# The Fateful Year of 1923

## GA 259 — 6 February 1923, Stuttgart

### Meeting of the Circle of Thirty

*According to Dr. Heyer, night session after Rudolf Steiner's branch lecture)*

[The unsuccessful negotiations have led to an unrecorded suggestion by Rudolf Steiner to form a committee of nine to take over the leadership until the assembly of delegates instead of the central committee.

Dr. Stein: There is so little possibility of designating new trusted personalities.

The following speak about the appeal: Dr. Schwebsch, Dr. Noll, Karl Stockmeyer, Dr. Unger, Paul Baumann, Dr. Hahn, Hans Kühn, Alexander Strakosch.

Marie Steiner: The first sentence of the appeal seems to me to place society quite suddenly on a democratic basis.

The following speak: Adolf Arenson, Dr. Unger, Miss Dr. von Heydebrand, Dr. Kolisko, Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Stein – all about the appeal.

Marie Steiner: Central Executive Council? Surely such a council cannot be called a 'Central Executive Council'? Such a huge council does not deserve to be called a 'Central Executive Council'.

Dr. Blümel: What is the position of the central committee in international life?

Dr. Steiner: As things stand, one can only speak of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, not even in Austria. The Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. We have at least achieved this — as confirmed by the English teachers' visit — that other countries have accepted the fact and are willing to recognize it, despite all their other antipathy towards Central Europe: that the Anthroposophical movement started in Germany. Therefore, it is necessary that the consolidation is now taken care of by Germany. The Anthroposophical Society has been formed in Switzerland. The Society in France is in the process of being formed, as is the one in England. The Swedish Society has been independent from the outset. The Norwegian Society also wants to become independent. These Societies will be independent in the future and seek a common center in Dornach, so that the international center will remain in Dornach. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Seek Dornach, if Dornach remains.”) I have always insisted that the consolidation must take place here in Germany, because this historical fact is recognized, that the anthroposophical movement originated in Germany. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Crisis everywhere if there is no consolidation in Germany.”) But you cannot decide anything here. The French Society will recognize the fact and join with the German Society in Dornach – if it remains – as its future center. What has been said here applies only to the Anthroposophical Society in Germany. Furthermore, it is necessary that this Society in Germany, as the starting point of Anthroposophy, consolidates – and everything else can then join. That is what is to be formally understood: that here, on the basis of the history, consolidation is to be carried out in all directions. Nor should membership dues be set for outside Germany. Whatever you decide internationally will not be of concern to anyone outside. A central board can only exist for the Anthroposophical Society in Germany.

Adolf Arenson speaks about the invitation of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: First, the appeal could be discussed. But you must be aware that the provisional central board cannot sign this appeal on its own initiative. Given all the reasons stated by Mr. Arenson, the majority of the former board of directors, who would remain only filled with Dr. Kolisko after the departure of Mr. Uehli, cannot sign this appeal. The appeal cannot be made in such a way that it merely proclaims self-accusation to the world. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Dr. Stein's whim to proclaim self-accusation...” It should at least be signed by a majority of the board, which does not represent the majority of the previous board.

One cannot work by signing one's own guilt. The members of the board may stand by it, but there should be a majority that does not identify with the guilt. To send out this appeal, signed by three members of the provisional board – Unger, Leinhas, Kolisko – would be to deal the final death blow to the Society. You don't establish trust by issuing a vote of no confidence in yourself. That doesn't exist. Only Dr. Stein, out of a certain lack of practical experience of life, could regard that as possible!

Secondly, you should take into account the real extent to which things have already developed. Just today I received a letter from Mrs. Wolfram, who writes that the Leipzig branch is hardly functioning anymore because the branch members have joined together to form the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life”, which will work without connection to the Anthroposophical Society. These things will multiply. People will begin to propagate anthroposophy outside the Society. The positive thing about this is that, in a sense, new people are also committed to it, not just the old ones in the majority.

It has been pointed out to me that the youth group would be quite reconciled. On the other hand, I have been given this document today. I am not at all suggesting that we should proceed in the spirit of this document; but it does show the mood. With the representation of the youth movement that is meant here, it is not the case that one person is called into the Society, but the current should be represented. This group should take responsibility for the fruitful continuation of its work. It is not possible to work on such a matter in any other way than by these people first making their decision for themselves, because this group is not yet part of the Anthroposophical Society at all. Something would have to be created that could enter into some kind of relationship with such groups as a whole. All compromises lead nowhere, because the differences soon arise again and have not been bridged.

I would like you to be clear about the fact that the three members of the executive council cannot sign the appeal in this form. Instead, you must consider ways and means of truly embracing all those who want to work with anthroposophy today, regardless of your assessment of their value.

I would also like to draw attention to the following. It is necessary that this assembly of delegates works towards the consolidation of the society. To this end, it is really not necessary to establish anything other than the principle of the composition of the delegates, other than that all delegates who are sent here work in the spirit of an anthroposophical union. No anti-anthroposophical people can come here. To consolidate, you do not need to call speakers who speak against anthroposophy. Since it is about the unification of anthroposophists, it is necessary that they speak for anthroposophy.

The link to the old organization of trusted representatives will be deeply disturbing in the truest sense of the word. Hardly anything will come about if the old organization of trusted representatives is applied. The delegates should discuss current matters of the anthroposophical union with those who are leading here. It is necessary to exclude all bureaucracy from the rally, so that you have to answer the question: Why are the delegates coming here? is that the leading personalities want to discuss current affairs in Stuttgart. Don't set out a program in advance! Then people will know why they are coming here. But if you want to create a kind of bureaucratic organization, then you will only make them angry. There is hatred for the bureaucratic system in Stuttgart. This must be avoided at all costs. As little as possible needs to be said about how the delegates are to be elected. Only that it is a matter of the people being sent by the branches or the existing groups coming together so that a joint discussion can take place here. Do it in a completely unbureaucratic way!

Then I don't think it's a good idea to emphasize the negative too much. It's coming anyway. If you put the two things together[^1] you will see that essentially the negative has been emphasized and not what should be there as a positive, around which one should then gather.

But one last thing that cannot be kept secret is this: you will meet with fierce resistance if you formulate this appeal in such a way that the Thirties Committee as a whole signs it. You will drive people apart if you do that. This Thirty Committee is a stumbling block that certainly does not work. It is better and more honest than its reputation - but it cannot sign. This committee has thoroughly made itself unpopular.

Several people speak.

Marie Steiner says: We should not commit ourselves; Dr. Steiner cannot be the chairman.

Dr. Steiner: The situation of 1918 cannot be restored! – So what is said about this in the appeal is correct, that the situation of 1918 cannot be restored, that one cannot simply demand that a board of directors be formed somehow. That cannot be. It would have to take a different form. But why should we not actually take advantage of the opportunity, so that a way would be found, after all, to bring about this anthroposophical union, after all the things that have been undertaken since 1919, sometimes with great aplomb on the part of the Society. Before it is too late, a way to achieve union could be found!

But you must realize that a little worldliness is required for this. There would be no worldliness if you just put these two documents together.[^2] You can't send anything out into the world like that today; you also have to address those circles that have already fallen away internally. For I received the following news today: a 'League for Free Spiritual Life' has been formed in Leipzig because the branch there is disintegrating and people still want to cultivate anthroposophy. They must not go about this in such a way as to create a union in which people unite in opposition to society. You will lose this matter if you do not bring about a union at the last moment. To do that, you need to talk to those who are still on the outside, such as young people, in a completely new way, without this mere pater-peccavi idea, where you only give yourself a vote of no confidence. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “Otherwise people will accept it!”) That is what I fear. The point is to formulate things less negatively, so that people — even if in Stuttgart — who have not previously been identified with what is called the “Stuttgart system” will stand by it.

The congresses are a prime example of how not to do it. These congresses have been held with a great deal of effort, and then they have been absolutely not utilized in the interest of the anthroposophical movement, despite my emphasis that these congresses, because anthroposophy is discussed endlessly, ultimately create an opposition that surrounds us like a wall. The exploitation of the congresses has never happened. Hence the misfortune with the Vienna Congress! The Vienna Congress was in itself – in its framework – a great success. But due to the failure to exploit it, it actually ended to our detriment. A meeting has now been held in Dornach to discuss whether a congress should be held in Berlin [see page 66]. This has now led to the decision not to hold one in Berlin. If the earlier congresses had not been mere efforts behind which the Anthroposophical Society did not stand, but rather if it had stood behind them, then we could also hold a new congress. Just think what some other body would have made of such a congress! All the magazines would have been full of it for months! We have not done that. We are making nothing out of all this.

There has certainly been no lack of events. If the events had been turned in our favor, we would not need to talk about a consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society. The fact that we cannot make anything out of all this is precisely our misfortune. What is at issue is what comes to the fore everywhere. When the people from the 'Religious Renewal' discussed with me, I made it clear that I would not participate in beating about the bush. So I asked: Do you have anything that shows that I have ever said anything like that about the religious movement? If the right point of view had been maintained, the Anthroposophical Society would have made it clear through its organs what it means that, in addition to all the other things, a religious renewal movement has emerged from the Anthroposophical Society. I would like to know which other body in the world can point to as many things as ours! In between, the Anthroposophical Society always runs like a fifth wheel on the wagon.

We have not represented any of these things as a society, and that is what matters. You really have to take the bull by the horns. Therefore, I would say: Wouldn't it be most advantageous – now that things have taken this course – to consider whether what was intended on December 10 could not be taken up as a suggestion, so that something comes of it? The point was that the Central Executive Committee, reinforced by other prominent figures, should take up something that points in a positive way to a consolidation from within the Society itself.

We have, of course, experienced the appearance of the Committee of Seven. Unfortunately, it got lost in negations, and when the negations had been exhausted, it canceled itself, it no longer appeared. Yes, now it would be possible that the same suggestions that the central committee ignored would be taken up in some way, so that something happens, not from the thirty-committee, but from a number of prominent personalities in Stuttgart who have something to represent. I am merely offering this for your consideration. If you approach the matter in such a way that the majority of the former executive council and the thirty-member committee sign this appeal, then you will achieve nothing.

The members continue to discuss.

Dr. Steiner: There is not much time left, we have hesitated for too long. My opinion is that many people here could actually know what needs to be done. But so little comes out of the discussions. It would be sad if nothing came of it. The majority do not make use of the opportunity: that is absolutely the case. Dr. Mellinger is in the youth group. There is no point in sitting down with the youth group before the adults have consolidated. It would only lead to a debate if you were to negotiate with the youth. You might as well call together all the inhabitants of the world. Nothing can be achieved if the adults don't know what they want. It can't be any different than the youth seeking something from the adults in good faith. Before that, it shouldn't even come to sitting down with the youth. This representation of the youth can only come about when the old society has found itself. Otherwise, we cannot introduce Bolshevism in principle.

Dr. Mellinger comments on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: The matter is this – if you want to understand it in principle – the real institutions that belong together and must exist are: Berliner [Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer] Verlag; hiesiger [Kommender-Tag]Verlag; “Kommender Tag”; Zeitung [«Anthroposophie»]; Waldorfschule; früherer Vorstand; vielleicht zerstreute Interessen; «Religiöse Erneuerung»; Ärzte-Kollegium. The research institute must first show that it is there. — Not true, now it would turn out that someone from the “Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House” must be there. We can represent that ourselves; Ms. Mücke would be considered for that; only Ms. Mücke can be considered for that. — Local Publisher: W. Wachsmuth; Clinic: Dr. Palmer; Newspaper: von Grone; “Kommender Tag”: Mr. Leinhas; Former Central Board: Dr. Unger; Waldorf School: Dr. Kolisko; “Religious Renewal”: Dr. Rittelmeyer; Scattered interests: Mr. Werbeck.

In principle, something would be created that could be placed under the appeal. This is roughly how I imagined the committee I mentioned would be composed: prominent individuals whom the central board could turn to. I imagined that the central board would expand to include these individuals. After all, the day-to-day business must be taken into account. It is important to consider the fact that the movement is facing the world when the anthroposophical movement is united. Now, Mr. von Grone's essay in the last issue of Anthroposophie proves in the most emphatic sense that he has something to say in the direction he has taken in this essay, and that you must take him up. You must act on the facts.

The seven gentlemen would be able to meet again tomorrow morning as early as possible: W. Wachsmuth, Dr. Palmer, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko, Dr. Rittelmeyer, Mr. von Grone. These seven are uniting to finish deliberating the appeal. This appeal must be an act! The only thing that would stand in the way of this is if the personalities do not like each other! I would very much like to have Dr. Stein in this, as a punishment; but I do not want to do this to you. It would be a punishment for the others if he were to start again with the “pater peccavi”.

Dr. Palmer: I did not like the way Mr. Leinhas treated the [Clinical-Therapeutic] Institute.

Dr. Steiner: Mr. Leinhas represents the “Kommende Tag”; what is meant by this is that the interests will be discussed in a more intimate meeting between their representatives.

This appeal should be discussed tomorrow as early as possible. We should be able to meet again here as a committee at 5 o'clock. Tomorrow the young people will be on my back, especially when they hear that I said something about “Bolshevism”! A closed circle is only real if things remain closed within that circle. Otherwise it is the same as putting union leaders on the supervisory boards everywhere. That is, in principle, characterized humorously – don't the women gathered here have husbands and the men wives who are in the youth movement, so that everything is carried out?

We can meet again at 6 o'clock.

---

[^1]: The most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter are probably meant here.

[^2]: This probably refers to the most recent draft of the “appeal” and the accompanying letter.