The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The unpleasant way in which the audience expressed its displeasure with Halbe's "Conqueror" at the Lessing Theatre on October 29 prompted the commendable director of the Schiller Theatre, Dr. Löwenfeld, to give a lecture on "Theatre Scandal" at the Berlin "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft". The content of this interesting lecture will be outlined here. Dr. Löwenfeld began by emphasizing that the scandal during the performance of Halbe's "Conqueror" differed significantly from other similar events. The behavior of the audience in the evening was preceded by a journalistic rally. The "Kleine Journal" published an article on the morning of the day of the performance in which the mood was stirred up against the management of the theater. The financial situation of the theater, the business and artistic management were presented in the most hateful way in this article. And in the evening, the noisy rejection followed.

Dr. Löwenfeld went on to describe how the appreciative theater audience views its critical task quite differently from the audience of another art. The theater director can do nothing other than offer the audience the best of the existing works of art. Of course, this best need not be the absolute good. But the theater director can't just conjure this absolute good out of thin air. In this respect, he can do nothing more than the director of a magazine or the director of an art exhibition. They too cannot help but offer the best of what is available to them.

The public has certain considerations to make. Firstly, to the poet. They should at least let him present his work before passing judgment. Secondly, to the actor. It should not interfere with him doing his best to show the poet to his best advantage. If it is as it was on October 29 in the Lessing Theater, the actor cannot possibly complete his task. The audience should also take the neighbor into consideration. What would we say if someone in an art exhibition held their hand in front of a painting while we were looking at it? But that's what someone does when he makes a noise in the theater next to someone else who wants to enjoy a quiet performance. Finally, the audience has aesthetic duties. A work of art can only be enjoyed as a whole. Anyone who judges before the end of the performance sins against this duty.

The purpose of a visit to the theater must also be considered. This is not the criticism of a dramatic poem, but the entertainment or enjoyment of a work of art.

Following on from this, Dr. Löwenfeld raised the very legitimate question of whether the usual premiere audience is at all suitable for such criticism. This audience is by no means made up of those elements who, due to their intellectual heights, appear qualified to make an authoritative judgment. Dr. Löwenfeld believes that much mischief is done at premieres by giving out free tickets to the uninvited. He cited a case from his practice. On the occasion of his performance of "The Robbers", he did not give a free ticket to a man who at least had a reputation in literary circles. This man would have made jokes about the inevitable imperfections of the performance. As a theater director, Löwenfeld didn't want that. Because such jokes, spoken with the necessary loudness in the theater, have an infectious effect.

Dr. Löwenfeld also highlighted a cancer of press criticism. The daily newspapers have one, perhaps two theater critics who are up to the task. One can now experience the following. There are four premieres in one day. One at the Schauspielhaus, one at the Deutsches Theater; two at theaters that live only on wild business manipulations and deliver subordinate performances. The famous critics go to the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater; the so-called "chic boys" go to the subordinate theaters. The next day one reads serious reviews of the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater in a style that meets the demands that one is entitled to make of serious art institutions. Of course, some things are criticized, and the tenor of the review is such that the criticism of the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater appears to be derogatory in comparison to the glorifying remarks of a fancy boy about a theater that has nothing at all to do with art. What kind of picture is the foreigner who comes to Berlin supposed to form from the reviews printed side by side? He says to himself: the plays at the Schauspielhaus are mediocre; there's nothing really going on at the Deutsches Theater either: that's why I go to the Friedrich-Wilhelmstädtisches Theater. Everything is excellent there. Dr. Löwenfeld stresses that the newspapers have a duty to create change here.

This interesting lecture was followed by a discussion. The undersigned opened it. He pointed out that there is a kind of rejection of a drama that is absolutely fatal for it, but which therefore has nothing in common with the repulsive behavior of the audience on October 29 in the Lessing Theater. He recalls a performance that the Goethe Assembly organized in Weimar a few years ago. Paul Heyse's "Bad Brothers" was performed. The audience, which had come together from all parts of Germany, felt bored and bored beyond measure. There was no hissing, hooting or jeering. After each act and after the last, the curtain came down in silent silence. The audience left the theater in silence. The play was buried. The audience had pronounced a death sentence, but in the awareness of the responsibility one assumes when one condemns a real work of art to death. The audience was not aware of this responsibility towards Halbe's "Conqueror". The silent rejection, however, seems noble to me. I also had to say that I do not believe that Halbe's drama was buried on Saturday, October 29. But when I read the Tageskritik on Sunday morning, I gave up everything. The Berlin Tageskritik doesn't know that it has a duty to hold back with its own opinion at first and tell people: this is what the poet wants, go in and form your own judgment. Instead it says: the play will not make money, so stay away. That's what she said on October 30th. The people stayed away. And the play could not be performed for the third time. Hans Olden then defended the audience at length. It had always rewarded artistic achievements with applause. Hauptmann had not misjudged it. Dr. Landau explained that what mattered most in the theater was the effect. It was impossible to wait until the end of the last act to express the effect a play had on the audience. Laughter is first and foremost a necessary expression of the psychic organism, and nothing can be done about that. Dr. Lorenz left the subject altogether. He said that Halbe's drama challenges laughter. That's why people laughed. Felix Lehmann made a good suggestion. He is of the opinion that the first real performance should be organized in front of an invited audience - according to the Parisian model. Such an audience will have the manners it should have. He hit the nail on the head, however, and what he said was like an egg to the resolution that the board of the "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft" wanted to propose. The kind of premiere audience that Felix Lehmann proposes for a first performance is what we want. Nothing else.

It was just a year ago that Schlenther was named as Burckhard's successor for the first time. Right then, there was fierce opposition. This must have surprised those from afar. Schlenther was, after all, a respected man whose literary merits were not in doubt. His name had become familiar along with the leading names of the modern movement. In Vienna, he was regarded as the critical representative of German modernism. And he was also known as a knowledgeable student of Scherer, so he must have been the right man - in a literary sense - for the diverse needs of the Burgtheater, which was striving towards the new without being able to do without the old.

And yet he was not welcomed. People were - with a few exceptions - cool, if not hostile towards him. But the reasons for this did not lie in his personality. People hated the new man because they loved the old one. That is true Viennese logic.

Burckhard had opponents everywhere during his time as director, in his theater, in the critics, in society - everywhere. No one liked him - with the exception of Hermann Bahr. When he left his post, he had only friends. They all stood by him. Not only because the loser always has the closest right to the hearts of the Viennese - for Vienna is the most kind-hearted city in the world - but because he had fallen for a glorious cause. That made him forget everything. He had declared that he could no longer submit to the censorship of the Obersthofmeisteramt and demanded a free path for modern literature. "With 'Liquidatorr' and the 'Jugendfreunde'," he thundered, "I can't run a Burgtheater. Then, gentlemen, I ask for the "Jugend" etc. Whether this memorandum was the cause or the reason for his dismissal - no matter, for the Viennese Burckhard was now the victim of his convictions, the holy Sebastian of modern art. Everyone felt they were on his side in his fight against the higher authorities. It was hoped that the prestige of public opinion would silence his opponents. For weeks it was the talk of the town whether Burckhard would remain in office or not. Every combination that wanted to put a new man in Burckhard's place was perceived as personal antagonism. People wanted nothing to do with Bulthaupt, Savits, Schönthan, Claar - and all the names that came to light at the time - they wanted to keep Burckhard. It was like a democratic vote against a cabinet decree. People completely forgot that they had no right to interfere in the matter; after all, the Burgtheater is a private matter for the court. They wrote and resolved and shouted: Burckhard and no one else!

So not Schlenther either. The new director soon had to feel this. Where he was not received with open hatred, he was met with cool distrust. Hardly one or two critical voices found a warm word for him. Of course, his first statement could not win him much love. If Burckhard was liked because he was an upright man, Schlenther betrayed a surprising courtly smoothness. In his welcoming speeches, he had displayed an enormous amount of devotion to the Imperial-Royal Olympians. Olympians in his welcoming speeches - probably with all the more unobjectionable words because he was a free-minded man and felt the whole thing to be a weightless formality. But that was not clever of him. Criticism was right behind him. So that's the modern, the independent, the revolutionary! Things were strange with this revolutionary character. We had expected an impetuous firebrand, a wild go-getter who had ten years of hot fighting behind him and who would bring a fresh sense of mischief into our quiet circles. Instead, we got a serious, very calm man, a skillful diplomat who never loses himself for a moment, who settles everything internally and always shows a calm, smiling face externally - that was another foreign, un-Viennese trait that we didn't like about him. In Vienna, everything is temperament, openness, love, hate, anger - but for God's sake, no secrecy, no reticence, no playing with the situation! That makes you insecure, unstable, confuses your judgment. The ideal theater director, who has become a legendary figure in Vienna, was Laube. And the whole of Vienna still raves about his straightforward coarseness today. This is how Schlenther was conceived: coarse, approachable, headstrong, strong. He was amiable, conciliatory, modest. He took an active part in the rehearsals and gave much appreciated advice to some of the actors - who are very intelligent people at the Burgtheater. But he placed the reigns in the hands of his directors; he was more of a corrective than a creative element in his company. But this did not earn him an impressive reputation. Under Laube, all directors were superfluous. He stood on the stage every day, leading, overseeing, the master of the house. An older court actor was once asked what the directors had to do under Laube. "Oh, they had a strictly regulated job," he reported, "the director on duty had to bring the director his sandwich every day at ten o'clock - on time, otherwise the old man would get very angry. But that was the end of the director's functions."

Under Schlenther, the directors were given other tasks after all. And the mistrust that is always shown in theater circles towards a proper man of letters grew. "He runs his theater from the chancellery!" they said. Many highly praised directors of the Burgtheater had done this before Schlenther, but Schlenther's time at the Burgtheater was a very troubled one that urgently required a strong hand. The new director found a completely decomposed theater. Almost all the youth departments were deserted - the staff consisted only of heroic fathers, albeit incomparable ones. - The repertoire was patchy, uninteresting, completely characterless. Modernism - despite modest attempts - had no home in the imperial house and could not have one. But the classical traditions had not found a caring hand either. Hebbel, Kleist, Moliere were completely absent - Schiller, Goethe, Grillparzer were only at home with individual works. However, all of the ideas were tarnished, much had become old and rotten, some had been inadequately replaced - everything called for strong and ruthless reforms. The new deeds of the director were eagerly awaited.

And now came a great disappointment. No one could predict whether the new master would bring success to the tired building. But everyone expected one thing: a program. A man who had been intimately connected with the German theater for decades, a man of letters who had followed the events of the stage, thinking, advising, theorizing, was now suddenly given the direction of the first German stage, at the height of his life, full of strength, completely in possession of his personality, his experiences, his wishes - a flood of ideas now had to rush down on this old stage, unclear, impractical perhaps, but nevertheless full of artistic power, impressive in its abundance and in the warmth of its intention! Here came someone who had spent a lifetime filling his pockets, and now he was finally to show what he had collected - everyone was waiting with burning eyes for his wealth, for the harvest of his life - and Schlenther came empty-handed. Completely empty-handed. He had nothing, absolutely nothing, to show the eager Viennese. He could have started the strangest things - he could have performed Maeterlinck or renewed Sophocles, he could have brought Moliere to the stage in new forms or Ibsen - but he would have had to do something, a real personal act that would have powerfully expressed his will. - And we have waited in vain for this act, we are still waiting today. It is true that he staged the "Baumeister Solneß" and a new adaptation of the "Komödie der Irrungen"; he then once again restaged the "Jungfrau von Orleans" and won a fine act by Ebner-Eschenbach for the Burgtheater - all commendable things that one may praise him for - but where is the Schlenther, the Paul Schlenther, Berlin's first critic, the prologue of a new era and new artistic ideals? After the Berlin successes, he also gave the "Cyrano" and the "Legacy" - but who wouldn't have done that? But we would have liked to have seen something that only he could do, he alone.

He didn't come to Vienna as a rich man who could live off his fortune - he had to greedily scrounge for the day's acquisition. Philippi is now the redeeming god of the Burgtheater. The director wants to make money. He has said it himself often enough. That is a very justified and understandable point of view. But he must not make the director anxious and despondently cautious. But it must not be the exclusive viewpoint of a Burgtheater director; and finally, it is still very much a question of whether it would not be entirely compatible with the artistic needs of the theater. Schlenther, who is still not completely familiar with the Viennese situation, overlooks the fact that the Burgtheater has its classical traditions, which have not lost their old magnetic power when cultivated with understanding. He does not need the "Mädchentraum" or the "Vielgeprüfte" and the other literature of the day; an interesting new production of Hebbel's "Nibelungen" fills the house much more securely for him. In June of last year (i.e. in the most unfavorable theater season) he had a sold-out house with "Faust", when Medelsky played Gretchen. No tickets were available for "Minna von Barnhelm" with Baumeister as Paul Werner. That should have been a proper instruction to the director.

No one doubts the integrity and solidity of his character, but he should have more daring, more decisiveness. It is true that a spirit of industriousness and artistic seriousness prevails in the Burgtheater today that has been alien to the house for years. A few years ago, when Gretchen was assigned to another actress, two scene rehearsals were enough to prepare the performance; "Carlos" was performed again without a rehearsal after a one-year break. Today, the repertoire is carefully prepared. When the "Ministerial Director" or the "Butterfly Battle" are recast in some roles, four to five rehearsals are devoted to the play.

And that is symptomatic. In every sense, there is order and diligence in the house today. But the rich, artistic life is missing. Of course, the director's work is not easy. Hartmann died a few weeks after he arrived; he had to let Sandrock go - he has also acquired some young talent, but they do not suit the Viennese taste, and rightly so.

The deed that gives the director's name its meaning for us is still missing. For the time being, we are still guessing what the once famous critic will bring to the Burgtheater. We know no more than we did a year ago.

In the series of "University Lectures for Everyone", one has been published that introduces the history of the origins of the German stage. Prof. Dr. Georg Witkowski deals with the topic: "The beginnings of the German theater". With the brevity necessitated by his task, he shows that this important factor in our intellectual life did not take its place in German cultural life until very late. In the Middle Ages there was no real theater in Germany. The content of serious poetry, which appeared in dramatic form, was taken from biblical history, and its presentation followed the church service. Scenes from the Old and New Testaments were performed at Easter and Christmas. They did not have the purpose, which every real dramatic poem must have, of presenting soul struggles for their own sake; they wanted to present sacred history in a vividly vivid way. Nor can the comic performances that were put on by craftsmen and schoolchildren at carnival time really be described as dramatic performances. They mostly dealt with small court scenes, marital disputes and crude jokes, which usually mocked the peasants from the townspeople's point of view.... The actors traveled from house to house, acting out their roles without any scenic means and certainly developed a very low level of acting skill, because where would that come from for the brave craftsmen and students? After the Reformation, conditions in Germany were more favorable for drama. Luther favored student performances because he believed that they had a positive influence on public opinion. "Comedies should not be hindered for the sake of the boys at school, but should be permitted and allowed, firstly, that they practise the Latin language, and secondly, that in comedies such characters are artificially condensed, painted and portrayed in a fine way, so that the people can be instructed, and everyone is reminded and admonished of his office and station, what is proper for a servant, master, young journeyman and old man, and what he should do; indeed, all degrees of dignity, offices and duties are held up and presented to the eyes, as in a mirror, how everyone should conduct himself in his station in his outward behavior. " In the period that followed, the drama of guilt flourished. But it could not achieve much, because the views on the nature of dramatic technique were of the most primitive kind. It did not go beyond a dialog spread over several characters. The impetus for a truly dramatic art in Germany came from the English. This developed with admirable speed at the end of the sixteenth century. The first theater building was erected in London in 1576, and by the end of the century there were more such artistic institutions in the city than there are today. And just as quickly, English drama developed from simple plays with religious and moral-didactic tendencies to the masterpieces of Shakespeare.

The art that developed there was also brought to Germany by traveling troupes of actors. In 1586, one such troupe, led by William Kempe, arrived at the Dresden court. From this time onwards, these companies of comedians appeared in a wide variety of places. They put on English plays, sometimes in an unheard-of corruption. However, plays were also written by Germans and performed by such companies. The leader of such a troupe usually played the leading role, which had to be a comic character. The plays that were performed had to be put into a form that allowed the leader to appear as this typical comic figure. - We have knowledge of these performances almost exclusively through the council minutes and tax tables of the cities, which show us what burdens the authorities imposed on the traveling troupes. There were no theater reviews or anything similar at this time. - The dramatic art in Germany had the character indicated here during the last years of the sixteenth and the first third of the seventeenth century. Witkowski shares a playbill from Nuremberg that gives us a glimpse of what was on offer: "Everyone should know that a whole new company of comedians is arriving here, who have never before been seen here in this country, with a very funny pickelhering, who will perform daily, beautiful comedies, tra; pastorelles (Schäffereyen) and histories, mixed with sweet and funny interludes, and today they will present a very funny comedy called "Die Liebes Süßigkeit verändert sich in Todes Bitterkeit. After the comedy, a beautiful ballet and ridiculous farce will be presented. The lovers of such plays want to gather at the fencing house after noon bell 2, where the praecise is to begin at the appointed time." Regarding the expression Pickelhering, which means kipper, it should be noted that the aforementioned comic figure at the center of the performances gave himself names of popular foods: Hans Wurst, Hans Knapkäse, Stockfisch and so on. - After 1631, the situation changed. The English troops were lost; they were replaced by "High German comedians".

Witkowski's description of the stage at that time is worthy of special mention:

"Long beforehand, the wide space of the courtyard, which can hold a very large number of people, is densely packed. In front of the door, those entering have found a plaque on which it is written that a person's place costs six kreuzer. Normally the English have often asked for more, but this time they are not allowed to. The audience, who had paid the large sum (the German troops only got half a kreuzer), sat in front of and around the stage, which bore little resemblance to the one we see today. It consisted of a small scaffolding that was erected against the back wall of the courtyard and only took up a small part of it. It was open on three sides, only at the back was it covered with carpets, in front of which you could see a smaller raised scaffolding with stairs leading up to it. This served a dual purpose. Firstly, its platform was always used when an elevation, a city wall, a hill or a tower was needed. On the other hand, its interior was used to create a second stage on the stage, on which the scenes that took place in the chambers of the houses were performed. This second stage was equipped with decorations and could be closed off by a curtain so that it could be transformed while the front part of the scene was being played; an extremely practical insight that greatly benefited the structure of the dramas. Later, the width of the stage was extended over the whole back wall of the building in which they played, thus producing the present form of our theater, which is far removed from the former simple and yet so sensible use of the English.

But we already find the important principle of the front and back stage with them; the original cell, so to speak, of the present stage is already there."

In Germany itself, at the time when the theater was under the influence of the English, only dramatic poems were created, which were worthless for the real theater. They were inspired by the Greeks and Romans. It was not until Moliere and the French art developed by him that anything fruitful emerged again in Germany. A complete decline of the theater in the first half of the eighteenth century was followed by a revival thanks to Gottsched, who worked together with the brilliant stage artist Neuber. Even if the French influence has been freed from Germany again, this influence can only be described as extremely favorable at this time.

In the February issue of the journal "Bühne und Welt", an essay by Johann Hertzberg (Stockholm, freely translated by E. Brausewetter) was published on "Ibsen as a tragedian". It appears to be an important chapter in modern dramaturgy. The author explains that in traditional aesthetics a distinction is made between three types of tragedy: tragedies of fate, in which the fate is controlled by supernatural or mystical powers; tragedies of character, in which the hero's fate depends on his own character; tragedies of situation, in which the catastrophe is a necessary consequence of certain general human conditions. None of these three types is strictly defined in Ibsen's work. His tragedies - and Hertzberg sees Ibsen as a poet of tragedy - show a mixture of styles. They can be categorized partly as one type and partly as another. - Although not in a completely clear way, Hertzberg nevertheless points out that this is a consequence of the world view resulting from modern knowledge. Today, we cannot recognize the existence of fate. Where a naïve mind sees such a thing, natural laws exist for us. Thus, for us, the two ideas of fate and the necessary connection resulting from the situations flow into one another. Let us take a look at the "ghosts". The tragic follows from the situation with natural necessity. "Mrs. Alving and Oswald are placed in a generally human, tragic situation, which is based on the insoluble contradiction between man's urge for full freedom and self-confidence and his helpless inferiority under the terrible and inexorable laws of heredity. On the other hand, they are very reminiscent of the ancient tragedy of fate. - They have no guilt upon them that can explain such a terrible fate." - This "can explain" is not complete. The explanation cannot be a moral one, but it is in the fullest sense of the word a natural law one. Because he transforms the artistic styles flowing from the old worldviews in the sense of the modern worldview: that is why Ibsen is so close to us. - We should therefore not speak, as Hertzberg does, of a mixture of the old types and styles; we should rather speak of the creation of a completely new kind of tragedy: the tragedy that results from the necessity of nature. When Hertzberg says: "In our time we have come to the realization that it is not a single factor that determines fate, but many together", we must add: They work together in the sense of nature, in which every fact arises from the interaction of many elements. The older world views were not based on this experience, but on a preconceived opinion that made any one of the factors - fate, character, situation - stand out in particular.

In heaven there should be more joy over one convert than over ninety-nine righteous people. In the heaven of aesthetics, where the Viennese critic Ludwig Speidel is the main saint, there must therefore be great joy over the conversion of the former main heretic Hermann Bahr. "This collection of reviews that I wrote about Viennese theater from 1892 to 1898, first in the "Deutsche Zeitung" and then in "Die Zeit", is intended to show how I gradually came to a pure view of dramatic art from uncertain but all the more vehement demands of a rather vague beauty, and how I came to recognize the theater for what it is. I owe this to you alone. Through your words the meaning has opened up to me, from you I have learned what drama is supposed to be, through your great demands I have become free from whims. And you also taught me what our office is, that of criticism, that "sharp handmaiden of production", as you called it: to help the creators. That is why I have asked you to adorn my book with your name." This is how Hermann Bahr introduces his latest book "Wiener Theater (1892-1898)". Ludwig Speidel is the representative of a thoroughly outdated aesthetic view. He is completely alien to the demands placed on us by the modern world view. He is a veteran of the ideas that set the tone in Gustav Freytag's time. Critiques such as he writes today could also have been written around the middle of our century. His school of thought envisioned an art that pursued an abstract ideal of beauty. Friedrich Theodor Vischer professed this ideal in his Aesthetics, which he himself later disavowed. From his point of view, Speidel initially always condemned all newer art movements. He always retreated when the times took sides with these art movements. How did he first treat Gerhart Hauptmann? How does he treat him now? You only have to read the review he wrote about "Lonely People" when it was first performed at the Burgtheater in Vienna. Hermann Bahr took his youthful education entirely from the modern direction. There was a time when he was the critic of "modernism" par excellence. And now he has converted to the views of aesthetic conservatism. There is only one explanation for this: Bahr has never advocated "modernism" from the innermost depths of his soul. He appropriated its buzzwords and traded on them. He always had a strong inclination and also a talent for finding nice smooth formulas for what modern art wants. These formulas did not come from within him. He was playing a dialectical game. That is why conversion is easy for him. His course of development is not a natural one. When he was young, he did not understand the aesthetics of Vischer and Speidel. But he fought against them. Others took this aesthetic as their starting point. On the basis of these aesthetics, they dealt with the legitimate principles of art. Due to the one-sidedness of these principles, they initially did not understand the tasks of the new art. Today they understand its demands. They judge the new according to the standard provided by the good old aesthetics and which they have developed accordingly. As a result, they have arrived at a just judgment. They cannot convert to Speidel. For the work of their lives is to go beyond Speidel and arrive at a modern aesthetic. When they judge the "modern", their judgment contains the element of the old aesthetic, which was justified.

Hermann Bahr's aesthetic never had this element in it. And his new aesthetic will probably be no less superficial than his old one. It seems less like a further development than a bankruptcy. He will now put into nice smooth formulas what Speidel's opinion is, just as he used to put into nice smooth formulas what Ibsen's opinion is.

I find the work written by Hans Landsberg under the above title (Berlin 1900) less interesting as an individual achievement than as a symptom of the times. It is the expression of the mood of those members of the younger generation who have formed their artistic judgment from the aesthetic traditions that have come down to us from our classical art epoch and who approach our contemporary art with a somewhat abstract-academic sense. Insight into these aesthetic traditions protects them from the overestimation of this contemporary art, into which all those who owe their aesthetic education entirely to the last decade and a half must necessarily fall.

However, in order to justifiably make the judgments that Hans Landsberg makes, a broader perspective is required than he has. Anyone who has really familiarized themselves with the aesthetic views that the author of the brochure wants to claim will find these views too trivial. In what he says about true art, Landsberg does not go beyond what the bourgeois Carrière put forward in his "Aesthetics". I don't want to do him an injustice. That is why I emphasize from the outset that I also find some good things in this little booklet. At the top of this good is an excellent characterization of Hauptmann's "Biberpelz". But anyone who wants to be entitled to say about Hauptmann what Landsberg is guilty of would have to have immersed himself in the classical view of the world to such an extent that it is impossible for him to write sentences like this: "I know the shyness that all "sensible people" feel before "symbolism" and "mysticism". Only someone who has once grasped or even just sensed the full depth of a great work of art understands the reality of these concepts. A statue by Michelangelo, a symphony by Beethoven, a poem by Goethe, they are all symbols, individual embodiments of the universe, they are all mystical because they rise from unfathomable depths. Even if one searches for abstract formulas for such concrete entities - "Faust", for example, as the tragedy of titanic striving, "Macbeth" as the drama of ambition - one can still in no way exhaust the symbolic-mystical content of these works." Much worse than the shyness of "sensible people" towards "symbolism" and "mysticism" is the unclear playing with and sympathizing with these terms, as found in Hans Landsberg. I don't want to take the word of narrow-minded intellectuals who want to exhaust the content of a great work of art in a few banal phrases. But there are no "unfathomable depths" that cannot be illuminated by the light of reason. Thinking, if it only has the ability to descend deep enough into the essence of things, will always be able to draw out the true content of great works of art. However, it will not then be able to offer trivial abstract formulas along the lines of Landsberg's on "Faust" and "Macbeth", but it will shed clarity and ideal light on areas that "symbolism" and "mysticism" would so like to veil with dark concepts.

Because Hans Landsberg does not have the perspective that gives a truly rational view of the course of the world, because he confuses depth with mystical obscurity and rationality with the narrow-minded view that "understands and explains everything, especially the inexplicable", he can write sentences like this: "However, compared to the older Shakespearean treatment of the people as a compact mass, here (in the "Weavers) a tremendous advance towards the individualization of the crowd is evident. But actually only individuals are portrayed. They are in no way typical, they do not merge into the higher unity of the weaver in general." Landsberg confuses the type with the template. The perfect type can only be represented if one characterizes the perfect individual, not an abstract generic idea. The "weaver in general" is an impossible concept.

"The great basic intellectual current that we believe we can recognize in the chaos of opinions and trends that fill our time is characterized roughly as follows: The autocracy of the natural sciences is followed by the endeavor to understand the world artistically. We feel that here we have a means of solving riddles that science is at a loss to solve." This is Hans Landsberg's opinion. But he does not understand how a world view comes about. He only understands the small science, which, with its abstract concepts, with its idealistic shells that it wraps around things, has nothing to do with worldview. A modern world view can only arise out of natural science. Such a world-view must today stand in the same relation to the results of the knowledge of nature as all old world-views stood to religion and theology. Seemingly modern worldviews that are formed independently of natural science all fall back into the old religious and theological ideas.

We have few personalities with the inner strength to expand the scientific knowledge of the present into a world view. The power of old religious sentiments is still too strong in our people. They cannot shape scientific knowledge into a world view, which is why they would like to convince themselves that it cannot be shaped into one.

However, Gerhart Hauptmann should not be presented as the poetic representative of the scientific world view, but one should not ignore the fact that within German poetry he has made the strongest approaches to such a world view. One should not wish for these beginnings to be replaced by a "new-romantic art", as Hans Landsberg characterizes it, but one should want Hauptmann to continue in the direction he took up to "Florian Geyer". Hauptmann's alarming backward movement only begins with "The Sunken Bell". Only with it has he shown that it is not possible for him to continue on the path he has begun. He has thus become unfaithful to himself and to the times.

Some of the clever remarks in Landsberg's little book lead me to believe that its author will not long after have reached a point in his development where he will regret having attacked Hauptmann with a miniature perspective. He will perhaps still have many things to say against Hauptmann later, but he will then - having matured - realize how deeply this dramatist is rooted in the intellectual life of the end of the nineteenth century, and how, in contrast, the critical concoctions of his present assessor Hans Landsberg are preparations of a German studies seminar that have little root in life and are highly superfluous for it.

It is highly curious which three spirits Hans Landsberg chooses to characterize the intellectual signature of the present. "Nietzsche, Ibsen, Böcklin, that's the name of the triumvirate. In them the intellectual current of the present is most clearly reflected. According to a saying by Robert Schumann, there has always been a secret alliance of kindred spirits. Nietzsche, Ibsen and Böcklin seem to me to best embody the spirit of the age, which for most people is still the spirit of the future."

For now: Nietzsche has nothing to do with the zeitgeist. He is a very lonely, isolated man who has gone the most individual ways imaginable and whose intellectual physiognomy can only be understood from his isolation. The fact that a large following follows him today is merely due to his unfortunate fate and the fact that his views can be translated into dazzling catchwords for thought-hungry writers and journalists. - Böcklin, too, is basically such a lonely man, who has little connection with the spirit of the times. Of the three mentioned, only Ibsen can be used to characterize this "zeitgeist". From a broader perspective than Landsberg's, however, one would have to emphasize Hauptmann's kinship with Ibsen much more sharply.

To emphasize it once again, it seems to me that Hauptmann's drama is much more deeply related to the zeitgeist than Hans Landsberg's interpretation of this zeitgeist.

In honor of the visit of Hendrik zu Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Prince of the Netherlands (1876–1934) at the Goetheanum, the “Prologue in Heaven” from Goethe's “Faust” was performed and introduced by an address by Rudolf Steiner.

Program of the performance

• A cheerful prelude with music by Leopold van der Pals. “Nectar Droplets” by J. W. von Goethe
• Opening “Look within, look around you” with music by Leopold van der Pals
• “The Fairy Tale of Loving and Hating“ from The Portal of Initiation by Rudolf Steiner
• Opening ‘Planet Dance’ with music by Max Schuurman ‘Greeting to the Elements’ by Friedrich Rückert
• “To the Mistral” by Friedrich Nietzsche
• “Zum neuen Jahr“ (To the New Year) by J. W. von Goethe Musical prelude by Leopold van der Pals
• “An Elise” (To Elise) by Friedrich Hebbel
• “Auf die Sixtinische Madonna“ (On the Sistine Madonna) by Friedrich Hebbel Music from ‘Faust II’ by Jan Stuten
• “Prolog im Himmel” (Prologue to Heaven) from “Faust I” by J. W. Goethe

Perhaps I may take the liberty of saying a few words in advance about the following ideas about the meaning and intentions that we associate with the art of eurythmy. A piece of this eurythmic art is to be presented.

We see this eurythmic art as something, I would say, like a renewal, but in a thoroughly modern form, a renewal of the ancient temple dance art. If we think of inaugurating something of this kind today, it is of course necessary to consider the whole meaning of human artistic development and the meaning of human cultural development in general, if anything that is to be new is to come into the present. If we look at the various branches of human spiritual development today, we see that they coexist side by side. Art, religion, science, in fact all human spiritual movements, actually arise from one root. And if you look at the divine-sacred secrets of humanity in older epochs, in the original cultures, so to speak – they could be regarded, insofar as they could be taken from the senses, as beautiful art. The same thing could also be seen as having an effect on the capacity for knowledge, and then it was science. But the same thing could also be seen as having an effect on human devotion, and then it was religion.

In this way, religion, art and science were divided, and the individual cultural branches were in turn divided into the individual arts. When we consider an individual branch of art today, especially one that is to exist, then it is a matter of placing ourselves in this whole spiritual context, which shines and glimmers up to us from the history of humanity.

Something like this approached us when we were prompted, one might say by fate, to think about inaugurating this eurythmy. This is not about creating something arbitrary, purely out of fantasy, but about placing something into the world that is taken from the spiritual, from the spiritual laws of the world's existence itself. But everything that can be placed into the world can be found in some form in the human being. The human being is truly a small world, a microcosm within the great world of the macrocosm. This is taken from the workings and weaving of an organic system of the human being, the workings and weaving of the invisible forces that are always at work — we call them the etheric forces in our spiritual science — that are always at work when we speak or think. We not only have this visible physical larynx, which anatomy or physiology has at hand, but behind it the invisible mass of forces of the larynx and the organs that connect to it. There, as we speak, movements of a locally limited part of this organism are revealed to the seeing eye.

Now it is a matter of elevating to art that which is otherwise there by nature, entirely in the style and sense in which Goethe conceived a modified concept of art in the manner of his theory of metamorphosis. After all, when he wanted to form an idea of Greek works of art in Italy, he said: There is necessity, there is God. There, he said, the divine is revealed in man. And for him it was about man coming to an awareness of his connection with the whole universe in every art. We act in his spirit when we transfer that which works in the invisible part of the larynx in local demarcation in nature to the whole human being.

And so we first transfer into movements of the human limbs what is otherwise only carried out in speaking, singing, and music by the invisible part of the larynx and its neighboring organs. There is no pantomime here, but everything is strictly logical. Every single vowel returns, returns in its corresponding contexts, sentence forms, and structure of language and music. All this should also be expressed in this spatial-movement art of the human being.

Now, when we speak and sing, we not only move the invisible larynx, but we also send, into the movements of the larynx, I would say our soul, our heart, our whole being. This is only in the undertones, one would like to say, in the undertone of what we express. When we bring warmth, enthusiasm, rhythm, artistic expression into what we say, then there is something contained in the speaking. We dissolve this and it appears in the group dances. The movements that the group performs, which arise from the position of the individual personalities in the groups, correspond to what is not actually performed by the person, but only predisposed in this invisible larynx, what is undertone. What the individual person performs for themselves in space is a complete reflection of what the invisible larynx performs in every speech of the person. So it is essentially a transformation of the whole person into a living larynx, a bringing into relationship with the individual person, just as the larynx comes into relationship in mutual discussion. Nature has moved up into art. One could say: art is higher nature in nature. - That is meant here in the corresponding art.

I would ask you to consider this branch, which is an episode, an insertion, of our actual spiritual scientific work, in such a way that it is only just beginning as it is now presented. And they are only weak attempts that are to be carried out. But everything that comes into the world can only come into the world in a germinal way, especially when it appears as a first attempt. It is as such quite unassuming attempts that we are permitted to present what we now offer in individual poems and in a eurythmic arrangement of Goethe's “Prologue in Heaven”, the beginning of “Faust”.

The first public eurythmy performance in Zurich was scheduled for October 18, 1918. For this performance, which was officially canceled at short notice, while the lecture that had also been scheduled could take place, Rudolf Steiner drafted an announcement or poster text that exists in two variations and a fair copy by Marie Steiner. Ultimately, the first public eurythmy performance could not take place until February 24, 1919 in Zurich; see pp. 49-161. In the Zurich lecture of October 17, 1918, Rudolf Steiner briefly mentioned the cancellation of the event.

From the lecture Zurich, October 17, 1918

We ourselves have tried to develop efforts that are close to one area of spiritual science, to bring the gestural aspect of language back into view in what we call eurythmy, where we have tried to get the whole person moving and to express, through the movements of the limbs , through movements of the human form in space, through group movements, through the relationships between people, to express in a gestural way that which is otherwise also noticed in the gesture, but only not as a gesture, and which is expressed through the human larynx and its neighboring organs. We call this kind of movement art, which must penetrate humanity as something new, eurythmy. And we here in Zurich wanted to tie in with this lecture with a eurythmic presentation. It has to be postponed because we were given permission to give these lectures in the current difficult times, but not to give this eurythmic performance. It would have shown how the whole human being becomes the larynx, as it were. By becoming aware of what language is, we arrive at something that will become particularly important, quite fundamentally important for life in the present and the future.

From the address in Dornach, November 3, 1918

When we were in the very satisfactory position of being able to organize a public eurythmy performance in Zurich, we had to decide on introductory words for the philistines we were inviting – well, how should I put it, it's always on the tip of my tongue, something disrespectful – that could then be printed. And I also wanted to emphasize for this matter of eurythmy, which will certainly be extraordinarily important for the world at some point, that in what is now to be presented to the public, one has a beginning, an intention, which is to be developed, which is to undergo its development, which is to progress. Criticism of beginnings can only be properly addressed if we always remain aware that these are beginnings.

Announcement of the planned performance in Zurich, October 18, 1918

On October 18, 1918, a performance of the Eurythmic Art will take place at the Conservatory at 8 p.m.
It will be presented by Tatiana Kisseleff with the participation of Elisabeth Dollfuss, Annemarie Groh, Annemarie Donath and others. The poems on which the performance is based will be recited by Marie Steiner; the accompanying music is by Leopold van der Pals, Max Schuurman and Jan Stuten. The eurythmic art form is based on the intentions and indications of Rudolf Steiner. Seats: 5, 3 and 2 francs.

The program of this second public performance was the same as the previous one in Zurich

Dear attendees!

Allow me to say a few words about our performance. This will seem all the more justified given that the art form we want to present cannot yet be considered complete, but rather a beginning, a will, or I could also say the inclination towards a will, to express the human soul in a certain way in a particular art form. We know very well that more accomplished things are being done in the related fields, of which there are many today, in terms of artistic perfection. We know that we cannot compete with what is being achieved in the related arts. But we do not want to compete with them either.

For us, it is not about dance-like or similar art creations in addition to others, but rather about seeking forms of movement art based on certain foundations that are not otherwise sought. This means seeking the expression of spiritual experience through movements of the human organism, through the positions of groups of people in relation to each other, and also through the movement of positions of groups of people in relation to each other. What I have just described, which underlies the matter as a basis, is something that is rooted in Goethe's world view. Goethe's great, powerful world view is expressed in various fields. Above all, it expresses itself in the fact that Goethe found ways to judge that which lives and exists in the world from a certain deeper, spiritual point of view.

Our endeavor is based, first of all, on the way in which Goethe himself observed life and the forms of living beings. Goethe's great and significant theory of metamorphosis is fundamental. I do not wish to be theoretical in these introductory remarks, but only to point out how Goethe observed the growth and weaving of plants, and then also of animals and humans, and how it became clear to him that a deeper, intuitive look at this growth shows how each individual organ is a metamorphosis, a transformation of another organ of the same being. Goethe saw the leaf in the plant blossom, and in turn the plant blossom in the fruit; the same applies to animals and human beings. But now it becomes clear to Goethe that not only is each individual organ a transforming organ of other organs, but that the whole living being is also only a transformation of an [organ], so to speak: every organ is the whole plant, the whole animal.

What Goethe first saw, I would say more scientifically, can also be fully felt artistically, without becoming soberly intellectual. And it is an attempt to feel artistically with regard to the movement systems within the human being. If I want to briefly describe in a few words what underlies our art form, I would say: the whole human being should express movements that represent him as a single larynx. So that one can see in what the human being expresses through his movements that which one otherwise hears when the human being, through the individual members of the organism, through the larynx and its neighboring organs, forms sounds, combinations of sounds, and tones and combinations of tones out of himself.

There is, however, a need to look artistically and intuitively at the whole area that underlies the human larynx. Then we find that in what the human being does not see in the processes of the cabbage head, but which is expressed only in what then becomes speech and sound, there is something that is more determined in the disposition than in what actually comes to expression and what passes over into the manifestation of word and sound, of word combinations and sound combinations. All that is expressed through the larynx can be visibly expressed by the whole human being. We express this by letting the whole human being make movements that proceed in the same way as the movements that the larynx produces when speaking, singing, and so on.

But there is something else in all that a person can express through the larynx. The whole soul speaks along with the sensations and movements that we express. When we express ourselves through speech, there is an underlying mood of the soul to what is revealed through language: rhythm, pure artistic assonance is expressed. This is in turn expressed by us by bringing groups into movement and into position in relation to one another. First of all, what we present through individual people is a representation of the whole human being as a large larynx, but visible, not audible. Everything we present in groups is what permeates word and sound as sensation, glows as mood and the like, presented in language as purely artistic rhythm, alliteration, assonance and so on.

And one can say: In this way we are trying to achieve an art form that does not give an instantaneous expression of the human soul, but which, according to certain laws, gives a lasting expression of the soul. Just as in speech, the larynx makes movements that are based on certain laws, whereby combinations of sounds and tones arise, and just as there is something in the lawfulness as there is in the organ, we do not try to express the soul life through facial expressions or pantomime. We do not seek to achieve our art form in this way, but by basing our movements on an inner lawfulness, which is just as internally structured as the musical work of art itself is internally structured in harmony and melody. In our system, the individual or groups of people cannot express anything that flows out of them only in the moment through pantomime or mime. Rather, what is subjectively expressed by the individual person is about the same as the relationship between the performance of a Beethoven sonata by one artist and that of another. In this way, we exclude everything arbitrary, everything subjective; all facial expressions, pantomime plays no role for us, not the individual gesture, but only the connection with the individual work of art. If you do see gestures, pantomime, facial expressions, then please consider this an imperfection of our art form; we have certainly not yet reached the stage where we would like you to see them, as I have just mentioned.

Of course, our art is supported by music and recitation, so that on the one hand the soul can be heard, and on the other hand, as I said, through the whole person, who has become the larynx, it comes to visible representation.

Dear esteemed audience, please do not take this evening's performance as something we imagine is already a perfect art – you will see many imperfections. But take it as a beginning, and you may do it justice to such an extent that you see: one can also dare this attempt in this field alongside related arts. Do us the favor of characterizing from this point of view; forgive the mistakes that you may see. We will endeavor to correct the mistakes, and from this beginning, through us or through others who work in this field, much more perfect work in this field will yet come about.

• TIAOAIT: Words to the spirit and love from “The Portal of Initiation” by R. Steiner, with a musical prelude by Leopold van der Pals
• “What art thou doing, wind...” by C. F. Meyer
• Planetary Dance by Rudolf Steiner with musical accompaniment by Leopold van der Pals
• “Divine Meal” by C. F. Meyer with musical accompaniment by Leopold van der Pals “Noch einmal” by C. F. Meyer with musical accompaniment by Leopold van der Pals
• ““The Seasons” by Hans Reinhart
• “On the Sistine Madonna” by Friedrich Hebbel
• Hallelujah
• From the “Choir of Basic Instincts” (4th Choir) by Fercher v. Steinwand
• “The Son of the Muses” J. W. v. Goethe with musical prelude by Leopold van der Pals
• “Lonely” (crows) by Friedrich Nietzsche with musical accompaniment by Leopold van der Pals
• Musical prelude “Fateful Question” by Leopold van der Pals
• “Night Song” by Friedrich Hebbel
• “The End of All Things” by Hans Reinhart
• Elegiac prelude with music by Leopold van der Pals Satirical prelude with music by Leopold van der Pals “Km. 21” by Christian Morgenstern
• “Bim-Bam-Bum” by Christian Morgenstern
• “Fried flounder” by Paul Scheerbart with musical prelude by Leopold van der Pals
• “The Aesthetic Weasel” by Christian Morgenstern, a cheerful prelude with music by Jan Stuten, “Rose of Sharon” J. W. v. Goethe
• “The Dance” by Friedrich Schiller with musical accompaniment by Max Schuurman

Dear attendees!

Allow me to say a few words about our eurythmy and eurythmic performance. This will seem all the more justified since you are being asked to turn your attention not to something complete and perfect in itself, but to an artistic endeavor with which, in the opinion of those who carry it out, a goal has not yet been reached, but for the time being only something is willed, perhaps I could even say: with which an attempt is being made to will something. It is obvious that what we are presenting here as a eurythmic art is drawn in parallel with many similar contemporary endeavors, endeavors in the arts of movement, the arts of dance, and the like. And it must be said that much is being achieved in these fields at present, and to an extraordinary degree of perfection. But if you were to think that we want to compete with these neighboring arts, then you would misunderstand our intentions. That is not the point; the point is to develop a special new art form, which, however, as far as we have come with it, is only at its beginning.

The basis of this endeavor is basically in the same direction as our other endeavors: the continuation of what is inherent in Goethe's conception of the world and of art. And here, in particular, it is a very specific area in which we are trying to develop Goethe's conception of art in a way that can correspond to more modern artistic views and feelings.

Goethe, who perhaps more than any other has grasped the essence of art, once said, “Art is a revelation of certain laws of nature that could never be revealed without its activity”. Goethe was able to see in artistic design and creation something akin to a revelation of secret natural laws, of such natural laws that cannot be revealed by the sober, dry, scientific mind, because it is precisely this mind that, through its comprehensive view of the world, has received a deep insight precisely into nature and its mysterious entities. I would just like to say that one receives a small glimpse of this vast, comprehensive Goethean view of nature when one allows Goethe's significant treatise, which is indeed characteristic of a view of nature, to take effect on one , the treatise on the becoming and weaving of the plant organism, from which Goethe's view and thoughts on the becoming and weaving of the living in the world in general then radiate.

I can only briefly mention how Goethe sees that each individual part of a living being is, in a mysterious way, like an expression of the whole living being and, in turn, like an expression of every other individual part. Goethe observes the developing plant, leaf by leaf, up to the flower and the fruit. He is of the opinion that what we admire as a colored petal is only a transformation of the green leaf, and that even the finer flower organs, which in their external shape are very unlike an ordinary green leaf, are only a transformation of this green leaf. There is metamorphosis everywhere in nature. The formation of living things is based on the fact that metamorphosis is everywhere. And so every single link, every single leaf, is an expression of the whole. Goethe sees a whole plant in the individual leaf, in the individual petal, in the individual stamen. But this can be applied to all living things, especially to the archetype of all living things, to human form and to human movement, to human living activity itself. And that is precisely what should be expressed in this eurythmic art. The mysterious laws of nature of the human being itself should be expressed.

That is the idea. But the idea is not the main thing. The main thing is that an attempt has been made to really dissolve and implement this Goethean view of the weaving and essence of the organism in artistic perception. Man speaks by revealing the language of sounds and tones to his surroundings; he speaks with a single member of his organic form, with the larynx; he sings with the larynx and with the neighboring organs. Just as the individual leaf is an entire plant, so, in a sense, what the larynx and neighboring organs are, the foundations of human speech, is the whole human being. And again, the whole human being can only be understood as a complicated metamorphosis of the larynx.

This attempt has been made to bring the whole human being into such movement and into such positions that, as through the larynx, speaking and singing is done in sound, so in the visible through the whole human being, speaking and musicality is brought to bear. This does not mean that the movements that are made should be interpreted in some kind of crazy way; but only that, as in the case of the musical art itself, where everything proceeds according to law and yet everything is felt elementarily - the movements of the eurythmic art, like musical harmony and melody themselves, are felt in their inner lawfulness, without going back to the just mentioned, then the artistic of this eurythmic will arise.

What lives in the human soul, as it is otherwise expressed through the organ of human speech, through the larynx, should be expressed through the whole human being, through his movements, through his postures. The whole human being should, so to speak, develop before the spectator as a larynx.

But human speech contains not only that which is otherwise expressed in sounds and sequences of sounds, but the whole of the human soul is expressed - feeling, inner warmth, sensation, mood and so on, and so on. That is why our eurythmic art also strives to visibly represent everything that comes to expression through the medium of language.

We are therefore dealing with a movement art in general, with movements of the individual human being, but also with movements of groups, with movements of groups that have to express moods, sensations, warmth that glow and permeate language. Everything that, so to speak, expresses the proximity of the larynx is in turn expressed through our group positions and movements. Rhyme and rhythm, by which the poetic and artistic in language is achieved, are sought to be achieved through these movements of groups, through the mutual positions of the dancing people and so on.

What characterizes this eurythmic art, esteemed attendees, and distinguishes it from all neighboring arts, is that it does not seek the momentary gesture, the momentary pantomime. Just as in music, in its inner laws, nothing is sought as an instantaneous expression - then it would be musical painting - so in the eurythmic art, conscious mimicry is not striven for through instantaneous gesture. It is not that which lives momentarily in the soul that is expressed through a momentary gesture or a momentary pantomime, as it is in neighboring arts. Rather, it is the case that the whole is based on an inner lawfulness, just as in music itself. So that, when two eurythmists present the same thing, their differences will be no greater than when two pianists play the same Beethoven sonata according to their own subjective understanding. The difference will not be greater. Everything is objectified. And where you will still see that a pantomime, a mimic, that gestures of the moment occur, there the matter is still imperfect, there we will still have to overcome many a thing – precisely in order to do justice to our views.

This way, one can actually hear the spoken word or the music on the one hand, and on the other hand, this poetry, this music is translated into human [movements] and into movements of groups of people. So that what is expressed in these movements, in these positions, should have as direct an effect as the vibration of the air, the movement of the air, which also emerges as a real movement from the human larynx.

So we turn our attention to the sounds we hear and not to the movement that remains invisible. With our artistic movements, with our eurythmy, we want to see in space what people, as it were, do not see in space because they only turn their ear to how something is spoken and cannot turn any organ to what develops in the larynx as a continuation of the larynx's own movement in air vibrations, in rhythms, in harmony and so on.

This is the fundamental idea of our eurythmic art. In this, we are of course still at the beginning of our endeavors, and I ask you to take this fully into account. You will find something imperfect presented, but something that should be a beginning for further development in this direction. And if you have the kindness and goodwill to look at what can still be imperfectly presented today, in this imperfection, then your attention will certainly give us further impulses for perfecting this art, which wants to take its place among other arts.

In any case, however, we would like more and more people to feel that the forms of artistic expression have not yet been finalized. The essential nature of the style of eurythmy art will be seen particularly clearly if we go back to Goethe's healthy view, which he expresses in the words: Style is based on the deepest foundations of knowledge, on the essence of things, insofar as we are allowed to present this essence of things in visible and tangible forms. And it is Goethe himself who ultimately relates everything that can be represented in art to what can be perceived by the human being himself. In his beautiful book about Winckelmann, Goethe seeks to express the essence of art by saying: The whole world is reflected in man; in man the most secret laws of nature are revealed, and precisely by representing them in and through himself, he represents a summit of the essence and becoming of all things. Goethe says: Man, by rising to the summit of nature, becomes perfect in himself and in turn produces a summit himself. He tries to have within himself all the perfections that are otherwise spread out over individual things in nature; he tries to unite order and harmony within himself, in order to ultimately rise to the production of a work of art.

An attempt, but as already mentioned, an attempt that will seek its perfection, that is what we want to offer you today at the beginning. Turn your attention to this attempt, as it is just beginning. For we are convinced, dear ladies and gentlemen: in what is now still in its early stages lie the seeds of something more perfect, regardless of whether this perfection will be achieved by ourselves or whether others will continue what we have begun in this direction of art. It appears to those who are connected with this particular branch of art as a basis of the deepest conviction: Either we ourselves or others after us will find a way out of the small beginnings, out of the imperfections that can still be seen, to a branch of art that truly leads to the depths of human existence and its possibilities, and that can be placed alongside other branches of art.