The Story of My Life
GA 28
Chapter XXXVIII
[ 1 ] In what is to follow it will be difficult to distinguish between the story of my life and a history of the Anthroposophical Society. And yet I should wish to introduce from the history of the Society only so much as is needed for the narration of the story of my life. This will be considered even in mentioning the names of active members of the Society. I have come too close to the present time to avoid all too easy misunderstandings through the mention of names. In spite of entire good will, many a one who finds some other mentioned and not himself may experience a feeling of bitterness. I shall mention in essential matters only those who, apart from their activity in the Society, had an association with my spiritual life, and not those who have not brought such a connection with them into the Society.
[ 2 ] In Berlin and Munich there were destined to develop to a certain extent the two opposite poles of anthroposophical activity. There came into anthroposophy, indeed, persons who found neither in the scientific world-conception nor in the traditional sects that spiritual content for which their souls had to seek. In Berlin a branch of the Society and an audience for the public lectures could be formed only of such persons as were opposed to all those philosophies which had come about in opposition to the traditional creeds; for the adherents of philosophies based upon rationalism, intellectualism, etc., considered what anthroposophy had to give as something fantastic, superstitions, etc. An audience and a membership arose which took in anthroposophy without tending in feeling or ideas to anything else than this. What had been given them from other sources did not satisfy them. Consideration had to be given to this temper of mind. And, as this was done, the number of members steadily increased as well as the number of those attending the public lectures. There came about an anthroposophic life which was, to a certain extent, self-enclosed and gave little attention to what else was taking form by way of endeavours to see into the spiritual world. Their hopes rested upon the unfolding of anthroposophic information imparted to them. They expected to go further and further in knowledge of the spiritual world.
[ 3 ] It was different in Munich, where at the beginning there was effective in the anthroposophic work the artistic element. In this a world-conception like that of anthroposophy can be taken up quite otherwise than in rationalism and intellectualism. The artistic image is more spirit-like than the rationalist concept. It is also alive and does not kill the spiritual in the soul as does intellectualism. In Munich those who gave tone to the membership and audience were persons in whom artistic experience was effective in the way indicated.
[ 4 ] This condition resulted in the formation of a unified branch of the Society in Berlin from the beginning. The interests of those who sought anthroposophy were of the same kind. In Munich the artistic experiences brought about certain individual needs in different groups, and I lectured to those groups. A sort of compromise among these groups came to be the group formed about Countess Pauline von Kalckreuth and Fräulein Sophie Stinde, the latter of whom died during the war. This group also arranged for my public lectures in Munich. The ever-deepening understanding in this group brought about a very beautiful response to what I had to say. So anthroposophy unfolded within this group in a manner which can truly be designated as very satisfying. Ludwig Deinhard, the old theosophist, the friend of Hübbe-Schleiden, came very early as a very congenial member into this group, and this was worth a great deal.
[ 5 ] The centre of another group was Frau von Schewitsch. She was an interesting person, and for this reason it was well that a group formed around her also which was less concerned in going deeply into anthroposophy than in becoming acquainted with it as one of the spiritual currents among those of the period.
[ 6 ] At that time also Frau von Schewitsch had given to the public her book Wie ich mein Selbst fand.1How I Found My Self. It was an unique and strong confession of theosophy. This also made it possible for this woman to become the interesting central figure of the group here described.
[ 7 ] To me and also to many who formed part of this group, Helene von Schewitsch was a notable part of history. She was the lady for whom Ferdinand Lassalle came to an early end in a duel with a Rumanian. She was afterwards an actress, and on a journey to America she became a friend of H. P. Blavatsky and Olcott. She was a woman of the world whose interests at the time when I made these lectures at her home had been deeply spiritualized. The impressive experiences through which she had passed gave to her appearance and to everything she did an extraordinary weight. Through her, I might say, I could see into the work of Lassalle and his period; through her also many a characteristic of H. P. Blavatsky. What she said bore a subjective colouring, and a manifold and arbitrary form of fantasy; yet, after allowing for this, one could see the truth under many veils, and one was faced by the revelation of an unusual personality.
[ 8 ] Other groups at Munich possessed different characteristics. I recall a person whom I met in several of these groups – a Catholic cleric, Müller, who stood apart from the narrow limits of the Church. He was a discriminating student of Jean Paul. He edited a really stimulating periodical, Renaissance, through which he fostered a free Catholicism. He took from anthroposophy as much as was interesting to him from his point of view, but remained always sceptical. He raised objections, but always in such an amiable and at the same time elementary fashion that he often brought a delightful humour into the discussions which followed the lectures.
[ 9 ] In pointing out these as the opposing characteristics of the anthroposophic work in Berlin and in Munich, I have nothing to say as to the value of the one or the other; here there simply came to view differences among persons which had to be taken into account, both of equal worth – or at least it is futile to judge them from the point of view of their relative values.
[ 10 ] The form of the work at Munich brought it about that the theosophical congress of 1907, which was to be set up by the German Section, was held there. These congresses, which had previously been held in London, Amsterdam, and Paris, consisted of sessions in which theosophical problems were dealt with in lectures and discussions. They were planned on the model of the congresses of learned societies. The administrative problems of the Society were also discussed.
[ 11 ] In all this very much was changed at Munich. In the great Concert Hall where the ceremonies were to take place, we – the committee of arrangements – provided interior decorations which in form and colour should correspond artistically with the mood that dominated the oral programme. Artistic environment and spiritual activity were to constitute a harmonious unity. I attached the greatest possible value to the avoidance of abstract inartistic symbolism and to giving free expression to artistic feeling.
[ 12 ] Into the programme of the congress was introduced an artistic representation. Marie von Sievers had long before translated Schuré's reconstruction of the Eleusinian drama. I planned the speeches for a presentation of this. This play was then introduced into the programme. A connection with the nature of the ancient mysteries – even though in so feeble a form – was thus afforded; but the important thing was that the congress had now an artistic aspect, – an artistic element directed toward the purpose of not leaving the spiritual life henceforth void of art within the Society. Marie von Sievers, who had undertaken the role of Demeter, showed already in her presentation the nuances which drama was to reach in the Society. Besides, we had reached a time when the art of declamation and recitation developed by Marie von Sievers by working out from the inner force of the word had arrived at the most varied points from which further fruitful progress could be made in this field.
[ 13 ] A great portion of the old members of the Theosophical Society from England, France, and especially from Holland, were inwardly displeased by the innovations offered them at the Munich congress. What it would have been well to understand, but what was clearly grasped at that time by exceedingly few, was the fact that the anthroposophic current had given something of an entirely different bearing from that of the Theosophical Society up to that time. In this inner bearing lay the true reason why the Anthroposophical Society could no longer exist as a part of the Theosophical Society. Most persons, however, place the chief emphasis upon the absurdities which in the course of time have grown up in the Theosophical Society and have led to endless quarreling.
Chapter XXXVIII
[ 1 ] In dem folgenden wird die Darstellung meines Lebensganges von einer Geschichte der anthroposophischen Bewegung schwer zu trennen sein. Und dennoch, ich möchte nur so viel aus der Geschichte der Gesellschaft bringen, als für die Darstellung meines Lebensganges notwendig ist. - Dies wird schon bei der Namensnennung der tätigen Mitglieder in Betracht kommen. Ich komme mit der Schilderung eben zu nahe an die Gegenwart heran, als daß nicht Namensnennungen allzu leicht auf Mißverständnisse stoßen könnten. Bei allem guten Willen wird mancher, der einen andern genannt findet und sich nicht, eine bittere Empfindung haben. - Ich werde im wesentlichen mit Namen nur diejenigen Persönlichkeiten, die außerhalb ihrer Wirksamkeit in der Gesellschaft im geistigen Leben Zusammenhänge haben, nennen; dagegen nicht diejenigen, die solche Zusammenhänge nicht in die Gesellschaft mitgebracht haben.
[ 2 ] In Berlin und in München waren gewissermaßen die zwei entgegengesetzten Pole der anthroposophischen Wirksamkeit zu entfalten. Es kamen ja an die Anthroposophie Persönlichkeiten heran, die weder in der naturwissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung noch in den traditionellen Bekenntnissen dasjenige an geistigem Inhalt fanden, was ihre Seelen suchen mußten. In Berlin konnte ein Zweig der Gesellschaft und eine Zuhörerschaft für die öffentlichen Vorträge nur aus den Kreisen derjenigen Persönlichkeiten entstehen, die auch alles ablehnten, was an Weltanschauungen im Gegensatze zu den traditionellen Bekenntnissen sich gebildet hatte. Denn die Anhänger solcher auf Rationalismus, Intellektualismus usw. begründeten Weltanschauungen fanden in dem, was Anthroposophie zu geben hatte, Phantastik, Aberglaube usw. Eine Zuhörer- und Mitgliederschaft erstand, welche die Anthroposophie aufnahm, ohne mit Gefühl oder Ideen nach anderem als nach dieser gerichtet zu sein. Was man ihr von anderer Seite gegeben hatte, das befriedigte sie nicht. Dieser Seelenstimmung mußte Rechnung getragen werden. Und indem das geschah, vergrößerte sich immer mehr die Mitglieder- wie auch die Zuhörerzahl bei öffentlichen Vorträgen. Es entstand ein anthroposophisches Leben, das gewissermaßen in sich geschlossen war und wenig nach dem blickte, was sonst an Versuchen sich bildete, in die geistige Welt Blicke zu tun. Die Hoffnungen lagen in der Entfaltung der anthroposophischen Mitteilungen. Man erwartete, im Wissen von der geistigen Welt immer weiter zu kommen.
[ 3 ] Anders war das in München. Da wirkte in die anthroposophische Arbeit von vornherein das künstlerische Element. Und in dieses ließ sich eine Weltanschauung wie die Anthroposophie in ganz anderer Art aufnehmen als in den Rationalismus und Intellektualismus. Das künstlerische Bild ist spiritueller als der rationalistische Begriff. Es ist auch lebendig und tötet das Geistige in der Seele nicht, wie es der Intellektualismus tut. Die tonangebenden Persönlichkeiten für die Bildung einer Mitglieder- und Zuhörerschaft waren in München solche, bei denen das künstlerische Empfinden in der angedeuteten Art wirkte.
[ 4 ] Das brachte nun auch mit sich, daß in Berlin ein einheitlicher Zweig der Gesellschaft von vornherein sich gestaltete. Die Interessen derjenigen, die Anthroposophie suchten, waren gleichartig. In München gestalteten die künstlerischen Empfindungen in einzelnen Kreisen individuelle Bedürfnisse, und ich trug in solchen Kreisen vor. Zu einer Art Mittelpunkt dieser Kreise bildete sich derjenige allmählich aus, der sich um die Gräfin Pauline v. Kalckreuth und Frl. Sophie Stinde, die während des Krieges Verstorbene, gruppierte. Dieser Kreis veranstaltete auch meine öffentlichen Vorträge in München. Das immer tiefer gehende Verständnis dieses Kreises erzeugte in ihm ein schönstes Entgegenkommen für dasjenige, was ich zu sagen hatte. Und so entfaltete sich die Anthroposophie innerhalb dieses Kreises in einer Art, die aus der Sache heraus als eine sehr erfreuliche bezeichner werden konnte. Ludwig Deinhard, der ältere Theosoph, der Freund Hübbe-Schleidens, stellte sich sehr hald sympathisch in diesen Kreis hinein. Und das war sehr wertvoll.
[ 5 ] Der Mittelpunkt eines andern Kreises war Frau von Schewitsch. Sie war eine interessante Persönlichkeit, und deshalb wohl war es auch, daß gerade bei ihr auch ein Kreis sich zusammenfand, der weniger auf Vertiefung ging wie der eben geschilderte, sondern mehr auf das Kennenlernen der Anthroposophie als einer Geistesströmung unter den andern der damaligen Gegenwart.
[ 6 ] In dieser Zeit hatte ja auch Frau von Schewitsch ihr Buch: «Wie ich mein Selbst fand» erscheinen lassen. Es war ein eigenartiges starkes Bekenntnis zur Theosophie. Auch das trug dazu bei, daß diese Frau der interessante Mittelpunkt des geschilderten Kreises werden konnte.
[ 7 ] Für mich - und auch für viele Kreisteilnehmer - war Helene von Schewitsch ein bedeutsames Stück Geschichte. Sie war ja die Dame, wegen der Ferdinand Lassalle gegen einen Rumänen im Duell sein frühzeitiges Ende gefunden hat. Sie hat dann später eine Schauspielerlaufbahn durchgemacht und war in Amerika mit H.P. Blavatsky und Olcott befreundet worden. Sie war eine Weltdame, deren Interessen in der Zeit, in der meine Vorträge bei ihr stattfanden, stark vergeistigt auftraten. Die starken Erlebnisse, die sie gehabt hat, gaben ihrem Auftreten und dem, was sie vorbrachte, ein außerordentliches Gewicht. Durch sie hindurch, möchte ich sagen, konnte ich auf das Wirken Lassalles und dessen Epoche sehen, durch sie auf manches Charakteristische im Leben H. P. Blavatskys. Was sie sagte, war subjektiv gefärbt, von der Phantasie vielfach willkürlich geformt; aber, wenn man das in Rechnung zog, so konnte man das Wahre durch manche Verhüllung doch sehen, und man hatte die Offenbarung einer doch ungewöhnlichen Persönlichkeit vor sich.
[ 8 ] Andere Münchner Kreise waren in andrer Art gestaltet. Ich gedenke oft einer Persönlichkeit, die mir in mehreren dieser Kreise entgegentrat, eines außerhalb des engeren Verbandes der Kirche stehenden katholischen Geistlichen, Müller. Er war ein feiner Kenner Jean Pauls. Er gab eine recht anregende Zeitschrift «Renaissance» heraus, in der er einen freien Katholizismus verteidigte. Er nahm von Anthroposophie so viel, als ihn bei seinen Anschauungen interessieren konnte, war aber immer wieder skeptisch. Er machte Einwendungen, aber in einer so liebenswürdigen und zugleich elementarischen Art, daß durch ihn oftmals ein schöner Humor in die Diskussionen kam, die sich an die Vorträge anschlossen.
[ 9 ] Ich will mit den Charakteristiken, die ich von Berlin und München als den entgegengesetzten Polen des anthroposophischen Wirkens gebe, nichts über den Wert des einen oder andern Poles sagen; es traten da eben Verschiedenheiten bei Menschen auf, die man im Arbeiten zu berücksichtigen hatte, die in ihrer Art gleichwertig sind - wenigstens hat es keine Bedeutung, sie vom Gesichtspunkte des Wertes aus zu beurteilen.
[ 10 ] Die Art des Münchner Wirkens führte dazu, daß der Theosophische Kongreß, der 1907 von der deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft veranstaltet werden sollte, in München stattfand. Diese Kongresse, die vorher in London, Amsterdam, Paris abgehalten wurden, enthielten Veranstaltungen, die theosophische Probleme in Vorträgen oder Diskussionen behandelten. Sie waren den gelehrten Kongressen nachgebildet. Auch die administrativen Fragen der Theosophischen Gesellschaft wurden behandelt.
[ 11 ] An alledem wurde in München manches modifiziert. Den großen Konzertsaal, der für die Tagung dienen sollte, ließen wir - die Veranstalter - mit einer Innendekoration versehen, die in Form und Farbe künstlerisch die Stimmung wiedergeben sollte, die im Inhalt des mündlich Verhandelten herrschte. Künstlerische Umgebung und spirituelle Betätigung im Raume sollten eine harmonische Einheit sein. Ich legte dabei den allergrößten Wert darauf, die abstrakte, unkünstlerische Symbolik zu vermeiden und die künstlerische Empfindung sprechen zu lassen.
[ 12 ] In das Programm des Kongresses wurde eine künstlerische Darbietung eingefügt. Marie von Sivers hatte Schurés Rekonstruktion des eleusinischen Dramas schon vor langer Zeit übersetzt. Ich richtete es sprachlich für eine Aufführung ein. Dieses Drama fügten wir dem Programm ein. Eine Anknüpfung an das alte Mysterienwesen, wenn auch in noch so schwacher Form, war damit gegeben - aber, was die Hauptsache war, der Kongreß hatte Künstlerisches in sich. Künstlerisches, das auf den Willen hinwies, das spirituelle Leben fortan nicht ohne das Künstlerische in der Gesellschaft zu lassen. Marie von Sivers, welche die Rolle der Demeter übernommen hatte, wies in ihrer Darstellung schon deutlich auf die Nuancen hin, die das Dramatische in der Gesellschaft erlangen sollte. - Außerdem waren wir in einem Zeitpunkt, in dem die deklamatorische und rezitatorische Kunst durch Marie von Sivers in dem Herausarbeiten aus der inneren Kraft des Wottes an dem entscheidenden Punkte angekommen war, von dem aus auf diesem Gebiete fruchtbar weitergegangen werden konnte.
[ 13 ] Ein großer Teil der alten Mitglieder der Theosophischen Gesellschaft aus England, Frankreich, namentlich aus Holland waren innerlich unzufrieden mit den Erneuerungen, die ihnen mit dem Münchner Kongreß gebracht worden sind. - Was gut gewesen wäre, zu verstehen, was aber damals von den wenigsten ins Auge gefaßt wurde, war, daß mit der anthroposophischen Strömung etwas von einer ganz andern inneren Haltung gegeben war, als sie die bisherige Theosophische Gesellschaft hatte. In dieser inneren Haltung lag der wahre Grund, warum die anthroposophische Gesellschaft nicht als ein Teil der theosophischen weiterbestehen konnte. Die meisten legten aber den Hauptwert auf die Absurditäten, die im Laufe der Zeit in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft sich herausgebildet haben und die zu endlosen Zänkereien geführt haben.
Chapter XXXVIII
[ 1 ] In the following, it will be difficult to separate the account of my life from a history of the anthroposophical movement. And yet, I only want to include as much of the history of the Society as is necessary for the account of my life. - This will already come into consideration when naming the active members. I am getting too close to the present day to avoid misunderstandings by mentioning names. With all good will, some people who find someone else named and not themselves will have a bitter feeling. - I will essentially mention by name only those personalities who have connections in spiritual life outside of their activity in society, but not those who have not brought such connections into society.
[ 2 ] In Berlin and Munich the two opposite poles of anthroposophical activity were to a certain extent to be developed. Anthroposophy was approached by personalities who found neither in the scientific world view nor in the traditional creeds that spiritual content which their souls needed to seek. In Berlin, a branch of the Society and an audience for the public lectures could only emerge from the circles of those personalities who also rejected everything that had developed in world views in opposition to the traditional creeds. For the followers of such world views based on rationalism, intellectualism, etc. found fantasy, superstition, etc. in what anthroposophy had to offer. An audience and membership arose which accepted anthroposophy without being directed with feelings or ideas towards anything other than anthroposophy. They were not satisfied with what they had been given from other sources. This mood of soul had to be taken into account. And as this happened, the number of members and listeners at public lectures increased more and more. An anthroposophical life developed that was to a certain extent closed in on itself and had little regard for the other attempts to look into the spiritual world. Hopes lay in the unfolding of the anthroposophical messages. It was expected that knowledge of the spiritual world would continue to grow.
[ 3 ] The situation was different in Munich. There, the artistic element was part of the anthroposophical work from the outset. And a world view such as anthroposophy could be incorporated into this in a completely different way to rationalism and intellectualism. The artistic image is more spiritual than the rationalist concept. It is also alive and does not kill the spiritual in the soul, as intellectualism does. The personalities who set the tone for the formation of a membership and audience in Munich were those in whom the artistic sensibility worked in the manner indicated.
[ 4 ] This also meant that a unified branch of the Society was formed in Berlin from the outset. The interests of those who sought anthroposophy were similar. In Munich, the artistic sensibilities in individual circles formed individual needs, and I presented in such circles. The circle around Countess Pauline v. Kalckreuth and Miss Sophie Stinde, who died during the war, gradually developed into a kind of center of these circles. This circle also organized my public lectures in Munich. The ever-deepening understanding of this circle created in it a most beautiful accommodation for what I had to say. And so anthroposophy developed within this circle in a way that could be described as very gratifying. Ludwig Deinhard, the older Theosophist, Hübbe-Schleiden's friend, placed himself very sympathetically in this circle. And that was very valuable.
[ 5 ] The center of another circle was Frau von Schewitsch. She was an interesting personality, and it was probably for this reason that a circle came together with her, which was less concerned with deepening as the one just described, but more with getting to know anthroposophy as a spiritual current among the others of the time.
[ 6 ] At this time, Mrs. von Shevich had also published her book "How I found my Self". It was a strangely strong commitment to Theosophy. This also contributed to the fact that this woman could become the interesting center of the circle described.
[ 7 ] For me - and also for many participants in the circle - Helene von Schewitsch was an important piece of history. After all, she was the lady who caused Ferdinand Lassalle to meet his untimely end in a duel against a Romanian. She later went on to pursue a career as an actor and became friends with H.P. Blavatsky and Olcott in America. She was a worldly lady whose interests were strongly spiritualized at the time when my lectures took place with her. The strong experiences she had had gave her appearance and what she presented an extraordinary weight. Through her, I would like to say, I was able to see the work of Lassalle and his epoch, and through her some of the characteristic features of H. P. Blavatsky's life. What she said was subjectively colored, often arbitrarily shaped by the imagination; but if one took that into account, one could see the truth through some veiling, and one had before one the revelation of an unusual personality.
[ 8 ] Other Munich circles were shaped in a different way. I often think of a personality that I met in several of these circles, a Catholic clergyman, Müller, who stood outside the narrower association of the church. He was a fine connoisseur of Jean Paul. He published a very stimulating magazine, "Renaissance", in which he defended a free Catholicism. He took as much of anthroposophy as his views could interest him, but was always skeptical. He made objections, but in such an amiable and at the same time elementary way that he often brought a nice humor to the discussions that followed the lectures.
[ 9 ] I do not want to say anything about the value of one pole or the other with the characteristics I give of Berlin and Munich as the opposite poles of anthroposophical work; there were just differences in people who had to be taken into account in their work, who are equal in their nature - at least it has no meaning to judge them from the point of view of value.
[ 10 ] The nature of the Munich work led to the Theosophical Congress, which was to be organized by the German section of the Theosophical Society in 1907, being held in Munich. These congresses, which had previously been held in London, Amsterdam and Paris, included events that dealt with Theosophical problems in lectures or discussions. They were modeled on the learned congresses. The administrative issues of the Theosophical Society were also dealt with.
[ 11 ] Many things were modified in Munich. We - the organizers - had the large concert hall, which was to be used for the conference, decorated with an interior that would artistically reflect in form and color the mood that prevailed in the content of the oral proceedings. The artistic surroundings and spiritual activities in the room were to form a harmonious whole. I attached the utmost importance to avoiding abstract, non-artistic symbolism and letting the artistic feeling speak for itself.
[ 12 ] An artistic performance was included in the congress program. Marie von Sivers had translated Schuré's reconstruction of the Eleusinian drama a long time ago. I adapted it linguistically for a performance. We added this drama to the program. It provided a link to the ancient mystery, however tenuous, but the main thing was that the congress had something artistic in it. Artistic, which pointed to the will not to leave the spiritual life without the artistic in society from then on. Marie von Sivers, who had taken on the role of Demeter, already clearly indicated in her presentation the nuances that the dramatic was to acquire in society. - Moreover, we were at a point in time when the art of declamation and recitation had reached the decisive point through Marie von Sivers in working out the inner power of the god, from which fruitful progress could be made in this area.
[ 13 ] A large proportion of the old members of the Theosophical Society from England, France and Holland in particular were inwardly dissatisfied with the innovations brought to them by the Munich Congress. - What would have been good to understand, but what few people realized at the time, was that the anthroposophical movement had a completely different inner attitude to that of the previous Theosophical Society. In this inner attitude lay the true reason why the Anthroposophical Society could not continue to exist as a part of the Theosophical Society. Most, however, placed the main emphasis on the absurdities that have developed over time in the Theosophical Society and which have led to endless bickering.