The Fateful Year of 1923
GA 259 — 7 February 1923, Stuttgart
Meeting of the Circle of Thirty
with Dr. Steiner [Dr. Rittelmeyer is a new addition] in the chair.
Dr. Kolisko reads the circular letter [the new draft of the Appeal].
Adolf Arenson is not in favor of the whole story going out into the world in print, but only to be presented to the assembly of delegates.
Dr. Schwebsch asks Dr. Rittelmeyer what impression he has gained from the matter that has been read out.
Dr. Rittelmeyer: I had the impression that the Society was being set on fire. Discussions like the one on Monday are impossible. This afternoon I was present. [Dr. Steiner did not attend this meeting.] On the whole, I would like to see a warmer tone adopted, so that the positive things that the Society wants and can do are convincingly expressed. The tone that is struck should bear witness to the fact that each individual is brought to carry out his function. Great slogans must come from Stuttgart. Each of the speakers should see that something great is happening through it. Care should also be taken to ensure that the anthroposophical spiritual material is properly conveyed. Efforts should be made to ensure that the right kind of polemic and apologetics are provided.
Dr. Steiner: Our opponents must not be given the opportunity to gain the negative impression from us.
Many speakers speak: Dr. Hahn, Dr. Schwebsch, Alexander Strakosch.
Dr. Rittelmeyer: What is at stake is that we come to self-reflection in the face of the tremendous hour of destiny. Would it not be right to make a positive suggestion that a number of us, quite on our own, without regard to the programs that have been presented so far, would reflect on the deepest essence of the anthroposophical impulse and put it on paper. Then it could either be used as it is, or the most suitable thing, with which everyone can best identify, would be sent out.
Dr. Husemann supports this proposal.
Dr. Steiner: I would have found it understandable if Dr. Husemann had made such a proposal three weeks ago today. It is understandable that Dr. Rittelmeyer is making it. But that Dr. Husemann, at this psychological moment, expects us to do something for a society around which – as Dr. Rittelmeyer rightly said – a fire has been set, which I have always emphasized, too – when Dr. Husemann expects us to do something like that, then I can only say that I cannot understand his whole view and sympathy. The psychological moment has not come to sit down again and brood over nothing for as long as possible. There has been enough time since the many weeks when we always spent the time driving back and forth between Dornach and here to learn about the things that have been discussed here. Dr. Husemann, you must not think that you can be offered anything!
Dr. Hahn will speak about this.
Dr. Steiner: The best must be expressed in the appeal. Mr. Arenson says that this version will immediately be in the hands of the enemies. I consider the belief that this will do no harm to be the greatest naivety. One must be clear about the fact that one cannot sleep through the whole process of the Anthroposophical Society. You have to realize that whatever version is published, tomorrow it will be in the hands of the enemies. So you have to realize that you are publishing a version that can fall into anyone's hands. This version must not begin with the sentence: 'The hour of destiny has come for society'. If you send out the matter in this version, then those who started the fire will have the very best foundation. I was pleased that this was said today in the middle of the discussion. I have emphasized it myself again and again. It's just that no one ever listens to what I say. Everyone must admit that you could have known this. Everything here is done as if there were no opposition. You can only want to send out such an appeal if you are completely cut off from the real facts of the situation. We had this appeal almost word for word yesterday. That is why I asked for it to be discussed today. The result of the discussion is that the same appeal appears again.
Adolf Arenson and Mr. Baumann will speak about this.
Dr. Steiner: On page 2, the sentence: “This order was not recorded by Mr. Uehli. Such omissions were openly admitted.” Page 3: “Since Dr. Steiner insisted at all meetings that one should press ahead until the real damage was known...” Page 4, for example, the impossible sentence: “do better from now on and expose mistakes unreservedly...”, “Don't let the question of personalities come to the fore...”.
If you write down a sentence like this, for example, you will see that a large number of people who are pushing for a reorganization say, “These people don't even understand the very basics. They make suggestions to downplay the question of personalities.” The question of personalities is exactly what matters! Out there, it's about people, not about the central committee.
Only today I was told how bad blood it made when the pedagogical course met here and the invitations had to be obtained. The matter was told to me in this way – it serves only to characterize the “Stuttgart System”, it may even be possible to correct it -: The matter was that this youth league, which had organized the course, was supposed to invite the central committee; a conversation is said to have taken place between the invitees and Dr. Unger, in which Dr. Unger is said to have said that it was not important to him to be invited personally, but that the central committee had to be invited. The young people invited the three gentlemen personally and individually; but they had not invited the central committee.
If you throw these sentences into the fire that exists within the Society, people will say: They don't have the slightest talent for doing what matters. — By saying this, you are conjuring up an impossible intensification of this fateful hour.
The whole of what follows as a portrayal of the coming day is a single point of attack. For example, that I should also give my advice to those who work for threefolding outside the movement. People will laugh at that. As if I had assumed that I should give advice to the whole world! The relationship to religious renewal is also presented quite wrongly here. —- “The leading personalities are fully aware of the omissions and wrong methods. That these methods have been particularly emphasized by Stuttgart...” When such sentences appear in an appeal, then above all the people who would now like to have the Society as you know it – above all the outside opponents – will say: So that's all; they not only wash dirty linen in their own house, but what this Society is doing is hanging out its dirty linen for the whole world to see.
I have tried so hard to point out what would lead to the matter being brought before the world in a plausible way. This has not been taken into account. Of course, the damage also had to be mentioned. But the damage was only mentioned in order to get to the positive things.
Several people present speak.
Dr. Steiner: The matter is so obvious. One must look at the things I have mentioned that belong to the positive part of the call. One could say: It is a fact that since 1919 the prominent personalities we have in society have moved here to Stuttgart. This should have led to a powerful impulse for the movement emanating from here. Instead, these foundations have been established. A Waldorf school has been set up. The Waldorf teachers feel that they can ignore what is going on around them, because they have the school.
I said: We can't go on like this. This is something that plays into the hands of our opponents. Has anyone ever paid attention to what I said? It was like that every time. I was very glad when Dr. Rittelmeyer gave his speech. He emphasized that this “alliance of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” is bringing up certain things from the past. This is a very important clue that can now be put to extremely good use. Was it necessary that we did not take the defense of the anthroposophical cause itself into our own hands years ago? That we did not repeatedly point out specific defamations in an appropriate manner? I myself do not get around to it because other things are more necessary. It was not necessary to continually supply new material to the opponents, but to also take the defense of the Society into our own hands. Now they are making an appeal accusing the Society. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The ‘Federation of Non-Anthroposophical Connoisseurs of Anthroposophy’ presents facts that we should make use of in order to point out the specific slanders with a single blow —— defense of the Anthroposophical Society —— The appeal must state that we now want to do what was not done earlier.”)
Mr. Fink: The individuals should withdraw and work something out.
Mr. Stockmeyer supports the motion that the individuals should withdraw, that each person should draft the appeal and that they should then meet again.
Dr. Steiner: I would like to briefly outline what Dr. Rittelmeyer said. Firstly, that fires have been set everywhere around the Anthroposophical Society; secondly, that impossible discussions have taken place here in the branch twice in a row; thirdly, that he wishes there to be a warmer tone overall; further, that the positive should be strongly emphasized; that certain strong slogans should be issued; that the sectarian spirit must recede; that the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge be imparted in a careful, not distorted way as by the opponents of the world; that he had listened to the offensive in the discussions and that the story of the cloud secret [...] then came out; that above all he misses correct mediators of the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge.
Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Röschl): Why can't one reveal that one is familiar with the writing [of the league of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy]? [It says:] “It is a fight to the death.” Should we openly document that we do not care about our opponents?
Dr. Noll: Dr. Goesch characterizes himself as an epileptic. Two absences. These
people are going to be led around by an epileptic.
Dr. Steiner (to Dr. Noll): Do it! You are a doctor, aren't you! The weekly journal Anthroposophie is waiting for material for its next issue. Anthroposophie is as boring as it can possibly be because no one provides any material, and those who know the material provide nothing.
A motion has been made that we adjourn.
The meeting is interrupted and the participants write their proposals. After two hours the meeting continues.
Continuation (night session, starting at 10:30 p.m.)
Dr. Steiner: Then we can begin.
A large number of the participants read out their proposals or talk about the difficulties of society: Dr. Noll, Mr. Apel, Dr. Heyer, Dr. Röschl,
Dr. Stein, Mr. Stockmeyer, Mr. Maier, Mr. Wolffhügel, Mr. Strakosch, Dr. von Heydebrand.
Dr. Steiner: Twelve calls! I request suggestions as to the form in which we want to negotiate.
Dr. Rittelmeyer: It seems to me that the calls are mostly full of empty phrases. There is far too little concrete discussion based on the situation. Seriousness is mentioned, but it is not given enough consideration.
I imagine it could be worded something like this – I have written it down: “We have become aware that society in its present form is not the right vehicle for spiritual values. It has become too entrenched, too selfish and self-indulgent. There has been a lack of cohesion of forces. So it has come about that precisely the yearning that awakens in youth has not found the right place in society where it can be satisfied. The universal need for spiritual knowledge has not found the right organ. The present situation calls on us to be mindful of our duty. An opposition has awakened that has already given us all kinds of tests. We must become fully aware of the high spiritual good that has been entrusted to us in this hour of world history. We bear the responsibility for ensuring that this spiritual good is conveyed in the right way. New, elastic, free forms must be found for what has been entrusted to us. Everywhere it is a matter of leading the spirit in full freedom and purest clarity to the depths where the solution of the problems shines forth. If we become aware of the tasks, then we may hope that a solution can be found.
Paul Baumann: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be asked to write the appeal.
Jose del Monte is opposed to a single person making the appeal. He should come about through the combined efforts of everyone.
Dr. Unger: Dr. Rittelmeyer should be involved.
Dr. Stein: Dr. Rittelmeyer should choose those with whom he believes he can do it.
Dr. Rittelmeyer: I am actually only in a position to make the material I have written available to you. I need at least until tomorrow morning so that I can present it. I don't want everything that was in the other individual calls to be lost.
Dr. Steiner: We are back to square one. The situation has become tragic. Isn't it true, just consider this: yesterday I asked you to summarize the individual institutions. But let's refrain from doing so at this moment. What preceded the discussions that have begun about the reorganization of society? This was preceded by a polemic against the improper behavior of anthroposophists towards the “Movement for Religious Renewal”. Then a small committee was formed that is historically connected with this defense against what was overgrowing the society. A committee of seven was formed to take charge of the reorganization. And now the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society themselves are transferring the reorganization of the Society to the leader of the religious renewal! That is the fact that you have now organized. Just consider that the person who made the request was also the leader of the committee of seven.
If you believe that we will make progress in this way, that the steps we are taking will have any significance, then the situation of society is quite tragic. Because just admit what it means to hand over a reorganization plan with nothing but negative criticism. Yesterday I myself suggested calling Dr. Rittelmeyer. I have only given all this as a description of the situation we find ourselves in.
Marie Steiner: Now the Anthroposophical Society is buried, and the gravestone can be placed on it.
Dr. Unger (jumps up): If no one else offers to do it, then I will undertake to make the appeal alone. I repeat the offer to make this appeal. It could be ready by tomorrow morning.
Dr. Steiner: Just consider what the deeper meaning of all these weeks of discussions is. It is this: when something happens in the Society, the will of people must also stand behind it. It is not enough to express thoughts and then have others say that they agree with them. It just so happens that the people who have held the leadership of the Society externally in recent years have moved to Stuttgart. Today we have reached a point where it is no longer possible to merely have the appearance of leadership, but where leadership must be taken up with real power. No matter how many thoughts I would say, it would be of no use to you. After all that has happened, it is of no use to hand down thoughts with which one then declares one's agreement. If society had been left with the standpoint of 1918, there would have been no “Kommende Tag” and no Waldorf School. Now that all this is in place, it is a matter of actually taking control of it. To do this, the will must be connected with the thoughts of those who want to lead, otherwise there is no will and no power. You have to muster the strength to do something. This strength must be able to turn into something positive. You have to have something in yourself. And, isn't it true, if an attempt is made to put something like this forward here, it ultimately leads to suggestions like the one just made. Until yesterday, the whole of society had not thought of inviting Dr. Rittelmeyer. The whole of society, which has been discussing here for weeks what to do, is now calling on Dr. Rittelmeyer to write the appeal. It must not be understood as if the whole Anthroposophical Society agrees with this.
Adolf Arenson: I felt a sense of relief when Dr. von Heydebrand spoke earlier.
Dr. Steiner: We could have said that we ourselves did not want anything and transferred the whole thing to Dr. Rittelmeyer. It is better to say everything as it is. There is no other way than to say: the old board stays, and then we wait to see what the others say, who have been shaken up in this way. That is the conclusion: the old board stays, since no result has been reached; we will wait to see what the company says about it tomorrow. But what was the whole campaign for? Why was all this staged?
Dr. Stein: They wanted to perform a feat.
Dr. Steiner: We started by saying that the old board had become a laughing stock, and we end up with the result that the old board has to stay because of the lack of results.
Dr. Blämel: Could Dr. Steiner, as the occult leader, not designate those who have the ability to lead the Society out of chaos?
Adolf Arenson: The task now is to write the appeal. Emil Leinbas: The old central committee can no longer function.
Dr. Steiner: The point is that the Anthroposophical Society should want something in its leaders; this may even differ from what I myself consider desirable. What the Society wants in its leaders must emerge. This is quite independent of the accident in Dornach. It arose from the task I gave Mr. Uehli on December 10. I asked Mr. Uehli to meet with other members of the central committee, reinforced by leading personalities here in Stuttgart, to make proposals about the opinions that exist in the central committee and in the committee regarding the further continuation of the Society. Nothing came of this. Because when I arrived here, a committee of seven members, actually under the leadership of Mr. Uehli, met me. This committee really behaved as if it had the philosopher's stone in relation to reorganization; and its criticism culminated in the fact that the old board was a laughing stock. Since then, negotiations have been ongoing. I also presented the other part of the alternative: that otherwise I would be forced to turn to each individual member of the Anthroposophical Society myself in order to somehow put the Society itself in order. Now, as I said, instead of the Central Board carrying out the task, a committee has confronted me here, and the actions of this committee have now led to this result, which has just been characterized. Either the leadership of the Society declares: We give up the possibility of continuing the leadership —— or it must express what it wants. But it must offer some kind of guarantee that the Society has a will and is not just grumbling. There must be a real will.
Now, the negotiations have been carried this far for the reason that I must, of course, offer the utmost chance that the Anthroposophical Society can continue to act as a society. You have to look at things as they are. We cannot undo what has happened. What does it mean to go back to the situation in 1918? I will mention just two things. One would be to close the Waldorf School; the other would be to pay out all the sums that have been paid in for shares. We must be clear about the consequences of everything. It is easy to make speeches, but we in the Society have institutions that must continue to function. Therefore it is not an easy matter when I have to address each individual member. You can't close the Waldorf School! You can't buy back the shares! But these are the real foundations for such an action. If I were now forced to do so, it would mean that nothing would remain of the old Anthroposophical Society but these real institutions. The “Kommende Tag” must be treated in such a way that it does not lose its reputation; the Waldorf School must continue to exist. But the Anthroposophical Society must dissolve, and I turn to the members to create something new.
Therefore, the last chance must be seized. When the Anthroposophical Society was constituted, I expressly stipulated that I would not be a member. You have only to discuss whether you want to resign your leadership or continue to lead. Please bear in mind that I have never been involved in the administration of the Anthroposophical Society. Things must be taken as they are. You cannot act as you have done, out of your emotions, and say that the old Central Board is a laughing stock. Do you think it is easy to face people and say that we have once again sat through a night without results? Oh, we already know what the sparrows are saying on the rooftops: “Let's get rid of all your leadership!”
Marie Steiner: The will is directed towards dismissing Dr. Unger. But there is no pure will for the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society and for the cause itself.
Dr. Steiner: One also has the right to dismiss someone; but one must know whom one then puts in his place. Just imagine: it would rightly be laughed out of court if, after three weeks of negotiations, the decision were taken to adjourn the meeting. And that after twelve appeals have been made! After two hours, twelve people had decided to take action, after otherwise just waiting for someone else to do something. I can only say: the simple fact that twelve calls have emerged after two hours testifies to the lack of interest in a matter that one has represented with an unparalleled zeal. What could have been achieved if the same intentions that have been developed in the last two hours had been present earlier!
It is not surprising that nothing of any significance has been said. The way people think about a matter that is serious in the deepest sense is what has characterized the “Stuttgart system” to this hour. I do not want to reorganize the Anthroposophical Society. I have to turn to those who have turned to Anthroposophy. You are deciding the fate of the Anthroposophical Society! We cannot go on telling people: “Be so good as to wait!”
Adolf Arenson talks about the reorganization. He gives a summary of the points on which he intends to negotiate with the Friends: What is it that is still missing? He sees only the need to call the Friends together to make the weak points strong.
Dr. Steiner: We must not just give programs. If we want to issue a declaration of will, we must say something in it. The words must express a direction of will. Dr. Rittelmeyer's suggestion was good, but the tragic situation is that the others think that without what Dr. Rittelmeyer called “strong slogans,” they could no longer save society at all; everyone else should adhere to these slogans. What do you think? The people you call here as delegates want to find leadership here. The situation must be created in which the people say: Now the people of Stuttgart are confronting us in such a way that we want to follow them. In Stuttgart, people must know what needs to be done. The others are waiting to hear what is being done here in Stuttgart. Otherwise we will end up in pure negation.
Youth is not the most important thing. What do you think will happen if you don't come up with slogans today? Tomorrow, young people will say: “They don't know anything; now we have to do it!” Young people don't know anything either; they only think they know something, but they don't know anything. They are passing judgment on society with what they want or don't want now. This must be taken into account. You can't just say: Well, let's call a meeting of delegates; they'll then tell us what we should want.
The following spoke: Adolf Arenson, Miss Dr. Röschl and Dr. Schwebsch.
Dr. Steiner: The committee that was formed yesterday met today.1 A spokesperson presented the first draft. This is the committee's appeal. Then, aren't they, the other appeals that have also been put forward are from Dr. Unger, Dr. Heyer and so on. These are personal appeals, just like the others. These two things must be considered absolutely separately.2
The fact of the matter is that yesterday this committee had Dr. Kolisko's draft as something finished. We parted: firstly, with the appointment of the committee; secondly, with the request to this committee to convert the draft into a positive one. Furthermore, the draft, with all that it contains, cannot of course be signed by the provisional central committee. So the starting point for today's appeal was, secondly, that its negative points should be converted into positive ones. The mistake, then, is not that any positive points have been newly added, but that only the old negative points have remained. I expected the negations to be transformed into positives. Substantially, it is important that the twelve appeals suffer from an excess of phraseology; they do not have enough substance. Those who make the appeal do not act independently enough.
Dr. Stein once said: We should not let the life's work of Dr. Steiner be taken away from us. — The appeal has now made the following impression: The points that I myself gave were heard, but they appeared in the appeal without any inner connection. The point is to make such a thing one's own. That is why I repeated these things again. What you have written in there does not have enough affinity with the personalities. That is what it comes down to.
José del Monte speaks.
Dr. Steiner: Dr. Rittelmeyer began his speech by saying that he had reported in detail to the committee on what he had said. I am just surprised that there is nothing about this in the committee's appeal, nor about what was decided yesterday: to transform negation into a positive.
I cannot formulate the points that should ultimately be the positive ones. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “It would be detrimental if I were to state the positive points.”) This must be done by those who have been given the task of working in the direction indicated.
I only want to say the following in connection with what has emerged. Perhaps not on the basis of, but in chronological sequence with my request to Mr. Uehli on December 10, a committee was formed when I arrived here. This committee could have proceeded in two ways with regard to those people who are interested in the reorganization of the Society today. This committee could have tried to work towards replacing the old central committee if the old committee was not up to the job. Or this committee could have worked towards strengthening trust in the old committee in some way by working to establish possible relationships. Both of these things would have been possible. Now this committee has chosen the first one, but has not come up with any real positive proposals.
Now, as a result of all the misery yesterday, we have come to form a committee that is roughly the same as the one I had imagined the old board could have formed. I imagined that the old board would have formed this committee from the synthesis of positive activities in the anthroposophical cause. It is composed of all the necessary antecedents. This committee has the opportunity to represent the shades of the old, and through its two members, Mr. von Grone and Wolfgang Wachsmuth, who are young, it has the opportunity to be accepted by young people. So this morning, because we had to give the young people some information, I said:3 I am just curious to know whether the old people among the young will accept the young people among the old. So I asked if the old among the young would accept the young among the old. I was told that it would only depend on how they would approach us. — The new committee has the opportunity to exist as something old; and at the same time it has the opportunity to be accepted by the youth.
Things must arise out of the real facts. Furthermore, as already mentioned, the committee is composed in such a way that it is a synthesis of those positive activities that are decisive in the anthroposophical movement. This committee is given out of the nature of the matter itself. But if we don't achieve anything, then the society must abdicate.
If only the committee acts in the right way. Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old; he is already called the “second soulless dialectician”; Dr. Kolisko belongs to the young among the old. Because this committee has two prominent, still completely undiscovered personalities among its members, it only needs to reveal itself in the right way in one or the other direction. A committee must be such that it can work in a wide variety of directions. The committee could not be better composed. I cannot understand why it should not work.
Just consider: before I left last week, we had heard the most serious accusations against each other. Before I left, I asked the Provisional Committee to prepare the matter so that we could discuss it the following Monday. I had in mind what had been read here. The question was whether another Monday meeting should be held here. At least the call could have been made. What happened on Monday? This Monday meeting was a mere repetition of the meeting that had taken place before I went to Dornach. The same thing happened again. Of course, small variations occur; time alone makes them because the earlier process is no longer remembered exactly. When I complained that there was an exact repetition, I was told that it was with other bases. I was also told that negotiations had to be conducted with the people. Now we were at the point where there had been a straightforward repetition and it had to be made clear once again that such an appeal had to be made. We can continue the matter like this. From yesterday to today it is a straightforward repetition, with the exception of what the pause for thought has produced.
We had a memorable vote yesterday.4 I had a vote on who had read Mr. von Grone's essay. I had a vote on who had not read it: that was the vast majority. When I go to the Waldorf School, the magazines lie there for many days. Lack of interest begins with only taking care of one's own narrow field. Here one is no longer an anthroposophist by degrees; one is really no longer an anthroposophist. It takes three weeks before one comes to the decision to reflect on anthroposophy.
What Dr. Rittelmeyer said this evening follows from all of this. If you had been present at the small committee meetings, you would not be able to deny that all these points have already been raised; most of them in even greater detail. No one has taken care of this. They could have drawn on the things that have been discussed here for weeks. As long as we do not make an effort to draw from reality and do not get tirades out of a book, we will get nowhere. The reader senses whether there is anything real in the appeal. The spirit must enter in, which engages with the facts with good will. And it is this spirit that is being opposed.
Now I don't know whether we will see another copy tomorrow night. If we don't make every effort, then we will end up with a revolution in full swing in society. At least we should be clear about that, that Mr. Leinhas would also have to stay if we stay and only
Friday morning. But then the time would have to be used for work.
Adolf Arenson: I object to the fact that it is said that this group made that suggestion.
Dr. Steiner: Anyone who did not make the proposal can object. The fact remains that this proposal was made this evening by this group. You can now be appalled that this fact has come to light. Such a group should at least agree on the most fundamental things, so that it does not reduce itself to absurdity.
So tomorrow the whole group.