francs, so that in this way, through such gradations, 1,000 francs could be contributed to the new Goetheanum in each country.

A third proposal, which came from our English friends and was supported by Mr. Kaufmann, Miss Groves and Miss Melland, suggested the writing of a brochure in which everything that has been achieved from anthroposophical sources in art, science, therapy, education, etc. is compiled in a way that is suitable for the outside world.

Someone had asked whether the Society should approach individuals outside it in its efforts to promote the new Goetheanum. This question should be decided only on the basis of each individual's sense of tact. Dr. Wachsmuth referred to a novel that had made a strong impression on him in this regard. It describes two young people who know that there are countless associations of people with idealistic goals of various political and confessional colors, but not yet an association of all those people who seek nothing but a constant living relationship with the spiritual world and desire nothing more than to fight chivalrously for the realization of the laws of the spiritual world on the physical plane. In the light of this realization, these young people formed a league which they called the “Knights of the Spirit”. The federation was soon supported by people from all countries with means, warned of dangers and protected, provided with news, because an infinite number who did not yet want to join this federation publicly, nevertheless wished that these knights of the spirit would be enabled to realize on earth that which is to be realized out of the spiritual world. As an Anthroposophist, one has an opportunity, as nowhere else, to acquire such knowledge of human nature that, if one is a true knight of the spirit oneself, one will also recognize in the outside world those who are or will become knights of the spirit. One can approach such people and give them the opportunity to help rebuild the Goetheanum. For one does a person a kindness when one allows him to help establish a place of learning from which the constructive spiritual forces of humanity can flow.

It is self-evident that by the end of 1923 there should no longer be a single member of the Anthroposophical Society who had not done his or her part to rebuild it.

Dr. Wegman's plan to raise 1000 francs for each member has the advantage of appealing to each individual, so that everyone feels responsible and does not expect all success from others or even from an undefined outside world.

In the preliminary discussion, it was suggested that the various countries should set themselves the goal of raising the following contributions, taking into account their number of members, etc.:

England... ..... 300,000 Swiss francs

America. ....... 200,000

Honolulu....... 200,000

Switzerland... 400,000

Netherlands... 300,000

Italy. ............. 100,000

France...... 50,000

Austria...... 50,000

Czechoslovakia.. 100,000

Denmark...... 100,000

Scandinavia..... 100,000

Remaining countries....... 100,000 (Belgium, Poland, Finland, New Zealand, etc.)

Initially about 2,000,000 Swiss francs.

All these various proposals are now open for discussion. Dr. Wachsmuth asked the delegates to always keep two images in mind during their deliberations: the new Goetheanum should be built for all people of the earth who are knights of the spirit; and we should go out into the world and work for the decisive moment when Dr. Steiner will give the signal for the workers on the hill of Dornach to flock together to build the new structure.

Mr. George Kaufmann, London, then put forward the idea of producing a brochure that would present the essentials of the various anthroposophical fields of work in a concise and artistic way to facilitate the work in the outside world.

Baroness Rosenkrantz, London, suggested that for those members for whom financial assistance is difficult, a way should be created to use the work of their hands for the benefit of the Goetheanum, i.e. to make practical articles for daily use, which would still have to be determined, free of charge, the sale of which would then have to be organized jointly; and to contribute the net proceeds of this free work to the reconstruction fund. A small beginning in this regard has already been made by her.

Dr. Peipers, Stuttgart, recalled the great sacrifices made by German members in the early days to build the old Goetheanum. Despite the sad circumstances and almost insurmountable difficulties in Germany, it is the great longing of the German friends to contribute significantly to the reconstruction as well. Although the executive council of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany has deliberately not asked for donations to be collected, given the current situation, contributions, money and jewelry, have been sent to Stuttgart from all sides, testifying to a touching willingness to make sacrifices. — This report will also discuss how these contributions are used.

Dr. Praussnitz, Jena, supported Baroness Rosenkrantz's proposal to provide voluntary work, especially during the holiday season, and to use the proceeds for the benefit of the Goetheanum.

Dr. Steiner emphasized that we had to come to a concrete result during these important days. To discuss the writing of a brochure, for example, was too abstract and general. One had to be able to state exactly who would write it. Such a writing was something very personal, had to arise out of the artistic ability of a single individuality. So there was no point in discussing it in a meeting. Besides, there is already so much suitable material available to make a convincing impact on the outside world that members should first work more than before with what is already available. For example, we have the weekly journal 'Das Goetheanum'. It is edited by a personality who, as was said recently from another side, writes the best German, Albert Steffen. This journal reports constantly on significant world issues from an anthroposophical point of view, but it has more subscribers among outsiders than among members. This shows the old mistake of members always wanting to create something new, but not using what is already there productively. Dr. Steiner then corrected some false views regarding the use of German contributions. Everything collected in Germany must, of course, be consumed in Germany, in accordance with the laws there. He emphasized this expressly. Although the German friends would certainly also be willing to make great financial sacrifices, the current world situation does not allow it. The help from Germany must consist of a moral sacrifice.

On the other hand, our friends in other countries must not delay too long in securing the means for reconstruction. At the end of this meeting, we must at least know what sum can be initially counted on, so that we can begin reconstruction with this sum. For example, a building could be constructed, a kind of memorial to the former Goetheanum, with a sum of 1 to 2 million francs. This would then be something like a better barn in the carpentry workshop, only made of concrete. But one could also build something more beautiful, which would then perhaps require 4-5 million francs or more. The important thing is to determine the exact sum that one wants to secure for the reconstruction, so that one can plan accordingly.

Above all, however, we must not forget that the reconstruction will present the members with new and difficult tasks, and that new efforts will be needed to overcome resistance and to provide effective moral support for external anthroposophical work on the physical plane. A moral fund must be created. If it were only a matter of spreading the anthroposophical truths, the goodwill of the members to spread these truths through positive work would suffice. But since the anthroposophical movement has brought into being a whole series of practical enterprises that have to contend with the resistance of the outside world, e.g. schools, clinics, laboratories, economic enterprises, etc. run in the anthroposophical sense, so the anthroposophists need to be more vigilant in order to beat back the enormous amount of lies and slander that is being directed against us from the opposing side. Dr. Steiner compared our situation to that of people in a besieged fortress. Often the gates of the fortress are opened from within through the negligence of members in their thinking and actions. Only the utmost vigilance on the part of the members will help us through the difficult times that will come with the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Mr. Steffen reminded those present of the enormous amount of material available in the works of Dr. Steiner for the members to advance themselves daily and also to convince the whole world, but also to promote the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Mr. de Haan expressed confidence that the energetic among us will raise all the funds needed for the construction.

In the afternoon, a special meeting of the country delegates took place again.