The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 31 January 1923, Stuttgart

Meeting of the Circle of Thirty

Dr. Steiner: The negotiations on the current affairs have been going on for so long, and it is so urgent to deal with other matters, that it would almost be a catastrophe under any circumstances if the negotiations this evening were to be as inconsequential as those of last Monday. I have asked that these negotiations not be conducted before such a large body as before, because that only serves to make things go without result and to prevent us from emerging from the current crisis. I myself will say as little as possible; I want to hear what intentions there are for the future of the Anthroposophical Society.

I just want to say this so that there is no misunderstanding about the significance of our deliberations. Such deliberations, as we are now accustomed to, would not have been possible up to a certain, not very distant period. They have become possible and are now taken for granted because most of the people gathered here today have been able to gradually take on the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society in a leading position over the past four years or so. So the earlier situation in which many of those gathered here today found themselves, namely that they had joined the existing Anthroposophical Society and, so to speak, did not have the full measure of responsibility, no longer exists today.

They must be aware that a large number of personalities have, so to speak, taken the lead in anthroposophical affairs with their own full initiative. Therefore, it has become necessary today that the responsibility for a large part of anthroposophical affairs falls back on these personalities. And these personalities should be aware that the changes that have taken place cannot be erased.

After these changes occurred in the membership, it was therefore quite natural that I was obliged to turn to the leading personalities regarding the question that arose for me from the circumstances, before appealing to the individual members to possibly restore the former situation. These changes imposed duties on me that have withdrawn me from my previous duties. It is therefore natural that before I try to restore the previous conditions, I once again turn to the leading personalities – which of course has been done in vain – to get them to see what they want to do before I turn to the individual members. I do not want to participate materially in today's negotiations. Today I will first of all just listen to what comes out of the bosom of this meeting today, to see afterwards how we can move forward. So it depends on whether you conduct the negotiations in a fruitful way. Otherwise I will have to assume that you have no interest in it if the Anthroposophical Society is led into a catastrophe in the very near future.

I ask you, so that we do not part without result, to at least approach the matter with the utmost seriousness and a sense of responsibility today. I ask you to consider this as an introduction to today's negotiations. Much will depend on what you do today.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko speak. Dr. Unger: We have to look for ways to overcome the “Stuttgart system”. Dr. Maier, Dr. Palmer, Miss Toni Völker, Paul Baumann speak.

The question of an intended medical vade mecum is addressed.

Dr. Steiner: We should have learned to rethink the clinical pictures in general. We must not obstruct, that goes without saying. One can construct a building, although the difficulties are infinitely great; but they are not considered at all. Just as little as the method of deliberation was considered when the Waldorf School was founded. The question is what could have been done two years ago today. These omissions are the issue. If we beat about the bush and make excuses, then it is self-evident that the excuses are not suitable for writing a vade mecum. The description of heart disease must be thought of in a different way, quite apart from whether the individual remedies can already be used. We must think differently about heart disease. Presented in a different way, it will be able to appear before the world more plausibly than in the previous manuals. What is needed is the good will to rethink in the field of medicine, based on the principles of spiritual science. But because all the discussions are being led down dead tracks, I have to speak. I cannot imagine what should happen, but I can imagine that medicine can be rethought if the will to do so exists. Perhaps there is a much greater need to work from physiology and to rethink the disease patterns physiologically. This does not depend on whether or not the disease remedies have been tried out. This is something that applies “in itself”. However much we may not underestimate the difficulties, we must not beat about the bush about them, as has been done, otherwise we will get nowhere. It is not a matter of presenting the pathology in its entirety. The manuals are always being corrected. It is not about merely recommending remedies to the world. I consider the “remedies list” to be the most harmful thing that could have come about. The point is to advocate the method. I consider everything else to be something that has only harmed us. We do not have to wait for people to accept something like this today; then we can wait until the next incarnation. The point is that we advocate the matter before the world, just as others have advocated their methods; they throw no small amount of abuse at each other. It is not a matter of painting the thing into the mouth of every single professor of medicine, but of presenting it as it could have been presented six months after the inauguration of the matter. That is to say, we present the matter as natural healing methods were once presented. It is a question of medical thinking. The discussion should not be led down dead tracks. We should talk about what is at issue, not about what is self-evident. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Before this vote, Dr. Steiner had already spoken twice during the negotiations. One time, in response to the description of the specific difficulties given by Dr. Noll, he said that one would end up in a ‘regressus ad infinitum’ if one made ‘methods’ out of the difficulties. The other time he said: When would we ever have been able to found the Waldorf School?"

Dr. Unger: I wanted to talk about active trust.

Dr. Steiner: I have described the methods in detail and in detail. The doctors have not been born out of a heavenly realm in which the task has been set for them. Generally speaking, it seems either plausible or implausible.

The doctors Dr. Husemann, Dr. Noll, Dr. Palmer, and also Eugen Benkendberfer speak to the matter.

Graf Polzer: Who will write the Vademecum?

Dr. Noll: It will definitely be written.

Emil Leinhas, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Kolisko speak to this.

Dr. Steiner: It would have a certain value if there were a discussion about why the Vademecum has not yet been created, and if it could then be seen that it can come about out of an understanding of the true reasons. If the reasons are really discussed, then one can count on it being produced in the future – I am convinced that one man can produce it in six months – but there are reasons that are not objective and that would have to be uncovered. Then one could see whether it will be produced in the future.

If we continue to conduct the further discussion as we have done so far, it will not be possible to see whether society can be led beyond this crisis! The crisis has been brought about by the fact that since 1919 a movement has come into being that has led to all kinds of foundations. The point is that personalities must feel responsible and that they take on this responsibility. That should become clear if we want a guarantee for the continued existence of society. Perhaps then it would be discussed what difficulties there are in bringing about a physical examination. We would learn something about why a lecture is announced to the public but then does not take place.¹ There are quite different difficulties behind that. We urgently need to discuss the things that are already related to anthroposophical life. If the discussion is not to be led into a fruitful field at all, by doing passive resistance, then I would like to draw attention to individual things that show that these are very central anthroposophical matters.

It was before the Vienna Congress [June 1-12, 1922]. Dr. Kolisko had intended to go to Vienna and give a lecture. I was not very pleased that he had the migraine topic in mind. But in the end it is not my business. For me, it was a matter of starting the conversation about it. During this conversation, the following words were uttered: “When I go to the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute, they refuse to give me the material.” — The thing is that such a word can be uttered! If it is really true that the migraine material has been refused for lectures, then we come to the conclusion that this is not an anthroposophical attitude in this matter. If we were to behave in an anthroposophical way, things would come about that are meant to come about. The external developments since 1919 have run into difficulties precisely because of the non-anthroposophical behavior of the individual personalities living in Stuttgart. When there is talk of inhibitions, the real inhibitions should be mentioned. It seems that people want to avoid these things.

I only wanted to point out this characteristic, but I would still like to bring the discussion back to a more fruitful track than the one we have been led to. If these attacks do not cease, then those who are supposed to work together anthroposophically will not work together, but will mutually prevent each other from writing the Vademecum. I have been confronted with this many times: it has been said that individuals prevent each other from writing it. These are the things that would have to be understood, and if they are understood, if the wounds are really pointed out, then there would be a guarantee that the things could be stopped in the future. From what has been said so far, there is no such guarantee. There is no other guarantee than that it is said why there is no cooperation between Gmünd and the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute [in Stuttgart]. Things are then related when asked why there is no collaboration! There is a kind of obstruction going on. This is what I ask you to consider. If there is no serious talk today, it will lead to a catastrophe for the Anthroposophical Society. We cannot continue to work on mere promises.

Dr. Kolisko: Regarding the migraine question, the material was sent to me later. It was not quite what I needed. Personal differences between the gentlemen prevent “the book” [Vademecum] from being written.

Dr. Steiner: In any case, the situation was such that it could be said: Those at the top do not publish their work. If I compare this case with the attitude of the [Clinical Therapeutic] Institute towards the work on the spleen,² I have to say that these things are not very promising.

Some members are speaking.

Dr. Steiner: It would have been better if two individuals had spoken. Again, I don't see where the method lies through which we will make progress.

Emil Leinhas: We must talk openly about things and their reasons.

Dr. Steiner: What has been said is the following: From the very beginning, when medical activities were to take place here, I said that it was not a matter of offering individual remedies, but of offering a medical method. I will only mention that once the method of homeopathy was taught, another time another method. It is important to advocate a medical methodology. In Landhausstrasse, quite a long time before this little book saw the light of day, I suggested to Dr. Noll that we sit down and write a vade mecum. I said that I did not expect much from a “college”; it had to be written by a single person. I made this comparison very early on, to show how homeopathy and naturopathy were represented. This comparison was made to show that agitating for a single remedy cannot be the right thing to help the world in this case, but that it is a matter of telling the world: Here is a certain medical way of thinking. This, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Peipers as a conviction before the doctors, what I from the beginning said to Dr. Noll, this then led once again to my saying in summary: This methodical approach can best be made clear to the world by a vade mecum.

When I say something like that in front of laymen, it is immediately understood that all of these things can only discredit us. The fact that van Leer has come forward is due to the fact that at the meeting that was held recently, it was necessary to discuss what the basis for the effectiveness of our remedies is, and that it was necessary to say again that the methodology must be disseminated first, just as the homeopathic methodology was disseminated at one point. The layman van Leer understood this and drew the conclusion from it; the layman understands this immediately. But our medical college has drawn the conclusion from it that a pedantic-methodological treatise must be written.

These are things that one would think one would only have to mention for people who are familiar with them in their practice of life to understand. One could cite a hundred examples to support this. Again, without judging their value or lack of it, I will cite this.

Schlegel of Tübingen once invited a circle of physicians. He spoke to this circle of physicians and took a stenographer with him. Apart from the value or worthlessness of the method, an extraordinarily stimulating little book was created. A kind of vade mecum was created. They had a case of how something like this arises in practice when you wall. This booklet has helped Schlegel a lot. Imagine, homeopathy is being discussed all over the world. If they had come up with something like this that would have meant something to people, they would have really had something. It is a medical methodology, like homeopathy or allopathy. That is what it is about.

Miss Rascher speaks.

Dr. Steiner: This depends only on the will. I would like to make the assertion that the vade mecum you are asking for should be in the mind of every doctor. Something that you naturally have in mind must be written down. I would like to know where we would be today if we had something like this vade mecum! I would like to know where we could be today! We are not getting far enough with the list of therapeutic products.

I just wanted to point out that the vade mecum could be written in a relatively short time and that the objections that have been raised today are not the ones we need to talk about. As long as we lack the will to speak the truth, we will not get the Anthroposophical Society back on its feet. Do you think that if we were to start talking at the teachers' conference as if there were uncertainty about the method!

Emil Leinhas: Unreserved discussion is necessary, otherwise things become chronic. The expression 'pigsty' has been used.

Dr. Palmer says he does not believe that Dr. Noll can write the thing.

Dr. Steiner: Are you convinced that Dr. Peipers or Dr. Husemann can do it? We must be clear about the fact that completion through joint work would at best turn out to be an acceleration, but that it is something that each of us can do alone.

Dr. Palmer: There is so much material in the lectures. But it is terribly difficult to rework it.

Dr. Steiner: That would only justify you making the claim that you cannot do it on your own. I did not make the unreasonable demand on you personally. I assumed it from others and was clear about the fact that I could assume it there; just as I was equally clear about the fact that I could not assume it with you. The case can be resolved. I was clearly aware from the antecedents what it would be about: namely, that the other gentlemen do the scientific work while you do the practical work — and then the scientific work failed. The only person I cannot reproach is you; that can be said just as sincerely as the other: whether it might not have been possible after all to advance the matter, as one says in popular language.

Dr. Palmer says there was an inhibition.

Dr. Steiner: What was this inhibition? You did not say what the inhibition was.

Dr. Palmer: One might have thought that there was a lack of goodwill and enthusiasm.

Dr. Steiner: I always maintained that goodwill was lacking. It is very important to me that you admit this today.

Dr. Peipers: We are hearing for the first time today that Dr. Noll had this assignment.

Dr. Noll: I did not take on the task as if I alone were capable of doing something like that.

Dr. Palmer: Just admit that the matter is up to you.

Dr. Kolisko: It had become clear to me that Dr. Noll cannot make up his mind about anything.

Dr. Steiner: I don't think we will be able to come to a decision on this question. It will be a matter of seeing how the other things stand in relation to this question. Whether or not we face a catastrophe depends on many individual things. So, first of all, we want to put Dr. Palmer's promise on record.

Then I would ask you to continue discussing the things that you also believe need to be discussed. It would be important to get information about such things. The question goes far beyond the scope of what concerns Stuttgart. It just radiates out from Stuttgart. Certain difficulties that we encounter in Dornach when the affairs of the local laboratory are discussed always lead to the fact that it cannot be done here with Gmünd. This relationship has also been discussed in my presence. I have always been convinced that more could be done in terms of cooperation than is being done in our circles. Because it is true that people are such that they also put obstacles and difficulties in your way! You have to deal with the difficulties. Now some of the difficulties may lie with Dr. Knauer. But they won't change him. I could never understand the situation regarding the relationship between the Clinical Therapeutic Institute and Dr. Knauer.

Emil Leinhas: It is Dr. Knauer's character.

Dr. Steiner: It is necessary in our movement, once a step has been taken, not to break off the commitment to the first step without further ado. I had no objection to the doctors bringing Dr. Knauer in. If he had not been drawn into the intimate details, it would have been possible to deal with him later. But now that he has been drawn into it, we must say B to A. That means: We must also deal with him further. These things must be taken into account. Not taking such things into account causes the greatest damage to our society. Something is always started in a certain careless way. I am only pointing out how careless we were with Sigismund von Gleich! This is how our anthroposophical troubles arise, from not having the will to say B after saying A. This is one of the things that must change for us.

Dr. Palmer and Emil Leinhas comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: It always seemed to me that the more intelligent person gives in. Dr. Knauer cannot be considered an authority. If he had only impressed the medical council, then it would have been fine. You gambled away the chance with him. We cannot have the principle that you first bring someone in and then throw them out when they are no longer convenient. You can see that a large part of what is inflicted on us from the outside [in the way of opposition] is based on a few expulsions that were carried out by the Anthroposophical Society against my will.

The discussion moves on to a different topic. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “At this point it was 1 a.m.”)

Dr. Kolisko speaks about the Research Institute and about Dr. Theberath.

Dr. Theberath speaks about his failure. Dr. Schmiedel put his name on the program without asking him.

Dr. Steiner: Don't you feel obliged to do something for the public interest of the Anthroposophical Society?

Dr. Theberath: I felt obliged to carry out the experiments. A delay in the experiments occurred because what was previously a minor matter became a major one.

Dr. Steiner: In this way we will never get anything out of our research institutes.

Dr. Kolisko: I should have rejected Dr. Theberath's article. There is an error in the editing.

Dr. Steiner: If we start from the principle that the one to whom something is reproached simply justifies himself, then I am convinced that everything that is discussed will end in a justification. If we think in this direction, we will not make any progress. You must remember that the ideas of these foundations have arisen from the bosom of society. Now you cannot necessarily assume that society will go bankrupt because nothing is achieved in this research institute. It is self-evident that a series of experiments can be made more precise and more precise, but it is necessary to show something to the world. The only valid objection to the spleen experiments is that the series of experiments could have been extended. Of course, scientifically it could be justified that a series of experiments never comes to a complete conclusion. I do think, however, that the question should be asked as to how the [research] institute can be made fruitful through work. If we take every question only personally — and Dr. Theberath's view of this question is a prime example of this, then one can only say that the Anthroposophical Society is proving incapable of continuing along the paths of 1919. Then the matter must be abandoned and it must be pushed back to the state it was in in 1918. If you absolutely do not want to deal with the question in such a way that the matter bears fruit and that the leading personalities reflect on it: How do we present the matter to the world so that it bears fruit? Then we will not make any progress.

Dr. Kolisko: Some essays are still there.

Dr. Steiner: I ask: Did any of the physicians write about the essay by Dr. Maier in Anthroposophie? Did any of our physicians write about it? It is important that the world becomes aware of this and notices that something is happening. Just as it would have helped us if they had written about the spleen experiments.

Dr. Maier: I have not found much interest. The only one was Dr. Dechend. It would have been better if someone else had written.

Dr. Steiner: Of course it would be better if someone else wrote! It is precisely the essential thing that people should work together. It would have been important to discuss the great significance of the work in a clear way: everyone could have done that; you don't need to be a physicist to do that. Why do such things not happen? Why is this question not discussed? I have always emphasized this question in its methodological significance. With the spleen question I showed how an inner opposition was conducted. And when I was told what kind of story was made out of it – that became a scandal! (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Spleen story a scandal: one of the basic damages.”) Things do not get better by keeping silent about this point, which is the most fundamental. Today, too, there has been total silence about it. It is important to me that these things be discussed in an Anthroposophical Society. But there is a tendency to justify deceptions! Things should not be allowed to get so far that the opponent is right. I do not want to talk about the whole course of the series of experiments. On the question of phenomenology, the matter has been pushed to the point where the opponent is right, as things stand today, and the anthroposophists have put forward something insubstantial. The whole question was led up the garden path in order to make it as easy as possible for the opponents. The only tangible point that has been made in the atomism dispute is contained in Dr. Rabel's reply herself — the only thing that can be said for the anthroposophical position.

Dr. Unger speaks. Then Dr. Theberath speaks at length.

Dr. Steiner: Phenomenology was not mentioned at all until 1919. I was obliged to speak of it when I recognized these conditions. What you call phenomenology is what you have brought into the Anthroposophical Society. You have wrested the leadership from me by bringing in learning. Therefore you have the responsibility for the things that have come in. The community of scholars has brought in phenomenology.

The community of scholars will continue to discuss this subject.

Dr. Steiner: Now it is being presented as if the whole of phenomenology has been brought into it. It is the researchers who have brought this fact into anthroposophy. I would far reject taking responsibility for something like this as I did for the article on hydrogen in “Drei”.

The community of scholars will continue to discuss this subject.

Dr. Steiner: Today we are faced with the situation. You refuse responsibility by merely wanting to justify yourself personally. If you want phenomenology, you must not philosophize. But that would mean to set the apparatus in motion in a direction that can be called fruitful. For example, we have done practical phenomenology in Dornach, because we were faced with the task of solving certain problems in our work. We have indeed created colors with which we could paint the dome. So far, these colors have held. We have just started from a clearly visible thought. We made liquid paper and applied the colors to liquid paper. That was our starting point, and we proceeded step by step, groping our way forward by the facts. It was a kind of phenomenological experimentation. Here in Stuttgart there was never any will to work in a phenomenological way, except in the Biological Research Institute, where two series of experiments have emerged that hold. If you keep to this method, which has grown out of anthroposophy itself, then you will not need to lose heart. But bringing in university methods will not work. What is really at issue is that we must take responsibility for what can be brought into harmony with anthroposophy. What is needed is to make fruitful progress, not endless series of experiments that lead nowhere.

We at the Kommenden Tag have tackled the question of financing in the confidence that real work is being done; and any real scientist will admit that one can come forward even with incomplete series of experiments if one is really working. In any case, those who have settled here to carry out their work on our land should also be responsible for it.

The debate continues.

Dr. Steiner: I want to give the opportunity to perhaps still get something out of it by asking a specific question. I ask the following: I was obliged to mention the article in the “Drei”, and now I ask the following question: Did the enterprise of our research institutes require it, or did it merely require a change in the methods of thinking and the utilization of those knowledge that could have been gained without the enterprises, in order to write such an essay as the one about hydrogen? I ask this very specific question. Or couldn't anyone who is familiar with the facts known today and sits down to interpret them phenomenologically have written this essay? Articles that are a result of the research institutes should have come! We need to talk about whether the research institutes are fruitful. Likewise, I ask you: was it necessary to set up the research institutes to stir up the atomism dispute? Our journals were also created in connection with this. It was expected that something of the results from our research institutes would appear in our journals. The world is not impressed when someone sits down and compiles what can be collected in the handbooks, one in an atomistic way, the other phenomenologically.

Emil Leinhas: There is a series of tasks set by Dr. Steiner.

Dr. Steiner: We have to solve these and not concern ourselves with unnecessary things, such as the fact that a book, Moltke, was ordered by conference resolution. There are passages in the book that could have justified it. [See under Notes.]

Speeches and questions from members.

Dr. Steiner: I am quite innocent of the program or unprogram of tonight. I have asked that today a large circle should not be convened [again] so that we can come to a result. On December 10, 1922, I addressed a request to Mr. Uehli, which was addressed to the entire Executive Council. It had become clear to me that things must lead to a complete deroute of the Anthroposophical Society. I asked: What is to be done? I said: I could also turn to each individual member to bring about a possible state of affairs. But I would rather refrain from doing so, given the fact that leadership has been taken from the bosom of the Society, and I would ask the Central Board to take matters into its own hands and to consult with leading personalities in Stuttgart so that a catastrophe can be averted. For it must be seen that the matter has rapidly gone downhill. — I then had to leave and spoke to Dr. Kolisko a few days later, telling him about this task. I expected that the execution of this task would confront me when I came back here. Then came the sad days of Dornach, which led to all sorts of things: for example, to that youth meeting in the greenhouse [on January 6, in the afternoon], where such terrible things were said. Then to the postponed [members' meeting of January 6. Mr. Uehli asked me [the day] before about the program. I said that the subject of discussion should now be the consolidation. The next day the meeting took place as you have just witnessed. When I came here [on the 16th] I was not received by the Central Executive Council with leading personalities, but by a committee that had formed out of the Thirty Circle. Mr. Leinhas told me as we were leaving Dornach that Dr. Unger was not to be present.

I arrived in the evening, and this committee spoke very sharply about the Central Board. One could get the impression from the meeting that they did not want to get involved with the central committee at all, but that they had to deal with the matter themselves. Well, I thought that Dr. Unger should be there after all. Strong words were spoken. Among other things, the central committee was criticized in such a way that Dr. Stein was said to have become a laughing stock. It was planned to clean the air here vigorously. Mr. Uehli has left [resigned]. A large meeting was called [on January 22]. Nothing came of it. Smaller meetings were called. Nothing came of it except that a circular letter was to be sent. Now I said that one must know what one wanted to say to the delegates. Yesterday the small meeting broke up without taking any action.

Since it is clear that you cannot make any progress with a small meeting, it was decided to convene this group of thirty.

You have followed the discussions of this group this evening. The starting point was to do something to reorganize the Society. You have tried to bring this about by calling on the individual institutions to express themselves. Now I would ask you to make further suggestions as to how you think the matter should be dealt with within the Society. It would be a matter for this committee to say what it wants. Enough negative criticism has been made.

You yourself claim that the central committee has become a laughing stock for children and cannot remain, and you suggest that something else must take its place. What is that? The attempt should be to put at the head of the movement the body that offers a guarantee that things will be different. How do you see the situation developing today?

Dr. Palmer advises a return to the situation in 1918.

Dr. Steiner: Should there not be ways and means of not just plunging into the abyss but of moving forward?

Count Polzer: Today the Anthroposophical Society should break away from these institutions. The responsibility for them should be taken over by certain personalities.

Dr. Steiner: There is so much capital invested in these institutions! This has created a situation in which this question can no longer be resolved on the basis of mere abstract ideas. For that would mean withdrawing and founding the matter anew. That would have to follow. If, at the end of such week-long negotiations, what has happened so far comes about, it would lead me to say: one must found something new. — One is committed to the matter after all! One must grasp the matter from the real facts! I cannot carry out what I would like to carry out. It is not possible. It is also not possible to simply center a campaign that then proceeds in this way. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “[...] that the Society publicly distances itself from everything that is not based on Dr. Steiner's teaching?”) One also has the responsibility not to kill time in the way it has been killed since then.

Dr. Wolfgang Wachsmuth: Couldn't it be arranged so that the Society announces this, publicly distances itself from everything that is outside of Dr. Steiner's teaching?

Dr. Steiner: Suppose the Society continues in this way and I am obliged to address the members: I would have to avoid damaging the reputation of the institutions. The reputation of the “Kommenden Tages” must not suffer any loss. The only question is: will the leadership that has now taken the matter in hand betray the starting points on which they based their actions, or must I address all members? But then it would be good to say on the first day that what is to be born to replace the children's mockery should be mentioned first.

Dr. W. J. Stein: We thought of changing attitudes and changing the direction of work.

Dr. Steiner: What do you intend to say to the delegates' meeting?

Dr. Unger: It would be good to be able to present something to the assembly that shows that the Stuttgart system has been overcome. Palmer has taken responsibility for the clinic, Leinhas for the “Kommende Tag”. At the assembly of delegates, I would suggest that the Anthroposophical Society take responsibility for the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life).

Dr. Steiner: Should this triumvirate of Leinhas, Unger and Kolisko

continue to function until the delegates' meeting?

Dr. Unger: We are waiting for a report from someone in a leadership position.

Dr. Steiner: You must not forget that if people speak at a delegate assembly the way they have been speaking tonight, it will actually stop them from respecting one another. You should not approach a large assembly with self-criticism or the like, but with positive ideas. What has happened throughout the week is that a group has formed that was dissatisfied. There are said to be various other such groups. It is terribly easy to be dissatisfied! But without presenting anything positive at a meeting of delegates, you will achieve nothing but the complete loss of trust.

I would like to ask a few more questions. We have been negotiating here for many days. It was the big meeting here. I asked the question: Why not start with something positive, so that among those who consider themselves leading personalities, there are individuals who prepare to present something like this at the appropriate opportunity, so that the audience senses a certain improvement? Why don't the members who were leaders prepare for certain things? Why are things left to chance? What kind of impression did we make on the members when Miss Ruben

Why don't the leading personalities prepare for the situation? Would you also like to see a meeting of delegates at which only one Miss Ruben comes prepared and develops airs and graces of a leader? If we don't worry about what is to happen, but just let things happen, then we won't get ahead, no matter how much dirty laundry is washed.

If we don't move forward in terms of zeal and will, then we won't move forward. Why shouldn't it be possible to come a little prepared to say something? The small meetings went so that the members of the Circle of Seven appeared without even having thought about it beforehand.

I once pointed out what actually led to the crookedness in the development of the Movement for Religious Renewal. I pointed out that this religious renewal group was given the lead in writing the most effective book, so there is no need to be surprised if this society is now also successful and can develop its effectiveness, while the Anthroposophical Society has only come to limit itself to defending itself against the unauthorized.

Yesterday was another such meeting.

It was reinforced by Mr. Uehli. I was obliged to point out that the matter should be collective and that we should be concerned about the institutions. We have since seen Dr. Stein appear and repeat what I said. Today we are meeting here, and because I pointed out yesterday the specific thing that brought us together, today what I mentioned yesterday only by way of illustration is being made the program.

Why can't we find a way to present something that has been considered in advance? Why can't we find a way to reject the insubstantial chatter of Miss Ruben? Why can't we find a way to reject what Bock presented and what I had to reject the day before yesterday?

So what did I have to reject myself? Why do we hold meetings if the personalities do not prepare for them? The fundamental mistake is that no one prepares for what they want to bring up here. When someone shows that they have prepared, they bring it up with warmth and enthusiasm. The only enthusiasm there was today was in the ranting. One would only wish that something positive were brought up with warmth! That is what is needed! And that is what is missing. There is a coldness here that is the most monstrous thing, and the whole assembly has this common characteristic, that it is cold to excess, that no warmth has been felt!

When you experience this, you cannot believe that you are going to be able to continue society. One can only conclude that you are not even thinking. That is the strange thing, that you are not developing thoughts internally. This evening, all the chairs have become curule. It really has come as a surprise that what I presented as an illustration has already been made into a “program” this evening.

Adolf Arenson: There is no enthusiasm. On the other hand, there is a great pain in everyone that they cannot muster what should be achieved. If it is not possible to find something positive, may we not then turn to you for advice? Not today perhaps? Otherwise I don't see how it is possible to move forward. I am convinced that everyone really wants to continue working together.

Dr. Steiner: There is something that happened recently that really should be mentioned. Last Monday [January 22nd], Miss Ruben actually took the biscuit. This was allowed to happen quietly, and things were allowed to go from bad to worse due to a lack of attention. What use is advice when things go wrong like this? When the most unsuitable things happen at the most important moments and go unremarked? What use is advice when I have been mentioning for months that I would like to hear why it happened that the spleen brochure was boycotted? What use is advice? I am not allowed to hear what the college did to give the order that no one would notice the brochure! I am not allowed to hear why these things are the way they are!

It does not help to talk about giving advice. That is one of the things that ruins society. How different our scientific endeavors would be today if one of the doctors had opened his mouth and said something that God knows had been sought for how long! You can publish ten lists of remedies with insubstantial recommendations! But if the world were to learn that the things were done at a clinic, the whole world would have talked about it. Why doesn't something like that happen? Why isn't it talked about, even though I've been asking for it for weeks? Why keep quiet about it? All my advice will be followed in such a way that it will be boycotted. Why is that so? The Anthroposophical Society has developed in such a way that one could say: inner opposition is being made; for example, by those who would have been entitled to treat the spleen brochure. The Anthroposophical Society has allowed a circle to enter into open opposition with me. And this despite the fact that I have repeatedly made it known that everything I have said has been thrown to the wind. Is it right that a course for physicians should be held here and then what immediately emerges as a significant achievement should be boycotted? Is the scandalous nature of this situation being fully appreciated? This gives rise to the necessity of saying: Society is not doing anything...

The question is this: Does the Society want to intervene now so that I am no longer slapped in the face by the Anthroposophical Society as before? Dr. Rascher takes lodgings in Dornach in the house where Mrs. Häfliger lives, and there she learns from him some things about the opposition to the spleen brochure. I ask you: How am I treated, how is such a thing treated, even in the inner circles? How did the medical profession feel responsible for what it had committed itself to keeping within its own circles? This is the Anthroposophical Society! —The matter must have happened very quickly. Imagine the embarrassment. I am always being bothered that I should give permission for the medical courses to be read.

Dr. Rascher: I would still like to ask the doctors if they do not want to answer.

Dr. Husemann: It happened out of fear of the brochure. I was afraid of the discussion. It happened out of cowardice.

Dr. Steiner: If we continue to do things this way - [space]

I have not yet found a review of Mrs. Kolisko's brochure in Anthroposophie. The path you have taken is to make the matter disappear, only to resurrect it perhaps in ten years in a clinic. Study the history of German scholarship in the 19th century, all the things that happened there.

I have really not held back on positive advice recently. None of it has been followed. The point is that advice is given at a certain point and then it is all thrown to the wind. And as strongly as this.

Some people talk about the previous lethargy.

Marie Steiner: Dr. Unger is willing to transform this into strong activity. He is one of the founders of the Anthroposophical Society. He has such experience that it will enable him to make amends for some of it, while I do not think that anyone else will avoid these same mistakes. I find it strange that Dr. Unger has been made the focus of the attacks. There is a tendency among many members to work against Dr. Unger. When I come to Stuttgart and see how the number of employees is growing, and when I consider how others work in Dornach without a salary, I have to say: those who are employed work much less. It would never occur to me to want to join this board. But I would say that Dr. Unger is someone who can stay; but he now lacks faith in himself. He must be given the opportunity to regain his faith. And Dr. Unger would also have to do something himself.

A proposal is made that Dr. Unger rejects. — Dr. Hahn speaks. Proposals are made.

Dr. Steiner: I am not interested in opinions and expressions. Dr. Hahn has limited his interest to asking for various discussions. If you want to prove it out of some kind of belief, then you should also explain it.

Dr. Hahn: It seems to me that this suggestion is out of the question.

Dr. Steiner: Proposals are made for hidden reasons. The college of seven is composed of such opinions and convictions!

Eugen Benkendörffer: I welcomed the news that Dr. Kolisko was to be

admitted to the board of directors.

A statement will be made about this.

Eugen Benkendörffer: 'Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that Dr. Kolisko

should join the Central Board for the time being. Then the management of the Society's business can be discussed in a new or broader way.

Dr. Unger: If I declare myself willing to do it again, I must assume that the friends will stand behind it with conviction. If we understand each other, we will be able to take up the work again. If we just see through all the many veils of prejudice, we will surely find our way back to each other.

Dr. Steiner: In the near future, the complex of questions concerning the Goetheanum and the leadership of the Society will be discussed in a different way. I must now say that I cannot gain the conviction from the discussions that have taken place here that what I said in the lectures yesterday and a week ago [in GA 257] would be fulfilled in any way: that the Goetheanum can only be built up if there is also a strong society.

I received this seven-member committee with a certain satisfaction and did not assume that everything I had feared would come true. I was pleased that a number of people had come together who wanted to do something. But now, the weeks that have occupied us, have not diminished my concerns! And now I must say: to have to leave again with the absolute uncertainty about the fate of the Anthroposophical Society — that is hard. And actually, now that there has been time to deal with the question somehow, I am surprised at how you have come back so unprepared. Don't you, you act as if you were unaware! There has been no real engagement with this question. The youth group will revolt if nothing comes of these negotiations. I would like to remind the Circle of Seven of its duties.

Imagine if I had arrived here without this Circle of Seven having been formed. Then I would have been faced with the fact that Mr. Uehli had not carried out my instructions. I would have been very concerned about the matter. I would have had to fight it out with the old board first. Whatever had been brought about would certainly have happened in such a way that the sparrows would not whistle it down from the rooftops. Now it has come to the point that today, if nothing significant happens, there is open revolt in society because everything has been carried out. What has been discussed here has been carried throughout society. As a result, concerns have not been reduced, but increased.

I am amazed that this circle of seven, which could add a new element, is so little aware of its responsibility. This is, of course, an extremely serious matter today. One cannot take such an initiative with impunity and then withdraw. Mr. Leinhas said from the very beginning that something positive should be put in place of the old. If only this had been followed! The entire student body was of the opinion that the old board was no good. Now the committee of seven has made this opinion its own, and the whole thing is fizzling out again! Things cannot go on like this. It is quite certain that we simply cannot leave the Anthroposophical Society in this state.

Adolf Arenson: Dr. Unger has now expressed the will to take on certain tasks. Dr. Kolisko has agreed to do the work together with Dr. Unger. We must all wholeheartedly support this. If it is possible, I will not give up hope.

Dr. Steiner: Now the question is whether one can say that the old Anthroposophical Society will continue to work. But the youth is there, and something special should be founded with them. You don't know the mood of the youth. They will not be satisfied with all that has been said here, I assure you. The second point is that this Goetheanum has the secondary title “Freie Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft” (Free University for Spiritual Science) and that the claim has been made to demonstrate scientific achievements. No matter how great the opposition may be, these people must not be proved right. It is impossible to counter this opposition to the building of a Goetheanum, this School of Spiritual Science, if it can be said that no scientific work is being done. How careless we are with something like this atomism polemic! We do not need to strive for what Dr. Theberath means: just to gain the approval of the private lecturers! Rather, we must honestly face the world with things that have the potential to be scientific in themselves. We must have that, mustn't we?

Enlightenment will bear no fruit with the young. The young will only bear fruit if the Central Board approaches them in such a way that they begin to believe in it. But with regard to the pretension of the scientific direction, the opposition can attack us. One does not want to make a serious start with what one has made an unserious start with. Only the Waldorf School remains; it must be nurtured so that it does not fall as well. We have to deal with the youth and with all the opposition that has accumulated because since 1919 the whole affair has been conducted in such a way that people have become angry and nothing reasonable has been done against this anger.

I haven't even had time to read about it. Things [institutions] have been established, and everyone then sits down on their curule chair. Then I have to think about how I will deal with the things that have now come to me.

Firstly, they impose on me the obligation to deal with the youth alone; secondly, to suffer alone the consequences of the very lopsided position towards science. As for the rest of the Anthroposophical Society, you can withdraw into it. It was not founded by scholars, truly not! One must imagine how things can develop in the next few days. Surely something can be done! If one says, “We will work,” that is not enough. Projects have been set up and society has been used to carry these projects into it. All these justifications have emerged as parasites of the old Anthroposophical Society, and there is no sign of an understanding that a new sense of responsibility should arise at the same time.

It is clear from every word spoken in this assembly that there is no understanding in any direction. We are making fools of ourselves scientifically. I never demanded this fawning before science! We do not need to claim that the university professors praise our Vademecum. It must be able to appear with inner solidity; that is what it is all about. The opponents will rant and rave, they must just not be right! You can only make progress when there is real leadership for something that has been established. There must be leadership. If there is no leadership, if people say they are afraid of the discussion, how can you possibly continue to work? You have institutions that have told the world they want to achieve something great! And then you are afraid of discussing with every sheep that comes from a clinic.

Make it possible for me to limit my activities to the Waldorf School, since the work in the Waldorf School can be limited to a short period of time. Make it possible for me to no longer have to visit the research institute! If you can make that happen, then I will know how to return the matter to its old state. I will be able to devote myself to the fate of the Anthroposophical Society.

Liberation in these four different directions – then I will be finished. And please make an effort not to come to every meeting unprepared, but to come prepared once in a while.

---