Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Anthroposophic Movement
GA 258

15 June 1923, Dornach

Sixth Lecture

The Two First Periods of the Anthroposophic Movement

I have briefly indicated what were the directing forces during the two first periods of the anthroposophic movement; and before going on to describe the third period and what took place in it, I should like, as a basis, to enter more closely into certain features of the first and second periods. For as a matter of fact, in spite of all that has been said by way of explanation, it is still possible to raise the question: What grounds were there for the anthroposophic movement finding itself involved in a connection,—a tolerably external connection it is true—with the theosophic movement?

This question in particular, being a very intricate one, can only find its answer if we examine certain distinctive features in the evolution of the anthroposophic movement.

Taking, to begin with, the first period, which lasted down to about 1907, I might characterize as more or less its distinctive feature, that it was engaged in gradually laying the fundament' for a substantive science of the spirit.

Anyone who tries to look back into those days with the aid of the actual documents, will see, that during that time, bit by bit, in lectures, or lecture-cycles,—and also in what those who assisted worked out further for themselves,—the material was gradually brought to light,—the substantive basic material of spiritual science, and the lines on which it must anthroposophically be conceived.—This period ends, (such things are, of course, only approximate; but that is the case with the historic evolution of everything)—it ends approximately, I might say, with the publication of my Occult Science. The book Occult Science actually appeared in print some year and a half later; but the essential sub-stance of it, the delivery of the essential substance contained in it, belongs altogether to this first period of anthroposophic effort.

Throughout this period, down to the year 1905 or 1906, there was every justification for a quite definite hope: the hope, namely, that the anthroposophic substance might gradually come to form altogether the life-substance of the Theosophical Society. Down to the years 1905, 1906, it was impossible to say that, gradually, in the course of a quite natural evolution, the theosophic society might not develop into an anthroposophic one.—It was possible to hope so, for the reason, that during these years, in all matters of outward activity, one of the most influential personages in the Theosophical Society, Mrs. Annie Besant, exhibited a certain tolerance, and unmistakably aimed at allowing tendencies of various directions to work alongside one another. That was unmistakably the case, down to about 1905 or 1906.

Now, during this period, one certainly—if one indulged in no illusions—could not fail to see, that such a very leading personage in the Theosophical Society, as Mrs. Annie Besant, had very primitive notions of modern scientific method. Her notions were primitive. But, nevertheless, despite all the marks of amateurishness that were thus introduced into her books, yet, all the same, from the fact that in course of time the theosophic society came, as Theosophical Society, to have its centre in London, and that this Theosophical Society had in course of time become nurtured, one might say, with the wisdom of the East, there was, from all this, a whole assortment of wisdom piled. up in the people who belonged to the society,—undigested wisdom for the most part, and which very often, indeed, existed in the form of most curious notions. But,—putting aside the fact that these notions often went so far as to bear no vestige of re-semblance to their origin and true meaning,—nevertheless, through books such as Mrs. Besant's Ancient Wisdom, or more particularly The Perfecting of Man, or even her Esoteric Christianity, there did flow something which,—traditional as the manner of conveying it was,—yet had its source in ancient fountainhead of wisdom,—even though the channels were not always unexceptionable, through which this stream of ancient wisdom had descended until it came into these books and lectures. Such, then, was the state of things at that time.

And, on the other hand, one must always keep in sight the fact that, outside these particular circles, there was no interest what ever to be found in the world of the day for real spiritual research. There remained simply the one fact: that amongst those who had, so to speak, strayed into this particular group of people, a possibility might be awarded for awakening an interest in genuine, modern spiritual science

In this first period especially, however, there were all sorts of things to contend with. I won't weary you with all the numerous societies which simply borrowed the name of theosophy,—societies which at bottom had uncommonly little to do with any serious spiritual strivings. Striving the people were certainly, many of them; but it was a striving that in part was a very egoistic, in part, an un-commonly trifling one. Trifling side-streams of this sort, however, frequently assumed the name of ‘theosophical societies’. I need only remind you of the so-called theosophic groups which were fairly widespread, namely, in Central Europe, in Germany and Austria, and also in Switzerland, and which gave themselves the name of ‘branches’, though all they really had in common with the Theosophical Society was in an extremely watered-down form, and. saturated again with every conceivable kind of often very foolish occultism.

A person who played a considerable part in the societies of this sort, and one who will be well known to you too still by name—or at least to many of you,—was Franz Hartmann. The depth of ‘spirit’, however, and the depth of ‘earnestness’, so-termed, which existed in these trifling societies, will be apparent merely from an illustration I may give you of the cynical character of the leading personage, whose name I have just mentioned. This gentleman was talking once in company with just a few people, but where I too was present, and said ... (these things have a real psychologic interest also, for one sees from them the kind of thing to which the human soul can come!):—‘Oh,’—said he,—‘there was that quarrel once in the Theosophical Society about that man, Judge, in America.’—(I won't go into the quarrel except to say that the dispute turned upon whether certain messages sent out by Judge had emanated from real initiate sources, namely, from higher personages called. ‘Masters’).—‘Well,’—said Franz Hartmann,’—that affair with Judge; I know all about that! He sent out those “Masters' Letters” in America; he came over to India at the time. We were in India, at headquarters; and he wanted to make himself an authority in America, and be able to say that he was commissioned by the Higher Initiates; and so he wanted to have Masters' Letters. Thereupon I said to him:—'(so Franz Hartmann told the story) ‘Oh, Masters' Letters,—I'll write some for you.—To which Judge answered: Well, but that won't do; for then I can't state that they are Letters from the Masters; for letters of that sort come flying down upon one out of the air; they take shape magically, and flutter down on one's head; and I must he able to say so.’—Whereupon Franz Hartmann said to Judge,—the story is of his own telling!—‘That's easy to manage!—Judge was quite a little fellow, and I said to him,’ (so he told us),—‘You stand on the floor, and I'll get up on a chair and let the letter drop down on your head.—And then he could say with a good conscience that the letters he sent out had come flying down on his head out of the air!’

Well, that is only an extreme instance of this kind of thing, which is by no means so very rare in the world. But, as I said, I won't weary you with an account of these trifling-societies; I merely want to point out that, during the first period especially, the fact that the anthroposophic movement ran alongside the theosophic one, made it in a way necessary to defend one's position before modern scientific thought.

I don't know whether those who joined the anthroposophic movement later on, and who studied Anthroposophy then as scientists from a scientific aspect in this, its more developed third period, ... I don't know whether these people have taken due note of the fact, that a struggle with the modern scientific way of thinking, and one of a quite peculiar kind, took place precisely during the first period of the anthroposophic movement. I will give you two or three instances. They are instances only of what went on in all kinds of matters, but they will show you that, at that time more particularly, the theosophic movement was strongly affected by what I described two or three days ago as a special feature of modern education,—namely, deference to so-called scientific authority.

This deference to scientific authority had made its way into the Theosophical Society above all. One could see, for instance, how Mrs. Besant, in particular, attempted in her books to bring in all sorts of references to the science of the day,—things which had no bearing whatever upon spiritual science; such, for instance, as Weissmann's Theory of Heredity;—they were brought into her books as being confirmations.

I can remember, too, how in Munich, when we had got so far as founding a sort of centre for the anthroposophic movement there, ... as you know, centres gradually came to be founded for the movement: the one in Berlin, and in Munich, Stuttgart, Cassel, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Hamburg, in Hanover, in Leipzig, and in Austria, the Vienna centre, and in a way, too, the one at Prague. In short, various centres came to be formed; and at the time when the centre was being formed in Munich, there were a great number there of these homeless souls, who were already organized in a sort of way; they already belonged to some society or other. Well, putting quite aside now the trifling-societies of the Hartmann stamp, I was going to tell you that when we were founding the branch at . Munich, we had all the time to deal with these various big and little groups which existed there.

There was one group, the Ketterl. The Ketterl consisted of regular men of learning. The business of these people in the Ketterl was, when anything whatever was stated in the field of spiritual science, to supply natural science proofs of it. Their aim, so to speak, was to start with just the natural science views of the day, and thence simply mount up higher to the things, say, that Anthroposophy describes. If Anthroposophy talked of an ether-body, they would say to themselves: Natural science has succeeded in determining some particular form of structure for the atoms or molecules. And now one must set to work and find out how this structure might become partly more complex, but partly also thinner in its combinations; and so gradually proceed from the molecular structure of physical bodies to the molecular structure of the ether. And then one would be able to apply the same kind of calculations to the processes of the ether, as one applies to the pro-cesses of the physical world. And nothing was, strictly speaking, allowed to ‘go through’ in the Ketterl except what bore a natural science visum on its anthroposophic pass.

The treatises written by the members of the Ketterl, for they wrote treatises as well,—did not really dier much from the scientific treatises of the theoretic physicists of that period; only that with them the formula and definitions, etc., did not stand for processes in the spectrum, or in the electro-magnetic field, but for processes in the etheric field, or the astral field.

There was nothing to be done: the whole connection dissolved in mutual satisfaction, or dissatisfaction; and in the end one lost all contact with these protagonists of the natural science standpoint.

Not so very different, however, from these Ketterl performances were the labours of a man who played a great part in the Theosophical Society and had been an intimate friend, too, of Blavatsky,—a man who was invariably present whenever such things came under discussion. This was Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden; the same who for a long while issued the Sphinx. He, too, was altogether ‘out’ to bring a natural science way of thinking to the proof of what his feelings recognized as theosophy.—I still remember how he fetched me from the station, the first time in Hanover, when I had to give a lecture there.—It was the first anthroposophic lecture that I gave in Hanover, and was an ex-position of Goethe's Story of the Green Serpent and the Lovely Lily. Then he took me out with him; he lived a little way outside the town, and there was a ride of about half an hour in the tram. He began at once, with immense enthusiasm, to explain to me that anything like positive spiritual knowledge could not possibly maintain itself before the more intelligent spirits of mankind, unless the things were proved in the same way as one is accustomed to have them proved in text-books of physics or other sciences. Then he brought his two forefingers into play; and so it went on for the whole half-hour, he all the while describing movements with the tips of his forefingers, to represent the supposed motions of the atoms: ‘Look; that must go so, and then so; and then one can see: in the one incarnation the atoms are set in motion, and then the wave-current travels on through the spiritual worlds; and now then, one must calculate how the wave-current travels through the spiritual worlds; and then it all becomes changed, and you have the next incarnation.’—Till really one felt oneself back again in the lecture-halls, with the lecturer explaining to one the various wave-currents for red and yellow and blue and green; it was all of a piece with these wave-currents for the transit of the souls through their various incarnation'.

He had a friend,—who afterwards, however, became an exceedingly good, sensible, faithful member of the Anthroposophic Society,—to whom he used always to send his ex-positions, and who possessed, amongst other qualities, that of greatly valuing these expositions. But every now and then the humour of it tickled him, and he once told me that he had again just received half a cwt. of wisdom for-warded to Munich from Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden. They were always very bulky letters that were dispatched from Hanover to Munich!

Well, the peculiar stamp; I was going to say, of this way of thinking, might be seen in the discussions that for a long time were carried on in the Theosophical Society over the so-called Permanent Atom. This Permanent Atom was an appalling thing! But it was taken uncommonly seriously. For the people, you see, who felt the authoritativeness of modern science, could not in the least understand why something, at any rate, that in words at least sounds the same as modern science, shouldn't be introduced into spiritual science. So they said: Take a man who is living in one incarnation and then passes on to the next; his physical body certainly falls to pieces; one single atom only remains, and that goes on through the time between death and new birth; and this one atom then makes its appearance in the new incarnation. That is the Permanent Atom, and goes on through the whole of the incarnations.

Such a thing seems like a joke to you to-day; but you can have no idea with what solemn earnestness these things were carried on during the first period especially, when Anthroposophy was in its beginnings, and how exceedingly difficult it was to meet the argument:—Why, what's the use of all theosophy if it can't be scientifically proved! Not a human being will have anything to say to it unless one can prove it scientifically!—Indeed, during this conversation in the tram, it was laid down as a maxim, that one's expositions must be in such a style that an ordinary sixth form schoolboy can understand theosophy just in the same way as he understands logic. That was what my escort demanded.

Then I arrived at his house; and he took me up into the loft.—And now I will ask those who now, in the latest period of the anthroposophic movement, are endeavouring to combat the Atomic doctrine, to guess what I found at that time in the loft of Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden's house in Hanover?—We went up a narrow stairs and there, above, in the loft, ... But in telling the story one can't of course say often enough that he was a most kind and charming, and really quite sensible, altogether nice old gentleman! ... up there, lying in the loft, were monster models of Atoms! They were made of wire, however,—very complicated. One model in each case represented the atom of some physical substance: Hydrogen or Oxygen; and the next model, which was again more complicated, represented the atom as an etheric substance; and the third model, which was more complicated still, was the atom of the astral substance. And if you take up certain books by one of the leaders of the Theosophical Society,—Leadbeater's books,—you will find in them magnificent diagrams of models such as these. It is a fact which I wish just to mention, for the consideration more particularly of those amongst us who are making war on the Atomic doctrine, that this same Atomic doctrine was never anywhere in such high bloom as amongst those who, so to speak, came into our ranks out of the Theosophical Society. And when the younger members, such as Dr. Kolisko and the others in our Stuttgart laboratories, wage war to-day upon the Atom, one would like just to remind them that, in those days, there were people with whom one really wouldn't have known how possibly to get from one incarnation to the next, if one hadn't had at least one permanent atom.

This is just an illustration of the very strong authority exercised by so-called scientific thought in these particular circles. Scientific thought, of the natural science kind, these people were quite capable of! They simply couldn't think that anything could possibly have any value unless it were conceived on the lines of natural science thought.—And so on this side too, again, there was no real under-standing. It was only as the second period of the anthroposophic movement began to draw on, that there came to be, in the circles at least that had entered our ranks, a gradual decline in this pursuit of the Atom; and the people passed on, little by little, to those things that continued further to be cultivated in the anthroposophic movement.—On the other hand it must be said, that the people who did not trouble very much about this pursuit of the Atom, and to whom modern science was after all a matter of more or less indifference, who had only, as homeless souls, found a stimulus in the theosophic movement,—that these people were decidedly more open-minded. And every time, for instance, that I stayed in Munich, I was able to deliver a lecture of a more intimate character in a circle that gathered round Frau von Schewitsch, a lady who had formerly been a great friend of Blavatsky's, and was then living in Munich. There it was certainly easier; for there one found a real striving of the soul.

I don't wish to uphold the one circle nor to disparage the other; I only wish to instance the various things on one side and another with which the anthroposophic movement had to deal.

Only just consider, though! that, at that time, the first demand we met with, and amongst our own ranks too, was that everything taught in Anthroposophy should be justified by the aid and methods of the natural science thought of those days!—And yet that was mild, com-pared with what is demanded of one by the outside world nowadays! My dear friends, a good number of you have to-day heard a lecture from Dr. Bluemel; and I think you will have been well able to understand his clear expositions, and have carried away a certain impression. Rut suppose there had been someone sitting there who said: ‘Oh, those explanations of his! What do I care about all that! I don't believe in it; I don't accept any of it; I won't examine the proofs of it!’—And another person were to say: ‘Well, but just look and see whether the things are true; test them with your common sense and the faculties of your own soul!’—‘That, I am not prepared to do,’ answers the other. ‘I can't trouble for the moment about that! It may be right or it may be wrong: I won't go into that question; but I call upon Dr. Bluemel to betake him to a psychological laboratory; and there I will test him with my psychological apparatus and see whether he is a mathematician or not.’—That is, of course, rubbish, and very thin rubbish too; but it is exactly the same as the demand made by the outer world of to-day, that an investigator of anthroposophic truths should let himself be tested in a psychologic laboratory in order to determine whether he has a right to state the results of his research and to expound them. It is exactly the same.

To-day one may make the most nonsensical statements, one may talk sheer nonsense, and people don't see it. Even those people who are indignant don't see that it is sheer nonsense; they think it is just deliberate malice, or something of the kind. For they simply can't conceive that the state of society could possibly permit of one's being an official representative of science, and talking in reality utter nonsense. The people can't conceive such a thing. So chaotic, in fact, is the spiritual life of our day.

The things, therefore, which it will be necessary to take into consideration when discussing the life-conditions of the anthroposophic movement will be altogether examples drawn from the phenomena and from the actuating forces of civilized life at the present day. Things of the kind, such as I am here describing, must be understood by every person who wishes to be acquainted with the life-conditions of the anthroposophic movement.

Well, undeterred by all these conflicting things, the work of the first period, as I was saying, was to set forth the principal human truths, the principal cosmic truths. And my Occult Science represents a sort of compendium of all that had been taught in the anthroposophic movement down to that time. As to the way the work was accomplished, it went I might say as well as it went, simply for the reason that there was never an abstract, but always a concrete will behind it,—because one never aimed, so to speak, at more than just what the course of circumstances gave one to aim at.

For example, let me give you a case like this.—We started in those days, as you know, a paper, quite at the beginning of the anthroposophical movement: the Lucifer-Gnosis. It was called Lucifer to begin with, and then, after five or six numbers had appeared, a Vienna periodical called enosis wanted to amalgamate with it. As another little fact, I may mention that I wanted simply to express the external union of the two papers by entitling the sub-sequent paper Lucifer cum Gnosis. Well, that, for in-stance, was a 'thing to which Huebbe-Schleiden simply wouldn't consent. He thought it would imply a sort of unnatural marriage bond between Lucifer and Gnosis. Lucifer cum enosis: one couldn't possibly say such a thing! Well, I didn't care; and so we called it Lucifer-Gnosis, and hyphenated them.—They were sharp enough in those days when it came to keeping an eye on us!

Well, this paper, Lucifer-Gnosis was started. We began, of course, with quite a small number of subscribers; but the list grew with comparatively great rapidity; and we never had really a deficit, for we only printed as many copies as we were about able to sell; and as for distribution, the office-apparatus was as follows:—When one number of the paper had been written and printed, the printed copies were returned to me at my house in big packets, and ‘Frau Doctor’ and I ourselves stuck on the labels; I wrote the addresses myself; and then we each took a clothes-basket and. carried the things to the post. We found it worked very well. My business was to write the things and to give the lectures. ‘Frau Doctor’ did all the organization of the society, but without any secretary; for if she had had a secretary she would. only have had to work for him too. So we did it quite alone, and never aimed at more than could be aimed at,—quite concretely. One went just as many steps forward as the actual circumstances put before one. For instance, the clothes-baskets we carried were not bigger than so that we just didn't quite collapse under them ... only nearly; we simply had to make the journey oftener, as the subscribers' list got bigger.

Well, after we had performed this interesting occupation for a while, Lucifer-Gnosis then passed over to Altmann's publishing firm in Leipzig. And then, Lucifer-Gnosis ceased to appear; not for the reason that it couldn't carry on any longer, for it had at the time many more subscribers than it needed; only I had no more time to write it. In fact, by then, the applications for lectures, and the whole spiritual administration altogether of the society, took up a great deal of time,—the whole thing, you know, slowly and gradually grew and developed;—and the consequence was that Lucifer-Gnosis failed to make its appearance. First, there were great gaps,—the January number appeared in December; and then from a year it came to a year and a half; and the subscribers made an awful fuss. Altmann, the publisher, got nothing but letters of com-plaint. So that I saw no way out except to tell him: ‘We simply must shut up altogether, and tell the sub-scribers that, however long they wait, they won't get any more!’

Well, that of course, too, was inherent in the course of the movement; one never aimed at more than the concrete advance brought with it. And that is one of the life-conditions of a spiritual society. To post up far-reaching ideals in so many words is the very worst thing for a spiritual society. Programme-making is the very worst thing for a spiritual society.

In this first period, then, the work was simply so carried on that, to begin with, by 1907—8—9, the groundwork was laid for a spiritual society suited to this modern age.

Then came the second period, in which the relations with natural science were in the main settled.—The theologians had not yet come on the field in any way. They were everywhere so tight-seated in their saddles that they didn't concern themselves about the thing at all.

The discussions with natural science being over, one could now turn to the other task before one. This was the discussion of relations with the Gospels with Genesis and the Christian tradition generally: with Christianity, as such.

The line was already sketched out in my book Christianity as Mystical Fact, which lies at the very start, for it had come out in 1902. But the elaboration, so to speak, of the anthroposophical understanding of Christianity, the building up of such an understanding was, in the main, the business of this second epoch, on to about the year 1914. It was the time when the lecture-cycles were held in Ham-burg, Cassel, Berlin, Basle, Berne, Munich, Stuttgart, on various portions of the Christian tradition.—For instance, at that time, too, there was worked out, amongst other things, what only exists so far on paper as a general sketch, in The Spiritual Guidance of Man and of Mankind.

It was the time, therefore, when in the main the Christian side of Anthroposophy was worked out with reference to the Christian tradition historically handed down.

And then, in this period, came what I might call the first extension of Anthroposophy towards the side of Art, with the performance of the Mystery-Dramas in Munich. All this, again, came strictly under the sign of not attempting more than arose out of actual circumstances.—And in this period there came then the incidents which led to what, for the Anthroposophists, was really a matter of indifference, namely, the exclusion from the Theosophical Society. For, as I said yesterday evening, to Anthroposophy it could be a matter of indifference whether she were included. or excluded; for she went her own road from the very first;—those who chose to go that same road could go with her. And Anthroposophy from the first had never troubled herself in any way internally, as regards her spiritual investigations, about what had been produced by the Theosophical Society. Only, even on the external road, it became ever more and more difficult to keep company.

At first there was undoubtedly a hope, from the circumstances, some of which I have indicated,—a hope namely, that the tide of theosophic movement as united in the Theosophical Society, might really become entirely anthroposophic. And amongst the other circumstances which seemed to justify such a hope, there was also this:—that, as a fact, the peculiar manner in which research was pursued in the Theosophical Society, led to severe disillusionments on the part, especially, of those persons whose judgmatic powers were at all of a higher order.

And here I am obliged to confess as my own experience, the first and second time when I went to London, that the behaviour of the leading personages was that of people who were extremely sceptical in their dealings with each other, who felt themselves on altogether insecure ground, but all the same wouldn't abandon this ground, because they did not know where else to look for security.—There were many disillusioned people, very plentifully filled with doubts, especially amongst the leaders of the Theosophical Society. And undoubtedly a momentous factor in the developments which took place in the Theosophical Society was the remarkable change which Mrs. Annie Besant underwent between the years 1900 and, say, 1907.

She had at first a certain tolerance. She never, I think, understood anything at all of this Anthroposophy which had come on the scenes.—I don't think she understood it at all. Rut she didn't interfere with it. She even, in the beginning, defended it against the hard-and-fast dogmatists,—that is to say, she defended its rights of existence. One can't say anything else: for that is the fact.

But now I have something to say, which I beg may be very carefully borne in mind in the Anthroposophical Society too. With any such spiritual society,—and such as the theosophical one was, too, at that time,—there is a certain sort of purely personal ambition, certain sympathies and antipathies of a purely personal tinge, which are absolutely incompatible with it. And yet there are such numbers of cases precisely of this kind, where someone really has his will set on some particular thing! He wills it from some ‘subter-ground’ of his being,—wills, for instance, to make an idol of a particular person. He wills it on some ground that lies in the under-regions of his being. What is impelling him, the emotional impulse,—it may be perhaps a brain-emotion,—is something that he won't admit to himself. But he begins now to weave an artificial astral aura round this person whom he is bent on idolizing: such a person is very ‘advanced’.1 And if one wants to say something very special in addition: ‘Oh, he, or she, knows three, not to say four, of their former earth-lives! in fact, they have talked to me about my own former earth-life! Ah, that person knows a very great deal!’ And then comes a most spiritual interpretation of what—to use Nietzsche's words—is ‘humanly all too human’. Were one to give it a humanly-all-too-human designation, one would simply say, ... well, perhaps not downright, ‘I am quite silly about that person!’ but, without going so far, one might, at any rate, say, ‘I find him, or her, attractive. There's no denying it: I certainly find him, or her, very attractive!’ And then all would be well,—even in an occult society.—Of course Max Seiling, for instance, was in a way extremely entertaining, especially when he skipped about so excitingly on the piano; it was pleasant to go to tea with him, and so forth. Well and good; and if people had confessed this to themselves it would have been wiser; if only they had confessed to themselves: ‘I like that sort of thing.’—Wiser than extolling him to the skies, as they did in the Munich group.

All such things, you see, are in direct contradiction to the life-conditions of any society of this kind. Yet precisely a model example of how to fall into this sort of thing was Mrs. Annie Besant. For example, there turned up one day (I prefer to tell these things more through actual examples), there turned up one day a name.—I had never really troubled much about the literature of the ‘Theosophical Society’, in fact, I read next to nothing of this literature; and so my first acquaintance with the name,

1 English in the original.

Bhagavan Dâs, was when I one day received a thick, type-written manuscript. The manuscript was arranged thus: in two columns, the left column type-written, the right one left blank. Enclosed with it was a letter from Bhagavan Dâs (it was about the year 1905, I think), in which he wrote that he would like to enter into correspondence with various people about the contents of this manuscript which he proposed to reveal to the world.—Well, really, at that time the anthroposophic movement had already grown so extensive that I didn't find time at once to read this manuscript. He said one was to write any comments one had to make on the right-hand side, and then send it track to him.—I used to go about a bit in those days, and I found that there were other people as well to whom the manuscript had been sent. And then it dawned ever more and more clearly upon me, that this Bhagavan Dâs was, in fact ... in fact, that he was ... an altogether occult personage, one who drew from the very depths of all that was spiritual! This was pretty much the opinion circulated about Bhagavan Dâs by the people round Mrs. Besant.—Well, since the thing came from India, and he was closely in touch with Indian headquarters, and enjoyed such fame,—at the Amsterdam Congress, for instance, one heard everywhere: ‘Bhagavan Dâs’, ‘Bhagavan Dâs’; it was really as though it were a fountain gushing a perpetual flow of wisdom! And so I decided to look at the thing. A most appalling amateurish hotch-potch! Fichte-Philosophy, Hegel-Philosophy, Schopenbauer-Philosophy, everything conceivable jumbled up together without rhyme or reason! And through the whole there ran, like the endless burden of a song, Self and Not-Self. And then, again, there would come a disquisition on something from Fichte, and then again, Self and Not-Self. It was, in short, something appalling! I never troubled about the thing again;—I didn't write anything on the blank side.—Things, however, like this showed, you see, how things were gradually drifting into personal currents. For it was simply on purely personal grounds that this particular Bhagavan Das was so lauded to the skies. You can read his books still to-day, and you will find they bear out the truth of what I have just said.—For, of course, you know, he manufactured books.—Things like this showed how the personal element became introduced into what were ostensibly objective impulses. And once that had come in,—and it began to come in strongly about 1905,—then the slide inevitably went on downhill. All the rest was, in the main, simply a consequence.

By this I don't mean to say that in every kind of society, if one happens to write nonsense, the whole society is bound to go to grief. But spiritual societies are ruled by different laws, by laws of internal necessity; and there things of this kind must not be practised, especially not by the persons who are leaders. Or else, you see, the downhill slide inevitably takes place. And it did take place.

And then came the ridiculous business at Olcott's death,—the ridiculous business that went on then, and was even then the beginning of the end of the ‘Theosophical Society’,—what they called the ‘appointment by the Masters’. But that at least could in so far be smoothed over that one could say: Well, yes! there are one or two people, certainly, who undoubtedly act on peculiar principles of their own, and so bring ridiculous things into the society.—Then, however, came the affair with Leadbeater, which I don't care to discuss now. And then it came to picking out that boy who was to be educated, you know, as the Christ, or to become the Christ, and all the rest of it. And when that couldn't be accepted by people who refused to take part in such nonsense, then these people were excluded.

Well, the anthroposophic movement kept on its own straight course throughout all these things, without practically troubling itself very much about these things as a movement. For say, you know, that in 1911, on the 24th of March, one was engaged in studying the Spiritual Guidance of Man and of Mankind; and on the 25th of March there came the ridiculous reports from Adyar or somewhere, from the ‘Theosophical Society’, one didn't on that account need, on the 25th of March, to alter the continuation of what one had done on the 24th. The internal course of things remained, therefore, in reality unaffected;—that is a fact to keep firm hold of. And one really didn't need, even at that time, to be greatly thrilled by what proceeded from this or that quarter amongst the leading personages in the ‘Theosophical Society’; any more than I was at all specially overcome with astonishment when it was reported lately that Leadbeater,—of whom you have heard a good many other things—has now, in his old days, become a bishop of the Old Catholics, and that one of his associates, who in those early days was also at the Munich Congress, has become actually an Old Catholic Archbishop. There is—you'll agree—no cause to be astonished at such things. For the line, by now, was not a straight one; it was all going crooked and queer;—so why shouldn't this happen, too?

One didn't even need to make any special change in one's personal relations with the people,—I mean, in actual intercourse with them. I gave a lecture afterwards (two years ago it was, I think), in Amsterdam; and at the end of the lecture one of the same gentlemen came up to me, quite in the old friendly way, who had delivered a lecture in Munich at the Congress of 1907. He looked exactly the same as he did then; only in the meantime he had become an Archbishop of the Old Catholics. He wasn't wearing archbishop's robes; but he was one.

Such were the things, in short, that went on in a certain field of modern culture; in which, on the other hand, these homeless souls, from internal necessity, found a very real attraction. One must not forget that it was in this stream of movement, nevertheless,—although one can characterize it in no other way,—that those souls were to be found who were the most earnestly striving after a link between the human soul and the spiritual world. And one simply is not presenting an honest picture of the course taken by the life of modern culture, unless one for once puts these con-trasts really plainly.

And so, before going on tomorrow to describe our latest period, and with it the life-conditions inherent in the nature of the Anthroposophical Society, I was obliged to-day, my dear friends, to add these few remarks for your attention.

Sechster Vortrag

Ich habe mit einigem dasjenige skizziert, was richtende Kräfte waren in den zwei ersten Perioden der anthroposophischen Bewegung, und ich möchte, um eine Basis zu gewinnen zur Schilderung desjenigen, was dann in der dritten Periode sich abgespielt hat, noch auf einige Erscheinungen der ersten und zweiten Periode eingehen. Die Sache ist ja so, daß trotz allem Auseinandergesetzten noch die Frage aufgeworfen werden kann: Womit war es begründet, daß die anthroposophische Bewegung sich doch in einem ziemlich äußerlichen Zusammenhalt befunden hat mit der theosophischen Bewegung?

Gerade diese Frage, die eine so komplizierte ist, wird sich eben nur beantworten, wenn wir einige Erscheinungen ins Auge fassen, die charakteristisch sind für die Entwickelung der anthroposophischen Bewegung.

Da möchte ich zunächst die erste Periode, die etwa bis zum Jahre 1907 ging, annähernd dadurch charakterisieren, daß es sich dazumal darum handelte, die Grundlagen des Inhaltes einer Geisteswissenschaft zu entwickeln.

Wer versucht, an Hand der Dokumente in jene Zeit zurückzublicken, wird eben sehen, daß damals nach und nach in Vorträgen, Vortragszyklen, auch in demjenigen, was dann die Mitarbeiter weiter erarbeitet haben, herausgekommen ist der Inhalt, der grundlegende Inhalt der Geisteswissenschaft in dem Sinne, wie er anthroposophisch gedacht werden muß. Es schließt diese Epoche - die Dinge stimmen natürlich nur ungefähr, aber alles ist so in der geschichtlichen Entwickelung — ungefähr, möchte ich sagen, mit der Veröffentlichung meiner «Geheimwissenschaft».

Diese «Geheimwissenschaft» erschien allerdings etwa eineinhalb Jahre später erst gedruckt, aber der wesentliche Inhalt, die Bekanntmachung des wesentlichen Inhaltes fällt durchaus in die erste Periode anthroposophischen Strebens. In dieser Periode war durchaus bis zum Jahre 1905 oder 1906 eine ganz bestimmte Hoffnung berechtigt. Es war die Hoffnung, daß allmählich der anthroposophische Inhalt der Lebensinhalt der Theosophischen Gesellschaft überhaupt werden könnte.

Man konnte bis zum Jahre 1905, 1906 nicht sagen, daß nicht etwa allmählich durch ganz natürliche Entwickelung die Theosophische Gesellschaft hineinwachsen werde in eine anthroposophische. Das zu hoffen war dadurch möglich, daß ja in diesen Jahren im äußerlichen Ausleben eine der maßgebendsten Persönlichkeiten der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, Annie Besant, eine gewisse Toleranz an den Tag legte, und daß sie durchaus das Bestreben hatte, verschiedene Richtungen nebeneinander wirken zu lassen. Es war das durchaus der Fall bis etwa zum Jahre 1905 und 1906.

In dieser Zeit mußte man zwar, wenn man sich keinen Illusionen hingeben wollte, gewiß sehen, daß gerade eine so führende Persönlichkeit, wie Annie Besant in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft es war, sehr primitive Vorstellungen von moderner Wissenschaftlichkeit hatte; das hatte sie. Aber immerhin, trotz allen dilettantischen Zügen, die dadurch in ihre Bücher hineinkamen, war — namentlich dadurch, daß allmählich die Theosophische Gesellschaft als Theosophical Society in London zentriert war, und daß diese Theosophical Society allmählich, ich möchte sagen, sich gespeist hat mit orientalischer Weisheit — eine ganze Summe von Weisheiten, unverdaut zumeist, in den Leuten drinnen, die zu dieser Gesellschaft gehörten. Es lebte diese Weisheit sogar manchmal in den sonderbarsten Vorstellungen. Aber wenn man absah davon, daß solche Vorstellungen manchmal so weit gingen, daß sie ganz und gar ihrem Ursprunge und ihrer wahren Bedeutung unähnlich waren, so strömte doch immerhin durch solche Bücher wie «Die uralte Weisheit» oder namentlich «Der Fortschritt der Menschheit» oder selbst «Das Christentum» von Annie Besant etwas hindurch, was zwar traditionell überbracht war, was aber uralten Weisheitsquellen entstammte, obwohl nicht immer die Kanäle einwandfrei waren, durch welche diese alte Weisheit bis in jene Bücher und Vorträge heruntergeflossen war. So also stand es dazumal mit der Sache.

Auf der anderen Seite muß man sich immer die Tatsache vor Augen halten, daß außerhalb dieser Kreise für wirkliche spirituelle Forschung überhaupt kein Interesse in der gegenwärtigen Welt vorhanden war. Es bestand einfach die Tatsache, daß aus denjenigen, die sich in diese Menschengruppe sozusagen hineinfanden, die Möglichkeit sich ergeben konnte, zu entzünden ein Interesse für wahrhaftige moderne Geisteswissenschaft.

Nun war aber gerade in dieser ersten Periode gegen mancherlei zu kämpfen. Ich will Sie gar nicht damit behelligen, daß einfach der Name «Theosophie» von sehr vielen Gesellschaften angenommen worden ist, Gesellschaften, die im Grunde genommen außerordentlich wenig mit ernstem geistigem Streben zu tun hatten. Streben war schon bei vielen Menschen vorhanden, aber ein zum Teil recht egoistisches, zum Teil außerordentlich triviales Streben. Aber auch solche trivialen Strömungen gaben sich vielfach den Namen von Theosophischen Gesellschaften. Man braucht nur etwa daran zu erinnern, daß ziemlich weit verbreitet, namentlich in Mitteleuropa, in Deutschland, Österreich, auch in der Schweiz, gewisse theosophische Zweige waren, welche sich so nannten, aber im Grunde genommen das, was die 'Theosophical Society hatte, in einer außerordentlich verwässerten Weise hatten, und dann wiederum durchtränkt mit allen möglichen, zuweilen sehr törichten Okkultismen.

Eine in solchen Zweigen, in solchen Gesellschaften vielfach wirkende Persönlichkeit war diejenige, die Ihnen auch noch dem Namen nach, oder wenigstens vielen von Ihnen dem Namen nach bekannt sein dürfte: Franz Hartmann. Aber welch «tiefer Geist» und welch «tiefer Ernst», unter Anführungszeichen gesprochen, in diesen Trivialgesellschaften war, das mag Ihnen einfach daraus hervorgehen, daß ich Ihnen etwas den zynischen Charakter schildere jenes Führers, den ich eben genannt habe. Der sagte einmal in einer Gesellschaft von wenigen, bei der ich aber auch anwesend war — man kann ja durchaus für diese Dinge sich auch psychologisch interessieren, um zu sehen, wie eigentlich die menschliche Seele zu dem oder jenem kommen kann. Da hat die Theosophische Gesellschaft einmal einen gewissen Streit gehabt um die Persönlichkeit des Judge in Amerika. Ich will von diesem Streite nicht sprechen, aber will nur sagen, daß der Streit sich namentlich darum drehte, ob gewisse Botschaften, die Judge versendet hat, von wirklichen höheren eingeweihten Persönlichkeiten, sogenannten Meistern, herrührten. Nun, Franz Hartmann sagte: Ach, die Sache mit dem Judge, die kenne ich ganz gut. Der hat in Amerika solche Meisterbriefe verschickt. Dazumal kam er nach Indien. Wir waren ja im Hauptquartier in Indien, und da wollte er, damit er in Amerika Autorität haben könnte, damit er sagen könnte, daß er von eingeweihten Persönlichkeiten Missionen erteilt bekommen hätte, Meisterbriefe haben. Da sagte ich zu ihm, so erzählte Franz Hartmann: Meisterbriefe? Ich kann dir welche schreiben. Da antwortete Judge: Ja, das geht doch nicht, da kann ich dann doch nicht behaupten, daß das Meisterbriefe sind, denn die fliegen einem doch aus der Luft zu, die kommen doch auf zauberhafte Weise zustande und fliegen einem dann auf den Kopf, und das muß ich sagen können. Da sagte Franz Hartmann zu Judge - er erzählte es selber! -: Ach, da ist keine Not, das kann man machen. Der Judge war ein ganz kleiner Kerl, so erzählte uns Hartmann, und da habe er ihm gesagt: Stelle dich auf den Fußboden, ich will mich auf einen Stuhl stellen, und dann werde ich dir den Brief auf den Kopf fallen lassen. So könnte er mit gutem Gewissen sagen, er verbreite Briefe, die ihm aus der Luft auf den Kopf geflogen sind.

Nun, das ist nur ein extremes Beispiel für solche Dinge, die sich schon gar nicht so selten in der Welt finden. Aber, wie gesagt, ich möchte Sie nicht behelligen mit diesen Trivialgesellschaften, ich möchte nur aufmerksam darauf machen, daß gerade in dieser ersten Periode der anthroposophischen Bewegung, durch das Nebenhergehen neben der theosophischen, sich eine gewisse Notwendigkeit ergab, gegen das modern wissenschaftliche Denken sich zu wehren.

Ich weiß nicht, ob diejenigen, die später dann zur anthroposophischen Bewegung hinzugetreten sind und als Wissenschafter und vom wissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkte aus die nun schon mehr entwickelte Anthroposophie in ihrer dritten Periode namentlich betrachteten, genügend Einblick sich verschafft haben in die Tatsache, daß eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem wissenschaftlichen Denken der neueren Zeit in einer ganz eigenartigen Weise gerade während der ersten Periode der anthroposophischen Bewegung stattgefunden hat. Ich will Ihnen dafür ein paar Beispiele nennen. Ich nenne nur Beispiele, denn die Sache hat auf den verschiedensten Punkten stattgefunden. Aber diese Beispiele werden Ihnen zeigen, daß dazumal gerade in diese theosophische Bewegung stark dasjenige hereinspielte, was ich vor einigen Tagen hier charakterisierte als für die moderne Bildung besonders kennzeichnend: das sich Beugen vor der sogenannten wissenschaftlichen Autorität.

Dieses sich Beugen vor der wissenschaftlichen Autorität, das war gerade in die Theosophische Gesellschaft eingedrungen gewesen. Es zeigte sich, daß zum Beispiel gerade Annie Besant versuchte, in ihren Büchern allerlei Zitate anzubringen aus zeitgenössischen Wissenschaften, Dinge, die gar nichts besagten für die Geisteswissenschaft, wie zum Beispiel die sogenannte Weismannsche Theorie der Vererbung. Wie Belege wurden die hineingebracht in die Bücher. Nun darf ich da erinnern, daß, als wir in der Lage waren, in München eine Art Zentrum für die anthroposophische Bewegung zu begründen - es bildeten sich ja allmählich für diese Bewegung das Berliner, das Münchner, das Stuttgarter, das Kasseler, das Düsseldorfer, das Kölner, das Hamburger, das Hannoversche, das Leipziger Zentrum, in Österreich dann das Wiener, in einem gewissen Sinne sogar das Prager, also es bildeten sich Zentren heraus -, daß dort sehr viele solche heimatlose Seelen waren, die auch schon in einer gewissen Weise organisiert waren. Sie steckten in der einen oder in der anderen Gesellschaft drinnen. Nun will ich jetzt ganz von den Trivialgesellschaften Hartmannschen Schlages absehen, aber ich möchte darauf hinweisen, daß, während wir den Zweig in München begründeten, es sich darum handelte, nun Auseinandersetzungen zu haben mit den verschiedenen kleineren oder größeren Gruppen, die da waren.

Da war eine Gruppe, das Ketterl. Dieses Ketterl bestand aus richtigen gelehrten Leuten. In diesem Ketterl handelte es sich diesen Leuten darum, für die Dinge, die irgendwie behauptet wurden auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft, naturwissenschaftliche Beweise zu liefern. Man wollte etwa aus den Anschauungen, die man dazumal in der Naturwissenschaft hatte, halt so hinaufkommen zu demjenigen, was Anthroposophie zum Beispiel darstellte. Wenn Anthroposophie von einem Ätherleib sprach, so sagte man sich: Die Naturwissenschaft hat es dahin gebracht, für die Atome, für die Moleküle diese oder jene Struktur zu erkennen. Nun fängt man an, da nachzuforschen, wie diese Struktur zum Teil komplizierter, zum Teil dünner in ihren Zusammensetzungen werden könnte, um allmählich von der Molekularstruktur der physischen Körper zu der Molekularstruktur des Äthers zu kommen. Man würde dann ebensolche Berechnungen anstellen können für das Ätherisch-Geschehende, wie man Berechnungen anstellen kann für das Physisch-Geschehende. Und eigentlich sollte nur dasjenige durchgelassen werden im Ketterl, was ein rechtsgültiges naturwissenschaftliches Visum auf dem anthroposophischen Paß hatte.

Die Abhandlungen — denn auch solche gibt es —, welche die Mitglieder des Ketterls schrieben, unterschieden sich eigentlich nicht sehr stark von den naturwissenschaftlichen Abhandlungen der theoretischen Physiker der damaligen Zeit; die Formeln und Definitionen und so weiter bedeuteten ihnen nicht Vorgänge im Spektrum oder Vorgänge im elektro-magnetischen Felde, sondern Vorgänge im ätherischen oder astralischen Felde. Es war nichts zu machen. Es löste sich die ganze Verbindung mehr oder weniger in Wohlgefallen oder in Mißfallen auf. Zuletzt hatte man keinen Zusammenhang mehr mit diesen Auseinandersetzern vom wissenschaftlichen Standpunkte aus.

Aber gar nicht so sehr verschieden von diesen Ketterl-Arbeiten waren die Bestrebungen eines Mannes, der in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft eine große Rolle spielte, ein intimer Freund der Blavatsky noch, ein, wenn es sich um solche Dinge handelte, immer anwesender Mann, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, der ja lange Zeit die «Sphinx» herausgegeben hat. Auch der war nun ganz darauf aus, mit naturwissenschaftlicher Denkungsart das, was er als Theosophisches empfand, zu beweisen. Ich weiß noch, wie er mich auf dem Bahnhof in Hannover das erste Mal abgeholt hat, weil ich da einen Vortrag halten sollte, den ersten anthroposophischen Vortrag, den ich in Hannover hielt: eine Auseinandersetzung über Goethes «Märchen von der grünen Schlange und der schönen Lilie». Er fuhr dann mit mir zu sich hinaus, er wohnte etwas außerhalb Hannovers. Da fuhr man so eine halbe Stunde mit der Tramway. Er fing gleich an, mit ungeheurer Begeisterung zu erklären, wie ja überhaupt so etwas wie geistige Erkenntnisse vor der modernen Menschheit nicht bestehen könne, wenn nicht die Dinge so bewiesen würden, wie man das gewöhnt ist, in physikalischen oder sonstigen gegenwärtigen Lehrbüchern zu finden. Dann gebrauchte er seine beiden Zeigefinger, und die ganze halbe Stunde ging das so, indem er mit den Spitzen der Zeigefinger immer die Bewegungen machte, welche darstellen sollten, wie sich nun die Atome bewegen. «Ja, das muß so und so gehen, dann kommt man darauf: In einer Inkarnation bewegen sich die Atome, und dann, dann geht der Wellenzug weiter durch die geistigen Welten, und das muß man nun berechnen, wie der Wellenzug weitergeht durch die geistigen Welten. Dann ändert sich das, und dann ist das die nächste Inkarnation.» — So fühlte man sich wirklich wie in einem Auditorium, wo einem früher die Wellenzüge für Rot und Gelb und Blau und Grün beigebracht worden waren. Ganz aus demselben heraus waren die Wellenzüge für das Durchlaufen der Seelen über die verschiedenen Inkarnationen. So wie die Newtonianer, überhaupt die modernen Physiker, die Strahlen des Lichtes in Wellenzügen rechnen, so rechnete er das Durchgehen der Seele durch die verschiedenen Inkarnationen.

Er hatte einen Freund, der aber dann ein außerordentlich gutes, verständiges, treues Mitglied der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft geworden ist, dem hatte er immer seine Auseinandersetzungen geschickt, und der hatte neben anderen Eigenschaften auch die, daß er sehr viel hielt zum Beispiel von diesen Auseinandersetzungen; aber immer wiederum kratzte ihn so der Humor, und einmal erzählte er mir, er hätte jetzt wiederum dreißig Kilo Weisheit nach München geschickt bekommen von Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Es waren nämlich so dicke Briefe, die immer von Hannover nach München geschickt wurden.

Nun, ich möchte sagen, die besondere Ausprägung dieser Denkweise konnte man an den Auseinandersetzungen sehen, die lange in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft über das sogenannte «permanente Atom» betrieben worden sind. Dieses «permanente Atom» war etwas Entsetzliches, aber es wurde mit ungeheurem Ernste genommen. Denn nicht wahr, diejenigen, welche die Autorität der modernen Wissenschaft fühlten, die konnten gar nicht verstehen, daß nicht doch irgend etwas, was wenigstens den Wortlaut von der modernen Wissenschaft hat, nun in die Geisteswissenschaft hineindringen sollte. Da sagten sie: Nun, der Mensch lebt in einer Inkarnation und dann in der nächsten, — gewiß, der physische Körper zerfällt, nur ein einziges Atom bleibt übrig, das geht dann durch die Zeit zwischen Tod und neuer Geburt. Und dieses eine Atom erscheint in der neuen Inkarnation. Das ist das permanente Atom, das durch die Inkarnationen durchgeht.

Es erscheint Ihnen heute so etwas spaßhaft, aber Sie können gar nicht begreifen, mit welch großem Ernste diese Dinge gerade in der ersten Periode der Entwickelung der anthroposophischen Sache gepflegt worden sind, wie man es außerordentlich schwierig hatte, der Forderung zu begegnen: Ja was soll denn die ganze Theosophie, wenn man sie nicht wissenschaftlich beweisen kann! Kein Mensch wird sie annehmen, wenn man sie nicht wissenschaftlich beweisen kann. — In jenem Gespräch in der Tramway wurde in der Tat festgestellt: Es muß so dargestellt werden, daß ein ordentlich absolvierter Gymnasiast die Theosophie so begreifen kann, wie er Logik begreift. Das war meines Begleiters Forderung.

Dann kam ich bei ihm an. Er führte mich auf den Hausboden. Nun möchte ich denjenigen, die jetzt in der letzten Periode der anthroposophischen Bewegung das Bestreben haben, gegen den Atomismus anzukämpfen, zu bedenken geben, was ich dazumal auf dem Boden des Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Hannover fand. Wir gin gen also durch eine enge Treppe hinauf, und da oben auf dem Boden — wenn man so etwas erzählt, muß man natürlich immer wieder sagen, er war ein außerordentlich liebenswürdiger, netter, auch ganz verständiger, also sympathischer alter Herr —, da oben auf dem Boden, da waren nun riesige Atommodelle. Sie waren aber aus Draht, sehr kompliziert. Es stellte immer das eine Modell das Atom irgendeines physischen Körpers dar: Wasserstoff oder Sauerstoff; das nächste Modell, das nun noch komplizierter war, stellte dann dar das Atom eines Ätherischen; das dritte Modell, immer komplizierter, das war das Atom des Astralischen.

Wenn Sie gewisse Bücher von einem der Führer der Theosophischen Gesellschaft in die Hand nehmen, Leadbeatersche Bücher, dann werden Sie finden, daß da solche Modelle in großartiger Weise gezeichnet sind. Ich möchte das doch auch als eine Tatsache erwähnen, namentlich zum Bedenken für diejenigen, die heute gegen den Atomismus innerhalb unserer Mitte kämpfen, daß dieser Atomismus nirgends so im Flor war wie bei denen, die nun sozusagen in unsere Reihen aus der Theosophischen Gesellschaft hereinkamen. Und wenn heute die jüngeren Mitglieder, wie Dr. Kolisko oder die anderen in unserem Forschungsinstitut in Stuttgart gegen das Atom kämpfen, so darf eben daran erinnert werden, daß man bei gewissen Leuten damals nicht gewußt hätte, wie man es machen sollte, von einer Inkarnation zu der anderen zu kommen, wenn man nicht wenigstens ein permanentes Atom gehabt hätte.

Das ist so ein Bild von der Art, wie mit starker Autorität eben in diese Kreise das sogenannte naturwissenschaftliche Denken hereinspielte. Naturwissenschaftlich denken konnten diese Leute schon. Sie konnten sich gar nicht denken, daß etwas anderes gelten könnte, als was naturwissenschaftlich gedacht ist. Also auf dieser Seite gab es eigentlich auch wieder kein Verständnis. Nur als dann die zweite Periode der anthroposophischen Bewegung heranrückte, kam wenigstens innerhalb derjenigen Kreise, die in unsere Reihen hineingegangen waren, dieses Atomstreben allmählich ab, und man ging nach und nach über zu demjenigen, was in der anthroposophischen Bewegung weiter gepflegt wurde. Aber dagegen muß man sagen, daß diejenigen, die sich um dieses Atomstreben nicht viel kümmerten, denen die moderne Wissenschaft schließlich ziemlich gleichgültig war, die nur als heimatlose Seelen sich hatten anregen lassen von der theosophischen Bewegung, daß diese schon immerhin zugänglicher waren. Und ich konnte zum Beispiel jedesmal bei meiner Anwesenheit in München auch einen mehr internen Vortrag halten in einem Kreise, der sich um die damals in München lebende, ehemals mit Blavatsky sehr befreundete Frau von Schewitsch versammelte. Da hatte man es schon leichter, weil da doch wirkliches Seelenstreben vorhanden war.

Ich will weder den einen Kreis verteidigen noch den anderen kritisieren, sondern ich will nur erwähnen, wie die anthroposophische Bewegung nach der einen oder anderen Seite mit diesen Dingen fertig wurde. Aber denken Sie doch nur, dazumal trat also zunächst die Forderung auf, auch innerhalb unserer eigenen Reihen mit Hilfe der damals geltenden naturwissenschaftlichen Denkweise dasjenige, was anthroposophisch vorgebracht wurde, zu rechtfertigen. Es war doch noch zahmer als das, was heute von der Außenseite hervorgebracht wird. Eine große Zahl von Ihnen hat heute einen Vortrag von Dr. Blümel gehört; ich glaube, Sie werden die lichtvollen Ausführungen sehr gut verstanden haben und werden da einen gewissen Eindruck empfangen haben. Aber denken Sie sich, wenn jemand dagesessen hätte, der gesagt hätte: Ach was, was der da ausgeführt hat, das geht mich alles nichts an. Daran glaube ich nicht, ich anerkenne gar nichts, ich will das nicht nachprüfen. — Ein anderer aber sagt: Sieh doch nach, ob die Sachen stimmen, prüfe sie mit deinem Verstande und mit deinen Seelenfähigkeiten. — Das will ich nicht, sagt der andere, darum kümmere ich mich zunächst nicht, mag das richtig oder unrichtig sein, darauf lasse ich mich nicht ein, aber ich fordere den Dr. Blümel auf, daß er sich in ein psychologisches Laboratoriium begibt, dort werde ich ihn durch meine psychologischen Methoden untersuchen, ob er ein Mathematiker ist.

Es ist natürlich ein Blech, und zwar ein ganz ausgewalztes. Aber ganz genau dasselbe ist die Forderung, die uns heute von der Außenwelt entgegentritt, der anthroposophische Forscher soll sich in ein psychologisches Laboratorium begeben, um dort festzustellen, ob er ein Recht hat, seine Behauptungen oder Auseinandersetzungen zu machen. Es ist ganz genau dasselbe.

Man kann eben heute durchaus Unsinn, puren Unsinn behaupten, und die Menschen merken es nicht, sogar diejenigen, die sich entrüsten, merken nicht, daß es ein purer Unsinn ist. Sie glauben, es ist nur eine Böswilligkeit oder dergleichen. Denn sie können sich gar nicht vorstellen, daß man durch die sozialen Verhältnisse irgendwie offiziell zum Vertreter der Wissenschaft werden könnte und eigentlich lauter Unsinn redet. Das können sich die Leute nicht vorstellen. So chaotisch ist eben unser Geistesleben.

Also die Dinge, die berücksichtigt werden müssen, wenn von den Lebensbedingungen der anthroposophischen Bewegung geredet wird, müssen schon ganz aus den Kulturerscheinungen und aus den Kulturimpulsen der Gegenwart herausgeholt werden. Solche Dinge, wie ich sie hier auseinandersetze, müssen verstanden werden von demjenigen, der die Lebensbedingungen der anthroposophischen Bewegung kennen will.

Nun, unbeirrt um all das mußten während der ersten Periode die wichtigsten menschlichen Wahrheiten, die wichtigsten kosmischen Wahrheiten herausgestellt werden. Und sozusagen ein Kompendium desjenigen, was bis dahin vertreten worden war innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung, stellt meine «Geheimwissenschaft» dar. Das ist in einer Weise nun erarbeitet worden, von der ich sagen möchte: Es ging so, wie es ging, nur aus dem Grunde, weil man niemals ein abstraktes, sondern immer ein konkretes Wollen hatte, weil man niemals sozusagen mehr wollte, als sich aus dem Verfolg der Tatsachen zu wollen ergab.

Für das möchte ich etwa nur das folgende anführen. Wir haben dazumal, gleich im Anfange der anthroposophischen Bewegung, eine Zeitschrift begründet, «Luzifer-Gnosis». Zuerst hieß sie «Luzifer». Dann, als fünf oder sechs Hefte erschienen waren, wollte sich eine Wiener Zeitschrift, die sich «Gnosis» nannte, damit verbinden. Ich möchte da noch die kleine Tatsache erwähnen, daß ich einfach die äußere Verbindung dieser zwei Zeitschriften dadurch habe ausdrücken wollen, daß ich der neueren Zeitschrift den Titel habe geben wollen: Luzifer mit der Gnosis. Ja, das hat zum Beispiel Hübbe-Schleiden ganz und gar nicht zugelassen, weil er gefunden hat, das würde darauf hinweisen, daß da eine unnatürliche Ehe zustande. gekommen wäre: Luzifer mit der Gnosis. Man könnte das nicht sagen. Nun, mir war das egal. So sagten wir «Luzifer-Gnosis» und machten einen Bindestrich dazwischen. Scharfsinnig war man schon da, wo man uns dazumal auf die Finger sah!

Nun wurde diese Zeitschrift «Luzifer-Gnosis» begründet. Wir haben natürlich mit einer ganz kleinen Anzahl von Abonnenten begonnen, aber die Abonnentenzahl ist tatsächlich verhältnismäßig außerordentlich rasch gewachsen, und wir haben eigentlich niemals ein Defizit gehabt, denn wir haben immer soviel gedruckt, als wir ungefähr haben verkaufen können. Und der Apparat der Expedition wurde so besorgt, daß, nachdem eine Nummer geschrieben und gedruckt war, mir die Exemplare wiederum in großen Postpaketen in die eigene Wohnung geschickt worden waren. Frau Doktor und ich selber klebten die Streifbänder drüber. Ich adressierte selbst und dann nahmen wir jeder einen Waschkorb und trugen die Sachen zur Post. Wir fanden, daß sich das ganz gut schickt. Ich hatte die Dinge zu schreiben, die Vorträge zu halten, Frau Doktor organisierte die ganze Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, nur ganz ohne Sekretär, denn hätte sie einen Sekretär gehabt, so hätte sie auch noch für diesen zu arbeiten gehabt. Also wir machten das ganz allein, und wir wollten niemals mehr, als man wollen konnte, ganz konkret. Man ging so viele Schritte vorwärts, als sich aus den Tatsachen ergab. Zum Beispiel trugen wir auch nicht größere Waschkörbe als solche, unter denen wir nicht zusammenfielen, nur beinahe. Wir gingen halt einmal öfter, als die Abonnentenzahl größer wurde.

Nun, dann ging ja «Luzifer-Gnosis», als wir diese interessante Beschäftigung eine Zeitlang getrieben hatten, über in den Verlag von Altmann in Leipzig. Und dann hörte «Luzifer-Gnosis» zu erscheinen auf, nicht aus dem Grunde, weil sie eingehen mußte, denn sie hatte dazumal viel mehr Abonnenten, als sie brauchte, aber ich hatte keine Zeit mehr zum Schreiben.

Es ist tatsächlich so, daß dann schon die Anforderungen für das Vorträge-halten, und überhaupt die Gesellschaft geistig zu verwalten, einem die Zeit stark in Anspruch nahmen - die Sache hat sich ja ganz langsam und allmählich entwickelt - und dieses Nichtmehrerscheinen von «Luzifer-Gnosis» bewirkten. Zunächst traten große Zwischenräume ein, das Januarheft erschien im Dezember, und dann wurden aus einem Jahre anderthalb Jahre, und die Abonnenten machten furchtbaren Radau. Der Verleger Altmann bekam lauter Reklamationen, so daß ich mir nicht mehr anders helfen konnte, als ihm mitteilen: Nun müssen wir halt ganz aufhören und den Abonnenten sagen, wenn sie auch noch so lange warten, kriegen tun sie nichts mehr!

Nun, das war natürlich auch im inneren Gang der Entwickelung: man wollte niemals mehr, als sich aus dem konkreten Schritte selber ergab. Und dies gehört zu den Lebensbedingungen einer geistigen Gesellschaft. Weittragende Ideale mit Worten aufzustellen, das ist das Allerschlimmste für eine geistige Gesellschaft; Programme machen ist das Allerschlimmste für eine geistige Gesellschaft. Es wurde eben in dieser ersten Periode so gearbeitet, daß einfach zunächst 1907, 1908, 1909 die Grundlage da war einer Geisteswissenschaft, wie sie in die moderne Zeit hereingehörte.

Dann kam die zweite Periode, die wesentlich nun fertig war mit der Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturwissenschaft. Die Theologen meldeten sich damals durchaus noch nicht. Sie saßen so fest überall in ihren Sätteln, daß sie sich gar nicht um die Sache kümmerten.

Nachdem diese Auseinandersetzung mit der Naturwissenschaft vorbei war, konnte man nun an die andere Aufgabe herantreten. Das war die der Auseinandersetzung mit den Evangelien, mit der Genesis, überhaupt mit der christlichen Überlieferung, mit dem Christentum als solchem.

Das war ja auch schon fadengezeichnet in meinem Buche, das am Ausgangspunkt stand: «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache». Denn das ist schon 1902 erschienen. Aber der Ausbau sozusagen des anthroposophischen Verstehens des Christentums war im wesentlichen die Aufgabe der zweiten Epoche bis so zum Jahre 1914 hin. Da wurden in Hamburg, Kassel, Berlin, Basel, Bern, München, Stuttgart die Vortragszyklen über verschiedene Teile der christlichen Überlieferung gehalten.

Da wurde zum Beispiel auch dasjenige ausgearbeitet, was dann bis jetzt nur skizziert vorliegt als «Geistige Führung des Menschen und der Menschheit» und so weiter. Da also war die Zeit, in welcher im wesentlichen die christliche Seite der Anthroposophie in Anlehnung an die historische christliche Überlieferung ausgearbeitet worden ist.

Dann fiel in diese Zeit hinein, ich möchte sagen, die erste Verbreiterung der Anthroposophie nach dem Künstlerischen hin mit den Aufführungen der Mysterien-Dichtungen in München. Das alles stand eigentlich wiederum unter dem Zeichen, nicht mehr zu wollen, als sich aus den Tatsachen selber ergab.

In diese Zeit hinein fiel dann das, was eben zu jener, eigentlich für die Anthroposophie gleichgültigen Tatsache führte des Ausgeschlossenwerdens von der Theosophischen Gesellschaft, weil, wie ich gestern abend sagte, es der Anthroposophie gleichgültig sein konnte, ob sie eingeschlossen oder ausgeschlossen war, denn sie ging ihre eigenen Wege vom Anfange an. Wer mitgehen wollte, konnte mitgehen. Und sie kümmerte sich vom Anfange an nicht in einer innerlichen Weise, nicht in bezug auf ihre geistigen Feststellungen um dasjenige, was von der Theosophischen Gesellschaft ausgegangen war. Aber es wurde eben auch das äußerliche Zusammengehen immer schwieriger und schwieriger.

Zuerst war eben durchaus die Hoffnung vorhanden, durch diejenigen Umstände, von denen ich wenigstens einige charakterisiert habe, daß eigentlich die theosophische Bewegung, die in der Theosophical Society vereinigt war, ganz anthroposophisch werden könnte. Zu diesen Umständen, die diese Hoffnungen berechtigt erscheinen ließen, gehörte auch der, daß tatsächlich durch die besondere Art, wie innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft geforscht wurde, schwere Enttäuschungen gerade über diejenigen Menschen gebracht wurden, die in einem höheren Grade urteilsfähig waren. Und da muß ich schon sagen, als ich das erste und zweite Mal nach London kam, mußte ich die Erfahrung machen, wie die führenden Persönlichkeiten eigentlich im Grunde genommen durchaus Menschen darstellten, die einander mit großer Skepsis entgegenkamen, die durchaus auf einem unsicheren Boden sich fühlten, den sie aber doch wieder nicht verlassen wollten, weil sie nicht wußten, wo sie die Sicherheit suchen sollten.

Es waren viele enttäuschte, von Bedenken reichlich erfüllte Menschen gerade unter den Führern der Theosophical Society. Und es ist schon ein wichtiges Moment für den Gang, den die Verhältnisse in der Theosophischen Gesellschaft genommen haben, die merkwürdige Wandlung, die Annie Besant etwa zwischen den Jahren 1900 und, sagen wir, 1907 durchgemacht hat.

Sie hatte anfangs eine gewisse Toleranz. Sie hat, glaube ich, nie etwas verstanden von dem, was als Anthroposophie aufgetreten ist. Ich glaube nicht, daß sie etwas davon verstanden hat, aber sie ließ es gelten, hatte es anfangs sogar gegen die starren Dogmatiker verteidigt, das heißt, das Recht zu bestehen hat sie verteidigt. Ein anderes kann eben nicht gesagt werden, denn das ist schon so.

Aber nun muß ich etwas sagen, was ich bitte, auch innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sehr stark zu berücksichtigen. Mit einer solchen geistigen Gesellschaft, auch wie sie die theosophische war, sind eben gewisse rein persönliche Aspirationen, rein persönlich gefärbte Sympathien und Antipathien absolut nicht verträglich. Trotzdem finden sich so zahlreich gerade die Fälle, wo irgend jemand eigentlich das oder jenes will. Er will es aus irgendwelchen Untergründen seines Wesens heraus, will also zum Beispiel eine Persönlichkeit vergöttern. Aus irgendeinem Untergrund seines Wesens heraus will er es. Das, was ihn dazu nötigt, das Triebartige, vielleicht auch das Gehirntriebartige, das will er sich nicht eingestehen. Aber er beginnt nun eine künstliche astralische Aura um die Persönlichkeit, die er nun anhimmeln will, zu weben. «Advanced» ist eine solche Persönlichkeit, «vorgeschritten». Wenn man dann noch besonders etwas sagen will, dann heißt es: Oh, die weiß drei, vier ihrer früheren Erdenleben, hat sogar mir von meinem früheren Erdenleben gesprochen. Oh, die weiß viel! - Und nun kommt eben eine ganz geistige. Interpretation desjenigen, was, um den Nietzscheschen Ausdruck zu gebrauchen, nur menschlich-allzumenschlich ist. Würde man es menschlich-allzumenschlich charakterisieren und schildern, würde man einfach, nun, vielleicht nicht gleich sagen: Ich habe einen Affen für die Person, — das ist ja nicht nötig, aber man kann doch sagen: Sie ist mir sympathisch, ich lasse mir das nicht bestreiten, sie ist mir eben sympathisch. Es wäre ja dann alles gut, auch in einer okkulten Gesellschaft. Selbstverständlich war zum Beispiel Max Seiling durchaus in gewissem Sinne amüsant, besonders wenn er so zappelig Klavier gespielt hat, es war amüsant, mit ihm Tee zu trinken und so weiter. Gut, wenn man sich das nur gestanden hätte! Wenn man sich gestanden hätte: Das gefällt einem! — so wäre es gescheiter gewesen, als wenn man ihn verhimmelte wie in der Münchner Gruppe.

Alle diese Dinge, sehen Sie, sind direkt widersprechend den Lebensbedingungen einer solchen Gesellschaft. Aber wer vorbildlich solchen Dingen verfiel, das war eben gerade Annie Besant. Denn es tauchte zum Beispiel einmal — ich möchte diese Dinge mehr an Hand von Tatsachen erzählen - ein Name auf. Ich hatte mich eigentlich nie viel um Literatur der ’Theosophical Society gekümmert, ich habe im Grunde genommen das Wenigste gelesen von dieser Literatur, daher lernte ich den Namen Bhagavân Däs erst kennen, als mir eines Tages, mit der Schreibmaschine geschrieben, ein dickes Manuskript zugeschickt wurde. Das Manuskript war so angeordnet: zweispaltig, links mit der Schreibmaschine beschrieben, rechts war freier Raum. Dabei war ein Brief von Bhagavân Dâs, es war ungefähr glaube ich 1905, in dem er schrieb, er möchte gern eine Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen Menschen über dasjenige, was er in diesem Manuskript der Welt offenbaren wollte.

Nun, es war ja wirklich die anthroposophische Bewegung dazumal schon so ausgebreitet, daß ich nicht gleich dazu kam, dieses Manuskript zu lesen. Er sagte, man solle dann auf die rechte Seite das schreiben, was man dazuzusetzen hat, und dann es ihm zurückschicken.

Ich kam ja damals ein bißchen herum. Da fand ich auch noch andere Leute, denen er das Manuskript geschickt hatte. Dann wurde mir immer mehr und mehr klar: Bhagavän Dâs, das war eben, nun ein «ganz okkulter Mensch», ein Mensch, der aus den Tiefen der Geistigkeit heraus schöpfte. Das war ungefähr die Meinung, welche diejenigen, die um Annie Besant waren, über Bhagavän Dâs verbreiteten. Da er die Sache von Indien aus schickte, dem indischen Hauptquartier nahestand und solche Berühmtheit hatte - zum Beispiel am Amsterdamer Kongreß hörte man überall: Bhagavân Dâs, Bhagavân Dâs —, war es schon wirklich so, wie wenn da nun ein Brunnen wäre, der immerfort nur so von Weisheit überläuft. Da schaute ich mir das Ding dennoch an. Ein schauderhaft dilettantisches Gewirr von Fichtescher Philosophie, Hegelscher Philosophie, Schopenhauerscher Philosophie, alles mögliche ohne das geringste Verständnis durcheinandergemsicht, und durch das Ganze ging dann, ich möchte sagen, wie so eine unendliche Melodie «self» und «notself», und dann kam wieder von Fichte etwas auseinandergesetzt und so weiter, dann wiederum «self» und «notself». Es war also etwas Schauderhaftes. Ich habe mich nie wieder darum gekümmert. Ich habe gar nichts geschrieben auf die andere Seite. Aber nicht wahr, an solchen Dingen zeigte sich doch, wie die Dinge allmählich ins persönliche Fahrwasser hineinkamen. Es ist eben aus rein persönlichen Gründen diese Persönlichkeit Bhagavân Dâs so verhimmelt worden. Sie können ja heute seine Bücher noch nachlesen, da werden Sie schon bewahrheitet finden, was ich sagte. Er hat ja, nicht wahr, Bücher fabriziert. Durch solche Dinge zeigte sich, wie das persönliche Element in die sachlich sein sollenden Impulse hineingebracht worden ist. Und da einmal das da war, das namentlich so um 1905 stark begann, ging der Rutsch eben mit Notwendigkeit abwärts. Das andere war im Grunde genommen dann eigentlich die Folge davon.

Damit will ich nicht sagen, daß in irgendwelcher beliebigen Gesellschaft, wenn einer einen Unsinn schreibt, die Gesellschaft abstürzen muß. Aber in geistigen Gesellschaften herrschen eben andere Gesetze, innere Notwendigkeiten. Da dürfen insbesondere von den führenden Persönlichkeiten solche Dinge nicht praktiziert werden, sonst geht eben, nicht wahr, der Rutsch nach abwärts mit Notwendigkeit vor sich. Und er ging auch vor sich.

Es kam dann die absurde Geschichte bei Olcotts Tod, die sich dazumal abgespielt hat, die eigentlich schon der Anfang des Endes der Theosophical Society war: die sogenannte Ernennung durch die Meister. Aber die war noch wenigstens insoweit zu schlichten, als man sagen konnte: Nun ja, da sind eben einige, die bringen allerdings aus einem besonderen Prinzip heraus absurde Dinge in die Gesellschaft hinein. Dann aber kam die Angelegenheit mit Leadbeater, die ich jetzt nicht besprechen möchte. Und dann kam es eben zur Feststellung jenes Knaben, nicht wahr, der als der Christus oder zum Christus erzogen werden sollte und so weiter. Und als das nicht anerkannt werden konnte von denjenigen, die diese Absurditäten nicht mitmachen wollten, wurden eben die Leute ausgeschlossen.

Nun, die anthroposophische Bewegung hat durch alle diese Dinge hindurch ihre gerade Linie verfolgt und sich wirklich eigentlich im Grunde genommen als Bewegung nicht gekümmert um diese Dinge. Nicht wahr, wenn man, sagen wir, 1911 forschte über «Die geistige Führung des Menschen und der Menschheit», am 24. März und am 25. März die absurden Berichte aus Adyar oder sonst woher von der Theosophical Society kamen, so brauchte man ja an diesem 25. März deshalb das, was man am 24. getan hatte, nicht anders fortzusetzen. Also der innere Gang wurde davon wirklich gar nicht berührt. Das muß tatsächlich absolut festgehalten werden. Es brauchte einen dazumal schon wirklich nicht zu interessieren, was von dieser oder jener Seite der führenden Persönlichkeiten der Theosophical Society ausging, geradesowenig, als es mich irgendwie besonders überrascht hat, daß man in der letzten Zeit hören konnte: Leadbeater, über den Sie ja auch manches gehört haben, ist nun auf seine alten Tage altkatholischer Bischof geworden, und einer seiner Genossen, der dazumal auch schon beim Münchner Kongreß war, ist gar altkatholischer Erzbischof geworden. Nicht wahr, man braucht sich gar nicht zu wundern über diese Dinge. Es ging jetzt eben nicht gerade, sondern es ging alles quer und schief. Warum sollte nicht auch das stattfinden? Man brauchte eigentlich das persönliche Verhältnis zu den Leuten gar nicht besonders zu ändern, ich meine das unmittelbare Verkehrsverhältnis. Ich habe dann, vor zwei Jahren, glaube ich, war es, in Amsterdam einen Vortrag gehalten. Nach dem Vortrage kam einer derjenigen Herren in der alten Freundlichkeit auf mich zu, der 1907 am Münchner Kongreß einen Vortrag gehalten hatte. Er schaute noch geradeso aus, nur war er inzwischen altkatholischer Erzbischof geworden. Er hatte nicht das Kostüm an, aber er war es!

Das alles sind die Dinge, die eben sich in einem solchen Gebiete des modernen Kulturlebens abspielten, wo wirklich wiederum auf der anderen Seite aus einer inneren Notwendigkeit heraus die heimatlosen Seelen angezogen wurden. Man darf nicht vergessen, daß innerhalb der Strömung, die man so charakterisieren muß, doch eben diejenigen Seelen zu finden waren, die am allerintensivsten nach einer Verbindung der menschlichen Seele mit der geistigen Welt strebten. Man schildert eben nicht ehrlich den Gang des modernen Kulturlebens, wenn man nicht diese Kontraste einmal wirklich zur Anschauung bringt. Deshalb mußte ich schon heute, bevor ich nun morgen in die Beschreibung unserer letzten Periode, und damit der eigentlichen Lebensbedingungen der Natur der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft eintrete, auch noch diese Notizen, meine lieben Freunde, vor Ihnen vorbringen.

Sixth Lecture

I have outlined some of the forces that were at work in the first two periods of the anthroposophical movement, and in order to gain a basis for describing what then took place in the third period, I would like to go into a few more phenomena of the first and second periods. The fact is that, despite all the differences, the question can still be raised: What was the reason why the anthroposophical movement was nevertheless in a fairly external relationship with the theosophical movement?

This question, which is so complicated, can only be answered if we consider some phenomena that are characteristic of the development of the anthroposophical movement.

I would like to begin by characterizing the first period, which lasted until about 1907, by saying that at that time the aim was to develop the foundations of the content of a spiritual science.

Anyone who tries to look back at that time on the basis of the documents will see that the content, the fundamental content of spiritual science in the sense in which it must be thought of anthroposophically, gradually emerged in lectures, lecture cycles, and also in what the co-workers then further elaborated. This epoch ends – of course, things are only approximate, but everything is so in historical development – approximately, I would say, with the publication of my “Occult Science.”

This “Occult Science” was not published in print until about a year and a half later, but the essential content, the announcement of the essential content, definitely falls within the first period of anthroposophical endeavor. During this period, until 1905 or 1906, a very specific hope was justified. It was the hope that the anthroposophical content could gradually become the very essence of the Theosophical Society.

Until 1905 or 1906, it could not be said that the Theosophical Society would not gradually grow into an anthroposophical one through a completely natural development. It was possible to hope for this because, in those years, one of the most influential personalities of the Theosophical Society, Annie Besant, displayed a certain tolerance in her external activities and that she was keen to allow different directions to work alongside each other. This was certainly the case until around 1905 and 1906.

During this time, if one did not want to indulge in illusions, one had to recognize that even such a leading figure as Annie Besant in the Theosophical Society had very primitive ideas about modern science; she did. But despite all the amateurish traits that found their way into her books, it was precisely because the Theosophical Society was gradually becoming centered in London and because this Theosophical Society was gradually I would say, fed on Oriental wisdom — a whole sum of wisdom, mostly undigested, in the people who belonged to this society. This wisdom even lived sometimes in the strangest ideas. But if one disregarded the fact that such ideas sometimes went so far that they were completely unlike their origin and their true meaning, then nevertheless, through books such as “The Ancient Wisdom” or, in particular, “The Progress of Humanity” or even “Christianity” by Annie Besant, something that had been traditionally handed down, but which originated from ancient sources of wisdom, although the channels through which this ancient wisdom had flowed down into those books and lectures were not always flawless. That was how things stood at that time.

On the other hand, one must always bear in mind the fact that outside these circles there was no interest at all in real spiritual research in the contemporary world. It was simply a fact that those who found themselves in this group of people, so to speak, had the opportunity to spark an interest in true modern spiritual science.

However, in this first period, there were many things to contend with. I will not bother you with the fact that the name “theosophy” was adopted by a great many societies, societies that, in essence, had very little to do with serious spiritual striving. Many people did have aspirations, but these were partly quite selfish and partly extremely trivial. Yet even such trivial movements often gave themselves the name of Theosophical Societies. One need only recall that certain theosophical branches were quite widespread, particularly in Central Europe, in Germany, Austria, and also in Switzerland, which called themselves that, but basically had what the Theosophical Society had in an extremely watered-down form, and then again saturated with all kinds of occultism, sometimes very foolish.

One personality who was active in many such branches and societies was someone whose name you, or at least many of you, may be familiar with: Franz Hartmann. But what “profound spirit” and what “profound seriousness,” in quotation marks, there was in these trivial societies, you can easily see from my description of the somewhat cynical character of the leader I just mentioned. He once said in a small group, in which I was also present—one can certainly be interested in these things from a psychological point of view, to see how the human soul can actually come to this or that. The Theosophical Society once had a certain dispute about the personality of Judge in America. I don't want to talk about this dispute, but I will just say that the dispute revolved around whether certain messages sent by Judge originated from real higher initiated personalities, so-called masters. Well, Franz Hartmann said: Oh, I know the Judge very well. He sent such master letters in America. At that time he came to India. We were at headquarters in India, and he wanted to have authority in America, so that he could say that he had been given missions by initiated personalities, that he had master letters. So I said to him, as Franz Hartmann recounted: Master letters? I can write some for you. Judge replied, “Yes, but that won't work, because then I can't claim that they are master letters, because they fly out of the air, they come about in a magical way and then fly onto your head, and I have to be able to say that.” Franz Hartmann said to Judge – he told us himself! – “Oh, that's no problem, it can be done.” The judge was a very small man, Hartmann told us, and so he said to him: Stand on the floor, I will stand on a chair, and then I will drop the letter on your head. That way he could say with a clear conscience that he was distributing letters that had flown down from the sky onto his head.

Well, that is just one extreme example of such things, which are not so rare in the world. But, as I said, I don't want to bother you with these trivial societies; I just want to point out that, especially in this first period of the anthroposophical movement, which ran parallel to the theosophical movement, there was a certain necessity to defend oneself against modern scientific thinking.

I do not know whether those who later joined the anthroposophical movement and, as scientists and from a scientific point of view, considered the now more developed anthroposophy in its third period, gained sufficient insight into the fact that a confrontation with modern scientific thinking took place in a very peculiar way during the first period of the anthroposophical movement. I would like to give you a few examples of this. I will only mention examples, because this took place in a wide variety of ways. But these examples will show you that at that time, what I characterized here a few days ago as particularly characteristic of modern education played a strong role in this theosophical movement: bowing to so-called scientific authority.

This bowing to scientific authority had penetrated the Theosophical Society in particular. It became apparent, for example, that Annie Besant tried to include all kinds of quotations from contemporary science in her books, things that meant nothing to spiritual science, such as the so-called Weismann theory of heredity. These were included in the books as evidence. Now, I would like to remind you that when we were in a position to establish a kind of center for the anthroposophical movement in Munich—gradually, centers for this movement were formed in Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, Kassel, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Hamburg, Hanover, and Leipzig and in Austria then the Vienna center, and in a certain sense even the Prague center, so centers were formed — that there were very many such homeless souls there who were already organized in a certain way. They were stuck in one society or another. Now I want to disregard the trivial societies of the Hartmann type, but I would like to point out that while we were establishing the branch in Munich, it was a matter of dealing with the various smaller or larger groups that were there.

There was one group, the Ketterl. This Ketterl consisted of real scholars. In this Ketterl, these people were concerned with providing scientific proof for the things that were somehow claimed on the basis of spiritual science. They wanted to use the views that were held in natural science at the time to arrive at what anthroposophy, for example, represented. When anthroposophy spoke of an etheric body, they said to themselves: natural science has made it possible to recognize this or that structure for atoms and molecules. Now one begins to investigate how this structure could become more complex in some parts and thinner in others in order to gradually move from the molecular structure of physical bodies to the molecular structure of the ether. One would then be able to make the same calculations for etheric events as one can make for physical events. And actually, only those things that had a legally valid scientific visa in the anthroposophical passport should be allowed through the Ketterl.

The treatises — for there are such things — written by the members of the Ketterl did not actually differ greatly from the scientific treatises of the theoretical physicists of the time; the formulas and definitions and so on did not mean processes in the spectrum or processes in the electromagnetic field, but processes in the etheric or astral field. There was nothing to be done. The whole connection more or less dissolved into pleasure or displeasure. In the end, there was no longer any connection with these disputants from a scientific point of view.

But not so very different from these Ketterl works were the efforts of a man who played a major role in the Theosophical Society, a close friend of Blavatsky's, a man who was always present when such matters were at stake, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who published the “Sphinx” for a long time. He, too, was now entirely focused on proving what he perceived as theosophical using scientific thinking. I still remember how he picked me up at the train station in Hanover for the first time, because I was to give a lecture there, the first anthroposophical lecture I gave in Hanover: a discussion of Goethe's “Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily.” He then drove me out to his home, which was located just outside Hanover. It took about half an hour by tram. He immediately began to explain with tremendous enthusiasm how spiritual insights could not exist for modern humanity unless things were proven in the way we are accustomed to finding in physics or other contemporary textbooks. Then he used his two index fingers, and for the whole half hour he continued in this manner, using the tips of his index fingers to make movements that were supposed to represent how atoms move. “Yes, it must go like this and like that, then you come to the conclusion: in one incarnation the atoms move, and then, then the wave train continues through the spiritual worlds, and you now have to calculate how the wave train continues through the spiritual worlds. Then that changes, and then that is the next incarnation.” — It really felt like being in an auditorium where one had previously been taught about the wave trains for red, yellow, blue, and green. The wave trains for the passage of souls through the various incarnations were derived entirely from this. Just as Newtonians, and modern physicists in general, calculate the rays of light in wave trains, so he calculated the passage of the soul through the various incarnations.

He had a friend who had become an exceptionally good, understanding, loyal member of the Anthroposophical Society, to whom he always sent his arguments, and who, among other qualities, also thought very highly of these arguments, for example; but he always had a sense of humor, and once he told me that he had received another thirty kilos of wisdom from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Munich. These were very thick letters that were always sent from Hanover to Munich.

Well, I would say that the particular expression of this way of thinking could be seen in the debates that had long been going on in the Theosophical Society about the so-called “permanent atom.” This “permanent atom” was something appalling, but it was taken with tremendous seriousness. For, you see, those who felt the authority of modern science could not understand that something that at least had the wording of modern science should not now penetrate into spiritual science. So they said: Well, human beings live in one incarnation and then in the next — certainly, the physical body decays, but a single atom remains, which then passes through the time between death and new birth. And this one atom appears in the new incarnation. That is the permanent atom that passes through the incarnations.

Today, this seems rather amusing to you, but you cannot comprehend the great seriousness with which these things were treated, especially in the early period of the development of anthroposophy, and how extremely difficult it was to meet the demand: What is the point of all this theosophy if it cannot be scientifically proven? No one will accept it if it cannot be scientifically proven. — In that conversation on the tram, it was indeed established that it must be presented in such a way that a properly educated high school graduate can understand theosophy as he understands logic. That was my companion's demand.

Then I arrived at his house. He led me up to the attic. Now I would like to remind those who, in the last period of the anthroposophical movement, are striving to fight against atomism, of what I found at that time in Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's attic in Hanover. So we went up a narrow staircase, and up there on the floor — when you tell a story like this, you have to keep saying that he was an extremely amiable, nice, and also very understanding, i.e., sympathetic old gentleman — up there on the floor, there were huge atomic models. But they were made of wire and were very complicated. One model always represented the atom of some physical body: hydrogen or oxygen; the next model, which was even more complicated, represented the atom of something ethereal; the third model, even more complicated, was the atom of the astral.

If you pick up certain books by one of the leaders of the Theosophical Society, Leadbeater's books, you will find that such models are drawn in a magnificent way. I would also like to mention this as a fact, namely for the consideration of those who today fight against atomism within our midst, that this atomism was nowhere more flourishing than among those who now, so to speak, entered our ranks from the Theosophical Society. And when today the younger members, such as Dr. Kolisko or the others in our research institute in Stuttgart, fight against the atom, it should be remembered that certain people at that time would not have known how to get from one incarnation to another if they had not had at least one permanent atom.

This is an example of how so-called scientific thinking entered these circles with great authority. These people were already capable of scientific thinking. They could not imagine that anything other than scientific thinking could be valid. So on this side, there was actually no understanding either. Only when the second period of the anthroposophical movement approached did this atomistic striving gradually subside, at least within those circles that had joined our ranks, and people gradually moved on to what was further cultivated in the anthroposophical movement. But it must be said that those who did not care much about this atomistic striving, who were ultimately quite indifferent to modern science, who had only been inspired by the theosophical movement as homeless souls, were at least more accessible. And, for example, whenever I was in Munich, I was able to give a more internal lecture to a circle that gathered around Mrs. von Schewitsch, who was living in Munich at the time and had been a close friend of Blavatsky. It was easier there because there was a real striving of the soul.

I do not want to defend one circle or criticize the other, but I just want to mention how the anthroposophical movement dealt with these things in one way or another. But just think, at that time there was initially a demand to justify what was being put forward anthroposophically within our own ranks with the help of the scientific way of thinking that was prevalent at the time. It was even tamer than what is being produced from outside today. Many of you have heard a lecture by Dr. Blümel today; I believe you will have understood his illuminating explanations very well and will have been impressed by them. But imagine if someone had sat there and said: Oh, what he said has nothing to do with me. I don't believe it, I don't accept anything, I don't want to check it. — But another says: See if the things are true, check them with your intellect and with your soul's abilities. “I don't want to,” says the other, “I'm not going to bother with that for now, whether it's right or wrong, I'm not going to get involved, but I demand that Dr. Blümel go to a psychological laboratory, where I will examine him using my psychological methods to see if he is a mathematician.”

It is, of course, a piece of tin, and a very thin one at that. But the demand made on us today by the outside world is exactly the same: the anthroposophical researcher should go to a psychological laboratory to determine whether he has the right to make his assertions or arguments. It is exactly the same thing.

Today, it is possible to assert pure nonsense, and people do not notice it; even those who are indignant do not realize that it is pure nonsense. They believe it is just malice or something similar. For they cannot imagine that social circumstances could somehow make someone an official representative of science who is actually talking utter nonsense. People cannot imagine that. That is how chaotic our intellectual life is.

So the things that need to be taken into account when talking about the living conditions of the anthroposophical movement must be drawn entirely from the cultural phenomena and cultural impulses of the present. Things such as those I am discussing here must be understood by anyone who wants to know about the living conditions of the anthroposophical movement.

Well, undeterred by all this, the most important human truths, the most important cosmic truths, had to be brought out during the first period. And my “Secret Science” represents, so to speak, a compendium of what had been represented within the anthroposophical movement up to that point. This has now been worked out in a way that I would like to say: it went the way it went only because we never had an abstract will, but always a concrete one, because we never wanted more, so to speak, than what resulted from the pursuit of facts.

I would like to cite just the following example of this. At the very beginning of the anthroposophical movement, we founded a magazine called “Luzifer-Gnosis.” At first it was called “Luzifer.” Then, after five or six issues had appeared, a Viennese magazine called “Gnosis” wanted to join forces with it. I would like to mention the small fact that I simply wanted to express the external connection between these two magazines by giving the newer magazine the title: Luzifer mit der Gnosis (Lucifer with Gnosis). Yes, Hübbe-Schleiden, for example, did not allow this at all, because he thought it would indicate that an unnatural marriage had come about: Lucifer with Gnosis. One could not say that. Well, I didn't care. So we said “Lucifer-Gnosis” and put a hyphen between them. People were already very astute back then, watching our every move!

Now this magazine, “Lucifer-Gnosis,” was founded. Of course, we started with a very small number of subscribers, but the number of subscribers actually grew relatively quickly, and we never really had a deficit, because we always printed as much as we could sell. And the shipping apparatus was arranged in such a way that, after an issue had been written and printed, the copies were sent to my own apartment in large postal packages. The doctor and I ourselves stuck the adhesive tape over them. I addressed them myself, and then we each took a laundry basket and carried the items to the post office. We found that this worked quite well. I had to write the articles and give the lectures, while the doctor organized the entire Anthroposophical Society, only without a secretary, because if she had had a secretary, she would have had to work for him as well. So we did everything ourselves, and we never wanted more than was possible, in concrete terms. We took as many steps forward as the facts dictated. For example, we didn't carry laundry baskets that were any bigger than those we could carry without collapsing, or almost collapsing. We just went more often as the number of subscribers grew.

Well, then, after we had been engaged in this interesting activity for a while, “Luzifer-Gnosis” was transferred to the Altmann publishing house in Leipzig. And then “Luzifer-Gnosis” ceased to appear, not because it had to be discontinued, for it had many more subscribers than it needed at that time, but because I no longer had time to write.

It is true that the demands of giving lectures and, in general, managing the society intellectually took up a lot of time — the matter developed very slowly and gradually — and this led to the discontinuation of “Luzifer-Gnosis.” At first there were long intervals between issues, the January issue appeared in December, and then a year turned into a year and a half, and the subscribers made a terrible fuss. The publisher Altmann received so many complaints that I had no choice but to tell him: Now we have to stop altogether and tell the subscribers that no matter how long they wait, they will get nothing more!

Well, of course, that was also part of the internal course of development: we never wanted more than what resulted from the concrete steps themselves. And this is one of the conditions of life for an intellectual society. To set up far-reaching ideals with words is the worst thing for a spiritual society; making programs is the worst thing for a spiritual society. In this first period, the work was done in such a way that, in 1907, 1908, and 1909, the foundation was simply laid for a spiritual science that belonged in the modern age.

Then came the second period, which was now essentially finished with the debate with natural science. The theologians did not make themselves heard at that time. They were so firmly entrenched in their positions that they did not concern themselves with the matter at all.

Once this debate with natural science was over, it was possible to tackle the other task. That was the debate with the Gospels, with Genesis, with Christian tradition in general, with Christianity as such.

This was already outlined in my book, which was the starting point: “Christianity as a Mystical Fact.” For it had already been published in 1902. But the development, so to speak, of the anthroposophical understanding of Christianity was essentially the task of the second epoch until about 1914. During this time, lecture cycles on various parts of the Christian tradition were held in Hamburg, Kassel, Berlin, Basel, Bern, Munich, and Stuttgart.

For example, what has so far only been sketched out as “Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity” and so on was also worked out during this period. So this was the time when the Christian side of anthroposophy was essentially developed on the basis of the historical Christian tradition.

Then, during this period, I would say, the first expansion of anthroposophy into the artistic realm took place with the performances of the mystery dramas in Munich. All of this was actually guided by the principle of not wanting more than what arose from the facts themselves.

It was during this period that the exclusion from the Theosophical Society took place, which was actually irrelevant to anthroposophy because, as I said yesterday evening, it was irrelevant to anthroposophy whether it was included or excluded, since it had gone its own way from the beginning. Those who wanted to go along could go along. And from the beginning, it did not concern itself in any inner way, not in relation to its spiritual findings, with what had emanated from the Theosophical Society. But the external cooperation also became more and more difficult.

At first, there was indeed hope that, due to the circumstances I have described, at least some of them, the theosophical movement united in the Theosophical Society could become entirely anthroposophical. One of the circumstances that made these hopes seem justified was that the particular way in which research was conducted within the Theosophical Society actually caused serious disappointment among those who were more discerning. And I must say that when I came to London for the first and second time, I had to experience how the leading personalities were actually people who treated each other with great skepticism, who felt themselves to be on uncertain ground, but who did not want to leave it because they did not know where to seek security.

There were many disappointed people, full of doubts, especially among the leaders of the Theosophical Society. And it is an important moment in the course of events in the Theosophical Society, the remarkable transformation that Annie Besant underwent between about 1900 and, let's say, 1907.

She had a certain tolerance at first. I don't think she ever understood anything about what emerged as anthroposophy. I don't think she understood anything about it, but she accepted it and even defended it against the rigid dogmatists at first, that is, she defended its right to exist. Nothing else can be said, because that is how it is.

But now I must say something that I ask you to take very seriously within the Anthroposophical Society. With a spiritual society such as this, as well as with the Theosophical Society, certain purely personal aspirations, purely personal sympathies and antipathies are absolutely incompatible. Nevertheless, there are so many cases where someone actually wants this or that. They want it for some underlying reason, for example, they want to idolize a personality. They want it for some underlying reason. They don't want to admit to themselves what compels them to do so, the instinctive, perhaps even the cerebral instinct. But now they begin to weave an artificial astral aura around the personality they now want to idolize. “Advanced” is such a personality, “progressed.” If one then wants to say something special, one says: Oh, she knows three or four of her previous earthly lives, she even told me about my previous earthly life. Oh, she knows a lot! — And now comes a completely spiritual interpretation of what, to use Nietzsche's expression, is only human, all too human. If one were to characterize and describe it as human, all too human, one would simply, well, perhaps not immediately say: I have a monkey for a person — that is not necessary, but one can still say: I like her, I will not let anyone dispute that, I just like her. Then everything would be fine, even in an occult society. Of course, Max Seiling, for example, was amusing in a certain sense, especially when he played the piano so fidgetily; it was amusing to drink tea with him and so on. Well, if only people had admitted that to themselves! If they had admitted: I like that! — it would have been wiser than idolizing him as they did in the Munich group.

All these things, you see, are directly contrary to the conditions of life in such a society. But the person who fell prey to such things in an exemplary manner was Annie Besant. For example, one name came up — I would like to recount these things more on the basis of facts. I had never really been very interested in the literature of the Theosophical Society; in fact, I had read very little of it, so I only became acquainted with the name Bhagavan Das when, one day, I received a thick manuscript typed on a typewriter. The manuscript was arranged in two columns, typed on the left and with blank space on the right. It included a letter from Bhagavan Das, written around 1905, I believe, in which he wrote that he would like to discuss with various people what he wanted to reveal to the world in this manuscript.

Well, the anthroposophical movement was already so widespread at that time that I didn't get around to reading this manuscript right away. He said that people should write whatever they had to add on the right-hand side and then send it back to him.

I got around a bit at that time. I also found other people to whom he had sent the manuscript. Then it became more and more clear to me: Bhagavan Das was, well, a “completely occult person,” a person who drew from the depths of spirituality. That was roughly the opinion that those around Annie Besant spread about Bhagavan Das. Since he sent the matter from India, was close to the Indian headquarters, and was so famous—for example, at the Amsterdam Congress, you heard everywhere: Bhagavan Das, Bhagavan Das—it was really as if there were a fountain that was constantly overflowing with wisdom. So I took a look at the thing anyway. A horribly amateurish jumble of Fichte's philosophy, Hegel's philosophy, Schopenhauer's philosophy, all sorts of things mixed together without the slightest understanding, and running through the whole thing, I would say, like an endless melody of “self” and “notself,” and then something from Fichte again, and so on, then ‘self’ and “notself” again. So it was something dreadful. I never bothered with it again. I didn't write anything on the other side. But isn't it true that such things showed how things gradually entered into personal waters? It is precisely for purely personal reasons that this personality, Bhagavan Das, has been so glorified. You can still read his books today, and you will find that what I said is true. He did, after all, fabricate books. Such things showed how the personal element was brought into what should have been objective impulses. And once that was there, which began strongly around 1905, the slide downhill was inevitable. The other thing was basically the consequence of that.

I am not saying that in any society, if someone writes nonsense, the society must collapse. But in spiritual societies, different laws prevail, inner necessities. Such things must not be practiced, especially by the leading personalities, otherwise the downward slide will inevitably take place. And it did take place.

Then came the absurd story surrounding Olcott's death, which actually marked the beginning of the end of the Theosophical Society: the so-called appointment by the Masters. But that was still easy to dismiss, in that one could say: Well, there are some who, out of a particular principle, bring absurd things into the society. But then came the matter with Leadbeater, which I do not wish to discuss now. And then came the discovery of that boy, did it not, who was to be raised as the Christ or to become the Christ, and so on. And when this could not be accepted by those who did not want to go along with these absurdities, those people were simply excluded.

Well, the anthroposophical movement has pursued its straight line through all these things and, as a movement, has really not concerned itself with these things. Isn't that right, if, say, in 1911, one was researching “The Spiritual Guidance of Man and Humanity,” and on March 24 and March 25, the absurd reports came from Adyar or elsewhere from the Theosophical Society, then on March 25, one did not need to continue what one had done on March 24 in a different way. So the inner process was really not affected by this at all. That must indeed be firmly established. At that time, it really did not matter what came from this or that side of the leading personalities of the Theosophical Society, just as it did not particularly surprise me to hear recently that Leadbeater, about whom you have also heard many things, has now become an Old Catholic bishop in his old age, and one of his comrades, who was also at the Munich Congress at the time, has even become an Old Catholic archbishop. It is not necessary to be surprised by these things. Things did not go smoothly, but rather crookedly and askew. Why should this not also take place? There was no need to change one's personal relationship with people, I mean the immediate relationship of communication. Then, two years ago, I believe it was, I gave a lecture in Amsterdam. After the lecture, one of the gentlemen who had given a lecture at the Munich Congress in 1907 approached me with the same friendliness as before. He looked just the same, only he had since become an Old Catholic archbishop. He wasn't wearing the costume, but he was!

These are all things that took place in such an area of modern cultural life, where, on the other hand, homeless souls were attracted out of an inner necessity. One must not forget that within the current that must be characterized in this way, it was precisely those souls who were striving most intensely for a connection between the human soul and the spiritual world. One cannot honestly describe the course of modern cultural life without really bringing these contrasts to light. That is why, my dear friends, I had to present these notes to you today, before I move on tomorrow to the description of our last period, and thus to the actual living conditions of the nature of the Anthroposophical Society.