The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Address by Rudolf Steiner on the eve of the first Anthroposophical College Course at the Goetheanum.

My dear friends!

With the start of the School of Spiritual Science here in Dornach tomorrow, we are undoubtedly standing at a very important stage in our movement in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. And even if it is only very briefly, I would like to be allowed to say a few words today about the development of this spiritual science, after I already did so to a certain extent here some time ago, a few months ago, due to [opposing] attacks. Nevertheless, today I would like to draw your attention to a few things in this regard.

We will open this course for spiritual scientific knowledge in the Goetheanum itself, in the construction of the Goetheanum, in a building that is still unfinished but has progressed so far that work will be able to begin in it in the next few weeks. And when I now consider the name 'Goetheanum', which was given to this building in the way you know, I cannot help thinking of one of the starting points of this movement. As I have often indicated, and also printed in a few sentences in the introduction to my book Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life, our movement originates from the lectures I gave in Berlin at the beginning of the century to a small circle. This inner circle in Berlin consisted partly of people who at that time called themselves Theosophists; but it also included such personalities who were quite distant from what the others called Theosophy. This circle met once a week in the house of Countess Brockdorff in Berlin, and there lectures were given from the most diverse areas of intellectual and public life; some artistic activities were also cultivated. Once I was invited to give a lecture in this circle. And I accepted, although I had never been in this circle before and did not know whether I had met one or other of the personalities in this circle; in any case, I did not know the lady of the house or the master of the house. But there are moments in life when one is polite. So after I had agreed through an intermediary to give the requested lecture on Nietzsche - it was, after all, quite some time after the writing of my essay “Nietzsche, a Fighter Against His Time” - it occurred to me: You have to be polite, you are now going to the housewife and the head of the household. So I first wrote a letter to Countess Brockdorff, asking her for permission to pay a courtesy call before giving the lecture at the house. Countess Brockdorff wrote back to me that it was not necessary, I should just come to the lecture – I no longer remember on which day it was, just the next lecture [evening]. And so I came into this circle and gave a lecture on Nietzsche. At the end of this lecture, I was invited to give another lecture during the winter season. And I immediately said: Yes, I would give a lecture on the same topic that I had written about in the “Magazin für Literatur”, which I was editing at the time, for Goethe's hundred and fiftieth birthday.

I had written on the occasion of Goethe's hundred and fifth birthday: “Goethe's Secret Revelation”. I said that I wanted to speak about this topic, “Goethe's Secret Revelation”, at the lecture evening to which I had been invited. The lecture took place. And I tried to present everything that can be connected to Goethe's “Fairytale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily” in this lecture at the time.

That was actually, I would say, the original cell of this movement, my dear friends. The original cell was that lecture on Goethe's secret revelation. I have to mention this when we begin an important stage in our movement here at the Goetheanum tomorrow. Actually, it is very nice that this movement is returning to its beginning – at least for me and what I have to do in the movement.

It began with Goethe, and tomorrow we begin something extraordinarily important in the building that was given its name by Goethe. So you see, there is something of consistency and continuity in the whole course of our movement.

The lecture I gave [at that time] on Goethe's secret revelation then led to me having to present the essentials of what is now contained in my essay 'Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life' in connection with modern natural science in that circle during the following winter. Thus, having arisen from Goethe, it was then continued in that writing. I then presented to a wider circle what is contained in my book “Christianity as Mystical Fact”.

What is contained in my book “Mysticism” has already led to a large part of this “mysticism” being translated into English. And that led to me being invited to give lectures on what, in its various forms, was the “Theosophical Society”.

Now I will never allow anyone to take away the right to give lectures, to give what I have to advocate in order to advocate it, where I am invited to do so. Therefore, I also gave lectures for those who called themselves Theosophists, among other lectures, but which, as I told everyone from the outset who wanted to or should hear it, did not contain anything that had not arisen from my own research.

I then took part in various Theosophical congresses. In the meantime, this movement, which had come into being in this way, had gained members within Central Europe, members who stuck together mainly because of the world view that I had already advocated at the time. When I gave the lecture on Goethe's Secret Revelation, it didn't mean much that what was advocated there was advocated at the invitation of the Theosophical Society.

At one of the congresses in London, I also saw Olcott, the president of the Theosophical Society. He said to me at the time, “Yes, with this German Section, it's an awkward business.” I said: Why? – Yes, the membership lists are so difficult for us. – I said: I am not interested in the membership lists, I am more interested in the members; and if the members are there, I don't really care if they are on the list. – Well, similar comments were made more often.

After going through various stages [a congress was held in Munich – it was 1907 –] with the other Theosophists. And at that time, people were very surprised that this movement had sprung up so quickly within Central Europe, as it was put. For there was a dictum that had been passed from one to the other among members of the Theosophical Society, especially in the circles of those who were “advanced” - that's what they called those who directed something here or there; and this dictum, which was constantly being uttered among these people, was: Germany is not ripe for this.

Now, this dictum was somewhat suppressed in Munich at the time. But actually, this dictum did not seem entirely unjustified to me; because we were not ripe for what the Theosophical [Society] held in its bosom, nor are we today, and I don't think we care about it at all.

What this “immaturity” led to was that we did not mature to recognize this Hindu boy, Alcyone – or something like that was his name – who had been chosen to carry the soul of Christ Jesus, when others who had been chosen as suitable candidates for the incarnation of the soul of Christ Jesus had proved unsuitable. We proved ourselves to be completely immature. And so we were thrown out.

And so, more and more developed outwards into the clarity that is the Anthroposophical Movement. But it simply developed outwards only what was originally, very originally there.

You see, I had just been invited to lecture at the Theosophical Society, and I had just founded a German Section in Berlin in 1902; but during the founding, founding negotiations, founding meeting, I had to leave because I had to give a lecture in another venue that was part of a cycle called “Anthroposophical Reflections on World History”. And so you see that while the Theosophical Society was founding its German Section, I was speaking about anthroposophy.

Today there is nothing else there but what actually arose from this original cell, 'Goethe's Secret Revelation'. And the Anthroposophical Society is just that, even in its external name, which was always intended by me.

In 1909 there was a Theosophical Congress in Budapest. At that time all kinds of curious things were already simmering in the center of the Theosophical Society, the Adyar Center. I believe that a part of the more reasonable people at the time had split off from the Theosophical Society, and this part needed a name. They turned to me. I did not think the time had come then to come out openly under the real flag of the Anthroposophical Movement. And so I said at the time: I already know a name that should be given when this movement takes on a reasonable form; but I need it later, I don't want it misused yet. So I said in 1909. I had in mind the name “Anthroposophical Society”.

And then in 1913 the Anthroposophical Society was founded. Those who were then there as members, insofar as they were still members of the Theosophical Society, were thrown out of the latter, lock, stock and barrel.

These things must be faced if we want to see the whole continuity of what is before us today, my dear friends; for here beginning and end are truly connected. And in the course of development, too, you will basically not perceive any breaks if you do not artificially construct them.

Then came the time that had often been pointed out in our anthroposophical lectures, the time when the decline of modern civilization became most evident: the terrible years since 1914 came, and with them the collapse of Central Europe, which in reality is a collapse of modern civilization as a whole. And it was necessary to include this in the current of our anthroposophical movement, which now, I would say, is moving as a social wing within this movement.

Anyone who follows the movement internally can see how the threefold social order movement has grown out of this anthroposophical movement in a completely organic way.

The threefolding movement brought all sorts of new elements into the anthroposophical movement. However, the personalities who were the bearers of these elements were already there at the same time; admittedly, others were added, but as I said, the personalities who were the bearers of these elements were there at the same time. But for a number of personalities, the idea of threefolding had the effect of awakening a new impetus, a new impulse in them. It is not clear to me how this impetus could have arisen from within the Theosophical Society. Because, you see, when I consider these real, actual moments of the genesis of the anthroposophical movement, I always think of such things, as I have mentioned before.

I was once at a Theosophical event in Paris. There, for the most part, the people who were “advanced” spoke. And afterwards, people would express their judgments about what had been said. I can't say they talked about what had been said, but the advanced ones, especially the ladies, moved around partly nimbly, partly a little drowsily, and declared everywhere: There were such wonderful vibrations in this room while so-and-so was speaking! And everywhere you heard praise for these very brilliant “vibrations”.

And from everything that had been said behind the various lectures, I could only imagine that one actually did not use one's ears as a mediator for what was going on in the hall, but it seemed to me that one's nose was used. Because the way people talked afterwards was actually as if they had smelled these “vibrations”. So that one actually had to smell theosophy.

But I have to say: I don't think that much of a social nature could have been sensed from these reports, from these speeches! For there was nothing in all of this that was native to it, nothing of an impact that would have gone so far as to directly grasp the living existence, the full humanity.

The need to grasp this full humanity, however, came to the fore with great force in the second decade of the twentieth century. And if the anthroposophical movement had not sensed that it had to absorb social elements within itself, or rather, had to allow them to emerge from itself, then it would have proved to be just any old sect standing in the corner, but not as that which it was meant to be from the very beginning: the renewal of spiritual life from the original spiritual source for the developmental needs of modern humanity.

This should be fully understood within our movement. And above all, it should be understood that if anthroposophy is to fulfill its task, then it must actually pour its currents into all the individual branches of modern knowledge, it must take hold of all science.

In this respect, nothing was similar in all that had been achieved on anthroposophical ground to what had been achieved on the ground of the Theosophical Society. Because, you see, there they had also made all kinds of compromises with science, but they were compromises. If, on the other hand, you could impress people in Italy or England or elsewhere with a professorial conquest that you had made in this or that, of course, brilliant name, then you were happy: Professor so and so became a member of the Theosophical Society – a brilliant achievement! That's how you drew the line to the sciences.

But the anthroposophical movement should not draw its lines in this way. Of course, one could have some success by bowing and scraping to ordinary science, but we did not do that. So I made myself unpopular, at least in that respect. I could give many examples, but I will give only one.

There was a man [...] within the Theosophical Society who was actually quite charming. He once came to a place where we had an anthroposophical branch. He was a botanist. I was always interested in those things that I thought might incidentally interest him. And so I spoke to the professor of botany, and I talked about some details of botanical science. He was not at all interested, not in the least. He was even a little annoyed, because he was fond of “theosophy” and he assumed that it would not interfere with his botany. He thought to himself: “A botanist – that's someone in the style of modern scientific development. It's a matter of course that everything is in order there. And then, if you have any needs on the side, you also take up theosophy. But there you have two neatly separate drawers: here botany, here theosophy. And there the one does not interfere with the other. Therefore, it became extremely uncomfortable for him to hear about botany from an anthroposophical point of view. One example among many.

But we could not refrain from pouring into everything that comes from the sources of anthroposophical research, into the specific activity of life, into everything that belongs to the world. This became unpleasant for many people, quite unpleasant. Because, right, you could be a good botanist in the sense of the demands of the time, because you had graduated from high school, then did your specialized studies, wrote your dissertation, then became a private lecturer, wrote your book, became a professor – well, you also had your botanical collection – it was all in order; you had that behind you. Why interfere in any way? But because it was unsatisfactory, something was needed for the other needs of the human being. So one took up Theosophy. It was easy to grasp in relation to the many books one had studied before finally becoming a university professor. So one bought a few more, that is, Theosophical books. Now one also had something for the other. The circles should not be disturbed.

But we couldn't do it that way. I, in particular, could not become that well-behaved, my dear friends. And so I was obliged to speak out against this from an anthroposophical basis, to tell people: No, this is not right; we do not need to approach things with a hide; instead, each of the other subjects needs to be properly cleaned up; everything has become dead and must come to life again.

The whole matter is connected with our social demands. For if we had not this ghastly specialization in individual sciences alien to life, if we did not have this lack of understanding of life through these separate individual sciences, then we would not have been driven into the misfortune of recent years. And we must get out of it by starting at the right end and properly penetrating into the pigeonholes. So that the spirit, which alone can carry the development of humanity, is also present in all the individual activities of the life of knowledge. And everything that was to emerge from this life of knowledge was in our anthroposophical movement. And when the new elements came, who felt inspired by the idea of threefolding and by many other things that have been going on in the anthroposophical movement in recent years, the impetus also came to take the path that now leads to what is to begin tomorrow as our anthroposophical college course here.

Above all, it was Dr. Boos, the founder and leader of the Swiss Threefolding Union, who had the inner strength that led to what we will begin tomorrow.

In a certain way, one had to be completely immersed in the realization of the necessity to fertilize all scientific, all artistic, all social life from anthroposophy. You had to be equipped with the inner audacity to really combine absolutely clear, sharply defined thinking with the necessary intuition that sees that what flows through the currents of anthroposophy can really deliver what needs to be delivered to the sciences. Then you have to have that sacred fire that is dedicated to such work. This has been done in a way for which we cannot thank our friend Dr. Roman Boos enough, and it is actually thanks to him that we have his work in front of us, this anthroposophical university course that is to begin tomorrow.

Of course, we must not forget all those who have worked and contributed in abundance; but a driving force must be behind all of this. And this driving force must, I would say, be a social impetus. That was necessary above all. We have had that in relation to these enterprises, and I would just like to wish that we still had many more ventures with Dr. Boos; then we will certainly make progress.

And so we can follow the growth of what I took the liberty of presenting to you today in the original cell, how it branched out into the life of the individual sciences, how it summoned all the friends whom we cannot greet warmly enough and who will now devote themselves as lecturers to the development of anthroposophy in the individual sciences and branches of life. If we can show the world how Anthroposophy is working in the individual branches of science, we will also gain the necessary momentum for the social work of Anthroposophy.

And that, my dear friends, is what should inspire us as we experience this course of the anthroposophical higher education system. We hope that many new seeds will arise from everything that is done, spoken and shown here.

[The following remarks are not directly related to the history of the society from 1902 to 1913:]

"According to the program, we will begin tomorrow with this anthroposophical college course. The first event tomorrow will be what is intended to be the starting point, so to speak. We will begin tomorrow at five o'clock with a musical prelude by our friend Stuten. Then there will be a series of addresses, which I am supposed to open with one about science, art and religion, but which will hopefully lead to a whole series of addresses that briefly point out the significance of the moment, which is so embedded in the present that from here, from this Goetheanum, we are really trying to lead that impulse into the world, which, above all, aims at a renewal of scientific life.

Then there will be a rehearsal of the musical settings of our friend Schuurman, namely his setting of a poetic insertion in the “Chymischen Hochzeit des Christian Rosenkreutz”. Then there will be a break. After a break, declamations and other musical performances will follow. Then this morning celebration will close with a eurythmic performance. So we will first point out the different lines of activity that are to be cultivated here at this Goetheanum.

Today, my dear friends, it would probably be our task first of all to think about how to accomplish the work that falls to us, since we have to ensure that the entire three-week event runs in a dignified but also practical manner. To do this, the gentlemen from our Swiss threefold social order, the gentlemen from the Goetheanum, from the Association of Goetheanism and so on, the ladies and gentlemen, need to be supported by a number of other personalities who - please don't be offended by me, I don't always mean it to sound so bad - order, right, because if they have already been standing outside the entrance before, it is really not necessary to spend another hour until everyone is sitting in their seats, but to make sure that everyone finds their seat as quickly as possible, that what is done is that which leads to sitting still and listening as soon as possible. I have to say that I am actually sorry that I have to speak tomorrow: I would much rather be a steward, because you can develop such wonderful talents when you are a steward. Firstly, a steward, if he is really agile, if he is not clumsy, when he gets a ticket in his hand – excuse me, I don't mean any harm – first looks at it from all sides, just like a clumsy clumsy postal clerk at the counter with the letter, so that you get desperate until you get your ticket for a registered letter, but with a quick movement you immediately know: there is the place - so that the person in question can walk and immediately get to his seat. So direct them quickly, but calmly, and be charming at the same time, not rough, so that the person who is directed to the seat is very happy; so that no one can think: You're being snarled at. So I think this is a good opportunity to develop your best talents; it's actually extremely desirable. And so I ask the gentlemen in particular to be charming. I think it will be especially nice in this case if the gentlemen are officially charming, so to speak; the ladies without office are charming in between. I ask the gentlemen to strive for two things: to get the blue ribbon here, which is to distinguish the folder, into the buttonhole. I think that it will really be a worthwhile goal, especially for those who come from monarchical states, where nothing else is available now in the buttonhole, will be a contemporary ideal. So we will adorn all those who endeavor to view the tickets so quickly, to show them to their seats and to be charming, with a blue ribbon - not a red one, for example, so that the Swiss don't think we're socialists or something like that; right, you can get into all sorts of trouble with the minister Kully if you give people red ribbons; so you will get blue ribbons and all of you will be charming and nimble ushers. I ask you to consider this from these two points of view. The one point of view is that if you know you are one of those who can be nimble and charming, then don't refrain from helping to maintain order. And if you should know that you may have absorbed too much militarism in the course of the last few years, so that you cannot develop such qualities - but this is only said in parenthesis and really not meant badly - so if someone in the course of the last few years has absorbed too strong military tendencies , which are then not suitable for being charming and the like, so if you have got into the habit of commanding too much, then you may practice anthroposophical self-restraint and refrain from participating in the ordering. But as I said, I am only saying this as one would say in the old science: “for the sake of wilderness.” I will present alternatives in a moment. One must be complete in science. We have a scientific course now. Right? There's no need to be as radical as the one person from the neighborhood who, when she came up here for the first time, didn't want to miss the opportunity to reprimand us right away because we — who wanted to be an “innovator” wanted to be – now, wherever you look, we have “old hat, as the Berliners say, about doctor titles and so on; if you are going to start renewing, the personality said, then you should leave out such titles.

Well, that's not true, you can have different opinions about whether you want to do this or that, whether you should dress in a new style; but we don't want to see our ideals in outward appearances, and that's why I mentioned the second point for the sake of completeness, and I sincerely hope that it was not necessary for me to mention it.

Now, that would be part of what we have to complete today, if the personalities concerned, who, as stewards, now feel particularly called upon to do so after what has been said, let us know that they want to get this blue ribbon in their buttonhole for the next few days, and especially for tomorrow. Perhaps it could be the case that Dr. Boos himself or someone he appoints will take the names of those who feel called to such a high office at the end, after all the others have been addressed. That will be one thing.

The other thing would be for me to ask those of the honored gentlemen who are presenting and are already here today to perhaps contact me at the end of this evening, because there is still a lot to be discussed.

That is what I have to say for the time being. And now, since I have only been here since today and have not been able to participate in the rather extensive preparations that were necessary to launch this course, I will ask Dr. Boos to take over the management of this evening and to suggest to us what else needs to be done in this direction.

But then, when we have completed the things to be discussed for tomorrow and the following “days”, we will have to discuss some other things for this evening that relate to some other events. But first we want to discuss the agenda for the course.

Dr. Boos introduces the necessary measures and arrangements for discussion.

At the end, Dr. Steiner takes the floor again:

"I would just like to mention for those friends from out of town who have come as members of the Anthroposophical Society that, as before, anthroposophical lectures will take place on Saturday and Sunday when I am present in Dornach, and I also believe there will be eurythmy performances on Saturday and Sunday. The lectures will take place after the eurythmy at eight o'clock or, if there are no performances on Saturday and Sunday, at half past seven, and if we can accommodate everyone, here in the carpentry workshop, otherwise over in the building. The eurythmy performances will also be here in the carpentry workshop.” Dr. Boos reports on various activities that are intended to incite and slander, and calls for a statement to be made regarding a proposal that has been made to him to send something to the press from the meeting, which is now already in session.

Dr. Schmiedel says that the number of guests should be indicated.

Dr. Boos says that he had also considered drafting a resolution through a mass meeting here, in which those not yet present here could also be included according to the mood; one does not need to come up with numbers; a resolution would be extremely effective in a concise, short form. Adoption of the resolution is proposed. Since no amendments have been proposed, he will ask again. There is unanimity. This matter is thus also brought to a conclusion with regard to this resolution.

Rudolf Steiner: “I do not think it is necessary to say much about the meeting that apparently took place here in Dornach and was evidently convened by the machinations of Pastor Kully and Pastor Arnet, I think it is not necessary to say much about this meeting after the press report.

Certain things have been reported that might perhaps lead one to notice this or that. For example, it is a remarkable fact that these gentlemen, who now, out of absolute untruthfulness and dishonesty, collect all kinds of things that are not true, that these gentlemen are, or at least are supposed to be, able to have accurate reports, for example, of the celebration of our laying of the foundation stone and the like. All the signs are that our people, our members, are basically willing to give the two gentlemen, who are the soul of the counter-action and the emerging movement, just about anything the gentlemen want.

My dear friends, it will soon be nonsense to hold closed meetings when everything from our circle is carried to Father Kully and similar people. It has to be said, because things express themselves. The assembly itself is no concern of ours; what people want to decide among themselves, they may decide among themselves, they may be as indecent as they like; they were indecent enough, as we already know. The thing that the resolution we have just been proposed by Dr. Boos is directed against is precisely what they have excreted as garbage, and what has even been spread by a Swiss newspaper. Of course we have to take a stand against that. Let them decide among themselves what they decide among themselves. Unless we hear that it is happening through spiritual-scientific communications from our members, about things that should be kept within our circles. It is said, for example, that the gentleman who is reported to have spoken in original Swiss German, that he is said to have spoken such filth that people are now said to have felt compelled to simply leave out the dirty bits. But as I said, people can discuss whatever they like among themselves, that's none of our business for the time being. I notice that they should really settle it among themselves. Because those who did not belong and are said to have gone to that meeting were shown in a very indecent manner that they had no business talking, and they were thrown out in an indecent manner. So that in the end, or at least during part of the meeting, some people who did not belong to the group do not appear to have been present at all. There may have been only a few there.

On the other hand, I would like to warn against being too lulled and again giving in to the sleep that has often been characterized here. This sleep in the face of the dangers that come to us from that side is the very worst thing that could actually happen in our ranks. And there is a lot of sleep in this direction.

Today, too, after I barely returned, I heard again that news is spreading in a certain comfort that the Catholics' behavior in such a disgraceful way, as it has happened, has brought us good friends everywhere among the non-Catholics. So for a large number of our members it is not a matter of facing the facts, but of finding another excuse for themselves to lie comfortably on their backs, on the other side, when one ear what is negotiated in the Dornacher “Ochsen” - in that meeting, of which it is said - I don't know if it is true, I emphasize this expressly - of which it is said: Such a great “Ochsen” event has never taken place in Dornach before. - But that was only because the meeting was in the “Ochsen”.

But to those who would like to go back to their cozy comfort zone, I would like to recommend paying attention to a certain statement in the report that has been written about this meeting, a statement that is already intended to be understood and that could show how significant the attacks actually are. It is said there – I don't have it verbatim right now, but it is in one of the reports – that the way Pastor Kully spoke at that Catholic gathering was quite remarkable. The person reporting this was apparently strangely touched, struck by Pastor Kully's particular turn of phrase. He says: “A unified thought did not go further through the speech; the speech did not make much sense either; but it was made up of nothing but individual images, which were presented to the people in a certain way, and which were only summarized by everything that hatred could do to present these images and these imaginations to the people, held together by the element of hatred. Anyone who is aware of the nature of the methods and polemics on certain sides also knows that such a message means an extraordinary amount, and that these things are effective.

It is necessary, or at least would be necessary, that finally, after decades of practicing anthroposophy, it could be known on our side that such things cannot be ignored, and that one cannot calm oneself by saying: Now they are being stirred up on that side, and stirred up in a very shameless way... This only wins us special friends on the other side. The point is to try to look things squarely in the eye; because the people - I have said this before - the people who are fighting on that side, they know very well what they want, they know very well how they should work, and how they should escalate things, and how they should then finally reach their goal through this clever escalation and sentiment.

So it would be better to try to face the matter squarely and realize that the situation is indeed a very dire one for us, here where we have just put what should be most sacred to us. And it would be necessary to consider that we should wake up, and to consider that it is always possible that things that should remain among us are immediately also carried to Father Arnet. Or is it not very strange, for example, when there is a message here: Pastor Arnet has spoken of how many people have been seriously affected in their health by the effects of my exercises; if he wanted to talk further about what is being reported to him, he would have to violate the seal of confession.

So, it would be a good idea to keep an eye on what is coming to the surface again and again as a result of such things, even within our ranks.

Furthermore, I consider it unworthy of us to concern ourselves with the assembly; because, right, certain things simply cannot be negotiated about anymore. When they begin to consider a certain level below decency as their own, you can no longer negotiate, you can no longer talk about the matter seriously at all. But that should not encourage anyone not to be vigilant about what comes from there.

I don't think we have anything else to discuss today. I would therefore ask those honored friends who wish to acquire the blue ribbon in their buttonhole to report to Dr. Boos.

And in a few minutes I will be back here and ask those friends who will be speaking in the next few days and are here today to come together for a very short meeting to discuss a few points on which we need to agree. So I will be back here in a few minutes.

Address by Rudolf Steiner before and after the cycle “What significance does the occult development of the human being have for his sheaths and his self?” (GA 145)

My dear Theosophical friends!

We are gathered here for the first time for a cycle after those of our friends who were able to recognize the current state of our Theosophical endeavors joined with the members of the former German Section of the Theosophical Society who – there is no other way to put it – were expelled from our Theosophical Society. It is necessary, my dear friends, at this moment, when I have the honor of welcoming you to this particularly solemn cycle, to add a few words to this warm, theosophically sincere greeting. This is necessary because our friends may often have the opportunity in the near future to speak a word here or there about the true facts of the events that have taken place recently among us and our friends.

We have been able to see from a variety of letters and statements that here and there it has not been felt as natural that we had to choose the mode for our events, for our internal events, not to admit members of the Theosophical Society, insofar as it is administered from Adyar, to these our internal events. It has been shown that this necessary measure has not been perceived as such everywhere, and that in some places it has been thought that we would have done better not to take this measure so strictly in order to maintain peace or the like. Nevertheless, my dear friends, when you really consider everything that has happened, you will be able to, and indeed must, defend to everyone that this measure had to be taken at the appropriate moment. You must only consider that the German Section did not, as one could formally interpret it, leave the Theosophical Society, but in reality was nevertheless expelled, expelled again for a reason that can be formally defined in the very special way that one could even dare to say that the German Section had violated some statutes of the Theosophical Society! For one will say: This German Section has expelled the members of the Star of the East, thus expellers of a particular opinion, from their body. It must be borne in mind that everything had previously been done from the other side, that the German Section could not help but no longer admit to the events of the German Section, not only the members of the Star of the East, but also the personalities who came into consideration within Germany as members of the Star of the East. For the moment the 'Star of the East' made its entry into Germany, it set itself with the declared intention of being hostile to the German Section; in particular, it endeavored to express the system which, among other things, was also expressed in such a - one might say - hidden, peculiar way in the last March 'Theosophist'. The personalities who had adopted the flag of the Star of the East tried to present our work to the world as if it had ever been our intention to exclude any spiritual opinion or point of view from our endeavors.

Thus, a full-scale attack, based solely on objective untruth, was launched against the German Section. And all the measures that were of a milder nature had remained ineffective against this subversive work, which repeatedly and increasingly came to the point of vilifying the entire character of our efforts before the whole world, so that we were forced, for the sake of the possibility of our work, to declare that we could not work with those personalities in Germany who had joined the “Star of the East”. Similar attacks were indeed made by personalities of the “Star of the East” from abroad. The measure that was then taken against the “Star of the East” was nothing more than a defensive measure, and anyone who presents it differently is not telling the truth about it. A necessary defensive measure, provoked by the fact that our work would not only have been disrupted but simply made impossible if we had not resorted to this measure. Our work can truly be characterized by pointing out that there were indeed lodges among us that worked quite differently than we did, but that not a hair on their heads was touched. We “chartered” all the lodges that took a completely different position from the one we ourselves held. But when, with the subversive activities of the Star of the East in mind, lodges were to be founded that were already attacking in their title, not only our work but also the truthfulness and honesty of our Theosophical beliefs, then the defensive measure was necessary for the reason that we would have become untrue people if we had somehow created such lodges.

Thus we were forced to either become untrue deep inside or take this defensive measure against the members of the Star of the East. The tactic can always be presented in a strange light if one first wants to force someone to act and then describes this action as unlawful. It may be said that it has actually happened in few measures in the world that one has behaved in such a way; but that was reserved for the present Theosophical Society to such a high degree.

If you also read the letter that Mrs. Besant wrote to the General Secretary of the Section at that time regarding the impending expulsion of the German Section, you will see this letter as nothing other than a real expulsion. You will have to say to yourself: If the German Section had not seen it that way, then it would have been on false ground.

But then you have to bear in mind that this was preceded by a circular letter from me to the General Secretaries, in which the actual state of affairs was explained in detail. This circular letter contained real documents for the assessment of the situation. It was a distressing experience that apart from the General Secretary of the Scandinavian Section, who has since resigned, there was not a single person in the body of General Secretaries and the General Council who was willing to respond to what I had put forward. Everything that came from the General Secretary was worded in such a way that it was assumed from the outset that all the representations from Adyar were the only authoritative ones that could serve as a basis for assessing the facts. It is a sad fact that resulted from my circular letter at the time. One could say that one might be overcome by a justified sense of pain at the fate of the Theosophical Society when one sees the general deafness of an entire body to the facts that have been openly stated.

And the crowning touch to the whole system was provided by a speech delivered by Mrs. Besant at the representative assembly at Adyar during this convention, in which she showed how completely she lacks any ability to gain a relationship with that necessary sense of duty that one must have to first examine the facts and then make an assertion. Mrs. Besant has, as is well known, made the assertion that my education was conducted by Jesuits. One cannot say anything that would more absurdly and foolishly belie the truth than this claim, which was hurled into the assembly by the leadership of the Theosophical Society at the same time when we had our lecture cycle in Cologne, in the presence of numerous friends, including some from this country, in which we were once again able to affirm how we were trying to stand firmly and truly on the good ground of the old Theosophical Society. My dear Theosophical friends, you should feel the full anomaly of such a fact. Not only that this had happened, but Mrs. Besant had the audacity, the unenviable audacity, to carp an answer to the facts I had presented in the booklet of “Mitteilungen,” where I was first forced to describe the facts, at the end of which she placed the words, these are her last words in this matter.

My dear Theosophical friends, based on our experiences so far, it is possible that there are still people in the Theosophical Society who could add something to this answer. In this answer, one could look for a word that would correspond to objective truth: one would find nothing, because in this answer, almost everything is turned upside down, and in such a way that with an enormous verbiage, this turning of things upside down has been carried out. It is truly wonderful that someone can be found who is capable of turning things upside down in such a way; each sentence includes something that is the opposite of what has taken place.

I did not refer to this document at all at the Berlin General Assembly or the meeting of the Anthroposophical Society, so as not to take up even more of the already heavily taken up time. And I do not want to go into this document today either, which everyone only needs to read to see the spirit in which it was written. I would like to go into just one point, because it cannot be immediately seen from the document itself. At the end there is a sentence that goes something like this: Dr. Steiner says that the pamphlet by Dr. Vollrath – he is referring to the printed pamphlet that was so unpleasantly discussed at the previous general assembly – contains nothing more than certain remarks that Mrs. Besant addressed to me regarding his expulsion. Anyone who can read can see. Here she says that this document from Dr. Vollrath's appeal... was present... indeed she says more, she says: “If that pamphlet contains nothing more than the document that Dr. Vollrath addressed to me, then it must be very harmless.” But the fact that she claims that the pamphlet must be harmless, that the repeated accusations contained in Dr. Vollrath's appeal to Mrs. Besant at the time, because she says that they were harmless. Well, these accusations included, for example, the point that Dr. Vollrath should have turned against me because I greedily enjoyed a large salary and because my exercises were so strongly black magic in nature that numerous people had become ill, some had even died... and that all those exercises were intended only to acquire magical powers and not knowledge and the like. Dr. Vollrath claims that he is willing to prove all these things if Mrs. Besant demands it. That was the document that Vollrath sent to Adyar. ... This letter

was produced by Mrs. Besant, and the above was an integral part of it. Mrs. Besant says about it: “If Dr. Steiner claims that this pamphlet contains only repetitions of that appeal of his, then this pamphlet must be very harmless.” So Mrs. Besant makes the world believe that the accusations that Dr. Steiner had wanted to enrich himself while refusing any salary, and that he had given exercises that were of a black magical nature, that made people ill and even killed them, these accusations, which were indeed made at the time, were called harmless by Mrs. Besant, in order to present the case to the world in her own way. Such are the things that Mrs. Besant has recently been dishing up to her followers in the February issue of “The Theosophist.”

I don't want to add anything else to these things for the moment; after all, the more you add, the less tolerable things become – I just want to ask whether our feelings in Berlin when our friends decided to work towards finally drawing a line under it were justified, whether we can assume, take for granted, that our friends would feel: It is impossible for me to speak to those who continue to call themselves confessors of Misses Besant. It would be a violation of all occult principles to speak to those people who have thrown one out – the expression may be used – who have presented one in such a way as Misses Besant has liked.

I am so reluctant to go into things like the March Theosophist that I don't want to do it. Because what is dipped in sugar-sweet sauce is the most hidden attack that can be imagined.

In principle – as you have seen from the statutes of the Anthroposophical Society – we take the view that anyone can join us. But those who are unable to see the truth of the matter we are dealing with declare in principle, even if [they want to join us], that they actually wanted to leave our organization. And the way the general secretaries have behaved proves that it would be untruthful of us to have taken other measures now than to have drawn a line between what we want and what is being done within this Theosophical Society, not according to the principles, but contrary to all the principles, of the old Theosophical Society.

But I may also say the other side of the matter, my dear Theosophical friends, to the whole affair. And actually it was only necessary so that our friends are not, so to speak, embarrassed when this or that is spoken in the future; it was only necessary to say the words that have just been spoken, as it were, as a background to what I have to say to you further as a kind of greeting. Actually, my dear Theosophical friends, I must admit that I myself, if I may speak to you for a moment – and the friendship you have shown me entitles me to do so to some extent – I myself feel that, in addition to everything that has been bitter and painful, I also feel it as a great liberation, as a liberation from a narrowness that has weighed heavily on me for years in the life of the Theosophical Society since that Congress of European Sections in Munich, where an attempt was made to bring a new note, then still timidly emerging, into the Theosophical Society, not on the basis of some national and one-sided opinion, but on a really broad basis of the present day. There one could hear the judgment: What you have done is not Theosophy, it is something quite different.

A society based on occultism, even if individuals may free themselves from its limits and boundaries to a certain extent, still has forces that work psychically or spiritually, and it was simply not possible within the framework of the Theosophical Society to bring to bear in all its breadth and adaptability for our present cycle of humanity that which is justifiably called occultism. And I hope that if we are granted the opportunity to continue the Anthroposophical Society, our friends will be convinced that our liberation from the Theosophical Society will not lead to a narrowing, but rather to an expansion of our occult endeavors. Much of what was impossible to achieve within the Theosophical Society because of its prejudices, because it was opposed to narrowly defined traditions, can be achieved in the Anthroposophical Society, and those who want to see will see that the breadth of perspective that we need in our present time is to be tried out now, so that what flows down from the spiritual worlds in our time, in the way of spiritual wisdom and spiritual will impulses, can benefit a part of humanity that has an understanding for it. That is why this first cycle, which is being held here before you, my dear Theosophical friends, and which is the first cycle of the established Anthroposophical Society, seems to me to be particularly worthy of celebration.

From the time of the Foundation Meeting of the General Anthroposophical Society (Dornach, Christmas to New Year, 1923–24) until his death shortly before Easter, 1925, Rudolf Steiner wrote a Letter week by week, addressed to the members of the Society. The Letters were printed in the members' supplement to the Goetheanum Weekly and in the English edition of it, Anthroposophical Movement. The later Letters (forming a self-contained series from autumn 1924 onward) were published in book form in 1956, entitled The Michael Mystery (Vol. II of Letters to Members).

An urgent need has been felt for the earlier Letters in which Rudolf Steiner describes the character of the Society arising out of the Foundation Meeting and gives advice as to its conduct and its relation to the world. To meet this need, the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung has issued these Letters in a separate volume entitled Das lebendige Wesen der Anthroposophie und seine Pflege: Briefe an die Mitglieder, and has given the Council of the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain permission to publish the translation contained in the following pages (Vol. I of Letters to Members).

RUDOLF STEINER HOUSE
London, N.W.1, 1963

If I were to follow my inclinations, I would no longer speak out in the matter of the exclusion of the German Section from the Theosophical Society. The work that I have attempted in the German Section, and in which broader circles of the Theosophical movement have also participated, has actually passed over into the Anthroposophical Society. In no objectively relevant direction has the slightest interruption occurred in this attempt at work, which for years has wanted to take on such a character that it should express what the theosophical movement can be under the conditions of the present. From all that I have presented so far in this matter, I believe I have shown for anyone who wants to examine the facts impartially that the true reason for the exclusion of the German Section was the intolerance of the system currently prevailing in Adyar towards independent life within this Section. The means used to bring about this exclusion can be recognized in their true character from my previous statements. They went to excess in their unlawfulness when the President, on the occasion of the last General Assembly of the Theosophical Society in Adyar, dared to make the absolutely objective truth directly contradictory, even absurd, assertion that I had been educated by the Jesuits and had not been able to shake off this fatal influence and so had not been able to allow freedom of expression in the Section. Since this claim is absolutely untrue, indeed the opposite of the truth, it is clear that the current president of the Theosophical Society is saying things in the most improper way, without even the slightest sense of obligation to take any care about the truth of what she says. It seems to me that one could have had enough with this one fact alone. For my person has nothing whatever to do with it as such. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been between the president and me is no longer in question when faced with the outrageousness of the fact that the person at the head of the society makes such a serious claim at the society's general assembly, a claim that is the objective opposite of the truth. But this act of the president's was only the crowning of a corresponding edifice. For me personally, this claim had a very special connotation. On the occasion of the Budapest Congress of European Sections in 1909, Mrs. Besant and I had a conversation in which the following was touched upon. Mrs. Besant spoke to me of a personality who had various objections to me. When I asked her why this person had something against me, she said that this person thought I was a Jesuit, and to emphasize how much she, Mrs. Besant, was amused by such an assertion, she added that this same person had already thought she, Mrs. Besant, was a Jesuit. So in 1909 Mrs. Besant knew that the accusation of being a Jesuit was a ridiculous one and considered it to be foolishness; in 1912, before the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society, the same Mrs. Besant makes the same accusation in order to prove that I am incapable of respecting free speech within the German section! Perhaps this little story can also help to show how well-founded the allegations of the President of the Theosophical Society sometimes are, of which President Mr. Leadbeater said he had stood before the director of Globus. Perhaps it is still allowed – even if only in a very modest way – to express the opinion that one could learn a different way of handling the truth from the director of Globus.

It may seem understandable that further illumination of a matter in which one has already experienced such things is not something one would seek out. After all, it would seem that the matter is truly settled simply by the presentation of this one fact.

However, there are a number of things that make it necessary to say a few more things. Among other things I could mention, the following is important. I have assumed that once the exclusion of the German Section and its background had become known, the feeling must arise quite naturally in everyone who had gained understanding for the way I tried to work that I should not be allowed in future to give internal lectures for the Anthroposophical Society to personalities who still regard themselves as members of the Theosophical Society led by Adyar. Nevertheless, concerns arose here and there that all members of the Theosophical Society under Mrs. Besant's leadership should initially be excluded from all internal events of the Anthroposophical Society.

Since such a judgment could be formed, and since it is still considered possible by some individuals that I would give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society, and since there are many other reasons, I must once again select a few facts from the abundance of evidence in order to perhaps counter some of these misunderstandings.

It should be started with a circular, which Mrs. Besant sent in response to my presentation of the facts and also had printed in “Theosophist”.

I emphasized in my account that Mrs. Besant wrote to me in 1909 regarding the Dr. Vollrath affair: “Since an appeal has been made to me, I, as President, approve the action of the German Section...” and that, on the other hand, Mrs. Besant wrote in 1912: “Dr. Vollrath made no appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to pay attention to right or wrong in this matter, and to this day I do not know it.” In order to “shed light” on these two directly contradictory assertions, Mrs. Besant now does the following in the aforementioned circular (dated January 12, 1913). First, she introduces the little word “it” into the fray. She fights with this “it” in relation to her words of May 8, 1912, which read: “A few years ago, the German Section expelled Dr. Vollrath, and the General Secretary informed me of the matter. Expulsion from a section does not mean expulsion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to ratify this (it) and thus make it – here the battle word “it” appears again – an exclusion from the Society. Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me. ...” In her latest circular she now says about this: ‘It is quite obvious that the ad, which ’ch was not asked to confirm, was the ”exclusion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only. («It is fairly obvious that the it which «I was not asked to ratify» was expulsion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only.»)

Let us first limit ourselves to simply reading the two sentences one after the other, the one that Mrs. Besant wrote in May 1912 and the one she writes in January 1913, not only that, but the one she writes on the same page (repeating the first one) one after the other:

May 1912: “Exclusion from a Section does not mean exclusion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to confirm this, and thus make it an exclusion from the Society.

January 1913: “It is quite evident that the ‘iv, which ’I was not asked to certify‘ was the ’exclusion from the TS.

So Mrs. Besant claims that she was not asked to confirm the “exclusion from the Theosophical Society”; insert this explanation into her sentence from May 1912, and it reads: “I was not asked to make this - that is, the exclusion from the Theosophical Society - an exclusion from the Theosophical Society.” Anyone who accepts such a justification truly deserves to remain a follower of the one who justifies himself in this way. It is clear to anyone but the most obtuse that only someone who wants to save himself from having to defend objectively untrue assertions that he has made would resort to such a blatant sophistry. But that could still be dismissed as a formal matter. But now the actual facts. Who asked Mrs. Besant to turn the expulsion from the German section into an expulsion from the Theosophical Society? I did not ask her for anything. In 1908, I simply reported the expulsion to her. This mere report contained nothing, not even the slightest suggestion that she should also expel Dr. Vollrath from the Theosophical Society. And when she then sent me Dr. Vollrath's appeal in a letter in which she touched on this exclusion from the Society in general, I wrote to her, “As far as Dr. Vollrath is concerned, I am far from wanting to have any influence on what you, as president, consider to be right to do in this case. I only said further that in the event that she, as president, now accepted Dr. Vollrath as a member of the Theosophical Society, it could easily be said that the president was disavowing the German Section. I expressly added that I was not worried about what Dr. Vollrath might say about me in the future, but that it was important to avoid the interpretation that the German Section had been disavowed by the President of the Society. After all, this interpretation would still be possible on the opposing side.

In view of these facts, Mrs. Besant now writes on January 12, 1913: “Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the Theosophical Society at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him if I allowed Dr. remain in the Theosophical Society since he had been expelled from the Section.“ (”Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the TS at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him, if I allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain in the TS when expelled from the Section.") Compare this sentence with what I have quoted above, and you will see that it contains a complete objective untruth. I have explicitly emphasized that I personally do not care about any attacks; Mrs. Besant writes that I said it would be very awkward for me if she allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain a member of the Society. So let the facts be what they may, Mrs. Besant does not trouble about facts; she announces to the world what she wants, without any regard for the facts.

And now for the appeal. The appeal that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant is five pages long. It is so composed that it does not clearly show how Dr. Vollrath wants his affiliation to the Theosophical Society to be handled in general; but at the end it contains the words: “If you, dear Madam President, consider it necessary to submit this case to the General Council, then I request that you do so.” In her letter of 1909, Mrs. Besant says: “Having been appealed to by Dr. Vollrath, of Leipzig, against his expulsion by the German TS.”

Nowhere in the correspondence of 1909 was there any mention of an expulsion from the Society, and to claim in January 1913 that the appeal could only mean an expulsion from the Society in general is as absurd as can be. Dr. Vollrath's appeal was in protest against his expulsion from the German Section, and it was full of accusations against me, which will be touched upon later, and it certainly could not have been otherwise if Dr. Vollrath had sought membership in the Theosophical Society. Yet in 1912 Mrs. Besant says, “Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me.” In order to prove that she was allowed to write this after all, she does the following in her circular of January 1913. She presents the matter as if Dr. Vollrath had not made an appeal to her because his appeal was not one for his admission to the society in general. But there was never any question of such an appeal. But since Mrs. Besant did write to me in 1909: “As an appeal to me has been made,” she now presents the matter in the following words: “The appeal was from Dr. Steiner to confirm the local action of the Section and from Dr. Vollrath against that confirmation.” This sentence is, again, as far as I am concerned, an objective untruth. I never made an appeal to Mrs. Besant for the confirmation. Such an appeal would not have made the slightest sense. The German Section considered itself fully entitled to expel Dr. Vollrath. She did not for a moment assume that this action required the president's confirmation. Rather, Mrs. Besant wrote two unsolicited documents – in response to my notification of the expulsion, not to an appeal – which are included in the preceding notifications – in which she confirmed the expulsion from the German section. At the time, I considered these documents to be so inconsequential that I did not include them in our reports. Why print on paper documents that were completely unfounded.

So in January 1913, Mrs. Besant does nothing less than turn Dr. Vollrath's 1908 appeal to her into an appeal that I am supposed to have made, but which I never made.

The highlight of this January 1913 circular, however, is the sentence that Mrs. Besant dares to write: “As to the pamphlet – meaning Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet, which was printed in the January 1913 issue of the Mitteilungen – I had assumed that it contained something important, since Dr. Steiner was obviously very annoyed by it, saying that if its assertions were true, “not a dog would take another piece of bread from us. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a reheating of the original points at issue, which were stated in his letter to me, then the expression seems a little strong.“ (”As to the pamphlet, I had supposed that it contained something important, as Dr. Steiner was evidently very angry about it, saying that if its statements were true “a dog would not take food from us”. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a rehash of the original quarrels, stated in his letter to me, the language seems a little strong."

Mrs. Besant takes the liberty of writing down this sentence in view of the following fact. Dr. Vollrath claimed in his letter to her in 1908: 1. That I feared his (Dr. Vollrath's) opposition, for example, in that I had pushed through receiving a fixed salary of 2000 Marks from the section treasury. (I was always opposed to my being paid out of the Section funds.) 2. That I did not want him in the Section because he could not share Mrs. Wolfram's views, which are: Dr. Steiner is a high initiate and the only initiator for Europe and must therefore be elected at the next presidential election. (Mrs. Besant finds the expression I used, a “little strong”. I would like to know whether I would really be worthy of “a dog taking a bite of bread from me” if I had ever wanted to have a personality in the section not approved of the above crazy demands that I should make. Of course, Ms. Wolfram could not have made such absurd claims. 3. That I did not want him in the section because he had privately expressed the opinion that the hysteria of some Leipzig students of Dr. Steiner was probably due to the occult exercises that lead to a loosening of the etheric body. And Dr. Vollrath adds that he himself knows of some exercises that I give, but that they serve more to develop strength and neglect the development of virtue. (Had I heard such a “private” remark by Dr. Vollrath, which I did not even hear, it would have seemed to me to be truly irrelevant, since it would be just as foolish as if someone said that I had stolen silver spoons. Mrs. Besant does not find it “of some importance” that Dr. Vollrath writes such things.) These and other similar assertions were contained in the “appeal” that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant in 1908. This will suffice to prove that I was absolutely right in what I said, and what Mrs. Besant's circular refers to, namely that Dr. Vollrath, as early as 1908, made similar allegations against me in a letter to Mrs. Besant herself, as can be found in his later pamphlet. Therefore, I stated that Mrs. Besant's claim that she was unaware of this pamphlet was irrelevant, because she was aware of the way in which Dr. Vollrath was acting against me and yet she made him an official in a matter she represented in Germany. It is now characteristic of the way Mrs. Besant assessed me that she later even emphasized that she had again worked for the dismissal of Dr. Vollrath as secretary of the Star in the East when she realized that his election was “seen as antagonistic to the general secretary.” So I am surprised that I could ever feel offended when she made an opponent of mine her official. That was never the point, but merely that the German section — not I — perceived Dr. Vollrath's appointment as a vote of no confidence against me by Mrs. Besant, and that I was deprived of the opportunity to defend myself if she did so. Apart from the fact that such an imposition made it clear how little Mrs. Besant is able to pay attention to the finer things of the heart, I must confess that I myself regarded the appointment of Dr. Vollrath as a matter of complete indifference to me, and that I only felt truly offended when Dr. Vollrath was dismissed on the assumption that I approved of or even desired this dismissal. On the contrary, I felt it was wrong to dismiss Dr. Vollrath because it was thought that I did not approve of him. For me, the fact that Mrs. Besant behaved in the way she did was proof that my words are air to her. And I could not change this judgment by subsequently doing Dr. Vollrath an injustice by deposing him, because it was believed that this would be a service to me. Because – according to my feelings – it is wrong to first appoint someone and then dismiss them because they are unpleasant to someone else.

I think I am now in a position to summarize how I feel about the whole matter of the exclusion of our section, and the preceding remarks and those already contained in the “Mitteilungen” serve as proof. I would have to write a detailed paper if I wanted to add to this evidence everything that has been in preparation and taking place for years.

When I was elected General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society years ago, I saw myself working within the framework of this society for the dissemination of the results of spiritual scientific research, and in connection with this, leading the office of General Secretary in a way that arises from the consequences of this research. I knew that I was in full agreement with the principles of the Theosophical Society. I tried to work in a way that was natural in this field: I expressed what I thought the results of my research were, and I waited quietly to see what this or that person would say about it. I organized my work so that no one could take pleasure in what I advocated who did not see what I said as correct on the basis of his or her own judgment. I did not put forward anything other than what I had to acknowledge as true on the basis of my own research, or what was accessible to me through spiritual sources. It came about that within the German Section, and then also in other circles of the Society, there were personalities who, on the basis of their own convictions, were interested in my research results, a current within the Theosophical Society that felt independent of other currents in that Society. This group did not demand anything except to be able to develop and operate freely within the Society in accordance with its statutes. Within the German Section, there were circles that wanted nothing to do with us. They held different views. We let them be. They could work in their way, just as we wanted to work in ours. No attempt was made to interfere with their work through my will.

From the time when Mrs. Besant showed more and more that she had no understanding for what we wanted, it became more and more necessary for me not to count on our being supported by the central leadership of the Theosophical Society. We had to get used to counting only on our own resources. This led to the fact that in free agreement with Mrs. Besant on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1907, it was determined that the current within the Society that was interested in my research results should develop as an independent and self-contained circle. Such independence could exist regardless of the fact that within the German Section, branches with a different type of work developed freely and also created new structures. Anyone who knows my way of representing spiritual science will find the claim completely absurd that anyone could have been disturbed in the representation of a different opinion by this representation.

Some time after the Munich Congress, the claim of the “coming Christ” as represented by Mrs. Besant emerged in the Theosophical Society in a form that I initially had to consider amateurish based on my research results. I presented my results and did not care about the effect of Mrs. Besant's claims. Then came the time when Mrs. Besant “paraded” with Krishnamurti, to use Dr. Huebbe-Schleidens expression. Everything connected with this, I had to, according to what I had come to know, no longer consider merely amateurish, but reprehensible. It became my duty, when asked, to express my thoughts on the matter seriously. And it also became my duty to adhere to what I had recognized. As late as the summer of 1912, I was still expected to do the following by Mrs. Besant's followers: I could say: I do not agree with Mrs. Besant's opinions, but I should still recommend her books by saying that they represent different views from mine. I had to reply that I would be acting against my convictions if I were to do so in relation to Mrs. Besant's more recent writings. For I do not consider them merely to be works that represent “different” opinions, but I consider them to be bad and full of easily verifiable errors, which I could not say are merely a different opinion. I could not be dissuaded from this appropriate behavior by Mrs. Besant's occasional emphasis that she was in favor of the free development of my opinion and her encouragement to read my writings. From what I could verify myself of what Mrs. Besant said about my “opinions,” it was clear to me that she did not understand them. It would have seemed to me to be a lie to admit that I did not want to have anything in common with Mrs. Besant's doctrines. In a spiritual movement, truthfulness must prevail. And it would have seemed true to me if Mrs. Besant had not praised me, but had sharply criticized me from her point of view. There would have been no need to prevent my research results from establishing their validity through their inherent value.

For example, a follower of Mrs. Besant wrote to me that Krishnamurti would now first complete his studies and then perhaps also be sent to my school, with the strange addition: “After all, Jesus could have learned something from the Essenes,” I mention this only in passing.

The “Star in the East” movement came. I would have had to deny everything I believe to be right and healthy if I had wanted to have anything to do with this movement. I had to ignore it. It was transplanted to Germany. Its representatives behaved in such a way that their actions consisted of outright attacks against the German Section. It was spread that the German Section was intolerant of any opinion that differed from mine. These attacks originated with individuals who had always been treated within the German Section in the same way as all those who were now presented as blind followers of my opinion. I was written that those who presented from our circle only repeated word for word what I said. Similar things were printed. Things happened that, if one assumes full awareness on the part of the people involved, would have to lead to a rather dire characterization. My writings were incorrectly reproduced and then polemicized against the caricature of my statements, which they themselves had first made, in an outrageous manner. Nothing was clearer than that only a strict separation and the strictest possible ignoring of the “Star in the East” movement was necessary for us.

Now it became apparent that Mrs. Besant always speaks of tolerance and free speech, but that her whole being wants to exclude from society any opinion that differs from her own. She then made a series of objectively untrue allegations about the German section and about me, some of which have already been discussed. Her followers blindly repeated these allegations. It became necessary to write a lengthy defense, which I sent to the general secretaries of the various sections and to the General Council. Of all the General Secretaries, only the Scandinavian one responded to my defense. What the others said amounted to a complete disregard for what I presented, not in terms of views, but of objective facts. I had spoken completely into the air.

The behavior of the Star in the East movement forced the German Section to declare that it could not regard the personalities belonging to this movement as members of the German Section; not because of their opinions or their program, but because of their behavior, which violated the highest principles of the Theosophical Society. This measure, which was initially imposed on the German section as a kind of self-defence, was then taken by the General Council – ignoring all the facts that had been presented against Mrs. Besant's ability to preside – as an opportunity to make a decision that amounted to the exclusion of the German section from the Theosophical Society. This exclusion was then carried out by letter of Mrs. Besant (which will be communicated below).

All these things, when viewed impartially, cast a thick veil over the true facts of the matter. These are that the current leadership of the Theosophical Society only wants Mrs. Besant's views and cannot tolerate any other way of thinking or working. My research results were perceived as heretical and could not be tolerated within the Society. The fact that they did not want our way of working was twisted into the claim that we did not tolerate any other opinion. And so the almost unbelievable fact took place that the Theosophical Society expelled a working group from itself under the pretext that this working group was intolerant. As if this were not even a contradiction in terms. Any other way of working could have developed alongside us according to its strength.

Now, anyone who can be unbiased wonders whether I may continue to give internal lectures in front of personalities who want to continue to belong to a society that excludes me as a heretic. The Theosophical Society has spoken, and anyone who continues to belong to it speaks in the same way: We don't want you in our ranks. Anyone who demands of me that I should give internal lectures before the members of the Theosophical Society should realize that his demand would be the same as saying: We expel you from our house; but we demand of you that you continue to behave towards us as before.

Furthermore, it has always been a strict duty in all occultism not to impose teachings on anyone who does not want them. The Theosophical Society has said that it does not want what I have to say; I would be violating my duty if I did not say at this moment: So I am not allowed to give lectures for members of the Theosophical Society for which I have been expelled from it.

It must seem incomprehensible how anyone can think that it would only be possible for me to give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society. It is completely impossible to speak of intolerance on the part of the Anthroposophical Society, since anyone who does not dispute its origin can join it. But anyone who, by belonging to the Theosophical Society, declares their agreement with Adyar's ban on heresy disputes its origin.

Rudolf Steiner.

In the letter that the Committee of the Free Anthroposophical Society sent to the members of that society in response to my announcement of a youth section, there is a reference to the fact that I consider “being young to be so important that it can become the subject of a spiritual scientific discipline in its own right”.

I do think this matter is so important. Anyone who reads the account of my life in the weekly journal 'Goetheanum' will understand why I think so. When I myself was as young as those who speak in this letter, I felt lonely with the state of soul that I now find alive in broad circles of young people. My contemporaries felt differently than I did. The life of civilization, of which this letter says that it no longer allows young people to develop a worldview through any profession, and that young people can no longer be led to any profession by their “striving for a worldview,” was on the rise at that time. Young people saw it as the flowering of the latest stage in human development. They felt 'liberated' from the extravagances of the quest for a world view and secure in the prospect of professions that rose from the 'safe' foundations of 'science'.

I too saw the “blooming” of this civilization. But I could not help feeling that no genuine fruit of humanity would be able to emerge from this bloom. My contemporaries did not feel this. They were carried away by the experience of “blooming”. They did not yet lack the fruit because they wasted their enthusiasm at the sight of the barren bloom.

Now everything has changed. The flower has withered. Instead of the fruit, an alien structure has appeared that freezes humanity in man. Youth feels the cold of civilization without a worldview.

In my youth comrades, there lived an upper class of consciousness. It could rejoice in its fruitless blossoming because its fruitlessness had not yet revealed itself. And the blossoming was radiant “as a blossom”. The joy of radiance covered the deeper layers of consciousness; the layers in which the yearning for true humanity lives inexorably in man. The youth of the present can no longer find joy in the withered blossom. The upper layers of consciousness have become barren, and the deeper layers have been laid bare; the longing for a worldview is evident in the hearts, and it threatens to wound the soul life.

I would like to say to young people today: do not scold the “old people” who were young with me forty years ago too much. Of course, there are superficial people among them who even today vainly flaunt their emptiness as superiority. But there are also those among them who, in resignation, bear the fate that has denied them the living experience of their true humanity.

This fate placed them in the last phase of the “dark” age, through which the grave of the spirit was dug in the experience of matter.

But youth is placed at the grave. And the grave is empty. The spirit does not die and cannot be buried.

Being young has become a mystery for those who experience it today. Because in being young, the longing for the spirit is laid bare. But the “light” age has dawned. It is just not felt yet, because most people still carry the after-effects of the old darkness in their souls. But anyone with a sense for spiritual beings can know that it has become “light”.

And the light will only become perceptible when the riddles of existence are reborn in a new form.

Being young is one of the first of these riddles. How do you experience being young in a world that has become frozen in old age? That is the question of feeling that lives in the young people of the present.

Because being young has become such a human riddle, it can only find its living solution in “a spiritual scientific discipline of its own”.

In such a discipline, being young will not be spoken of in empty phrases, but the light that must fall on being young will be sought in it, so that one can perceive oneself in one's humanity.

Today, being young means wanting a worldview that can fill one's life's work with warmth. It fears the professions that a civilization without a worldview has created. It wants to see the profession grow out of humanity, not humanity being killed by the profession. To find one's way in the world without losing one's humanity in the search, requires a living relationship between soul and world. But this can only come about through the experience of world-view. It is in this spirit that the announcement of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society was made. It is in this spirit that the Council would like to unite young anthroposophists in a youth section to work towards a life of true humanity.

But there is one more thing I would like to say to the younger members. If we succeed in giving the Youth Section the right content, those who have understood in anthroposophical life how to grow old in the right way will want to make common cause with the youth. Let us hope that the young will not then say: we will not sit at the same table with the old. For Anthroposophy should have no age; it lives in the eternal that brings all people together. Let the young find in the Anthroposophical Society a field in which they can be young. But the “old” will, if they take up anthroposophy in their whole being, feel the pull towards youth. They will find that what they have conquered through old age is best communicated to young people. After all, young people will struggle in vain for true humanity if they flee the humanity into which they must one day enter. In the course of the world, the old must rejuvenate itself again and again if it does not want to fall prey to the formless. And young people will be able to find what they need with the genuine “old” anthroposophists if they do not want to arrive one day at an age of their own, from which they would like to flee but cannot.

(continued in the next issue).

This book is the first volume of a new edition of all Rudolf Steiner's written work—Classics in Anthroposophy. It can be called a classic for several reasons that I will describe, and it contains an important presentation of Rudolf Steiner's Christology (his research into the Christ impulse in earthly and cosmic evolution). It is one of the best accounts of this teaching with which to begin ones study, and one to which we can profitably return again and again.

Steiner had little time to revise his lectures—even during the early years of the century—due to the sheer amount of his lecturing activity, which increased each year; he sometimes gave two or more lectures in twenty-four hours. Today, about 6,000 of these lectures are in print. In addition to his lectures, Steiner's days were filled with administrative and other teaching duties, as well as meeting the needs of people who sought his advice for personal concerns. The lectures in this book and those now published as The Mission of the Folk-Souls are the only lectures he was able to revise in all his years as a spiritual teacher. Rudolf Steiner often emphasized the qualitative difference between his written works and his lectures, which are unrevised stenographic reports. Indeed, he did not write many books, and most of those that he did write underwent at least one revision during his lifetime, as he sought constantly for the clarity and precision which epitomize his approach to spiritual science.

Originally he had not wanted the lectures to be published at all, but his students began to pass around lecture notes to facilitate their study. One must imagine their excitement in those days, when each cycle of lectures seemed to present new revelations from Steiner's research. It was natural for those who could travel to the various cities and attend the lectures to want to convey these esoteric treasures to their friends. On the other hand, Steiner lectured to each specific audience according to what he thought they needed to hear out of their karmic backgrounds, and many of the lectures that are now available to the general public were originally given for members of the Theosophical Society and, later, the Anthroposophical Society. Many listeners had been personal students of Steiner for some years and had acquired a familiarity with the general outlines of his teachings. In 1923, after the founding of the Anthroposophical Society, he decided to make all his lectures available to the public. The public lectures contained a note that some familiarity with fundamental anthroposophy was necessary for an intelligent reading, and that criticism not based on such knowledge would have to be disregarded.

Yet, in the case of this book, he undertook to revise the lectures he had given June 5–8, 1911 in Copenhagen. He spent about two weeks on the revision, and the lectures were printed only two months later, on August 26, 1911. In his preface, Steiner says there were reasons he allowed these lectures to appear when they did. We may ask what those reasons were.

Rudolf Steiner sought for many years a place where he could speak openly out of his spiritual insights. Accordingly, he accepted an invitation in 1900 to lecture to the Berlin Lodge of the Theosophical Society. The enthusiastic reception of these and other lectures led to his assuming the position of General Secretary of the German section of the Theosophical Society in 1902. From the beginning, he asserted his intention to teach from the results of his own research in accordance with the needs of Western humanity, and this freedom was granted. Within the organizational framework of the Theosophical Society, Steiner worked to serve those souls who sought a spiritual impulse they could not find in either the sciences or in the established churches. For several years, Steiner's relationship with the Society was largely cordial and fruitful, and he lectured in many European cities to the lodges of the Theosophical Society.

The Theosophical Society took an increasingly Eastern direction, both spiritually and geographically, The headquarters was moved to Adyar, India. The leaders of the Theosophical Society, at first the remarkable Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and then Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater, as well as many members had strong feelings against Western spirituality and the Christian churches. In 1911, in Mrs. Besant proclaimed Jiddhu Krishnamurti, then a young boy, the incarnation of the Christ, and she created the Order of the Star of the East to promote this idea. This, of course, directly contradicted Rudolf Steiner' s perception that the physical incarnation of Christ could occur once during the history of the earth, for reasons carefully delineated in this book.

In 1912, some of the German members, opposed to the Order of the Star of the East, decided to form a new organization; Steiner, when asked, offered the name “Anthroposophical Society.” Steiner neither desired nor actively pursued the break with the theosophists but, recognizing that it was impossible to work within the increasingly hostile atmosphere of the Theosophical Society, he agreed to work with the new “anthroposophical” organization. The first meeting was held in 1913, after Mrs. Besant had excluded the German section. Readers new to anthroposophy may see these events as typical of the regrettable yet apparently inevitable infighting that occurs within spiritual organizations of all kinds. They take on quite a different coloring, however, when seen in the context of Steiner's struggle to insure that his unique teaching of Christian esotericism could find its proper audience and the necessary methods of presentation.¹

Thus it was that Rudolf Steiner revised these lectures—an important element in the initial exposition of his Christology—during the height of difficulties within the Theosophical Society, just before the inaugurations of the Anthroposophical Society. During these years he also wrote and produced his four mystery dramas, and began the work that later matured as eurythmy and speech formation². Rudolf Steiner introduced something quite foreign to the mode of theosophical meetings when he began to include artistic presentations, begun by Rudolf Steiner in 1907. The effect of his dramas, which included eurythmy and the new method of speech, gave the impetus to create a special building in which to perform them. Looking back, we can see how Steiner's studies in Christology and his artistic work in drama, painting, and sculpture culminated in the building of the first Goetheanum in Dornach.³

It is not surprising, then, to find that The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity reveals an extremely artistic composition. Rudolf Steiner weaves together the themes of the beings that guide humanity, the working of the Christ impulse before and after the Mystery of Golgotha, and our common soul experience in a way that can best be called musical. Each new expression brings a variation that imports new information and yet relates to what precedes it. In some of his other lectures, Rudolf Steiner builds mighty pictures of the earth and of the cosmos, and portrays the activities of spiritual beings whose deeds are revealed externally through the natural sciences and through history. Until one achieves a sufficient background through contemplative study of a variety of anthroposophical concepts and makes the effort to allow these concepts to create the inner organs for further work, these initial studies can be overwhelming in their complexity and seem quite dry. For that reason, this book can be most helpful, because Steiner relates the entire subject matter to the human soul, to observations and experiences we share as human beings. These can help us find an inner strength to begin to take' anthroposophy more deeply into our own soul life.

The first chapter begins with a description of how, in the first three years of life, the higher self in each of us works to establish three capacities. Unlike the animals, we learn to orient our body in space in a way that is not innate or instinctual. Next, we learn the use of language; and then comes the ability to work with thoughts, with ideas. Thus, in the time before we are aware of our “I”, we have already done our wisest work on ourselves. If, however, our higher, divine self continued to work in this way, we would remain as children and not have the possibility of freedom. This active working must fall away as we achieve our own self-consciousness, which is constantly subject to the lure of pride and deceit, but which also gives us the possibility of self-development. Indeed, if the higher self lived within us in our present constitution for longer than three years, our body would die. In the same way, when the cosmic Christ entered the body of Jesus during the baptism in the Jordan, it could live even in this special human body for only three years.

Even if the Gospels had not been written, Steiner asserts, this knowledge of the first years of childhood would reveal that Christ lives in us: “To perceive and understand the forces at work in our childhood is to perceive Christ in us.” Through inner striving, we can contact again the wisdom that worked so powerfully in our first years, and we can find the Christ because of his incarnation into humanity. Indeed, the goal of earthly evolution, of the existence of this planet and our life on it, is to gradually make our entire being an expression of these divine cosmic forces—of the Christ impulse. Childhood is a perpetual reminder of the higher self, and it reveals the spiritual guidance that also lives in the Gospels and in the great initiates.

In the second chapter, Steiner describes humanity's own childlike condition in ancient times, and then he outlines how the higher spiritual beings have passed through their own “human” stage in earlier incarnations of the earth. As recently as ancient Egypt, people could recognize the spiritual beings who spoke through their leaders and teachers. The focus of the chapter is on the angels, the beings closest to humanity, who guided human development during the Egyptian epoch and again during our time. He shows how some of the angels have progressed properly in their development, while others have developed more slowly. These two types of angels bring to humanity both the possibility for our own progressive evolution, and also the two kinds of evil: the tendency to ignore our earthly responsibilities and become dreamers and visionaries, and the increasing temptation toward materialism. While their activities cause trouble in the present life of humanity, these beings actually work together in the spiritual world to guide human development. With delicacy and beauty, Steiner indicates the necessity for these retarding spirits in our evolution, for without them, we would not have the opportunity to achieve full self consciousness, diversity and freedom. The more progressive beings could only have produced uniformity in human nature.

This chapter concludes with a caution against fanaticism. “The most beautiful things can seduce and tempt us if we pursue them one-sidedly.” To guard against this, he urges us to insure that clairvoyance is augmented by an effort to grasp conceptually just the kind of spiritual facts that are presented in this book. Spiritual science helps us to avoid error; clairvoyance should be accompanied by initiation, the training that allows “a clear assessment of what is perceived in the supersensible world.” This is the difference between seeing and understanding, by being able to distinguish between the different kinds of beings and events of the higher worlds. Most important, through the study of anthroposophy, we begin to meet the Christ with our higher soul forces.

In the final chapter, Rudolf Steiner surveys the sweep of the Post Atlantean Age, the present age of the world.⁴ He shows how the progressive spiritual beings have also met the Christ, but the retarding beings have not. These latter spirits have inspired the natural science that has formed the present world culture. In the future, scientists will perceive that the Christ has arranged every atom of the earth, and a new physics and chemistry will result. We can say, then, that in the future there will live in people's hearts a Christ-idea whose magnitude will be beyond anything humanity has believed to know and understand so far. What has developed through Christ as a first impulse and has lived on as an idea of him until now is—even in the best representatives of the Christ—principle only a preparation for a true understanding of Christ. Christ first entered human hearts through the pictures from his life on earth in a human body. Today we must prepare for a spiritual meeting with the Christ, similar to Paul's experience at Damascus. An essential part of this preparation is a strengthened consciousness and a sense of responsibility toward spiritual perception, and this vital discrimination can be enhanced through the careful study of such a book as this one.

In conclusion, one hopes that this new edition will find the active readership it deserves. Many people who first approach anthroposophy for the first time are suspicious and even resentful of Christianity as it has manifested in the past two thousand years, and when they discover that anthroposophy is Christ-centered, they may feel disappointed or even upset. For others, it is perplexing that Steiner's Christology puts forward quite radical elements when compared to the theology of his day or ours. In this book, Rudolf Steiner gives both a broad, sweeping picture of human and cosmic evolution and the central place of the Christ impulse in that development, and also relates this evolution to our inner life, to the experiences and insights that anyone with the good will to look within can have, and from which they can then follow these anthroposophical thoughts to the reality of the Christ experience. Here we are given a deeply rewarding perspective of the age in which we live and in which we are witnessing the rapid dissolution of our cultural life; here also we can find the inner sustenance to work toward building the culture of the new age. From this point of view, The Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity is a “classic” work of spiritual science.

HILMAR MOORE

• 1. For further information, see Guenther Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner (Whittier Books, 1955) 158–193; and Stewart C. Easton, Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch (Anthroposophic Press, 1980), chapters 6 and 8. It should be noted that Krishnamurti publicly repudiated the claims of Besant and Leadbeater and dissolved the organization, called the Order of the Star of the East, in the 1920s. Stewart Easton has managed to portray with admirable clarity the issues and personalities which are of great importance in Steiner's work. In chapter five of his Man and World in the Light of Anthroposophy (Anthroposophic Press, 1975) he has provided a succinct presentation of Rudolf Steiners Christology.
• 2. Eurythmy. System of movement created by Rudolf Steiner expressing both music and the sounds of speech. See Marjorie Raffe et al., Eurythmy and the Impulse of Dance (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1974). Speech. Steiner developed a particular mode of artistic speech in the production of his Mystery Dramas. See Rudolf Steiner, Speech and Drama (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press / London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1968). Also, Steiner, Four Mystery Dramas, trans. Ruth Pusch (North Vancouver: Steiner Book Centre, 1973), and Steiner, Three Lectures on the Mystery Dramas (Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1983).
• 3. The Goetheanum is the world headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, Switzerland. Architecturally unique. See biesantz, The Goetheanum, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1979) and Rex Raab et al., Eloquent Concrete, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1979).
• 4. For a description of earth evolution, including post-Atlantean times, see Rudolf Steiner, An Outline Of Esoteric Science, trans. Catherine E. Creeger (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1997).

My dear friends!

It will be different for me too, and I will have to speak to you today from a different background than I have been able to do in these meetings in past years. For we are still under the impression of the passing of our beloved anthroposophical building, the Goetheanum. I do not need to emphasize again and again what that actually means. The words of the Chairman have brought this home to you today; and I am convinced that these words were spoken from the soul of each of you. It is indeed the case that an accident beyond a certain level can only be revealed in silent language, and that words are really not enough to express what has been lost for us with the Goetheanum.

In the lectures that I had to give at the General Assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and the General Assembly of the Goetheanum Association in the meantime between the two assemblies and following them, I had to talk about everything that I feel compelled to say at this time.

Much of what I have to say at this time is, of course, said precisely in view of the great stroke of fate that has affected us. It should also not be overlooked how this stroke of fate has shown that there is a great deal of shared feeling among the members of the Anthroposophical Society. But, my dear friends, what I would say came to expression in a way that was self-evident to us at the time, when we were under the immediate and momentary impression of the Goetheanum fire, was that we did not want to give up the continuity of the work of our spiritual life. That must always inspire us. And it is particularly important that we know how to act in the sense of what I said yesterday: to work from the center of our spiritual life and not to be deterred by the most painful or uplifting impressions from the outside world in this actual inner work and attitude that comes from the center. The real perspective of the anthroposophical movement depends on this. It does not depend on how many and what kind of blows of fate come from outside. These must be accepted with the attitude that arises from the anthroposophical view of life. But the question of whether the inner energy needed to work out the center of spiritual life slackens despite all strokes of fate, or despite all favorable strokes of fate, depends on what is to be achieved and can be achieved with the anthroposophical movement.

But we must always remind ourselves of what is necessary for such work, especially in these very difficult times.

I would just like to note that in a spiritual movement of the kind that anthroposophy is, if it is to find the right path, success and failure must be taken as meaningless, and that only that which arises from the inner strength and impulses of the cause itself means anything. But a great deal depends on the consciousness of those united in the Anthroposophical Society.

My dear friends, you only have to consider the following: attitudes and impulses of consciousness do not materialize overnight. We cannot say today what the successes of the impulses of consciousness and attitudes of the day before yesterday are. If you did that, you would end up in a completely different direction than anthroposophy can take. For example, if you were to take the matter in this external way, you would be able to say: We rely on our good luck. But then, if this luck is not there in the way you imagine it, you would also say: We lose our courage, our energy. I might have imagined that at the time when we were struck by the terrible misfortune, there might have been souls, even among anthroposophists, who would have said: Yes, why did the good spiritual powers not protect us in this case? Can one believe in the impact of a movement that is so abandoned by the good spirits?

Such a thought, my dear friends, is linked to appearances, not to that which comes unerringly from the inner center of the matter, through appearances alone. If we want to take it seriously that our attitudes, thoughts and, in particular, our impulses of consciousness are realities, then we must believe in them ourselves, in these impulses of consciousness, in these thoughts, in these feelings, not in the help that they can get from outside, but in their own power. Then one must be sure that what one draws from such impulses will, despite all outward appearances of failure, reach its true goal, the goal prescribed for it in the spiritual world; even if it were to be completely destroyed for the time being by external circumstances in the external world.

He who can ever entertain the belief that a spiritual idea, which is rightly willed, can be completely destroyed by anything in the external world, even if the destruction takes place in the external Maja, does not really believe in the power of spiritual impulses, in the power of spiritual energy. It must still be possible to say at the moment when everything external perishes: Success is certain for that which is willed from within. But then one may only speak of success in the sense of that which lies within the inner impulses, the thoughts, the intentions of consciousness themselves. The things that take place in the outer world usually happen in such a way that they often only become explainable after decades, or perhaps even longer. And to judge the government of the spiritual world by the current constellations, if I may say so, would be to be timid about this spiritual world. The spiritual world must give itself its strength and power. Now there is nothing within the earthly world except human minds in which this power can find a home, can be understood; not organizations, not institutions, however beautiful or ugly they may be, can in any way prove or disprove what is really willed by the spirit.

Those who seek to prove or disprove the truth or falsehood of the spiritual by outward appearances are on the wrong path, for they do not stand within the center of spiritual impulses but outside it. The innermost part of the human soul is the only thing that can be used to judge what is at issue here; external connections can never be decisive. On the other hand, however, this means that people who want to be the leaders of such a spiritual movement must strive more and more for this inner strength and develop an understanding of what it actually means to work from the inner center of a spiritual movement. It seems to me, my dear friends, that it is urgently necessary, especially at this moment, to become fully aware of how difficult this is and how it cannot be sufficiently fulfilled by what is often expressed by saying, “I have the anthroposophical attitude, I have the anthroposophical will.” It cannot be satisfied by that in any way.

And here I would like to mention a word that I have often spoken, often spoken since the Goetheanum fire, and which I would like to see really understood; I have often said it: The first Goetheanum, the form of the first Goetheanum, this home of anthroposophy, as a building, as it stood there, cannot be rebuilt.

You see, my dear friends, when such a word, which is meant in the spirit, is spoken, it must be felt as a reality, one must make the assumption that one can look at it from the most diverse sides, as one can look at realities from the most diverse sides, that one can often only gain the right perspective for such a word from a certain starting point. For such a word was spoken initially out of spiritual obligation. And at the moment when the word is spoken out of spiritual obligation, there is absolutely no need to carry around on one's physical hands all the reasons, the so-called reasons, for such a word.

Today, at this hour, it is less incumbent upon me to speak of the external circumstances, but I would like to speak today particularly about something that is connected with the inner impulse of this word: the first Goetheanum cannot be rebuilt. And please allow me to speak of it with all seriousness; because only this seriousness towards the task of reconstruction can give the friends the right attitude.

You see, we can report an external fact today. This external fact is that the legal investigations that followed the Goetheanum fire have now been concluded; one can say that they have been concluded so that the authorities have now been able to decide to pay us the sum insured of three million and some hundred thousand francs. The payment has been made. These three million are there; and this fact can be recorded for the time being today. So, since June 15, we have had these three million.

Now, my dear friends, it could turn out that souls would breathe a sigh of relief at the fact that we now have these three million for the construction and at most have to raise another three million through the willingness of our friends to make sacrifices. One could characterize the fact in this way. One could now record this June 15 as an extraordinarily joyful event in the development of the anthroposophical movement.

My dear friends, it is not. And if I am to shed light on the matter for you today from a perspective that is wholly in keeping with anthroposophical life, then I must speak differently. For me, for example, this fact, which may be described as extraordinarily joyful by some and extraordinarily sad by others, is extraordinarily painful. And one of the feelings of suffering that I have had since the Goetheanum fire is that I have had to say to myself: what has happened now must be brought about, must be brought about in the best and most energetic way, must happen of necessity; but something must be brought about that actually has nothing to do with the center of the anthroposophical movement, that lies completely outside the center work of this movement.

You see, my dear friends, the saying: The first Goetheanum cannot be rebuilt, has not only an aesthetic, not only an opportunistic, not only an external-historical background, but also an anthroposophical-moral one. And it is this anthroposophical-moral background that I would like to talk about today.

Let us look back to 1913, 1914, and ask ourselves: what were the reasons behind the decision to build the Goetheanum and to start this construction project? What was pursued at that time and in the period leading up to December 31, 1922, or January 1, 1923, was based on the fact that every single franc that was invested in the Goetheanum flowed from the willingness to make sacrifices of those who, in some way, professed their belief in the anthroposophical movement. The Goetheanum was built entirely out of inner understanding. Every franc flowed out of inner understanding for the cause.

My dear friends, the following is truth, is real truth, because reality coincides with the inner core of the matter: at the moment the last lecture was given at the Goetheanum, we had a home for anthroposophy that had been built with the sacrificial pennies and sacrificial cents of those who were wholeheartedly committed to the cause. From the hill in Dornach, the building shimmered, having incorporated anthroposophical will and anthroposophical willingness to sacrifice into every cubic centimeter of wood and stone. This moral substance was built into the first Goetheanum.

My dear friends, now we will begin to build with three million francs, many of which come from the pockets of those who not only have no inner interest in the Goetheanum, but have an interest in this Goetheanum not being there. And when the Goetheanum again shimmers down from the hill of Dornach, it will not only be built with anthroposophical willingness to make sacrifices, but also with what is common outside of anthroposophy in the structure of the present world.

Then, my dear friends, there will be a very different structure, seen from the inner spiritual point of view. There will most certainly be people who will not only not accompany with any deep sympathy, but perhaps even with a kind of curse, what, according to the social context that now exists, comes out of their pockets and is built into the Goetheanum.

I have often said that within a movement such as anthroposophy's, it is a matter of being awake, not sleeping. What I have told you now is not said in a sleeping state, but in a waking one. For us, words such as “blessing of a thing”, “connection of blessing with beautiful qualities of the human mind” must not be a mere phrase; for us they must be a fact. And so the first Goetheanum was built with the inner feeling that we were doing something that, from its right causes, takes the path forward in such a way that this path is the path of the causes themselves. Now we are building the Goetheanum in a tragic direction, my dear friends. A tragically built Goetheanum is different from the Goetheanum that we were able to tackle in 1913, 1914.

You see, my dear friends, anthroposophy is often criticized for being too intellectual. No, it leads through what lies in its real impulses to the deeper feelings of humanity. In 1913, one could begin building with a joyful heart; today, when one begins, it is almost inevitable that one begins in tears. I am giving you just such a description, which comes from the inner center of spiritual thinking; and such thinking differs quite essentially from thinking that takes its impulses from external facts. Thinking that is linked to external facts would probably not express the words I have just spoken; instead, it would be excitedly joyful that June 15 brought us the three million.

My dear friends, I have often spoken, perhaps unjustifiably in the eyes of many of you, about the fact that there is an inner opposition within the Anthroposophical Society to what I sometimes have to represent from the center of anthroposophy; today I do not want to characterize this opposition again; but I would just like to ask the question: Has the feeling that I have just expressed been present everywhere in the course of the last few months, since the Goetheanum fire? If another feeling has been present, it has been an example of inner opposition. It was a feeling that should no longer have been reckoned with, after the anthroposophical movement has gone through the three periods of its existence.

When we stood here on the hill in Dornach, bowed down with grief on the first day after the fire, while the flames were still licking outside, many anthroposophists gathered around the still burning building. One or another said something. In the end, it really did not matter to me what anyone said, because the content of the words is only a symptom for the actual spiritual background; but I would like to say that what was said on that first day after the outbreak of the terrible disaster differed in two respects. Anthroposophists spoke the word, for example: Now we no longer have the Goetheanum, now we want to build it in our hearts. It was an elementary feeling that already had something to do with the center of the movement. But there were other voices that spoke like this: The Goetheanum is insured; will it be possible to rebuild it with the insurance money?

My dear friends, I do not want to lead you into impracticality in any area of life. I have nothing against these things being considered as practically as possible. But it depends on the intentions. It depends on whether one recognizes the difference between what was there before and what will necessarily have to be built now. For no one should say, in the anthroposophical field, that it does not matter what the intentions are, as long as the Goetheanum is rebuilt. Attitudes and thought impulses, especially impulses of consciousness, do not work overnight, but move in the currents of the spiritual world and must not be judged by mere external facts, which are only symptoms for them, not an immediate reality.

Now, in everything that had to be done after the fire – please forgive me for mentioning this too – I tried, as far as it was possible under the influence of the necessary facts, to shape our actions from the center of the matter. Therefore, I calmed the friends who, in the first few days, saw it as the most necessary thing to use all possible means to protect our interests – for example, during the negotiations with the insurance company. I tried as far as possible to remove from our actions everything that did not come from the core of the anthroposophical movement itself.

My dear friends, must we not think that we have to learn to take our affairs into our own hands, that we have to learn not to proceed as we would on unanthroposophical ground? It was certainly not to impose more work on myself that I tried to conduct all negotiations in such a way that they were conducted by us on our own side.

I knew that I was taking on a responsibility towards our friends. Because if the outcome of June 15 had been worse, people would naturally have said: If you had taken the right lawyers at the time, things would have been different. But such responsibilities have to be taken on when it comes to the higher duties arising from the center of anthroposophical work. They have to be taken seriously. And they are no longer taken seriously if one does not, as far as possible, remain within the designated center in specific cases. One immediately describes one's powerlessness when one declares oneself unable to deal with matters that are one's own, from the center of anthroposophical impulses. Of course, we can never set out today to do what should actually be done, I would say, as the most radical thing: to use the three million for some charitable purpose, and to build the Goetheanum again only out of the sacrificial willingness of the friends.

My dear friends, as I said, do not regard me as a person who wants to tempt you not to be practical. But my concern now is not just to focus on the external deeds; my concern is to utter the words that should shape our thinking, to utter them quite openly. If we make them shape our thinking, then they will also, in the nobler sense, have the right results.

Those who say, “So we have to use the three million for charitable purposes and have to wait until the building can be rebuilt out of a willingness to make sacrifices,” would of course be wrong now. They would again be confusing what must be done with what suits their selfish, ambitious intentions. The energy and strength do not lie in choosing the easiest path, even if the easiest path can be described as extraordinarily moral in an egoistic sense; but the energy lies in the fact that, even if the path has to be a tragic one, one plunges, if I may say so, into the tragedy. But this must not be done unconsciously; one must plunge into the tragedy consciously and know that one is in a realm in which one cannot do what is purely anthroposophical; one must know that one must do what one has to do, despite the fact that it is not anthroposophical, but must balance it out with an all the stronger anthroposophical element. When you weigh something, you don't take away from the pan on the side where the weights are too heavy for the other side; you add to the other side.

We will need that. We will have to create the counterweights through an even stronger anthroposophical approach to counteract what we are tragically being led into, as something that, for the most part, perhaps for half of it, must happen un-anthroposophically. I can say that it would perhaps have been easiest for me to say: I will only lend a hand in building the Goetheanum if the three million insurance money is used for charitable purposes and the building fund is created entirely through donations. It would have been easier because it would have caused less pain. But we must not shy away from pain, my dear friends, if we want to work in the realm of reality. But neither should we want to ignore the pain. We should not just keep telling ourselves: we are doing what is most beautiful, what is best. We cannot do that in the earthly world, least of all in the present. Therefore, we should not let our heads sink and say: then I will lose heart altogether. When the gods sometimes seem to fade away, as if they were not there, as if humanity had been abandoned by them, the wisdom of the gods consists in people receiving impulses to seek them out even more in the places where they have hidden, but not to complain about their disappearance and inaction. Wanting the earth only as a soft resting place and only finding it divine when it presents itself in such a way that it always corresponds to what one would like, can never form the attitude of a spiritual movement, because that is not strength, that is powerlessness. And we will not perform the Goetheanum, which is colorfully tragic, out of powerlessness, but only with the development of strength, with the awareness that where the gods seem to have withdrawn, they must be sought all the more by us in their place, where they seem to be hidden.

My dear friends, I wanted to develop thoughts of encouragement. And since it is quite difficult to speak between the lines, today I have added some things to the lines themselves, I would say with a certain clarity. But what I have added to these lines is really necessary if we want to develop the right attitude in the near future for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum and also for other things. It would not help at all to lull ourselves into this or that illusion; but it helps solely and exclusively to face ourselves without a veil with the eyes of truth, in this case the inner truth that flows from the moral side of anthroposophy.

If that can happen, then what should actually happen would happen: that the Anthroposophical Society, in the midst of today's world events, would be a place where people do not indulge in the illusions in which everyone lives today. Because for much of what is happening in the present, you can expose the illusions. Since 1914, people have been living with a certain relish in illusions because they do not have the inner courage to admit the truths. If the Anthroposophical Society, the association of the Goetheanum, could develop awakening soul power in the midst of a world full of illusions, then, my dear friends, the tragic situation in which we now find ourselves, and about which we should not be under any illusion, would be counterbalanced as it is in every real tragedy.

Study the tragedians of all times. You will see that the tragedy consists in the fact that everything external seems to collapse and that only within oneself is the strength to lead beyond the catastrophe. When this occurs in art, some people like to look at it, although today there are not many, because tragedies are no longer very popular. But if it is to happen in reality, then things must happen as I have characterized them. Then something must happen that makes the Anthroposophical Society, the Goetheanum Association, stand out in its inner spiritual attitude like an island formation within a world based on illusions. Then what is a real power can radiate into the world based on illusions.

My dear friends, if we take the words in the right way that I had to speak to you, then there will be much intention, much endeavor, much striving for a different state than the one we are in, in our feeling. Then we will not be blinded by much satisfaction, especially not much self-satisfaction. We will banish from us the thoughts of satisfaction and self-satisfaction and awaken in us those thoughts that can arise from a purely spiritual view of things. Then we will have right thoughts of building up out of the spirit.

My dear friends, it was in all seriousness, but also, I believe, with complete objectivity, that I wanted to speak to you today. And I thank the board of the Goetheanum Association for giving me the opportunity to speak these words at this event about what is so closely linked to the fate of the Goetheanum, the past and the possibly coming Goetheanum.

The six lectures collected in this volume were given by Rudolf Steiner to members of the Anthroposophical Society during his visits to England in the year 1922. He came three times, giving altogether about thirty lectures on educational, social and general anthroposophical subjects. Nine years had elapsed since his preceding visit in May 1913 when he had spoken so significantly of the new Michael Age and of Christ-event of the 20th Century. The intervening time was marked by the catastrophes of war and social revolution. Meanwhile the first Goetheanum had been built at Dornach, Switzerland, as a centre for the world-wide movement.

During the years of war, Rudolf Steiner had put forward his epoch-making conception of Threefold Man and of the Threefold Social Order, on which was based the attempt, in the years 1913–21, to give shape to the social events of the time out of a deeper spiritual understanding. It was in the midst of this attempt that many practical activities, notably educational and medical, evolved under Dr. Steiner’s guidance, bringing the truths of Initiation Science to bear on the concrete tasks of daily life. Thus in the year 1913 the Waldorf School had been founded at Stuttgart by Emil Molt, with Rudolf Steiner as its educational director. The quick development of the school attracted the attention of thoughtful men and women in England, many of whom had been impressed by Dr. Steiner's book on the social and international problems of the time, the first English edition of which. The Threefold State, had been published by Messrs. Allen and Unwin in 1920.

he sculptress Edith Maryon, one of Dr. Steiner’s closest and most trusted fellow-workers at the Goetheanum, had in the past been linked by ties of friendship and common spiritual endeavour with the distinguished educationist Professor Millicent Mackenzie. Arising out of their correspondence. Professor Mackenzie arranged for a party of English teachers and educationists to visit Dornach at Christmas and New Year, 1921–22. Here, in the famous Weisse Saal of the Goetheanum, where the fatal outbreak of fire was discovered a year later. Rudolf Steiner gave a course of sixteen lectures for the special benefit of the visitors from England. Among those present were Miss Margaret Cross of The Priory School, King's Langley, and also some of those who were to form, three years later, the College of Teachers of the newly founded school, now known as Michael Hall.

Miss Cross was a member of the ‘New Ideals in Education’ Committee, whose annual conference for 1922 was to be devoted to the subject of Drama and Education, in connection with the Shakespeare Festival. At her suggestion it was decided to invite Dr. Steiner, both as educationist and as a distinguished Goethe scholar, to take an active part. So then in April 1922 he spoke at Stratford-on-Avon, side by side with eminent representatives of English life and letters—John Masefield and John Drinkwater among others, also Professor Cornford and Sir Henry Newbolt. The interest aroused is shewn by the fact that Dr. Steiner was invited to give a third lecture in addition to the two original planned.

It was decided to arrange a more extensive conference at Oxford during the long vacation, where Rudolf Steiner would have the opportunity to speak at greater length, both on the theory and method of the Waldorf School and on the Threefold Order. Through the kind hospitality of Principal L. P. Jacks, who found in The Threefold State ideas akin to his own, the Conference on ‘Spiritual Values in Education and Social Life’ was held at Manchester College during the second half of August. The joint organizers were Professor Millicent Mackenzie and Mr. Arnold Freeman of the Sheffield Educational Settlement. Principal Jacks was present at the beginning and gave the address of welcome. Among other well-known speakers who took part were Mr. A. Clutton Brock, Mr. C. Delisle Burns, Professor J. S. Mackenzie and Dr. Maxwell Garnett. During the morning sessions Dr. Steiner gave the course of nine lectures since published under the title The Spiritual Ground of Education and three further lectures on the social question. A group of Dornach artists gave Eurhythmy performances at Keble and there was also a small demonstration by children, to illustrate the part of Eurhythmy in education.

During his three visits to England in the year 1922 Dr. Steiner gave a number of other public and semi-public lectures—on the anthroposophical path of knowledge, on the knowledge of the Christ-Impulse, and on education. Some of these have since been printed. They include for example the memorable address on The Mystery of Golgotha given in Manchester College Chapel, Oxford, on Sunday evening, 27th August.

In the midst of these many activities, opportunities were also found for the members' lectures here reproduced. The different local groups which had been working side by side throughout the war were joining forces to create what afterwards became the ‘Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain.’ In the autumn of 1921 a small library-office and the use of a lecture-hall had been rented at Grosvenor Street from the Royal Asiatic Society, and it was here then that Dr. Steiner gave the first of these members' lectures. Meanwhile a more permanent headquarters was acquired at 46 (now 116) Gloucester Place. Save for the one at Oxford, the remaining lectures were given here. Dr. Steiner gave every encouragement to the efforts which were being made to enlarge the scope of the spiritual movement in this country, and to the practical activities arising from it.

We have translated freely, believing that a free translation will be most able to call forth an immediate impression of the words as Rudolf Steiner spoke them. It should be remembered that all the lectures to English audiences had to be interpreted as they were given; Dr. Steiner generally divided them into three sections, each of which was followed immediately by the interpretation. The resulting breaks are in most instances apparent. The present written translation is based on the full shorthand reports of the original. Though of outstanding excellence, these reports themselves are not free from occasional uncertainties.

he titles here chosen, for the series as a whole and for the single lectures, are not due to Dr. Steiner himself. All through the later years of his life he was lecturing frequently to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, at Dornach and wherever else he traveled, no special subject being indicated, as a rule, beforehand, except for conferences and other such occasions. We came to the lectures with unbounded expectation, knowing always that some fresh illumination would be given, some further insight awakened, concerning the spiritual world and its relation to human life.

In the morning, Rudolf Steiner was visited by Emil Molt, Hans Kühn and Roman Boos in the “Gruppe” workroom.

Rudolf Steiner: It is quite terrible how little understanding there is in Germany of foreign policy. Even social policy must be treated as foreign policy today, because if the foreign policy is bad, all the fruits of a good social policy would only go to the Entente. - At all costs, further bloodshed should be avoided in Germany through rapid intervention. This will hardly be avoidable in Berlin anyway. For me, the most important task at the moment is to give the four lectures in Zurich. There is an international audience there. I will send these lectures to print immediately afterwards.

January 25, 1919, in the afternoon, at Hansi's house

Roman Boos begins by reporting on the socio-political commission of the “Federation of Intellectual Workers” in Stuttgart and the draft of the “memorandum”, and Emil Molt on the previous socialization efforts in Württemberg and the fact that belonging to the Anthroposophical Society has been perceived as compromising.

Rudolf Steiner: The most important thing is foreign policy. Above all, things like what is happening in Paris should be prevented. Poincare's speech, for example, has gone unchallenged. It is absolutely necessary to give a presentation of the outbreak of war from a suitable place. (Rudolf Steiner asks about Professor Wilhelm von Blume, but suggests that he does not expect much from this approach.) It is an absurdity that Ebert, Scheidemann and Erzberger are making peace. They let everything happen. The necessity to speak about the actual causes of the war is of the utmost importance.

Emil Molt asks: Would something be possible with Eisner?

Rudolf Steiner: Eisner has begun to address the question of guilt, but has not pursued it further. It would be possible to approach Eisner. He is a bit of a fantasist, but he is receptive. Graf Lerchenfeld would not be the right person; there are class prejudices. He also has a habit of playing hide and seek. He does not say anything about spiritual science being behind it, and then you notice it anyway.

Emil Molt reports on Heydebrand's attempts in Berlin, also concerning] Prince Leopold.

Rudolf Steiner: Heydebrand is unsuitable because of his name. Prince Leopold was considered a great personality, but when I saw him, I thought he was a bit of a fool. As for Heise's book: Heise is not a writer. You would have to sift through the material. Heise also presents it one-sidedly. Regarding Mrs. Kautsky (with whom Heydebrand was): I knew her when she was still a young aunt, now she will be an old aunt. A publication of the war genesis by the Foreign Office would be done by Kautsky. But he can't do that. He writes in a style that only party members can understand. It would have to be discussed in a way that is understandable to an international audience, especially from the German side, about the causes of the whole catastrophe.

Without considering foreign policy, especially the question of guilt, we will get nowhere. It is disastrous that there is no interest in foreign policy in Germany. One must describe where it leads when nothing is done in this regard. One can calculate this in numbers, as Rathenau did in “Zukunft”. This appeal by Rathenau should be distributed in leaflets. One should tell people: This is what happens when you do not take up the spiritual impulses!

Roman Boos notes that Carl Unger wants to publish a lecture. Rudolf Steiner does not address this. He points to the signature under “The Guiding Thoughts of the Federation of Spiritual Workers” and says:

Rudolf Steiner: “Federation of Spiritual Workers” is a Bolshevik method.

In response to a question from Emil Molt, he explicitly confirms that it is not right to distribute these ideas anonymously and not to keep the magazine in his own hands.

Emil Molt suggests to Rudolf Steiner that they work out “something we can all sign”. He suggests founding a federation where Rudolf Steiner could appear.

Rudolf Steiner: There should already be a backing.

Emil Molt: The Anthroposophical Society is not suitable for this; it is not supposed to deal with politics.

Rudolf Steiner: Why? Who says that?

The three (in unison): The draft statutes.

Rudolf Steiner: But these are from 1911 and were long ago wiped out by the war. The Anthroposophical Society can certainly deal with politics. I always talk about politics too.

The three of them: Dr. Unger as well. But not the Society as such.

Rudolf Steiner: Why not?

The three of them: Otherwise a situation could develop like the one with the politicized Entente Freemasonry.

Rudolf Steiner: It would have been very good if German masonry had embarked on such great political plans.

Hans Kühn: Could the Society act as a party?

Rudolf Steiner: It is not an association, only a society. The individual has complete freedom. One does not need to choose this name for a party. Non-Anthroposophists should also be accepted as members.

Addendum

Rudolf Steiner: What am I supposed to do in Berlin? There is no point in giving lectures. The threads will not be picked up after all. Mrs. Kinkel, for example, is a very nice lady. But when people come to inquire after a lecture and she takes them around the branch house and tells them something, it is of no use.

We have to wait until people see that they can't do anything. They will prove that they can't achieve anything, they will run themselves into the ground.

When Roman Boos' draft of the memorandum was handed over:

Rudolf Steiner: “We will talk about it then.” Not so much about the content as about the way it is presented. It's easy to make a mistake with this.

Newsletter from the Youth Section of the School of Spiritual Science.

In the letter which the committee of the General Anthroposophical Society sent to the members of the Society in response to my announcement of a youth section, there is a reference to the fact that I consider “being young to be so important that it can become the subject of a spiritual scientific discipline in its own right”. |

I really do consider this matter to be so important. Anyone who reads the description of my life in the weekly journal “Goetheanum” will understand why I think so. When I myself was as young as those who speak in this letter, I felt lonely with the state of soul that I now find alive in broad circles of young people. My contemporaries felt differently than I did. The life of civilization, of which this letter says that it no longer allows young people “to arrive at a worldview through any profession” and that young people “can no longer be led to any profession” through their “striving for a worldview,” was on the rise at that time. It was felt by young people as the latest stage in the development of humanity. They felt “liberated” from the extravagances of the ideological striving and secure in the prospect of professions that rose above the “safe” foundations of “science”.

I too saw the “bloom” of this civilization. But I could not help sensing that no genuine fruit of humanity would be able to arise from this bloom. My contemporaries did not feel this. They were carried away in the experience of “blooming”. They did not yet lack the fruit because they wasted their enthusiasm at the sight of the barren bloom.

Now everything has changed. The flower has withered. Instead of the fruit, an alien structure has appeared that freezes humanity in man. Youth feels the cold of civilization without a worldview.

In my contemporaries, there was an upper class of consciousness. They could rejoice in the fruitless blossom because its fruitlessness had not yet been revealed. And the blossom was radiant “as a blossom”. The joy of radiance covered the deeper layers of consciousness; the layers in which the yearning for true humanity lives inexorably in man. The youth of today can no longer find joy in the withered blossom. The upper layers of consciousness have become barren, and the deeper layers have been laid bare; the longing for a worldview is evident in the hearts, and it threatens to wound the soul life.

I would like to say to today's youth: do not scold the “old people” who were young with me forty years ago too much. Of course, there are superficial people among them who even today vainly flaunt their emptiness as superiority. But there are also those among them who, in resignation, bear the fate that has denied them the living experience of their true humanity.

This fate placed them in the last phase of the “dark” age, through which the grave of the spirit was dug in the experience of matter.

But youth is placed at the grave. And the grave is empty. The spirit does not die and cannot be buried.

Being young has become a mystery for those who experience it today. Because in being young, the longing for the spirit is laid bare. But the “light” age has dawned. It is just not felt yet because most people still carry the after-effects of the old darkness in their souls. But anyone who has a sense of the spiritual can know that it has become “light”.

And the light will only become perceptible when the riddles of existence are reborn in a new form.

Being young is one of the first of these riddles. How do you experience being young in a world that has become frozen in growing old? This is the question of feeling that lives in young people today.

Because being young has become such a human riddle, it can only find a living solution in “a spiritual scientific discipline of its own”.

In such a discipline, being young will not be spoken of in empty phrases, but the light that must fall on being young will be sought in it, so that one can perceive oneself in one's humanity.

Today, being young means wanting a world view that can fill one's life's work with warmth. It fears the professions that a civilization without a world view has created. It wants to see the profession grow out of humanity, not humanity crushed by the profession. To find one's way in the world without losing one's humanity in the search, requires a living relationship of the soul to the world. But this only awakens in the experience of the world view. The announcement of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society was made in such an attitude. In such an attitude, the Council would like to unite young anthroposophists in a youth section to work towards a life of true humanity. But there is something else I would like to say to our younger members. If we succeed in giving the Youth Section the right content, those who have understood in their anthroposophical lives how to grow old in the right way will want to join forces with the youth. Let us hope that the young people will not then say: we will not sit at the same table with the “old”. For Anthroposophy should have no age; it lives in the eternal that brings all people together. Let the young find in the Anthroposophical Society a field in which they can be young. But the “old”, if they take up Anthroposophy in their whole being, will feel the pull of the young. They will find that what they have conquered through old age is best communicated to young people. After all, young people will struggle in vain for true humanity if they flee the humanity into which they must one day enter. In the course of the world, the old must rejuvenate itself again and again if it does not want to fall prey to the formless. And young people will find what they need with the genuine “old” anthroposophists, if they do not want to arrive one day at an age of their own, from which they would like to flee, but cannot.