The Rudolf Steiner Archive

with introductory words commemorating the laying of the foundation stone of the Goetheanum on September 20, 1913

My dear friends! If the destructive flames of the New Year had not affected our Goetheanum in such a terrible way, we would have been able to look back on the laying of the foundation stone for this Goetheanum on the hill of Dornach ten years ago with deep satisfaction. We can only look at the fact that, apart from the foundation stone, very little of this Goetheanum has actually remained for us. And indeed — the foundation stone was meant not only to be what it immediately presented itself as, and the celebration at that time was also not meant to be only what immediately came to external expression. The destiny associated with the anthroposophical movement has, as it were, given birth to this Goetheanum out of its bosom, and the foundation stone was laid for the Goetheanum in the first place. But the way in which the celebration was conducted at that time, the way which was then, as you know, presented in such a terribly ugly way by the outside world, which was so reviled – this celebration was actually intended to consolidate the anthroposophical essence in the first place. It was intended to speak deeply to the spiritual part of the hearts of those who participated in this cornerstone ceremony not only physically, as only a few could, but also spiritually. And in this way it was indeed held at the time.

We may perhaps express the wish today that, although the building that has arisen from this laying of the foundation stone has gone well for the time being, the spiritual part may nevertheless retain its firmness; that firmness that the world already needs in this difficult time, which has become difficult and will become even more difficult. For gradually the conviction is gaining ground in some minds today that a breakthrough of the spiritual could be the only remedy for this epoch.

But this conviction is only gaining ground with great difficulty, because there are so many obstacles for people that if this conviction only shines as an extraordinarily small, weak flame, it cannot develop. There are obstacles that are again due to the circumstances of the time. For it is indeed the case that a large part of the reasons why humanity has run into its present difficulties lies in the fact that the conditions of the external world have become so extraordinarily complicated. And today man stands in the most diverse relationships into which he is born, into which he is educated, into which he is drawn by the social conditions. And what is actually missing in most cases is the courage – I do not even want to say to get out of these relationships, that does not even have to be the case – but there is not the courage that is really necessary to get clarity about these relationships that the individual has to the world, to his fellow human beings and so on from the extraordinarily complicated development of the last decades.

Man often seeks to dampen the insights that would bring him clarity about these circumstances. And that which acts as a dampening, paralyzing force for this conviction also extinguishes the small flame that is already saying in the depths of many hearts today: Yes, the salvation of humanity is only possible through the path of a spiritual world current. And so it is extraordinarily difficult for these flames, which are in the souls of those whom I called homeless souls here some time ago, to really lead to what they must lead to. And it was precisely to consolidate such convictions that the foundation stone ceremony for the Goetheanum was held here ten years ago. The laying of the foundation stone has always been a point of reference for everything that has since been done for the Goetheanum. It is hardly surprising that the excessive outbursts of the opponents have been joined by those who refer to the laying of the foundation stone.

It is now the case that on the one hand today - I have often said this - there is an eminent need, more than at any other time in the development of humanity, to work with all the fibers of the human mind towards a spiritual goal. But on the other hand, there is a terrible hatred - “hatred” must be said – a terrible hatred of everything that bears the mark of spirituality in the true sense of the word. Today, the symptoms of such hatred sometimes appear in a paradoxical way.

We have just had the Stuttgart conference, which on the whole was much more peaceful than the February conference; I would also say that more joyful hopes for the future were revealed, and that the will was expressed to place the Anthroposophical Society on a new foundation in an energetic way. That is what everything has been leading up to, and in this sentence everything can actually be summarized, so that, as far as the German Society is concerned, proper preparation can be made for the international conference of delegates that is to take place here at Christmas. But there were also some individual episodes, and one of these episodes belongs to those that I would like to tell here, because it might not be unnecessary for you, my dear friends, to hear about this matter.

Then a younger man came forward, one of those who try to keep watch over the situation at Landhausstrasse 70 in Stuttgart, and he spoke in a very urgent and serious manner about the urgent need for a strong consciousness within the Anthroposophical Society. And then he also said that what one could observe in this way already demands a great deal, and that it challenges one to always admonish this urgency in a more serious way. For example, he had seen, while he was watching over Landhausstrasse 70, that is, the branch office in Stuttgart, how a greengrocer had driven by who said to someone else: “Yes, that's the house; Dornach has burned, but the firebrand should also be thrown into this house, and up there under the roof, that's where the people live who actually make it necessary to shoot up there.

Well, you see, it's not exactly credible that this “vegetable” grew on the greengrocer's own heart, his own soul, but one must assume that the greengrocer's voice is the often-occurring echo of slogans coming from quite elsewhere. But it is not unnecessary to mention here the matter that was brought before the large assembly in Stuttgart. Perhaps from observing these or those episodes, as they were presented at the Stuttgart conference before the large assembly, and which are symptomatic of something, it may be possible to piece together what will justify what I have been repeating for many years: What we need is vigilance in all directions, and the last thing we need, especially within the Anthroposophical Society, is complacency.

All this comes to mind when one sees how much has been destroyed of what arose from that laying of the foundation stone ten years ago. It comes to mind because today one must really have the most enthusiastic longing in the truest sense of the word that what was spiritually connected with that laying of the foundation stone, what spiritually permeated that laying of the foundation stone, that this may signify a laying of the foundation stone for a building that can perhaps only be built with tremendous difficulties and efforts, of which perhaps very little still stands today: I mean the spiritual part! One would have to say the same thing even if a new Goetheanum were to be built again on the outside as a house! But that this spiritual building, of which perhaps little still stands today, may become ever stronger and more impressive for the world through the intense enthusiasm of those who have recognized how necessary anthroposophy is for our time, that is what I wanted to express before you today.

We may indeed say, especially in remembering that laying of the foundation stone: Despite the serious misfortune that has befallen us, this laying of the foundation stone should remind us even less of this misfortune than of what our task is in building. We should not dwell on what has been destroyed and what is only part of a work of destruction that is far from complete.

Now, my dear friends, I would like to add something else that is somewhat related to this. It is not intended to be presented in a sentimental way. I did present it in Stuttgart at the delegates' meeting, but even there it was not presented in a sentimental way. And since it is truly meant very seriously – despite not being presented in a sentimental way – from a certain point of view, allow me to present it here as well – although, of course, here too, as I did in Stuttgart, I must in a sense apologize for presenting things in this way. But since I really am presenting so many things here that I would like to say, which have been achieved with all my heart and soul – in the spiritual sense, of course, this is absolutely meant – which thus testifies that I am truly not concerned about the soul, from this place to become ironic, but it is always meant seriously, so I may well speak about it in this circle as well. There was an episode at the Stuttgart conference; people insisted on reporting this little episode, especially before the very last meeting at 8 o'clock on Monday morning. So perhaps I may also bring this event up here.

At the Stuttgart assembly of delegates, there was much talk about the fact that a certain, I would say, laxity has gradually crept in with regard to the administration of the Anthroposophical Society as such; perhaps it would be better to say of the individual anthroposophists' conception of what they should actually do in the interest of the stability and inner security of the Anthroposophical Society. It was pointed out many times how people without membership cards are admitted to the meetings, and how opponents can repeatedly sneak into these meetings. For example, it was pointed out that during the delegates' meeting itself, someone appeared with a membership card that had been borrowed from someone else – I believe from the sister. It was then debated that the circumstances made it necessary to affix photographs to the membership cards of anthroposophists. I took the liberty of remarking that these would only help if they were stamped at the same time, because otherwise one could simply peel them off and stick them over the photograph. It was then also immediately reported that the person who had this membership card is said to have said: A photograph won't help, because I look exactly like my sister. - Well, these are very strange views that lead to all sorts of things.

You see, such an opinion has also been formed with regard to the cycles, of which it can be said today that perhaps not so many people have read them in detail within the opposition as in the ranks of the supporters, but that they are fruitfully read by the opponents – I would like to say in the sense of the opponents: They are actually implemented, they are utilized by the opponents. They are read very carefully there, and everything possible is done by the opponents with regard to the cycles. Today, it is already the case that one can say what is being done with the cycles by the opponents. We have recently learned how the latest cycle was immediately exploited in an opponent's publication. So there is a great zeal that one would sometimes like to see within our walls. Various suggestions were also made in Stuttgart, without of course considering that none of these suggestions can be of any use. For one cannot take action against something that has become necessary, once the Society has reached a certain size, in this way, especially with the way in which the membership is otherwise handled. One can only say one thing – with full knowledge that today everything, not only what is printed but also what is spoken, comes into the hands and ears of the opponents; with full knowledge and not wasting time with all kinds of measures to prevent this, because that means wasting time – one can only say one thing: If the content of the cycles, the spiritual current flowing through them, is championed in the same way that its opponents champion anthroposophy, then that is the best protection for the cycles in their current form, the form in which they are disseminated by the Anthroposophical Society. Negative protection is of no use here, only the positive, the active, can be of use: that one can also take the initiative for the cause.

And so many things were discussed. Much was also discussed in such a way that one always had the feeling that what was being said no longer applies to the current situation. For example, in all that was being said about protecting society from opponents, there was a grotesque contrast to what Dr. Husemann said when he discussed the opponent Dr. Goesch. Dr. Goesch made a very grandiose impression – I just want to say that in parentheses, of course it was largely a feigned impression – but he made a grandiose impression on those people who gathered in Berlin some time ago under the slogan: The Non-Anthroposophical Experts on Anthroposophy. This assembly consisted of enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors and so on. And a certain Dr. Goesch made a particular impression there, as did a certain Dora Hasselblatt. Now I do not want to reopen the whole issue. Much of how Dr. Goesch in particular conducts his opposition has been reopened at the Stuttgart assembly of delegates. But what is of symptomatic significance is this: he still pursues this antagonism today in such a way that he says: 90 percent of all that exists in anthroposophy is something to which he adheres with complete conviction. He is not fighting anthroposophy at all, but only me and the anthroposophists.

Now, that is a distinction, isn't it, which is based on a strange disposition of the soul. But I don't even want to mention that today; instead, I would like to mention something else. I would like to mention that there were people gathered together – as I said, enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors – who then agreed to send speakers around for whom what had been discussed in this assembly was to form part of the material for opposing speeches. These opposing speeches have already begun, and it was emphasized at the Stuttgart assembly of delegates that there are good reasons to expect that they will continue, especially from October onwards. Since recently, especially in Central Europe, the number of opposing speeches far exceeds the number of speeches given by supporters, there is a good chance that this will continue to increase.

But that is not even what I am concerned with at this moment, but rather what I would like to point out and what Dr. Husemann presented, that is, how these personalities, who were gathered there and who were to be given the impulse from the assembly to appear as fierce opponents of anthroposophy, how they were convinced by Dr. Goesch and what positive arguments he presented to make them opponents of anthroposophy. People are now saying and emphasizing – as can be seen from the speeches made at this congress of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy – that anthroposophy poses a great danger to the physical and mental health of humanity.

In contrast to this, it seems very strange to hear Dr. Goesch's positive statements. For example, he said that he knew exactly what the intentions at the center of anthroposophy are. The intention was that Dr. Steiner and I would form a planet of our own, which would be separated from the earth and on which the members of the Anthroposophical Society would initially settle, so that in this way there would be a separation of our planet from the Anthroposophical Society on its own planet. And for this purpose, despite the fact that 90 percent of anthroposophy is the pure truth, the Anthroposophical Society was founded, and the poor members of the Anthroposophical Society are in this danger.

Now, my dear friends, I ask you to imagine the situation: enlightened pastors, licentiates, and professors are being told about their studies in terms of anthroposophy, that a piece of the Earth's planet should be split off to found a cosmic colony. This is the legitimization with which Dr. Goesch presents himself to this enlightened assembly in our enlightened cultural age.

Now I ask you: How many of these enlightened pastors, licentiates, professors and so on will have listened to such a thing and thought it foolish? For I do not really know what should be going on in the minds of the enlightened pastors, licentiates and professors – they are not anthroposophists, they want to fight them – so what should actually be going on in their minds if they do not consider it foolishness! But despite all this, the impulse to fight anthroposophy arises from this “positive”.

Now, please, just imagine the state of mind of this assembly. Such an assembly is possible today! Such an assembly grows out of the spiritual life of our present time! But that is not yet all, my dear friends, why I am mentioning this matter, but I am mentioning this matter for a completely different reason, and I will now characterize it for you.

You see, if you think a little further than those who just take crazy facts to look at them as they are and don't think any further – if you just think a little further, you have to say to yourself: On the third or fourth day, during the conference of the enlightened licentiates, pastors and professors, a number of these gentlemen, along with others like them, were sitting in other meetings where important things were discussed that affect the order of contemporary social life. On the tenth day, let us say, another group of these people sits together with their peers. You, my dear friends, must think beyond this assembly and consider that these are the people who otherwise sit together in assemblies when the great human affairs of the present are being arranged. And that is the important thing when one wants to judge our culture, that is what comes into consideration! Above all, one can be so objective, especially on the basis of anthroposophy, that one naturally regrets what follows from such a meeting for the physical world; but one must still be aware that such a meeting, even of the most inferior spirits in the spiritual world, can only be received with the most thorough laughter. That is an inner truth. But the fact remains that in a terrible way it points to the whole soul constitution of the present time, that such a gathering is an enormously telling symptom of what is happening in the wide world of so-called spirituality today! And that is the important thing.

I wanted to show by these concrete examples how different things come into consideration today. There are opponents. There will be people who think that the impulses of these opponents should be combated with this or that. Yes, my dear friends, with the vast majority of opponents it is not even possible to take the impulses that arise there seriously! Because these people, who now send their speakers out as opponents, who have written their articles, these people of the caliber of Mr. Lempp, who was mentioned here a few weeks ago in an admittedly unfortunate way in connection with the fact that our “Anthroposophy” published an article by him: these people could be persuaded on the basis of the information that we want to split off a piece of the planet and settle on it!

Yes, now you have to say to yourself: So not only did people not believe a word of it, they didn't believe a single atom of it! There is no thread of truth connecting what they are now developing as their opposition with what has been put forward to them as reasons for this opposition. There is no thread of truth, no matter how thin, connecting the two! That is how strongly the sense of truth of the opposing side has been eliminated today. This must really be taken into account today.

On the other hand, we must realize what the rest of our culture has come to be, when such things are possible. For the people who have so little to do with the truth in what they do, with the starting-point of their work, are in many cases the same people who, so to speak, lead our culture in an official capacity. We need not be guilty of anthroposophical social egotism when we consider these things. On the contrary, if we are not egotistical and take such things as our starting-point in order to gain a symptomatic grasp of the spiritual life of the present day, then this is something that should really go to our hearts.

And so, in connection with the fact that, in view of these really decisive facts, much of what is said in our meetings today seems, I might say, rather unwise, with little penetration of the consciousness of what is actually at stake, I said just last Monday evening in Stuttgart: I do not want to speak about the named and unnamed opponents, who are dealt with in a very concise manner in the book by Mr. Werbeck, who is really working on the composition of this book in an ingenious way. But, I said, I don't want to go into the question of opponents in any great detail, because I really don't have the time and I would miss out on many other infinitely more important things if I were to go into this question of opponents myself.

But I will discuss three enemies, I said, who – and now I also apologize to you for speaking of these three enemies – who are actually almost in all such assemblies, as the Stuttgart assemblies were again! There, too, were three enemies – not exactly opponents, but enemies – who are now always admitted, not with false membership cards, but without any membership cards at all, and are actually always there, and who are really causing a great deal of damage with their enmity. There are two female opponents and one male opponent.

The first female opponent is actually still terribly young, chubby-cheeked, with a youthful face, almost childlike, and somewhat flirtatious in the way she presents herself – not always, but especially when she asserts her impulses in anthroposophical gatherings. This is precisely the kind of opponent who has crept so terribly into even the more intimate Stuttgart gatherings! The three of them were always there. They were even there among the trusted people.¹They would meet in a smaller group – the three were always there! So this innocent creature, naivety with a name – and a very strong enemy in our meetings – comes without a membership card.

The second enemy is also female, is considerably older, with horn-rimmed glasses, I said, on her nose, a pointed nose. You could call her Aunt, but just as well “Fag”. That is namely the Lady Illusion. But she is extraordinarily loved, despite the fact that she causes extraordinary harm.

These two personalities in particular succeed in instigating those thoughts that then become suggestions of membership cards, of protective measures for the dissemination of cycles; and especially of what can often be heard and has done so much harm: that so-and-so has spoken “quite anthroposophically” again. Of course he was not speaking anthroposophically at all, but – well, I won't say how. But in any case, this longing in those who speak in such a way to find something 'completely anthroposophical', so that one can comfortably reassure oneself, is also fuelled by the two female personalities of naivety and illusion.

The third is a man, a man who bears the name: Leberecht Frei-Herr vom Unterscheidungsvermögen (free lord with no right to distinguish). This man is also always present at our meetings. And he prevents what has an inner value in the anthroposophical sense from being distinguished from the anthroposophical nonsense. But these are only the most extreme poles: anthroposophical solidity and anthroposophical nonsense – in between there are many gradations. And if we do not have, so to speak, a core within our society that consists of personalities who always appear without a membership card and who are free from all discernment and who transfer their capacity as Baron Leberecht Freiherr from discernment to so many - if there are not also those who turn their nose up at this Baron Leberecht, then we will most certainly, with all that we will only accumulate obstacles upon obstacles, weakness upon weakness, and so on.

These are three powerful enemies, who sometimes creep in through the keyhole: the ladies Naivety, Illusion, and the Baron Lack of Discernment. We must now be very careful to pay attention to these personalities.

You see, it is a difficult matter, and I apologized for bringing it up; but I usually, when I bring up something like this, always say: Those present are exempt. Yes, I usually say that. Now, my dear friends, it is not meant to be so badly, but it is meant as a way of drawing attention to these enemies who are always there. |

And indeed, what you can find as a kind of characteristic in the last scene of the last mystery drama also applies to these enemies, where it is said of certain spiritual entities – because you have already seen that spiritual beings are meant, spiritual enemies — it is said that they have their power as long as one is not aware of them, but that their power immediately ceases when one develops an awareness of them.

This is the secret of very many things in the spiritual world: evil powers can only maintain their power as long as there is no awareness of them, as long as no awareness of them is developed. On the other hand, the development of consciousness for certain spiritually hostile or evil spiritual powers works the same way as day does for the unkind ghosts: they run away when consciousness is developed.

I have often emphasized that it is harmful to say: This or that is a harmful entity; so one should beware of having anything to do with it, and flee from it oneself. — No, one should confront this hostile power with all one's inner strength, learn to recognize it! For when a reflection of it arises in one's own consciousness, it acts as the light from which it flees.

I have often characterized this by saying: Many a person, when they hear about Lucifer and Ahriman, says: Oh, we must beware! Away, away, away from it! — But that is not the task; rather, the task is precisely to grasp these two powers so precisely in our consciousness that they run away from us. This is something that really helps us to make progress. For in the spiritual world, different laws apply from those we have in the physical world.

I have already mentioned some of this. In the physical world, for example, the law applies that the whole is always greater than one of its parts. The four triangles are the parts of the large triangle; the large triangle is greater than one of its parts. Now one thinks that this is absolutely correct. For the spiritual world it is not correct at all, but there the part is always greater than the whole. You will say that cannot be. But that is just something we cannot imagine in the physical world! Yet it is a fact: in the spiritual world, your liver is infinitely larger than you are as a whole. And so it must be said that the same applies in the spiritual world: if I run away from Lucifer, he comes closer and closer to me. Only when I stop and he runs away, then he does so in the sense of running away in the spiritual world - and then he really gets far away, not close. On the other hand, if I run away from him – well, from a spiritual point of view I would not do it, because then I would know this secret that I have just explained – but if I run away from Lucifer, I do it the way you run away in the physical world: if you have longer legs, you escape him by running in the physical world. But in the spiritual world you get closer and closer to him, the opposite applies. On the other hand, if you make him run away, he observes the laws of the spiritual world, and he does it like the unholy ghosts before dawn: that he really moves away from his reflection in the human soul.

These things must be taken very seriously! If we take them seriously, we will also know that we can only fight these invisible opponents, naivety, illusion, lack of discernment, by not having any illusions about them, by chasing them away – yes, how should I put it, at the moment when you talk about them, that is when they always want to exist again. I myself must say: one must come to have no illusions about naivety, illusion and lack of discernment. So here again one must stand on the right ground in the face of the illusion.

But you see, this is my observation, which has become more and more firmly established over the last ten years: that we learn from what was meant at the foundation stone ceremony to expel these invisible, but no less powerful and significant enemies from our anthroposophical circles. And if we stand firmly on what was meant ten years ago when the foundation stone was laid, then we will drive these enemies out within our own assemblies. Otherwise, these enemies – I could name a few more, but that is enough for today – will be able to contribute unspeakably to the power of our opponents growing from day to day outside our ranks. I wanted to mention this today, firstly as a reminder of the laying of the foundation stone, and secondly as a brief report on the Stuttgart conference.

• 1. The Dreißigerkreis is meant.

Words of Introduction before the Lecture

The conference in Vienna that I have just come from went very satisfactorily. Two public lectures were held on September 26 and 29, which were very well attended: the first lecture on Anthroposophy as a contemporary challenge, the second lecture on the moral-religious significance of Anthroposophy. I was then able to give four branch lectures at the conference, in which I dealt in particular with the relationship between anthroposophy and the human soul, incorporating some of the material that has already been discussed here from a wide variety of perspectives: the significance and possible renewal of the Feast of St. Michael.

Then, on Sunday, September 30th, there was a very well-attended eurythmy performance at the Vienna New City Theater. The success of this eurythmy performance has given rise to the fact that next Sunday, the day after tomorrow, another such eurythmy performance will take place in Vienna. The eurythmy performances have also been given a further impetus by the fact that just this evening, while I am speaking to you here, one is taking place in Gmunden in the Salzkammergut. It is possible that other eurythmy performances will follow in Austria.

On Monday, October 1, a meeting of the Austrian members of the Anthroposophical Society took place. The Austrian Anthroposophical Society will now join the other national societies, so that the Austrian Anthroposophical Society will also be present among the national societies at the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas in Dornach.

On Tuesday evening, thanks to the extremely valuable suggestion of Dr. Wegman, our medical friend Dr. Glas in Vienna was able to give a lecture and hold a very detailed discussion with a number of Viennese doctors, scientists and medical students at the home of Mr. van Leer. We can already say that just like the similar one in London at the beginning of September, went very well, so we can hope that a lot can be done for this medical-therapeutic side of anthroposophical endeavor.

at the beginning of the lecture

On Monday, October 1, a meeting of the Austrian members of the Anthroposophical Society took place. The Austrian Anthroposophical Society will now join the other national societies, so that the Austrian Anthroposophical Society will also be present among the national societies at the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas in Dornach.

after the lecture.

And now, in conclusion, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in the corner you can see a small work of art that came about through the efforts of Mr. Pyle. This work of art also represents something else, namely that it is a work of art that is intended to please you. It is not only beautiful, but also useful. Just because something is beautiful does not mean that it has to deny all usefulness. And so this little work of art does not deny its usefulness either. You have the eagle at the top, then the lion and the snake. So you see, the imagery is somewhat shifted. But that is precisely what is needed for this task. The whole thing has a mouth at the front, a lion's mouth, and the mouth wants something. The lion wants to eat. Do you know what it wants to eat? Donations for the Goetheanum, so that we can rebuild. And this should be arranged so that as many people as possible buy such a money box, because it is a money box, and the lion's jaws represent the slit through which you put what you have saved in cigarettes and all sorts of other things, in short intervals, so that it is full very soon. There will be a device at the bottom so that one can open it and deliver the contents to the Goetheanum. This is Mr. Pyle's idea.

It will be made of plaster or terracotta. I think it will be very beautiful. At first there is only the model here, but you can sign up and then you can get things here later. So you will find an opportunity to get one of these money boxes, to always have something beautiful, but also something that demands something equally useful. As you leave, take a look at this beautiful, useful thing and get the feeling, the sense, that this eagle, this lion, is also meant to complement what a person otherwise does with his money. You need your environment; a piece of the environment has been created. Complement yourself with this environment!

after the lecture

Now, my dear friends, having shared this with you, I also feel obliged to briefly share something that will help us to find our way back to the earth even more so than plants can. I will only share it very briefly, so that you know, because I do feel obliged to substantiate some of what is always said. I will start by putting together two facts that deserve to be thought of together, as you will see in a moment.

I don't know if you saw that it was announced here too – which, by the way, is announced in many places in America and Europe – that lectures in Basel and the surrounding area were announced in the newspaper issues around the 20th. Here is an example of the ad: “All nations marching to Armageddon. Six million now living will never die. Public lecture Monday, October 21, 8 p.m. at the Hans Huber Hall of the Basel City Casino. Free admission. International Association of Serious Bible Researchers.”

You can also find the same announcement in the Birsecktagblatt: “All nations marching to Armageddon. Six million now living will never die. Public lecture Saturday, October 20, 8 p.m. at the Hotel Bahnhof Münchenstein, Monday, October 21, Gasthof Zum Ochsen Arlesheim. Free admission. International Association of Serious Bible Researchers.”

Hold on to the title of this announcement; you may have been able to read it in the Birsecktagblatt, as it is pointed out there that the Bible is now to be interpreted correctly according to the Book of Daniel and according to the Apocalypse and so on. It is promised to the people who will be the victors in the great struggle that is to unfold until the year 1927 that they will not die in their physical bodies at all. And I was approached by people during the performance of our Vienna Congress last year, asking how one can ensure that one will not die in the Battle of Armageddon. You know that many such lectures are given in Switzerland. So this is about the subject that is linked to the Battle of Armageddon.

Now I would like to read to you from a little booklet called “The Antichrist. The prophetic secrets of the biblical end times, especially for 1924-1927”, by Paul Westphal - a book that is not available through ordinary bookstores, but is widely distributed through those channels that lead precisely to the population that does not go to bookstores to buy books, but receives the books in other ways. Their education then flows from what comes from such books.

Now I will just tell the introduction, the main chapter, because of which this writing is actually written, because I cannot read to you for hours. The main chapter is called “In the Footsteps of the Antichrist”. And then it is told how the sowing was. In the description of this sowing, the following is told: Once, in the years 1897 to 1900, a man who later became a modern Dr. Faust edited the “Magazin für Literatur” (Magazine for Literature), and in this “Magazin für Literatur” a novel “Aus der Dekadence” (From Decadence) was published.

And it really was published. It was written by the son of a member who had died in Stuttgart a long time ago. This novel was published. Of course, I had no part in it other than that of the editor, who had to judge the matter artistically and according to its literary value, and otherwise the bitter aftertaste that that particular novel earned me a lawsuit with the publisher of the magazine at the time, a lawsuit that lasted for years, which is not a pleasant memory. But this novel is taken up again as a sign that the person who edited the “Magazin für Literatur” back then had already begun to use the aberration of the times to his own ends.

Then it is further shown what transformations it has undergone, how it has become a kind of Faust Secundus, a kind of second Faust, and in fact in a sometimes highly remarkable style, from year to year: “Around 1900, a not well-fed man of about forty looks at those old sculptures with a strange interest and is suddenly struck by a premonition. Despite his extensive knowledge, he has not yet achieved bourgeois security; since he is half a foreigner, he has the fate of the superfluous. Yet he is ambitious in the greatest style, power-hungry, almost too aware of his abilities – somewhat vain.

Then this man is ascribed all kinds of other characteristics that are supposed to be connected with his lust for power. For example: “He senses and scents in all directions where success is to be found; his appearance” – it is very interesting – “his appearance at that time somewhat resembles that of Napoleon when he was ‘available’ in 1793.”

“At the beginning of his main activity, Faust is at the age given in Dan. 6:1, he is about 62 years old. Just as Darius, mentioned in Dan. 6, Darius creates a tripartite division of functions in his empire (verse 3), so Dr. Faust begins by following the ‘triad of the state powers’...”, and so on. “When Satan tempted the Lord in the wilderness, he also took into account the needs of these three parts by not giving the bread, the miracle and the power, but holding them out as a prospect...”

“Among his followers are the ladies, those unsatisfied ones who suffer from their emptiness and long for something positive or masculine to fill them up. The firm demonic will gives them content and turns them into self-acting power centers that work exactly according to the mechanical formulas implanted in them by suggestion. Particular efforts are made with young people; the master lets them practise dance rhythms and lurkingly monitors them to see who might be brought to ecstasy by the rapid movements. He then selects them as tools for his magical purposes; the rest may just continue to dance and naively believe that they are thereby performing cultural achievements. The false prophet often ponders how he should relate to the church. Initially, he tried to make his system palatable to the more intellectually demanding as “esoteric Catholicism.” The pope, cardinals, archbishops, and prominent church teachers may be subjected to long-distance magical treatment. From the success of this occult influence it will depend whether the false prophet the pliable parts of the church harnessed to his service or will strike against the whole church with the fury of the apocalyptic beast.”

And now the more detailed description, as far as it is given, of what is described by this side about the effectiveness:

Well, there are more descriptions like this. And then comes the following:

“According to the prophecy, when the rule of the Antichrist comes to an end after three years, i.e. in late autumn of 1927, and the false prophet dies in the great battle of Armageddon, he will have reached the exact age of 66.6 years. One should check whether the number of people in Rev. 13:18 means the years of the false prophet's life.”

You see, in this way the lower classes are being worked on! You see that it has been said that it is necessary to wake up. This is not without significance, because on the opposite side, people are very vigilant. There they know the method of how to manipulate all sections of the population in an appropriate way.

As for how to manipulate the middle, the so-called intelligent section of the population, I would like to read another example. It is from the fourth volume of Fritz Mauthner's “Atheism and its History in the Occident”. Perhaps you will be interested in my review, which I granted to the first two volumes of Fritz Mauthner's “Atheism” when the third and fourth volumes – that is, this “Atheism” – had not yet been published; and you can make a curious comparison there. In the fourth volume of Fritz Mauthner's “Atheism” the following can be found: “The concern of the pacifists and freethinkers was not entirely unjustified, that the agony of the world war could trigger a resurgence of medieval popular superstition; only that the epidemic broke out quite differently than the church servants had hoped and their opponents feared. After the first shock, the fourth estate no longer wanted to be driven back into the church by the fear of death; doubt and disbelief had become too strong. But the third estate, the semi-educated middle class, also preferred to grasp at a more recent superstition than at one of the oldest. The tangible effect of the war emergency was mostly a surge of enthusiasm for spiritualism, which may also be called a form of religious need. The number of spiritualists and theosophists increased in England and Germany. Delusion drew new strength from despair. Unconcerned about the fact that history is not a science, prophets arose who predicted the future, as ingenious and as scientifically as Spengler in his Decline of the West, as stupid and as insolent as his vulgar imitators. Of course, the mood was also used by common impostors: A housepainter presented himself as a savior, as the Jesus of Düsseldorf, and is said to have booked an annual income of several million; another savior of the world, a wine traveler, was motivated less by love of money than by love of women and was finally beaten up; yet another “Christ II” made trouble in the Frankfurt am Main area and was expelled from Germany only as a very rich man. Perhaps the Jewish mystic Eliphas Levi (not a Jew by birth), whom Meyrink should have introduced with more humor, also belongs to this group of swindlers. But the fat skimmed off the wallets of miracle-seeking little men and women was skimmed off by Rudolf Steiner, the theosophist who evasively calls himself an anthroposophist, who, when extolling his superhuman gifts of remote viewing with the most brazen pseudoscience, refers to Buddha, Christ, Goethe and everything else of high value and has found considerable favor with the gawky. A refutation of this new Cagliostro would be more difficult for a healthy logic than one might think; the witchcraft is not to be refuted, only laughed at. A strong comedy writer would have to take possession of the material.

And the footnote to this reads:

You see, all sections of the population are well provided for, and anyone who can follow the lies that emanate from there to the powers that cause them, may say that more vigilance is really needed than is found in our ranks and that more interest could actually be developed for what I have to say from time to time about these things. It is hard to believe that hatred of the truth is currently increasing to an extent never seen before in the world and that therefore those whose duty it is to represent the truth might find some understanding when they speak of the need for vigilance.

Now, I do not want to go into the details of this lack of vigilance today, but I did want to give you at least a picture of the current state of those things that are in the works; one can already say: that are in the works. I always have to wait until there is some interest in the things that I have to sprinkle into the lectures as episodes, so that the things do not remain completely unconscious.

The next lecture will be tomorrow at 8 o'clock .

Introduction to Mystery Centers, Lecture 1

Dear friends, Last Sunday the Dutch Anthroposophical Society was founded in the Netherlands, and with that the last of the national societies has come into being, which are to be there as preparatory foundations when the International Anthroposophical Society is to emerge from these individual national societies here at Christmas. The task will be to take what is now happening on the basis of these individual national societies and make it into something real, so real that the Anthroposophical Movement can perhaps find in it an instrument for society. Today it is already the case that one can see from the most diverse individual phenomena, from the most diverse symptoms, how this anthroposophical movement is taken much, much more urgently elsewhere than it often is within the Anthroposophical Society. I do not mean by this – please do not misunderstand me, my dear friends – I do not mean that there is a lack of individuals within the Anthroposophical Society who are wholeheartedly committed to the movement and who constantly develop their feelings in the direction of the Society's thinking and feeling, as it must be one day. But what is missing within the Society, what underlies the words that I have to speak about this absence, is real activity in the direction given by the impulses of the Anthroposophical Movement.

I said that much more is happening in this direction in another place: namely, with the opponents. It is indeed the case that today, from a more or less opposing — or often, as it is often called, objective side, hardly any comprehensive presentation of the spiritual currents of the present day appears without the anthroposophical movement being forcefully taken into account – usually, of course, in a derogatory sense, or if not in a derogatory sense, then in such a way that the anthroposophical movement is harmed anew.

All these things cannot be taken into account unless active interest within the Anthroposophical Society can develop in the same way as it does among those outside, whether as opponents or as so-called objective observers. This is what you encounter everywhere. Especially the opponents take Anthroposophy very seriously.

I would ask you to consider just one thing. If you look at things from the outside and assess the importance of anthroposophy today based on the number of members of the Anthroposophical Society, it seems almost laughable, one might say, that the opposing side takes this anthroposophy so seriously. You only have to consider that, if you count the number of members of the Anthroposophical Society, it is truly a terribly small group in relation to any other society or spiritual context. And the great old spiritual movements should not care what is believed or not believed by such a small group of people. It is not because the opponents know full well what Anthroposophy is. They appreciate Anthroposophy, in their own sense, and they actively appreciate it.

Now, of course, it can be said that we simply do not have personalities within the Anthroposophical Society who are predisposed to activity. That is certainly a factor, because the vast majority of personalities have come precisely to absorb a world view, not to be active in some direction within the Society. But on the other hand, there is this necessity today: if the Anthroposophical Society is to continue to exist, it needs active work and activity. This must be said again and again. It may be a mishap that we need it, but we need it.

This is particularly evident when we see, and I want to say this quite positively, how necessary it is today to be able to count on the fact that a very strong international anthroposophical society will emerge from the individual national societies at Christmas; because we really cannot leave the whole anthroposophical movement as it is.

The necessity exists that, regardless of who it is, people must find each other within the Anthroposophical Society who are interested in what is happening in the world, who know how to deal with what is happening in the world! It is always actually a great astonishment to see when something of what is happening in the world is mentioned.

Of course, I know that many excellent people within the Anthroposophical Society actually take umbrage when the Society is asked to place itself in the spiritual evolution of contemporary humanity. I can also understand that many would prefer the Anthroposophical Society to be an association of people who sit quietly in their chairs and pursue their world view and do not need to worry about what is otherwise going on in the world. I can understand it, certainly; from the whole process that has taken place in the founding and development of the Anthroposophical Society, it is understandable. But on the other hand, the necessities of the world are also there. And there it is absolutely essential that we at least submit to these necessities in a certain sense.

Purely anthroposophical work goes well everywhere. One can only say: it goes well. There was an excellent atmosphere in The Hague with regard to this anthroposophical thinking and feeling together. The lectures that I gave as a branch on the connection between man and the supersensible world were given in an excellent atmosphere. The public anthroposophical lectures also created an excellent atmosphere. The lectures that were organized with a pedagogical focus also created an excellent atmosphere.

Furthermore, we were delighted to see a small Waldorf School established in The Hague with a first, fourth and eighth class, which makes an extraordinarily satisfying impression. We were able to take a step forward in what can be achieved in the field of anthroposophic medicine, just as we have already done in London and Vienna, by organizing lectures on anthroposophic medicine for doctors in The Hague. These were held at the invitation of Dr. Zeylmans, who has set up a clinic there along our lines, lectures on anthroposophic medicine were given by Dr. Wegman and myself. All this could be achieved. As I said, this is all without the slightest criticism. The practical things are going very well. But when it comes to holding things together through the Anthroposophical Society, then, of course, there are still problems as far as feelings and perceptions are concerned; but then the fact arises that the Anthroposophical Society would like to be a bit of an extended family that shuts itself off from the outside world. And that is also how it is in its practices. Isn't it, for my sake the statutes can be made as one wants; they are not the essential thing. The essential thing is how one behaves, even when admitting members. When admitting members, one can proceed in such a way that one closes the Society, or one can enlarge it as much as possible. And the way of thinking about admitting members is simply such in many respects that we cannot count on seeing the Anthroposophical Society grow in the direction in which it must grow if it is to bring into the world — I do not say wants to bring into the world: Today, one is no longer free to want to carry something into the world or not — what the Anthroposophical Society has become through its substance. Today, one is no longer free: certain things just have to be done! And enthusiasm is often lacking. One would so much like to see this enthusiasm develop in the Society!

I am not saying this just because it is an experience that was made in the last days in The Hague, but rather an experience that has now arisen from the establishment of the national societies and which must be stated before we proceed to establish the one for which the national societies exist: the International Anthroposophical Society, which should have its center in Dornach.

This is a report on what took place in The Hague that appears to be not entirely objective, but perhaps it is more objective internally than it initially appears externally, to be given.

in view of the imminent founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas

(following Rudolf Steiner's evening lecture) Minutes taken by Helene Finckh

Albert Steffen greets Dr. Steiner and those present and says: Today's meeting is an assembly of delegates to which every member has been invited. He proposes the election of a committee of elders: Dr. Steiner, Mr. Geering, Dr. Grosheintz, Albert Steffen, Dr. Lagutt, and adds: “Now I would like to ask this committee of elders to discuss the question of how many delegates each branch should appoint.

Rudolf Geering comments.

Dr. Steiner: So now we will probably come to an understanding in the bosom of old age as to how many delegates each branch would like to nominate. And I will then take the liberty of asking the delegates themselves whether they will also give their consent. But I would ask you to bear in mind that if an elders' committee is elected, it is always elected on the basis that it is considered wise. So it is assumed that it has extremely good reasons for what it does. So it will simply be a matter of deciding how many delegates should be nominated by each branch.

Albert Steffen proposes allowing two delegates from each of the Swiss branches.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed to allow two delegates from each of the Swiss branches. This would mean that each branch represented here would have two delegate votes. So even if only one delegate is present from any one branch, he would also have two votes, including for this evening. However, if there is no delegate at all, I don't know who should cast the two votes.

Now I ask the most honored elders whether they agree with this proposal? (The answer is affirmative.) Since the elders agree, I now ask the delegates to express whether they have any objections or want to make a different proposal. — It seems that this is not the case. Then we would need to record the votes of the individual branches. We have the following branches: the branch at the Goetheanum. The two votes are present, but who exercises them?

Albert Steffen: We could do it this way, Doctor, that these two votes be represented by the whole working committee.

Dr. Steiner: So: the working committee! — Then there is the “New Generation” branch. Are these two votes represented? Who exercises them?

Answer: Mr. Stokar and Mr. Storrer.

Dr. Steiner: Basel branch: Dr. Lagutt, Mr. Geering; substitutes: Mr. Rudolf Hahn and Dr. Oskar Grosheintz. Bern branch: Miss Ramser, Miss Knüpfer. Zurich branch: Ms. Weiß, Dr. Hugentobler. St. Gallen branch: Mr. Dürler, Mr. Knopfli. Olten: Mr. Wulschleger is present and [probably Mr. Widmer]. Romanshorn:? Rorschach:? Neuchâtel: Mr. Hotz. Kreuzlingen: Miss Müller. Schaffhausen: Mr. Gnädinger. There is no one present from Lugano.

That makes 22 votes. So the simple majority: 12 votes, two-thirds majority: 15 votes. So the voting ratio would be: simple majority with 12 votes, two-thirds majority, if any comes into consideration, with 15 votes. The meeting is now constituted. And the next step would be for this meeting to elect its officers. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?

Albert Steffen: Perhaps I may propose Dr. Steiner himself as chair of this assembly of delegates?

Dr. Steiner: If there is to be a discussion about this, I would ask you to take the chair for a moment. (This happens. Mr. Steffen's proposal is accepted.)

Albert Steffen: So it is unanimously approved.

Dr. Steiner: Then thank you very much and I will try to lead the chairmanship. — There will then be further elections for a secretary and two assessors.

Willy Stokar would like to propose Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth as secretary.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that Dr. Wachsmuth be elected as secretary. If any of the delegates have any objections, I would ask them to raise their hands. – That does not appear to be the case. Then I would ask Dr. Wachsmuth to take on the role of secretary.

Now I would like to ask you to propose two assessors. Does anyone wish to comment on this? — Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz have been proposed. Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Dr. Grosheintz: Proposes Mr. Steffen. Dr. Lagutt: Proposes Mr. Steffen.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to make a proposal? — Does anyone wish to speak about the proposals? — If not, we will proceed to the vote. Shall we vote by acclamation? — I ask those friends who are in favor of voting by acclamation to raise their hands. — (The vote is by acclamation.) The following have been proposed: Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz.

Albert Steffen: I ask those friends who are in favor of electing the two gentlemen as assessors to raise their hands. (It happens.) – The two gentlemen have been elected as assessors.

We had actually intended that the delegates who have come from outside should be given the floor first, so that they themselves can speak about what we have recommended they study.

Dr. Steiner: So it has been suggested that the esteemed delegate friends express themselves about what they have brought with them from their branches. So I ask them to take the floor.

Edgar Dürler, St. Gallen, has a point of order: We have received an invitation in which two points are on the agenda. I would like to explain them in more detail and would like to mention that I am speaking on behalf of Neuchâtel, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, the “New Generation” and a working group in Winterthur. — He proposes as an agenda item that the only item to be discussed today should be the transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I would like to briefly explain the reasons for this: We are on the threshold of founding the International Anthroposophical Society. At this founding, the individual national societies, represented by their delegates, will have to declare their accession to the International Anthroposophical Society here at Christmas. It is necessary that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society also make such a declaration of accession. The fact is that we do not have a unified Swiss Anthroposophical Society. The new international society that is to be established will create a completely different situation. I believe that the Swiss Society must be able to take up a position corresponding to the particular position of the individual national societies. I would like to emphasize that the branch at the Goetheanum, which also belongs to the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, represents something very special and that this branch at the Goetheanum, which also has many foreign members, occupies a very special position. Just as there is an Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands, in England and so on, and these are members of the International Anthroposophical Society, there should also be a Swiss Anthroposophical Society, autonomous but with the same rights and the same duties. I would like to repeat the proposal: transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note, so that the discussion is not conducted in an erroneous way, that I am not interfering with the esoteric of the discussion, but I would like to note that it would be quite natural if an International Anthroposophical Society were founded at Christmas, that it would not be identical with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, but that the present Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, as it now exists, would then have the same relationship to the international society to be founded as, for example, the English or Dutch Anthroposophical Societies. That is one thing. — So there would be no ambiguity in this respect.

Of course, it is a different matter to discuss whether the branch at the Goetheanum – this one branch at the Goetheanum – will remain a co-branch of the – call it either the “Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland” or the “Swiss Anthroposophical Society” – because by its very nature it will always include members from all countries. That would be a different matter, that would be a different question. But as I said, it would not be the case that the International Anthroposophical Society would coincide with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If the International Anthroposophical Society were founded in Switzerland, it would have two completely separate administrations and so on, and would be two completely different things. I think the actual establishment of what you mean would have to be formulated in a different way, something like: one would have to be clear about how the branch at the Goetheanum should be treated. Just imagine: if the branch at the Goetheanum is eliminated, then you will immediately notice that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland has exactly the same position in relation to the International Anthroposophical Society as the Dutch or any other.

Walter Knopfli (St. Gallen) would like to add briefly: We believe that precisely this should be kept separate. If there is a Swiss Society that really exists independently, and a branch at the Goetheanum, then the Swiss Anthroposophical Society can also be better represented. There should be a truly Swiss General Assembly one day. We have never really had that; there have only ever been two or three delegates here who live around Dornach, and the actual Swiss part has not been represented. What happens here in Dornach has more of an international character, is more directed towards the general human. It is necessary that the Society in Switzerland be recognized as a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I therefore wish to see a separation of the Swiss Society and the branch at the Goetheanum.

Willy Storrer believes that the motion put forward by the representative of the St. Gallen, Mr. Knopfli, can also be justified by saying: It is important to us that an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland or a Swiss Anthroposophical Society exists not only in theory — the name is not important to us — but that such a society exists in practice, in reality. And that to this end, a further change is made on a larger scale. We thought that today would be a good opportunity for this. We wanted to propose that a general assembly of Swiss members take place as soon as possible, perhaps in Olten or Zurich, where it is more likely that members from all over Switzerland will be able to attend in larger numbers, and then use this opportunity to discuss the affairs of the entire Swiss Society in detail – not just after a lecture, but perhaps starting in the morning and continuing with discussions throughout the afternoon, as is the practice in the Netherlands and other countries. We believe that everything must be done to ensure that a concrete Swiss Society comes into being. This is also because the reconstruction of the Goetheanum is to begin soon, and safeguards for this reconstruction should be created here in Switzerland, where the Goetheanum is to be located, and this should be done now. We must, after all, reproach ourselves for not having such safeguards in place, for not having a real society around the Goetheanum in Switzerland, but only quite unconnected branches and individual members. We would now like to make certain proposals to change this.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to add: the things we regulate must be right inwardly. And there is no question that, for example, if the delegates agree, what you and the representative of St. Gallen understand by a Swiss Anthroposophical Society must come about. It goes without saying that this must come about if the delegates determine it. However, it must be clear that it is simply impossible in terms of the rules of procedure if we follow the path proposed by Mr. Storrer.

The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland currently exists, and includes the branch at the Goetheanum. So if a general assembly is convened, there is no way around the branch at the Goetheanum being represented at it. In its current constitution, there is no other option than for it to be represented! So if the matter is to be decided before the Christmas delegates' meeting, it would be necessary not to convene a general assembly – because it would then also include the members of the branch at the Goetheanum – but to convene an assembly, so to speak, a gathering of the Swiss members, and for these Swiss members to then decide to found a Swiss Anthroposophical Society without the branch at the Goetheanum. That is one thing. But that would initially be tantamount to a kind of exclusion of the branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, it would probably not be very well received. Of course, the other option would be to call a general assembly and, if the branch at the Goetheanum were to appear, to propose expelling the branch at the Goetheanum, and of course to expel it if the proposal were to be accepted. That would be the second way.

But the third, I think it is the most viable and the one that seems to me the most correct. The most opportune, it seems to me, would be if the Swiss members who believe that this should happen actually held a meeting and that the assembly, through its members or delegates or a number of delegates, would aim to achieve the following: the delegates' meeting at Christmas proposes to enable a Swiss Anthroposophical Society to consist of actual Swiss members, which means that the passage should be written that the branch at the Goetheanum should become an international branch, and thus be removed. If the Swiss members were to propose this at the Christmas assembly of delegates, I would consider that the best way forward: namely, to make the branch at the Goetheanum an international branch, if that is what it is all about. Then it is out. Then the question would be resolved – which I think is desirable for other reasons, quite apart from your proposal – by the fact that the branch at the Goetheanum is not a national but an international one. That is something that can be decided then. And then, on the basis of this decision, you would be able to found the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in whatever way you wish; the branch at the Goetheanum would no longer be involved because it would have become an international one beforehand. — Well, I would think that this would also be the friendliest way, it seems to me, simply because any other way looks as if the Swiss want to throw out those who are also members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland today. And, isn't it true, that would somehow leave a sting behind.

I do not want to make this a proposal on my part – otherwise I would not remain as chair but hand it over for the time being – but I just want to throw this into the discussion for the sake of clarification, so that the discussion is not based on false premises; because the proposal has been made that a general assembly should be convened. But a general assembly can only be convened with the members. So this is a simple explanation of the necessary management that I am making.

Albert Steffen says that two points are not quite clear to him: Is it impossible for a foreigner to join?

Will, Storrer: No, that's a misunderstanding. We did not mean that the Swiss Society would then consist only of Swiss people, but that it would be set up in such a way that the Swiss character of the Society would be expressed much better than has been the case so far. And we believe we can achieve this by actually holding the Swiss meeting in a place where we can all get to better than if it is in Dornach. Of course, I could well imagine that the members of the branch at the Goetheanum would also be present. I consider the second piece of advice from Dr. Steiner to be absolutely right. And the representatives of the various branches that Mr. Knopfli mentioned would also have understood that a general assembly of all Swiss members would take place, that is, of all members affiliated with the Swiss Society, regardless of whether they are French, Germans or Swiss – and that the organization of the Society would then be newly elected at this General Assembly from the majority of the members, and specifically as an organ of the Members' Assembly, the Assembly of Delegates, and then an actual active working committee. And we do not envision this as being identical to the already existing working committee, but rather it would have to be a new working committee, provided that it is elected.

Dr. Steiner (to Mr. Knopfli): Are the remarks of Mr. Storrer in line with yours?

Walter Knopfli: Not quite. I mean, the members of the branch at the Goetheanum should have the feeling that they are something different than, say, the members of the St. Gallen branch, because we in St. Gallen have different tasks. Of course one can be a member of both places, but then one has to pay the dues twice. It is not a matter of personal mistrust, but only a legal question, that one keeps it separate. I think it is good when a society is properly there with a seat, in legal registration, so that it can act as something that exists and is recognized. And that is what we want. It will only be properly recognized if it comes from the Swiss and if the headquarters of the new Anthroposophical Society is not here in Dornach but somewhere in Switzerland, in Zurich for example. It would be a better solution and would lead to much better collaboration.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note: This proposal to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum will come in any case, because it would actually be out of character if Dornach were to become an international center and not have an international branch here. I think the possibility of achieving what you want will actually be better achieved if this branch is internationalized. But that does not, of course, prevent a kind of founding meeting from being convened now, in Zurich or as far away as possible from Basel, from Dornach, if you like, which then decides on something or other in its nature. — But that is not true, you do not have to do such things in such a way that you think: just by convening a meeting in Zurich, it will then already have a Swiss character! What would you do if the people of Dornach all decided to go there? There is no difference at all! I believe that the question can only be resolved - and I have also gathered this from your discussion - if the branch at the Goetheanum is executed and

comes out of the matter. Then it will already be a Swiss matter.

Albert Steffen: But I still don't see how this society can have a Swiss character when there are so many foreigners in it. For example, all the members of the “New Generation” are in this society, and a fairly large percentage of the members are foreigners. So how is this branch Swiss then?

Walter Knopfli: We are 40 members in St. Gallen and have at least 5 foreigners. That does not matter. The delegates of the Swiss branches should express whether they might agree in principle to establish a Swiss society and in principle agree to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum. Then, as Dr. Steiner suggested, we could convene a founding assembly of these members and decide on the founding of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society from the bosom of this founding assembly and then come here at Christmas with a proposal: that on the one hand there is the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and on the other hand the branch at the Goetheanum is an independent branch at the Goetheanum, with the same rights. And that from the outset it is made clear at a founding meeting: this is not a general assembly, but a founding meeting. Those who are at the Goetheanum will of course want to belong to this branch at the Goetheanum, I am completely convinced of that. Very few will want to pay twice.

Albert Steffen: I fear only that the branch at the Goetheanum will no longer be supported by the Swiss and that it will have a harder time with the authorities than it does now.

Dr. Steiner: That is a point of view that will be very much in question.

Dr. Emil Groshbeintz: As far as I understand, you want to give Swiss society a special task, a task that is different from the one represented by the Goetheanum branch, for example. Isn't it clear that nationality cannot play a role on Swiss soil, but different countries can set themselves different tasks? And for Switzerland it is a question of opportunity, whether it should be done in such a way that there is a Swiss Society in Switzerland in general and an international branch at the Goetheanum on top of that.

Dr. Steiner: The form must then be found. And I am convinced that, for example, today's applicants would not object to the mode that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is formed and that the branch at the Goetheanum nevertheless belongs as a branch of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but without voting rights and without representation at the general meetings. Then the concerns you have would be eliminated. — So it would be necessary to find a way to do it, wouldn't it? There is a difference between how the administration is within the Anthroposophical Society itself and how it is externally. To have a completely separate branch at the Goetheanum on the outside, that is, a directly international branch on Swiss soil, would not be advisable. But your request is fully met if the branch at the Goetheanum is merely a member of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but does not have a seat and voting rights at the general meetings of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. Because if I understand you correctly, you are merely concerned that the Swiss character in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society should come to the fore, which you see as being endangered if the Society consists only of a few Swiss people who are outside Dornach, and then of the majority of those who are in Dornach at the time. Because those who are only temporarily in Dornach do not allow themselves to be taken, even if they are there. And that is what — if I understand you correctly — is embarrassing about the whole thing.

Willy Storrer: This would mean that the Swiss members would lose their voting rights, and there are quite a few of them.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible at all. Willy Storrer: Since they live in Switzerland, it is probably the right thing to do.

Dr. Steiner: They can join the Swiss Anthroposophical Society if they want to have voting rights!

Dr. Lagutt: I would like to ask Mr. Knopfli if there are any regulations for the five members of other nationalities? If there are 20, for example, would you still accept the 21st? Assuming you get 21, would you still accept the 21st? Do you have any regulations about that? Or would you accept him too?

Walter Knopfli: Yes.

Dr. Lagutt: I don't understand why the Swiss branch at the Goetheanum cannot be included! If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to insist that you absolutely could not have a majority of foreigners over the Swiss in St. Gallen.

Rudolf Geering: I was pleased today that right from the start the delegates were counted and the voting rights distributed. That is progress. I believe that if this is done in future at the delegate meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, then all the deliberations about what has been proposed here will become unnecessary. Today we see the fruits of something that has occurred at the last few delegates' meetings in Switzerland: that actually no one knew who was actually a delegate and had a say in the voting. Proposals have been made by all kinds of people who have nothing at all to do with Switzerland and who were purely business-like. This gave the impression throughout Switzerland: When we meet in Dornach, we are not a Swiss society at all, but an international society. We are simply at their disposal. And if we continue to act as we are doing today, we can remain in the old circumstances.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to say one thing about this. Switzerland is naturally in a somewhat different position to the Anthroposophical Society, to the world society that is now to be founded, than the other countries. And every country where the Goetheanum stands would be in the same relationship to it as Switzerland, because the Goetheanum is to become a kind of center for the world society. So of course Switzerland has a special relationship to what is now being formed as the Goetheanum. And I could imagine that there might be more will than there is now to support the Goetheanum if the Swiss Anthroposophical Society felt homogeneous – I could imagine that – if it knew where the boundary is between the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and the Goetheanum, which of course belongs just as much to the Swiss Society as it does to the Dutch Society, and so on. But they are simply protected by the fact that they are further away. And now the Friends want to erect a wall that puts Switzerland in the same position in relation to the Goetheanum as the Netherlands or England. I can well imagine the motives behind this proposal, and I think it will only be a matter of finding the right way to do it. Because members from all over the world will always meet here for shorter or longer periods of time. So it will have to be negotiated on the basis that it is desirable to simply create a proper boundary here between Swiss members and those who may only be here by chance. It's not an easy matter!

You see, if a general assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is convened in Dornach, the guests from all over the world who happen to be present will of course not be there, but there will always be a place in the branch at the Goetheanum where they can meet again – that is desirable – and where they can also meet with Swiss friends. Isn't that right? Clearer conditions can be created than they are now. And precisely what you have now criticized is, of course, something that has come about, like so much in the Anthroposophical Society unfortunately comes about: namely, much comes about simply because people do not feel bound by the practices that arise naturally for our meetings. It cannot happen anywhere else in the world that you actually do not know who belongs to a meeting. At the meeting you just mentioned, no one knew – in practice, of course – who belonged to the meeting, because everyone who was there spoke, and the whole thing was an absolutely heterogeneous mass. But everyone felt they had equal rights, everyone voted and so on. After all, no one knew who was entitled to vote, what a majority was, and so on. Today it was only abandoned because yesterday I proposed that it be done so that people know who is actually in the assembly.^{2Apparently there was a preliminary discussion on December 7, but there is no report of it.} So today it is only different on the basis of a precise understanding of the facts. But if you do not do something that clarifies the situation, who can guarantee that you will not have meetings like the last ones again in the future?

Walter Knopfli believes that when something happens here at the Goetheanum, a course or a lecture event, then every member has access, whether they are from Holland or Switzerland; there is no difference. But when it comes to other questions, such as contributions and so on, business to be done, then it is done separately in Holland, and Switzerland also has to do it for itself. Many more people will settle here, and he takes it for granted that the branch at the Goetheanum must take on a different position because mainly foreigners are here. If this branch becomes independent and international, then cooperation can still take place.

Dr. Steiner: That is quite right. It will then also turn out that this Swiss Society will preferably have Swiss representatives on its board, or at least representatives of the Swiss branches. So an office will emerge that has the character you want, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, the matter has now been taken over by an office that consisted largely of non-Swiss, except for Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: The board members of the branches were always the same.

Dr. Steiner: I mean the office that convened the meeting. Of course, Mr. Steffen is signed here. But the conveners, apart from Mr. Steffen, are they all Swiss?

Albert Steffen: Not all of them, but Mr. Storrer, Mr. Stokar and Dr. Grosheintz.

Dr. Steiner: Do you now wish to make a specific proposal that can then be voted on?

Walter Knopfli: I would first like to propose a vote on whether, in principle, a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be considered in this way and should be established in the future, and whether the branch at the Goetheanum should become international in this sense.

Dr. Steiner: The proposal has been made. — I now just have to ask: Does anyone wish to propose a differently formulated proposal on the same subject?

Rudolf Geering: I would just like to request, in the interest of the Goetheanum itself, that, after all, the branch at the Goetheanum belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in relation to the outside world. I believe that this is necessary for the sake of the branch's security, for the sake of the reputation it is to enjoy in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: That's right, we can find a way to do this, since what you actually want does not exclude the proposal. We can find a way to do this. And it will be easy to find: the Goetheanum branch belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society without having a seat and vote there. Now Mr. Knopfli has proposed a motion to vote on whether to continue negotiations in principle on a demarcation between those present here and members who are permanently present but represent Switzerland to a lesser extent. I would now vote on this motion if a specially modified motion were not submitted.

Albert Steffen: We are all here quite unprepared, so that the matter should be thought through a little better and this motion should not be submitted until Christmas. I do not yet see the pros and cons clearly, I do not yet understand them completely.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to join Mr. Steffen because she believes that for most people this proposal comes as a bit of a surprise, so that they need time to think about it.

Dr. Steiner: I think that is not excluded, because the motion is to be put as to whether this question of founding a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be approached or whether it should be negotiated. I think it does not exclude that. — Nor does it exclude yours! The proposal is not being made now to do this or that, but only to approach the question of whether a proposal to that effect should be made at the delegates' meeting. - If someone would like to make a modified proposal to that, I would ask them to do so.

Dr. Lagutt would like to propose that we only establish a Swiss Society and leave it to the branch at the Goetheanum to decide whether it wants to join the branch or not. So not that we decide to exclude a branch, but leave it to the branch. Because depending on how it corresponds to the statutes, this will become possible or impossible.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, even according to the rules of procedure, because the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists. So you can't establish it, you can only change the name. Whether it is called the “Swiss Society” or the “Society in Switzerland” is a mere name change. Something must therefore be done in the direction that the branch at the Goetheanum does not participate in the negotiations of the Society, which is supposed to represent what is meant here. — One must feel this more, it is not so precisely defined — I cannot say how it should be named. But otherwise it would only be a matter of a name change.

Dr. Lagutt: I believe that it will basically only be a name change.

Dr. Steiner: But if it is only a name change, it is immediately somewhat different. If a Swiss Anthroposophical Society is established that has the branch at the Goetheanum as a co-branch, but this branch in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society does not have a seat and vote, whereas the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is represented in the international society just like any other national society, I think that would be a very clear fact! And then the only question would be whether this would be opportune in terms of external representation. Because I could well imagine that this, just as it might complicate dealings with the authorities on the one hand, could also facilitate them on the other. So if we say to the authorities: We have a Swiss Anthroposophical Society — and those who are not Swiss, who are international, we want to avoid the word international altogether — do not have a seat and vote in the Swiss Society. That could also make a favorable impression, could it not? Isn't it true that things are always more to be weighed than to be discussed? Don't you agree, Dr. Lagutt?

Dr. Jan Lagutt is somewhat reluctant to the idea that one should exclude a branch. That should be left to that branch.

Rudolf Hahn believes that if a Swiss national association is formed without the association at the Goetheanum, then the association at the Goetheanum will carry more weight with the Swiss authorities, otherwise the authorities will regard the association at the Goetheanum directly as a foreign organization. And then our opponents will have a very strong weapon, namely to say: “These foreign Fötzel should get out!” — These expressions are already heard a lot in our country. — If, on the other hand, the association at the Goetheanum remains in the national society, then the latter may have a somewhat more difficult position vis-à-vis the authorities, but at the same time it protects the branch at the Goetheanum. I believe it needs this protection! I believe that this is worth more than if the Society in Switzerland were to face its authority without a branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, I believe that the branch at the Goetheanum should remain inside, so that it has the support it needs from Swiss society.

Dr. Steiner: But would that not also be the case if this branch at the Goetheanum - it will not be an association, only a branch - had no seat or vote in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society? Rudolf Hahn: That would of course be correct.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, the way the gentlemen here see it, they would have to agree if this branch at the Goetheanum were a “co-branch” and only had no seat or vote in the Swiss Society.

Rudolf Hahn has not yet heard that this has been discussed. Dr. Steiner asks: Have you not done that?

Albert Steffen: It is perhaps possible that Swiss people, precisely because they are anthroposophists, no longer feel so nationally. And is it not perhaps conceivable that such Swiss people would want to join the branch at the Goetheanum in the event of such a separation? That is quite conceivable, namely — - so that this branch would grow very much. And then, under certain circumstances, the Swiss Society as such could also

be damaged and might lose a certain spiritual weight.

A gentleman proposes that Mr. Knopfli's proposal not be considered. If this proposal is not necessary, then it is a matter for the assembly itself, and then a general assembly of the Swiss should be convened, and the matter should be discussed and voted on in this general assembly of the Swiss. The proposer believes that Mr. Knopfli's view is certainly not shared by all anthroposophists, but only by some of them. He believes that Mr. Steffen tends to think much too internationally rather than having a character that is too strongly chauvinistic.

Dr. Steiner: If I understand this correctly, is this a motion to move on to the agenda? Does anyone wish to speak about this?

Willy Storrer: I would like to speak again and emphasize that he finds Dr. Steiner's advice Steiner as the real solution, and this is also the opinion of his friends: that the branch is internationalized in fact, but formally belongs to the Swiss Society; but then the members of the branch at the Goetheanum have no voting rights in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but Swiss members of that branch should then have the option of becoming members of another branch with a more Swiss orientation. And because many do not have the option of paying contributions twice, they should be allowed to be members of the other branch without paying contributions. But what matters is: We regard the present form and organs of the Society as provisional, and our proposal is that a general assembly of Swiss members should take place somewhere, in Olten or Zurich, and that the organs of a Swiss Society be elected there – that is, the delegates and the actual leadership of the Swiss Society, a kind of working committee – so that a strong Swiss Society will exist in public view as the Goetheanum is being rebuilt, and that it will have the possibility, through its organs, through its active leadership, to confront all the obstacles and opposition that exist in Switzerland with strength. We believe that this is not as possible with the previous forms as it would be in the future if the proposals and motions we are about to put forward are implemented.

Dr. Steiner: As far as I know, no one else has come forward? — We now first have to discuss the motion to move on to the agenda. Does anyone wish to speak on this motion?

Walter Knopfli would like the motion of principle questions to be voted on first: whether the question of principle should be approached.

Dr. Steiner: If a motion is made to move on to the agenda, then it must be dealt with first and voted on. There is no other way. Of course, if the transition to the agenda is accepted, it would mean that things would simply be pursued in a different way. There is no other way. But of course the motion to move on to the agenda can be discussed.

Willy Storrer proposes that we vote on this motion to move on to the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: That goes without saying! But if no one else wishes to speak, then I ask those delegates who are in favor of moving on to the agenda to represent the two votes, to raise both hands. Those who only have one vote, raise one hand. - (It happens.) 13 votes in favor of moving on to the agenda. A simple majority would be 12 votes. The request is accepted, so nothing can be done. The next point would be ——

Albert Steffen: Yes, there is something that is closely related to this question. We had intended to bring a resolution or to propose to the delegates, which reads something like this:

"On the day of the inaugural meeting of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland would like to express its gratitude and enthusiasm that the Goetheanum, which serves the cultural life of all humanity, may once again be built in Switzerland. It sees this as a good fortune and a great honor for its country. She wishes to express her determination to do everything possible to transmit from here to the whole world the inexhaustible wealth of spiritual impulses that Rudolf Steiner's work brings to the world. She is pleased to be able to work together with the other national societies to help ensure that this pure and healing source is accessible to all who seek it. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Since my name appears in this motion and Mr. Steffen is the proponent, I will ask Dr. Grosheintz to take the chair.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone wish to speak on this motion? Rudolf Geering thinks that this resolution should be accepted without further ado.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: It has been proposed that this resolution be adopted.

Willy Stokar: Excuse me, but I would like to ask you to state the purpose of the resolution again.

Albert Steffen: The purpose of the resolution is precisely that our Society in Switzerland has an easier time dealing with the authorities if, for example, our Society shows that it has a certain standing in Switzerland and that we stand up for it, so that it is recognized that we mean something as an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Is it intended to be published? Albert Steffen: Yes.

Willy Stokar: In that case, if it is to be done, I would at least like to wish, from my own feelings, that it should only happen when the whole founding story is behind us, when we can present ourselves as a society that is really capable of emphatically representing something like this as a resolution, and that it should only happen after Christmas, when we are over the hill.

Albert Steffen: I have actually considered this too, since I started like this: “In the days when the founding meeting of the Anthroposophical Society took place in Dornach...” So I don't think it will be published now, but around Christmas.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: I would like to say that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! A decision may be taken to transform it into something else, but for the time being it still exists and could adopt the resolution. And it can then perhaps proclaim this once more in its last days or hours. The new society can adopt and proclaim the resolution again. But the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! I think it is a resolution that could find a little more approval and enthusiasm.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: So it is a matter of whether you want to agree to this resolution or reject it. Those in favor, please raise your hand. — It is the vast majority.

Dr. Steiner: Now, the next item on the agenda, which would be the point listed in our report in the July session of the ^{3rd International Delegates' Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach from July 20-23, 1923, see page 557.}.

Albert Steffen: It would be particularly important, Doctor, that the delegates now tell us who will speak at the relevant morning discussions on the areas related to anthroposophy, and who will report on the school or on medical achievements and so on, as it is stated here in the program.

Dr. Wachsmuth: May I say a few words about this? It says something like this: We will now appoint a person who will report, let's say, on education, medicine, literature and so on. First, let's say what has been reported in the Netherlands or England or somewhere else in the field of education, school studies or the preparation that has now been made in England in the field of schools. Secondly, what is planned for the future in the subject. And thirdly, what is expected from the international society for help. Another speaks more about the medical, founding of the clinic in Holland or report on this work in England. Another more about the literary work.

It would be conceivable that on the days set aside for discussion, one speaker at a time, also in Switzerland, would report on what has been achieved so far and what can be expected in the future, so that a picture of the international work can emerge.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak on this? Then it could only be a matter of whether someone from the assembly of delegates has something to announce for these topics, whether they have something to report.

Willy Storrer would like to register a short presentation about the work on the weekly journal “Das Goetheanum” for the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to register a topic? It seems not. Then we come to the next item on the agenda: the 12 points listed in our report on the July conference. Does anyone wish to say anything about them? Does anyone have a specific suggestion regarding them? (To Mr. Steffen:) Would you like to make a suggestion regarding them?

Albert Steffen: I expect these from the ranks of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish these 12 points to be read out? ^{4See page 571 ff.}

Willy Storrer would like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Steffen could indicate a few of these 12 points that should be discussed, because it is only a few points that can be discussed here.

Dr. Wachsmuth: Item 8 is the following: It has been discussed in the Netherlands: statement of the Secretary General. - Then there are some things regarding the admission of new members; an extremely important point. You know that it was proposed that the members, i.e. new members, be admitted by the Secretary General of the country and that then these membership cards be countersigned by the international chairman or the official. This was proposed in Holland at the time, also in England, and will be proposed here at Christmas, purely formally. Now it will be necessary' to ask whether this is also to be the practice in Switzerland or whether it is to be left to the meeting.

The tenth point: fending off opponents.

The eleventh point: collaboration of members in all countries in supporting the initiatives launched by the Anthroposophical Society.

The twelfth point is the rebuilding of the Goetheanum and whatever can be done for it.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to address any other points?

Albert Steffen: A manuscript has arrived here regarding a proposal for regulating the financial capacity of the Society. I don't know whether it should be read out; it is from Mr. Hahn. Would you like to read it yourself, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn reads out the proposal. He recalls that Dr. Steiner once mentioned that not the tax on income but the tax on expenditure would be the right thing to do to bring in money. He proposes that the members pay a tax on expenditure.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note that the sentence that was in it, in which I spoke of “taxation of expenditure”, did not refer to taxation on the part of anthroposophical members of the Society. — It could very easily give rise to the opinion that I had somehow spoken of such taxation before, but that is not the case at all. I have only said that when public taxes, state taxes, are levied, a calculation cannot, in all fairness, be made according to income, but according to expenditure. I say this so that the opinion does not arise that I had something to do with the request or had said this before.

Rudolf Hahn says that he proposed it entirely on his own initiative.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak about points 8, 10, 11, 12, or about Mr. Hahn's proposal?

Mrs. Weiss (Zurich) cannot, however, represent the branch's view, but only speak personally, because the branch was not yet aware of the proposal. But she would just like to say that she personally does not like this proposal from Mr. Hahn at all. It would look very much like coercion if taxation were to be introduced as it is otherwise in churches, as a poor tax, as a school tax. She would really not welcome such taxation based on income and wealth for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. This should be left to the freedom of the individual.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak? — Are you putting this forward as a proposal, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn proposes to see to it that money is raised in some way in order to increase the financial capacity of the Society. He sees this as a possibility for improvement. And we need to have money; we can't survive on our current income. Perhaps someone has another idea? — He doesn't see why we have to talk about taxation. We contribute 24 francs, which is not enough. But we have a large number of members who can't contribute any more. It has been suggested that voluntary contributions should be made, but nothing comes of that.

Walter Knopfli cannot agree with this proposal either. He believes that one must distinguish between membership fees of an association and donations made available to the institution. Contributions are necessary for management, administration and so on. What one gives for the Goetheanum or for the school is something else, that is, donation money. And here the freedom of the individual should be preserved.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Walter Knopfli: The contribution of 10 francs should actually suffice. It will then be up to the international society to decide how much the members of the foreign societies contribute to the central office of the international society. I believe that these contributions will then make it possible to manage the business.

Dr. Steiner: So you think that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should propose that the international society determine what the individual national societies should contribute? Of course, there is also the difference between having a fixed amount delivered or a certain percentage of the membership fee of the respective national societies. I don't think it would be possible to introduce such a measure in the Anthroposophical Society. I believe that the antipathy to a taxation system, quite apart from how it is to be carried out in practice, would be extremely great. But that is not true. A society like the Anthroposophical Society in its present form should really be based on the freedom of its members with regard to membership fees and payments in general. It cannot be said that setting a fixed membership fee goes against the principle of freedom, because those who do not want to pay do not join in the first place, or they leave if they are already members. It is up to each person to pay the membership fee if it is not too high for them. But if you introduce a paragraph, a tax, I believe that would make us appear in a very strange light. And finally, I must say: the things that are mentioned here in point 11 will hardly flourish if that is the only way they are solved. The individual branches can of course dispose of their membership fees or decide from the bosom of their members what they like. But for all these special movements such as Waldorf schools, medicine and so on, it will always be necessary that special contributions be made, which will be made by those who can afford them. One can really only appeal to goodwill here. To exert any kind of compulsion there – which would only be possible with some members who are already inside the society – such a measure in the statutes would, of course, erect a fortress wall around the society, and no one, or very few people, would join. It's a bit strange, but I would still like to say: after all, you can't base the payment of contributions on making people look into their wallets.

Rudolf Hahn says that this was not meant. If you say that it is desirable to give 1 or 1% of your income, it is entirely left to the freedom or conscience of the individual. We have to have the money anyway!

There will be further negotiations.

Dr. Steiner: What is the difference in terms of merit between what you are talking about here and what the association actually charges? If, for example, the membership fee is set at a certain amount and people who cannot afford it are exempt, but people are free to pay a higher membership fee? We have a paragraph that says: ...can pay more! What is the difference?

Rudolf Hahn: The suggestion that perhaps more should be paid. It is just possible that no one pays 100 or 200 francs; but there are members who could afford that. On the other hand, there are members who could be forgiven a waiver of the contribution.

Dr. Jakob Hugentobler: Mr. Hahn has actually only mentioned a single example where the contributions are insufficient. He spoke of the library. It is his opinion that the contribution should not be used to finance the other purposes of the Society, but that the 24 francs should be sufficient for the actual business. Mr. Hahn should try to work in his branch in Basel in such a way that he receives his contributions for these special purposes from case to case. He will certainly succeed, as in other branches.

Rudolf Hahn says that in Basel you can have bad experiences with this.

Dr. Steiner: But this is not even a suggestion. One must, I would say, bring a moral impulse into it. I do not mean that it is immoral, but I do mean that one must think of more moral impulses than that. For you see, it is not possible for anyone to be asked to calculate something like a membership fee for the Anthroposophical Society according to their income or even according to their livelihood! Because it does come into consideration how much he is able to make deductions from a real income. Just imagine: if someone has an income of 1,000 marks a month and he is a single bachelor, and another has just as much and has ten children: how can one think of proceeding there?

Rudolf Hahn: Perhaps through a special commission?

Dr. Steiner: I think that would be the most dangerous thing. Apart from the fact that I already feel that the tax commission is sufficiently dangerous – do we then need another tax commission in the Anthroposophical Society? I cannot imagine that this would give us any special prestige.

Ms. Weiß asks whether the question was not completely settled at the last meeting, so that the office is submitting the proposals.

Dr. Wachsmuth says that he would like to mention that the proposal does not come from the office.

Rudolf Hahn: Dr. Blümel said that not 10, but 20 percent was needed. I, for one, already know what I have to do with the money.

Dr. Steiner: I am even convinced that you will not use it for yourself, but for society. But I don't know – it's really not appropriate to have a paragraph or a statute or something like that worded that way. Because it would actually have a deterrent effect on those people who want to become members first.

Question: Can't Dr. Steiner put this motion to the vote on a trial basis?

Dr. Steiner: But that would only mean that it is the motion to end the debate. The motion has been put. — Please raise your hand! Please raise your hand! It is adopted. — Then the motion is put to the vote. I therefore put Mr. Hahn's motion to the vote and ask those in favor to raise their hands. — It is unanimously rejected — by one vote, I think. |

Isn't it the case – I'm really not being pedantic, but I would like to point this out – that it is best to follow these small nuances during the proceedings: There will be an immediate vote if someone proposes to end the debate. So those things that have already been properly introduced into parliamentary life contribute greatly to the meeting running in a proper manner. Does anyone have anything to add to any of these points? I think that the esteemed delegate friends will be a little unprepared to speak about these 12 points right now, because they probably haven't thought about them yet. It is probably in the invitation, but these things can only be fruitfully discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. If anyone has any further suggestions, I would ask them to do so.

One gentleman is not clear about why the admission of a new member should be countersigned by the international secretariat regarding point 8. What value should this have?

Dr. Steiner: This does have a certain value. I must say, however, that it is not made clear enough in point 8. But this point will, of course, be discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. It does have a certain value. It would be significant if all membership cards issued for the Anthroposophical Society had a uniform signature. As I said, it would have a value. And won't the responsibilities arise from the way in which the office of the international society is organized at Christmas? I cannot imagine that this responsibility arises in any other way than by the responsible officials here in Dornach having the necessary trust for the international society in the officials present in the individual countries: For example, where general secretaries have been appointed, as in Norway, England and the Netherlands. Of course, the person who is responsible for the Society here must have confidence in the respective general secretaries there. Only in this way can there be mutual responsibility. This was also recently established at the meeting of delegates of the Dutch Society, where it was stated: The founding assembly elects a general secretary. He has been elected. And now, isn't it true, of course, that this is subject to the proviso that the official in question, who will be at the head of the international society, gives his consent afterwards and that, if there is a change in the society - the Dutch society has decided this - then the question is put to Dornach as to whether they agree with it. Of course, that would not prevent the board of the respective national society from feeling completely autonomous. But those officials of the national society who mediate the contact with Dornach must somehow be designated or elected in agreement with Dornach, must they not? Otherwise we would not have the international society if something like that were not established.

Walter Knopfli would like to hear more about the first point of these 12 provisions, which has not yet been discussed at all. He says: We are here now as delegates of the Swiss Society and should be able to summarize what the Swiss Society is representing at this international conference. But if we now close the assembly of delegates and I have to report to my branch on what has just happened, I would have nothing to report. There has been some discussion, but a request has been made for the debate to be closed. It is precisely this point 1 that was declared necessary to discuss at the beginning of the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that item 1 be discussed. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this?

Willy Storrer: We would like to repeat our proposal regarding this point: the previous form of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be regarded as provisional, and perhaps a founding, a primal assembly of Swiss members should be held next Saturday or Sunday in Zurich or Olten, at which the organization of the Society should be decided and those should be elected who are then to be represented at the Assembly of Delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Edgar Dürler would just like to strongly support Mr. Storrer's request and hope that it will not be destroyed again with buzzwords like “chauvinism”.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to request that this be postponed until after Christmas. She also thinks it necessary to discuss this thoroughly. There seems to be a lot of opposition to the current company. The reasons for the formation of a new Swiss company will then become clear. But in any case, the time before Christmas is too short to organize everything.

Miss...? says that if every delegate here reports back home, then at Christmas the delegates can also report on how the branch views this question.

Mrs. Weiss also thinks that this meeting should take place before Christmas so that everyone will know how to join the international society.

Albert Steffen: I don't see any reason why the Swiss members shouldn't gather. They should really gather.

Willy Storrer: I also don't see why this shouldn't be done. After all, the delegates and members of the surrounding area have also been invited to attend the meeting in order to carry out all the preparations for the delegates' meeting, and this invitation has been issued for a time that does not actually allow for such a discussion, namely at 10 o'clock at night. If it was thought that the matter could be dealt with in this relatively short period of time, a whole week should be allowed for the members to express their views. He thinks there is enough time, especially if a Saturday or Sunday is chosen as the meeting date.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but who should call the meeting? The matter is this: at present the Anthroposophical Society exists in Switzerland. It is represented today by its delegates. So far we have counted on them when it was a matter of bringing together the individual national societies. So formally everything would be in order for the Christmas Conference, and the suggestion that Mr. Knopfli first made can certainly be made at the Christmas Conference. So there are only two possibilities: either the same body could convene another meeting like the one today, or, for all I care, a meeting of Swiss members, or else a general meeting would have to be convened. And that can only be done if someone calls it.

Willy Storrer believes that this question could be resolved by saying: the previous delegates of the Swiss branches go home and call a general meeting and inform this general meeting that the previous delegates have decided to hold a meeting in Zurich for the individual members, who will then join. The secretariat could take care of this.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, of course, from a formal point of view. The delegates who are here now are delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. They cannot decide to convene a general assembly. They can only decide to convene a meeting of those who are now members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. A general assembly can only be convened by someone who does so, well, from the original state. An original assembly can only be convened by someone taking responsibility – alone or with a number of comrades whom they elect themselves with – to issue a call to all those members whom they want and with whom they intend to hold an original assembly; and this assembly can then bring a proposal to the delegates' assembly at Christmas. But the Society's Assembly of Delegates cannot in any way propose the convening of a general assembly, because there is no such thing as a “general assembly” of an existing society.

Willy Storrer: In this case, we, that is, the representatives of the St. Gallen, Neuchâtel, Schaffhausen and “New Generation” branches who are present here, would convene this original assembly.

Dr. Steiner: Then you can convene it from these branches, but you must also create an independent office out of yourselves, out of your idea. But an “original assembly” cannot be convened from something that already exists. It can be decided to convene a second assembly, somewhere for my sake, but not an original assembly.

Walter Knopfli: A decision should not be made here, but the procedure should be followed in such a way that the branches agree among themselves on who wants to take charge of the matter. Then the person concerned, outside the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, outside the Assembly of Delegates, will issue this invitation and then convene it outside, in a completely neutral way, based entirely on the original state. Those who wish to do so can no doubt agree among themselves on who will do this. In the meantime, the delegates who are here can be asked to invite their members at home to take a preliminary position on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: That can certainly be done, but no resolution can be passed on it. Don't you see that? It is not possible to pass a resolution on it!

Walter Knopfli: Yes, that is a point that is very important to me regarding point 1: reporting on the national associations. There is a certain mood in favor of it.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but is it really the case that so little is known about this intention to found an international society here? Is it really the case that so little is known about it?

Walter Knopfli: The intended founding of the international society is of course known to all members, but the question is how we as the Swiss society relate to it. The question is –

Dr. Emil Grosheintz (interrupts): But you are now opposing the Swiss Society! What you are asking for here is quite impossible. We are the delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. Now you do not like this Society and you are saying: We want to strangle ourselves by convening another assembly or by doing something else with the Society. It is simply that the present form of the Society does not suit you! Do you want us ourselves to strangle ourselves, as I can't say it any other way, to decide to form a primary assembly and start again immediately? And then it is impossible to understand how Mr. Storrer can say that this Society, as it now exists, is a provisional arrangement. It is not a provisional arrangement, it exists! And I believe that if something else is to happen in society, if it is to modify itself in such a way that the Swiss members join together more closely, then the group here, because it has an international character, this character of internationality, as it naturally exists in Dornach, this character is best expressed when an international branch is formed at the Goetheanum. If it can be done in the way Dr. Steiner has suggested, that is the very best and most natural way. I don't know why you are now pushing and insisting on bringing about this revolution before Christmas.

Dr. Steiner: But earlier it was quite possible to discuss the matter! Everything was absolutely clear, and in fact there was no reason to come back to the proposal again. It even seems — since it is being revisited — that ulterior motives are still at play that one does not want to express. Because now we are at a point where it is actually no longer possible to understand what is wanted. For example, I don't understand what Mr. Storrer wants.

Willy Storrer: All we want is for a members' meeting to take place.

Dr. Steiner: But a members' meeting can only be decided here by the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Willy Storrer: That is what we want, Doctor! It is immaterial to us whether the meeting is an ordinary or an extraordinary one. The branch at the Goetheanum is represented here by Dr. Grosheintz and someone else. For example, I have not heard that it has been carried out that these representatives of their members are now taking a stand.

Dr. Steiner: You can of course decide here that a general meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be convened.

Martha Schelling says that she believes that only a few members will be able to respond to the call, because they cannot come twice in the short time available.

Dr. Steiner: We really ought to speak objectively on this question. Now that we have already elected the chairmen of the meeting, I would like to point out that it would be really necessary to give reasons for things when discussing such matters. Simply saying that we want this and that is not really a statement of reasons. I believe that now – today is December 8, and the delegates' meeting begins on the 24th – that calling a members' meeting in Switzerland in some place is such a drastic measure, something so incisive, that one should of course consider it very carefully. And above all, I believe that one should not proceed carelessly in such a matter. Because it is quite absolutely this to consider that every choice of a place that you make today can be made in such a way that a group can outvote the whole of Switzerland and the whole Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. You simply choose the place accordingly. You know, in some place nearby, there are members who want something specific. They want to create a majority for themselves, and to do that they choose a location. They know: if we choose St. Gallen, we have the majority there; if we choose Olten, we have the majority there, and so on. These things are of such importance that they must be considered in the face of the other point, which should actually be brought forward. Is there really such widespread dissatisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland that an extraordinary general meeting should be convened at such short notice? Is this dissatisfaction really so great? Or can what Mr. Knopfli has put forward, which I very much understood, simply be introduced in the form of a proposal put forward by those members who consider it necessary? — It can very well be put forward in the form of a proposal by individual members, then you have a very clean thing. Then there is a motion, which, for my part, is supported by 30 or however many members. There is a proper motion, and you do not now call a meeting with some ulterior motive through the will of an unequal majority, the will of individual members, that is, a vanishing minority! You have to take all that into account! Of course I have no right to interfere in this matter in any way. But I think it is absolutely dangerous if, after nothing has been said about the matter so far, after a long period of satisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, a meeting is now to be convened from December 8 to December 24 with no explanation. At the very least, they should explain why they need a general meeting. Because they don't need a general meeting to make the request that Mr. Knopfli has made. I am completely convinced that - Walter Knopfli says he can agree to this. He thinks that individual representatives will also take a stand at Christmas - the delegate of the branch at the Goetheanum has taken a stand. If the decision is then made to establish the new Anthroposophical Society, as assumed, and to join the international Society, then the existing Society in Switzerland will formally give its consent, and only after that should the change take place.

Dr. Steiner: You see, something will be done about this at Christmas. A certain internationalization of the branch at the Goetheanum would take place, and in my opinion, conditions will then be created with which you can be satisfied. I do believe that in general – whether you change the name or not, that is really a secondary question – I do believe that you can have what you want, if there is no ulterior motive! What you say you want can certainly be achieved with the resolutions that deal with the right things.

Miss Emma Ramser: The gentlemen have stated that if their proposal is accepted, they will make specific proposals. If the proposal is accepted in such a way that the separation is addressed, they would like to make specific proposals.

Dr. Steiner: But you can't address the separation! That's quite impossible.

Miss Emma Ramser: Could the gentlemen not perhaps communicate what they have to say to the branches point by point over the next week, so that it can be discussed, so that the delegates are not, so to speak, faced with a fait accompli again, I don't want to say taken by surprise. But if the number of members cannot come at Christmas... so that we know what is to be discussed...

Dr. Steiner: It would have been quite good if the opinion had been expressed that, apart from what has been said, there are still some deficiencies in the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, it could have been brought up today!

Walter Knopfli: It was not meant as a vote of no confidence, I only said what had been said. And the specific proposals were to consider something like a primeval assembly and how society has to be reconstituted, how to do that to avoid misunderstandings. There are no hidden agendas

. Willy Storrer requests the floor.

Dr. Steiner: What you have proposed can indeed be arranged in the simplest way, also with regard to point 1. It is true that I have read this abbreviated report of the International Assembly of Delegates in Dornach with this appendix on the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach [see $. 557]; but I must say: these 12 points look terrible, of course! And if we continue to debate this in the same way as now, we will not be finished by tomorrow morning. We will have to discuss the merger of the individual national societies that have already been founded. This first point can be dealt with in five minutes at the delegates' meeting. It just doesn't look like that, because there are four lines here; but all that is needed is to express the will to found this international society. And the reports on the various forms taken by the societies in different countries will not take up much time either. If there is the will to found this International Anthroposophical Society, then I believe we should not talk much about the formalities at all, but should find the transition to talking about a number of really important things in the anthroposophical field, which should then be discussed. I do not think it would be good to talk at length about these questions at all during this meeting at Christmas, questions which have been bandied about so much this evening and about which one usually does not know what is actually wanted. Isn't that right? According to the rules of procedure, I didn't even have to allow the motion to be discussed again. It was a concession that I allowed it to be discussed again, but then the reasons should have been presented.

Willy Storrer: Yes, Doctor, we have presented these reasons! Because we believe that it is necessary for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland to re-establish itself, that it must do so, and we wanted to make proposals in this direction. We wanted this general meeting to express its opinion on this.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Mr. Storrer! We are now at a meeting of delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If you make the request that this society should reconstitute itself - do not say “must”, it must re-establish itself - but then say the reasons why you believe that this should happen and what its shortcomings and damages are, other than those that have already been mentioned.

Willy Storrer says that Mr. Knopfli, Mr. Stokar and he agree that it would be better for the effect on the outside world if the leadership of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society consisted more of Swiss members, if there were another working committee instead of the working committee, which could still exist quite well at the Goetheanum, perhaps even composed of the individual branches in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Please, then nominate other people at the next meeting where there is an election. That is not an item for discussion. You can't just make a request at any old time!

Willy Stokar: I request that the debate be closed.

Dr. Steiner: The motion to end the debate has been made. I ask those delegates who are in favor to raise their hands. - I now ask those who are against it to raise their hands. — The motion to end the debate has therefore been adopted.

Is there anything else? That does not appear to be the case. Then we come to the end. I thank the honored friends for attending this meeting of delegates. I hope that, despite the fact that we have spoken a little “opaque” about many things, that nevertheless what we have spoken about will bear good fruit at the very important meeting of delegates at Christmas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[After Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner returned from Stuttgart to Dornach on December 20, Rudolf Steiner addressed the following words to the members present the next day, introducing the evening lecture, after someone had already asked to hand in their passports:]

Before I begin the lecture, I also have a number of announcements for the next few days.

Firstly, I would ask those of our dear friends who are always, or at least mostly always here, to take their seats in that shed we are making out here during the Christmas Conference. The fact of the matter is that, in an especially gratifying way, the attendance at the Christmas Conference will be very large, and we will have to expand the carpentry workshop here [points to where it is] – the visitors will not enter here – by adding, well, how should I put it, an “internal villa” with large windows leading out to it. I hope that one can hear just as well there as here in the hall. But now, there is such a thing as politeness in the world, and so I would ask that those of our dear friends who always sit here in the middle of the hall at least partially move out there, where the new seats are provided. We can only accommodate a maximum of 600 people in this hall, and that will be very difficult. So I ask you to take this request into consideration.

Then I would ask that access to the events only be granted to visitors half an hour before the event begins. Because in the meantime, for the very reasons I have just mentioned, we have to air the hall here a great deal. So this carpentry workshop and the shed cannot be entered until half an hour before the start of the event in question. Furthermore, I have another important request. It consists of my asking even the oldest members - I now mean the oldest in terms of membership - to bring their membership cards for all events in the next few days, because a strict check must take place and this really cannot take place if the membership cards are not available. For members who, for whatever reason (I have not yet heard that forgetfulness exists among anthroposophists, but it could happen), for members who for whatever reason do not have their membership card, there is the possibility of reporting to the secretariat downstairs in the Friedwart house and having an interim card issued for the conference.

Then there is a fourth thing – and a great deal more will be added in the next few days –: Our friends are asked to reserve the two front rows this time, so please do not take a seat in the two front rows if you are not hard of hearing or lame or otherwise so constituted that you have a special claim to these first rows. I would ask that this be observed as an unexceptional rule.

These are the things that I have to bring up first today.

[Then follows the actual lecture, see GA 232.)

Introductory words before the evening lecture.

My dear friends! I too have various matters to bring up in connection with the delegates' meeting.¹ Some of these matters have already been brought up by me. I will also repeat those things that I have already mentioned, because new friends arrive here every day.

First of all, we will need to make an extension because of the gratifyingly large number of visitors here. I already said yesterday that it would be a kind of “inner, internal villa” to make it possible for all visitors to really listen to the things that can be brought up during these days.

But then I would also ask you to take into account the fact that the first two rows this time should remain reserved without exception for all those friends who are somehow hard of hearing or lame or the like and who need these rows.

In this context, I would also like to ask you to please note that we are obliged to put the chairs in their places because of the large number of visitors, and we depend on the chairs staying in their places. So, for fire safety reasons, we have to create empty seats – we ask you not to do what usually happens after lectures here; so that every chair stays in the place where it was standing.

Furthermore, I ask that you please note that the rooms will only be opened half an hour before an event and will only be closed half an hour after the event. There is no other way.

I would also like to mention once again that we are dependent on exercising strict control this time; therefore, even older friends have to show their membership cards when entering. Otherwise it would be very difficult to tell who should and should not show it. As I said yesterday, it doesn't happen, but if it should happen that someone forgets their membership card, I ask that they have an interim card issued that they show every time they enter.

Then I would like to point out that there will be a eurythmy performance here tomorrow at five o'clock. These performances, the eurythmy performance and the Christmas play performance, can of course only ever be held in front of a smaller group. Now, the fact that most of them are repeated twice will ensure that everyone can attend the performances, provided that our friends are accommodating. Tomorrow, tickets will be issued for seats from which you can see something. And then the friends who can't get tickets tomorrow should just make an effort and say that tomorrow's performance will be repeated on Friday, December 28, so that everyone will have the opportunity to see it. But I really ask you not to take this as an excuse not to come tomorrow and then say to yourself, “We'll see it next Friday.” So, I ask you, despite the snow and so on, to take it upon yourself not to get tickets if you come too late. So, tomorrow at five o'clock.

Then, my esteemed attendees, I have something else to bring up, especially with regard to what is about to happen during the days of our delegates' meeting here. This assembly of delegates will have to shape the Anthroposophical Society, and this shaping will already have to be such, my dear friends, that this Anthroposophical Society fulfills the conditions that simply arise from today's circumstances. And I have to say that this Christmas meeting must proceed in such a way that one can expect from it: Now a workable Anthroposophical Society will emerge. I must say that if this prospect does not exist, I would have to draw the consequences that I have repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, I consider what has to happen during and through this Christmas event, for the founding of the Anthroposophical Society, which was preceded by the founding of the national societies, to be something extraordinarily serious and meaningful. So that here in Dornach, something will actually have to be created that is real simply by its existence. I will have to speak about the essentials at the inaugural meeting, which will take place next Monday; but what must be said today — because even the, I would like to say, original beginning must happen in such a way that one sees: the tone of the Anthroposophical Society will now be different. This is because, right from tomorrow, when most of the friends who want to co-found this Society will be here, there will be a provisional board of directors, which must become a definitive board of directors in the next few days, so that it can really work as such. And truly, my dear friends, I have been very, very much concerned with the question of how to shape the Society in recent times. I have also been involved in many foundations of regional societies, learned many things that are now alive among the members and so on, and I have been quite thoroughly involved with what is immediately necessary in the near future. And so today I would like to present my proposals first, preliminarily, because the matter must simply be dealt with before we begin.

You see, it cannot be otherwise: the seriousness of the matter will not be taken into account if the conditions for the continued existence, that is, actually for the reestablishment of the Society, of which I will speak on Monday, if these conditions are not met. But in order to fulfill these conditions, I myself have to set certain conditions, which may at first seem somewhat radical to some people. However, they are conditions that I feel I must set, and I say that I see no possibility of continuing to work with the Society on anthroposophical ground unless these conditions are met. And so, in order for you to familiarize yourselves with the idea, I would like to make the following proposal for the constitution of the executive council, which will function provisionally at first simply because I am making the proposal to you today, and I hope it will become a definitive executive council.

This executive council must be such that it can actually place Dornach at the center of the Anthroposophical Society. As I said, I have given a great deal of thought to the question of how to constitute the Society, and I assure you I have given it a great deal of thought. And after this thorough consideration, I can make no other proposal, my dear friends, than that you elect me as the chairperson of the Anthroposophical Society, and indeed as the official chairperson. I must therefore draw the conclusion from the experiences of recent years that I can actually only continue to work if I myself am elected as the real chairman. I want to renounce all honorary chairs and the like; I will not go into all those things where one only has to stand behind the scenes and be good for what others do. I will therefore only be able to continue working if I myself am elected as the real chairman of the Anthroposophical Society that is to be founded here. Of course, it is then necessary that, since I will be taking the work into my own hands, I will be assisted by those people who, due to the conditions in the work that has been prepared, are now the closest ones who can work here with me at the center. So, if I am elected as chairperson – otherwise I would not participate at all – I will propose the following: as second chairperson, or deputy chairperson, Mr. Steffen; as third board member Dr. Steiner; as fourth board member Dr. Wegman as secretary; As the fifth member of the Executive Council, I propose Dr. Vreede; as the sixth member, Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth, who would then take on the office of secretary and treasurer.

On Monday I will explain the reasons why I am only proposing people who live here in Dornach for the actual central council. A council that has to be sought out all over the world will never be able to work properly and cannot actually work. So they must be people living in Dornach. And those whom I have now proposed, as I said, myself, Mr. Steffen as deputy, Dr. Steiner, Dr. Wegman as secretary, Dr. Vreede, and Dr. Wachsmuth as secretary and treasurer, that would be the board, which would have to work from here.

But now, as I have already shown some friends in The Hague,* I understand the board of directorship in such a way that it is not only on paper, but that it stands in all responsibility on the board and represents the association. Therefore, I will ask that from tomorrow on, this provisional board of directors actually places itself in a representative position here in front of our friends at every opportunity, so that the matter is really as I made clear to our friends in The Hague: it cannot be done without a certain form in a proper company that is to function. Form must be there from the very beginning. I therefore request that this be taken into account, that as many as are provisional members of the board initially, there are chairs and that these board members

* See page 664 f. are seated facing the other members, so that one is constantly aware that this is the board. If one sits there and the other sits there, you can never get them together when you need them. So the point is that things are now really being taken up as realities. As I said, it's just because I wanted us to have a board of directors from tomorrow, so I have appointed this provisional board. The reasons for these things, which are already contained in what I have said, I will explain in detail on Monday in my opening address. On Monday I will also make a proposal for a constitution — I hope the statutes will be printed by then — which, based on the current conditions, is to underlie the constitution of the Society.

And now, my dear friends, I have said what I wanted to say at the starting point of our Christmas Conference here. But I still have to expand and continue in these two lectures today and tomorrow what I said in the last lectures about the mystery of the different times.

• 1. Earlier, Dr. Wachsmuth spoke of handing over the passports.