# The History of the Anthroposophical Society 1913–1922

## GA 251 — 23 January 1914, Berlin

### 13. Second General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society — Day Six

Dr. Noll: I would like to reiterate the opinion expressed yesterday that the Boldt case does not appear to have been settled. However, I withdraw my motion, since it is initially the responsibility of the Munich branch to conduct negotiations with Mr. Boldt if such a course of action appears appropriate.

Fräulein Stinde: I would like to note the following: That is not entirely the case. Dr. Noll thinks that we should tell Mr. Boldt that we can only keep him in our branch if he withdraws his application. If he does not do so and we expel him from the Munich Lodge, it does not matter to him as long as we keep him in the Anthroposophical Society; then he is still entitled to come to the lectures and cycles. Our lodge is not decisive in this matter.

Dr. Noll: Since the General Assembly has already decided that Mr. Boldt will remain in the Society, there is no other way out than for the Munich branch to negotiate with him again from scratch.

Ms. Stinde: I would like to ask the Central Committee to contact Mr. Boldt and suggest that he withdraw his brochure, and that we will only allow him to remain in the company on the condition that he does so and does not write any similar brochures in the future.

Ms. Wolfram: We have only dealt with the Boldt case in such detail because it is a typical case, and not because of Mr. Boldt's personality. And I would now like to ask that we do not concern ourselves further with Mr. Boldt's personality, but consider him a quantité négligeable. Let us give him the opportunity to come to his senses in the course of a year. He is a hothead, after all, and perhaps the united and solidary approach of society will have an effect on him. We have gained the fruit of the negotiation by creating a kind of protective wall for the next general assembly. Let us assume that he does not see reason, writes another brochure or makes an inappropriate motion: you can be sure that the spectacle of this General Assembly will not be repeated at the next General Assembly, because we have created a protective barrier by accepting my proposal. We have shown Mr. Boldt how we feel about him as a “typical case”; he can read it in the next “Mitteilungen”. Having done what we had to do to protect our cause, let us now show tolerance towards Mr. Boldt by giving him time to find his way. I therefore propose that the General Assembly take no further action against Mr. Boldt and consider the Boldt case closed.

The proposal is accepted. Mr. Boldt's proposal is therefore rejected.

Dr. Steiner: We can now really consider the case closed; but I ask you to really do so. Because if you don't take with you and represent the awareness that we didn't and don't have a “Boldt case” at all, but rather a “pseudoscience case” that we wanted to deal with – and just wanted to consider Mr. Boldt as an example for this, and if you do not take what has happened here with you as not directed at Mr. Boldt, then what I had in mind for the treatment of the case would not be achieved. Because, frankly, Mr. Boldt is really not such a bad person; he has just been seduced by the pseudoscience of the present day. He is basically a very good person, but he has some people around him who are taken in by the pseudoscience of the present day. He is particularly provoked. And if, in the days when he was particularly wild and wrote this brochure, a kind soul had found him and said, “Don't do that, it's useless,” he would probably have been open to reason. He has always been open to reason. And if you can't get to him with reason, then his pride goes up in his face and he starts writing. This is already the case with many in the present. Otherwise, if he studies what is there, he would have the best material to become a good member and to accomplish many good things. The matter of “sexual problems” could just as well have been written by someone else. So separate the person of Mr. Boldt - and also the other persons, Mr. Pschorn and so on - from the matter. A hundred and a hundred others could have said that. So we leave it to him what he does with his brochure, what he does with his membership and so on.

I just wanted to say these few words so that we now explain internally what we have put in Mrs. Wolfram's motion, if what is going around in the company as “rumor” is meant to be dealt with again, that the case would be seen as a personal one.

Now Mr. Schuler's proposal is up for discussion: in future, the business part of the Annual General Meeting should be limited to one, or at most one and a half days.

Mrs. von Ulrich: I believe that this proposal would be detrimental to the whole company. You can't squeeze things that interest us all like a rubber ball. We should all be concerned not to drag things out and not to waste our speaking time unnecessarily. But to restrict the time is out of the question. That would not be a general assembly, but a race.

Dr. Steiner: But it would just be a general assembly, like basically all general assemblies in the world. It is only ours that has been presented as being unlike any other in the world. I feel a little ashamed of the way this General Assembly has been conducted – we are among ourselves and can speak freely for once – because it is actually scandalous compared to the practices that usually prevail at General Assemblies. There is no need for us to carry what we have now experienced over into the next General Assembly. Yesterday I did the calculation that if the Anthroposophical Society were to last for another 52 years, the General Assembly would last 52 weeks. We really cannot get things done like that. And I will tell you why it was entirely in keeping with my intentions to let the meeting proceed in this way: we are prevented from doing many things that should definitely be done. Since tomorrow is the last day of the General Assembly, everything that is usually organized during such General Assemblies is canceled and not done. On this occasion, in particular, many things have been cancelled. For example, it would have been in line with my intentions – I discussed this with some members – if we had been able to discuss some theses here in a free, theosophical, objective discussion, which I was willing to put forward.

It would therefore not be a “restriction” if something like this were decided, but rather an adoption of custom, which is almost a matter of course. I think it is good that Schuler's motion has been set; but it is not necessary. Because according to our “principles” - they have only long been forgotten - the board would always have the right to restrict the time for business negotiations in any way it liked. At the present General Meeting the members should see eye to eye. And that is all well and good. But it is not against the intentions of the Anthroposophical Society for the Schuler proposal to simply set down in the rules of procedure something that is already in our principles. I am not trying to foist anything on you. Reject the Schuler proposal for my sake. But then it will be necessary for the board to limit the time for discussion in accordance with the rules of procedure so that we do not experience such a general assembly again. Then, of course, motions such as “muzzle” and the like will come again from members. I ask you not to insist that the members be “muzzled”; there is always a balance. Other associations also have limited time for their management. But consider that not only time but also money is wasted; this hall, for example, costs a lot for every hour. Other associations manage with less; and when something really important needs to be discussed, an application is made to call an extraordinary general assembly. This general assembly has shown that we cannot manage with less!

Mrs. von Ulrich: I wanted to make a modification to Mr. Schuler's proposal by leaving the duration of the General Assembly entirely to the discretion of the Central Board.

Mrs. Wolfram: The modifications requested by Mrs. von Ulrich would unnecessarily cost the board time and effort. I consider Mr. Schuler's proposal to be the only appropriate one and recommend its adoption by the General Assembly. I move that the debate and voting be closed.

The motion to close the debate is adopted.

After Mrs. von Ulrich's motion is rejected in the vote, Mr. Schuler's motion is adopted.

There are no items on the agenda for Item IV “Reports of the branch representatives” or Item V “Miscellaneous”.

End of the business part, Friday, January 23, 1914, at 11 o'clock in the morning.