The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 8 February 1923, Stuttgart

Meeting of the Circle of Thirty

Emil Leinhas: The draft is still incomplete. But we worked together harmoniously. (He reads the draft.)

Dr. Maier, Dr. Heyer and Dr. Peipers speak to this.

Alexander Strakosch: The question of the executive council still needs to be clarified.

Dr. Steiner: The passage about antagonism does not quite correspond to fact. From the personal reasons for the resistance against anthroposophical spiritual values, the antagonism that has arisen to me would not have been of any further significance; it would have appeared as a foolish episode. It is only through the reasons given by the various enterprises since 1919 that the attacks are used as a means to an end by an antagonism that for the most part has no interest in the attacks themselves,

used as a means to an end, in order to eliminate the anthroposophical movement.

Marie Steiner: The opponents are treated too lightly, it is immediately said that the compilation of the quotations forms the basis for attack, while the opposition does, after all, make use of mean methods.

Dr. Steiner: One is the opposition that uses defamation; the other is what the opposition does by creating a distorted image. Then the question arises as to whether, under certain circumstances, this opposition should not be attacked a little more boldly, which is only possible and necessary by using individual words.

Is it not true that the opponents are often protected by a certain official reputation, because to the outside world Dr. Jeremias, mentioned yesterday by Dr. Rittelmeyer, is the well-known orientalist of the University of Leipzig, while in fact, if Dr. Rittelmeyer's description is correct, he is a very mean person. He visited me repeatedly, discussed individual questions in a serious manner, asked to be allowed to attend the lecture in Leipzig. There was no reason not to let him attend. Afterwards he turns out to be a mean hypocrite. Such examples are actually something that one can no longer do without in characterizing opponents. One must tear this mask off people. I give this only as an example. We must be clear about what it means when someone has wormed their way in under the mask of someone who 'wants to recognize' and then comes out as a vile slanderer. If we do not manage to reveal this meanness among people who are simply protected by their official positions, if we do not succeed in doing so, then things will be difficult.

Dr. Rittelmeyer: I was present at the meeting. There he personally exposed you, Doctor. He said that he distinguished between anthroposophy itself and the person of the founder of anthroposophy. The goods train could contain goods that were good even if the locomotive was defective.

Dr. Steiner: Such a thing must be exposed to the world. That is the case today. But on the other hand, the special way of fighting must be characterized, which consists in the opponents not engaging in a discussion, but instead they accept the matter in part, like Goesch, but at the same time they act with the most vile, unobjective, purely personal slander. This is the very precise fact; in the present situation, we cannot shy away from characterizing it. It may be necessary to give individual examples. But this does not need to be given by name; perhaps it is even not good to give names, perhaps the names can be avoided and the people can simply be characterized.

You will get a characteristic of Seiling by saying: There was a person who was particularly disgusting to Dr. Steiner because of his fanatical devotion, which was reinforced by a hand kiss at every visit. But now he is being used by the opposition to compile all kinds of slander. Everyone has the opportunity to point this out at the right moment. You achieve more by such a characterization than by mentioning names, because then you can point out such people at the appropriate moment.

Jeremias is an old type who has ingratiated himself, who, for example, came to see Frau Doktor in the box at the theater in Leipzig and paid his respects there. The combination of this box visit in those days with what Dr. Rittelmeyer has told us characterizes the man as a creep. One only needs to say: One of the opponents, who was present at one of the defamatory meetings, made himself unpleasantly noticeable not quite a year ago by paying his respects to Dr. Steiner in the Leipzig theater box during a eurythmy performance in the most boorish way. He demanded it. He appeared on stage and wanted to be brought to the box. He pushed his way into the intimacy. Masks like this must be drawn with a strong characteristic.

I did not meet Leisegang personally; only those who can vouch for them personally should characterize them.

I would also like to say the following. If you listen to the discontent today, one basic tone shines through everywhere. It is unpleasant for me to say this, but one tone shines through everywhere. That is that no one has ensured that the anthroposophical is truly represented in society. I ask you to comment on the extent to which this reproach is justified. I am only reporting what is felt from the various sides. It is felt that within the Anthroposophical Society itself, the representation of anthroposophy has been neglected, that other things have taken the place of anthroposophy and that the inner life has been lost as a result. A more 'scientific', external activity has taken its place, and with it a certain externalization. People express this by saying that anthroposophy is becoming more intellectualized. We have to meet the mood of the young, which is moving towards internalization, without lapsing into enthusiasm. This is particularly felt in academic circles. They do not want this food to be served to them, as it has been served to them in the college courses; they want an internalization of the human soul life. It is a debacle that the college courses have been perceived by young people as something that is just a slightly different infusion of what they already had. They were told things that they already had at university.

The call should include the will to really pursue anthroposophy, to pursue anthroposophy from the perspective of knowledge as well as from the perspective of the soul and from the perspective of morality and religion. That should be in the call. Then, in addition to the things that have been listed – we have already discussed this – there should be something in it about the leadership of the Anthroposophical Society. The agitation in certain circles has already reached a pathological state. People give the impression of being in a pathological state of agitation. There should be something in the appeal that people can personally relate to. It should say something about a group of people who have taken the lead. These are the seven or nine people who have provisionally taken charge of the affairs of the Society until the delegates' assembly is convened. It should not be about the “Central Board” – the word itself is a red rag – it should not be about the Central Board, but about the seven or nine who have the appeal on their conscience; they should be presented as the leaders. If you talk about the central board now, it will simply lead to this or that group breaking away, to the society disintegrating as a result, and other groups forming for anthroposophy.

One can only say that people are absolutely fed up with the Stuttgart leadership, but they are of good will. The moment they see people taking something seriously in hand, they are ready to follow. The mood is a psychologically curious and characteristic one. Young people are waiting for something to happen. That is what I have to say about the content of the call.

The passage about the inner work would have to be elaborated. It should come out that there is a will to respond to what is expressed by some more naively and by others more educatedly, namely that people say: We don't learn anything about real anthroposophy; we are presented with all kinds of things that we don't want to hear. That is what is said. Some say it more naively, others more educatedly. But it comes from all circles. It is remarkable: however idealistically one speaks, it is not enough for people. If the idea is to deepen anthroposophy, the soul side must never be neglected. It is always emphasized that there is no heart or soul left in the Anthroposophical Society. That is the delicate point, that people say: You can't get through to the gentlemen in Stuttgart at all; you can't get through to them on a human level, they are too reserved, you can't get close to them. — So this is a delicate point. It belongs in this chapter, where things have to be said as they really are. You have to express how you want to improve something without making a paternoster. A way should be found in the future to ensure that the human relationships between individual anthroposophists are cultivated or at least recognized, regardless of whether they have leading or non-leading positions.

So the goal of the last few days, after going over everything that has gone before, was to finally come up with an appeal that makes sense. But no matter how much sense it makes, if the forces that should be here in this circle are not behind it, it will have no consequences. The further discussion of the appeal should not just lead to negative talk, as has been the case recently, but should have a certain content (substance). One must express what one wants to improve in the near future through the appeal, in order to correct some of the mistakes that have emerged in Stuttgart. We would like to hear something about how the Stuttgart personalities want to support the appeal. Because the fact that you agree with it is only one side of the coin. The other side is that people should not think: Now that the appeal has been printed, we will go back to the Waldorf School, become office managers at Kommender Tag and so on. Something tangible should emerge in this direction, showing that the appeal is being supported. The appeal is only valuable if people support it.

Emil Leinhas: What the appeal says must be worked out in the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: This point would have to be dealt with much more thoroughly and attentively. If this group is to have any significance in the continuation of the matter, then this point would have to be dealt with much more thoroughly. They would have to decide to pay a little more attention to such things. One would really have to pay attention to it.

You see, when you mention the name of Rudolf Meyer in Berlin, for example. This Meyer is a characteristic personality for the reason that he does not represent an aberration in the sense that things come from the head, because he wants to be a personality who wants to present everything from his own experience. What some people in Stuttgart are accused of – predominantly intellectualism – is not so much attributed to Meyer.

You just have to reduce what arises from the circle of members, mostly from a correct feeling but from a false interpretation, and ensure that a correct view of it takes hold. There is too much complacency in Meyer's work. That which comes from a real inwardness is never complacent and does not repel; that which comes from an apparent experience and appears tremendously complacent repels as a result. What people say about it is irrelevant. Reality must be grasped somehow. There must be some place where it is grasped. What is lacking is the kind of immersion in a certain, truly spiritual life that is far removed from all nebulousness. What people always call “dialectical” is just talking about things in such a way that the soul is missing from this talk. And if that does not enter into reality, if acumen, pointedness and such things overwhelm people too much, then they feel repelled.

The Stuttgart gentlemen feel that if someone does get through to one of them, they leave as if they have lost their sense of self; everything is thrown at you so rationally that you lose yourself in the process. — I would be uncomfortable if I were asked to name names. When the gentlemen from Stuttgart talk to them, the people feel as if they have been emptied of their substance and their will. Well, that is not true, it has to do with the fact that a “system” has now really been formed in Stuttgart, namely that the people here live as if in a fortress with high walls and do not know what is going on among the people who belong to the Society. They speak from within the fortress, without concern for what is going on in the Anthroposophical Society; and the people who come here feel that they are not listened to when they come with their experiences; they feel that they are not listened to at all.

Sometimes the feeling that people have has been expressed as follows: In Stuttgart, the human personalities switch off. — I was confronted with the statement that The people of Stuttgart send us gentlemen here who come with their notebooks, ask their questions, write something down, and then these notebooks are put into the archive, because all things end up in the archive; the personality does not come to us, but instead brings a notebook and then takes it to the archive; we would like to have human contact with personalities.

I only relate the things that are said. These things may be terribly distorted when expressed, but there is much more in the distortion that comes from the bad experience. This sentiment perhaps expresses an even stronger truth than is being expressed. Thought must be given to how this can be remedied. Otherwise there is really nothing left to be saved.

If the delegates' conference really does take place and such judgments are formed, then we will not get anywhere either. Likewise, it would be good if the misgivings that go out were also consciously brought up here. Dr. Rittelmeyer said that “powerful slogans” should be issued from here. Such slogans are indeed being issued. Marie Steiner: I would like to say something about this that relates to Munich. I was sorry to hear about the things that are happening around the work of the young priest Klein. Such things as 'idolization' and 'worship' can lead a young man to believe that he can lead old people. I then asked whether these things were true. The answer was the question: Why did they want to destroy the anthroposophical work in Munich? The report culminated in the sentence that only a few months ago this gentleman had received the order from a member who is here: The religious work should be supported and the branch work should be ignored. It was said that this “motto” had been issued by a prominent personality. As a result, things have happened that have led some members to believe this. In Munich there were special conditions, branch difficulties of a special kind, from which such opinions could arise. He, the reporter, stood as one of the

accusers.

Dr. Peipers: When Klein was with me, I had the impression that something could be hoped for from the religious movement in Munich.

Dr. Steiner: You seem to have said that. People have understood that the leadership in Stuttgart wants to put the Munich work to sleep and replace the anthroposophical movement with a religious revival. We will have to reveal the things that come from the “Stuttgart system” as misunderstandings. Such facts are creative! So this is a “slogan” that came from Stuttgart: the Munich branch work should be put to sleep; everyone should concentrate on the work of religious renewal. If this were said by someone who is a leading figure in the religious renewal movement, there would be no objection. But when it is said by leaders of the anthroposophical movement, such a slogan will cause the anthroposophical movement to perish.

Dr. Peipers: I refused to support it.

Marie Steiner: But what has just been said refers to your conversation with Klein. I was told that you wanted to give a large sum of money for the religious renewal, and that you think the anthroposophical work should be put on hold. But these words have had an effect.

Dr. Peipers: What people say is so easily misinterpreted.

Marie Steiner: These slogans fly on like arrows.

Emil Leinhas comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: The person who issued this slogan belongs to the “big heads” in Stuttgart, and for that reason alone this slogan would have been decisive in Munich. So the religious movement is cutting off our water. The Munich people are indignant that the anthroposophical work in Munich is being destroyed by the Stuttgart leadership.

Dr. Peipers: I have been told that the Munich people are no longer doing any work at all.

Dr. Steiner: We will explain everything as a “misunderstanding”. But that does not prevent these things, which were coined as slogans in Stuttgart, from having a destructive effect; that is to say, that the “Stuttgart system” is dissolving anthroposophical work as it reaches the periphery.

The term “bighead” is related to drawings in cartoons. People like that have been depicted in cartoons as having huge heads and small bodies. In Austria they are called “bigheads”. So misunderstandings are creative.

You can't form an opinion about these things if you don't start from the same assumptions as those presented here. Most of what has been done here must be left out; that would have to be negotiated. So far, all that has happened is that people have signed the appeal. The assembly of delegates must take place, and at that the gentlemen must not appear as they did here, sitting around the table and waiting calmly for the others to act. Everyone must express their opinion there, but the next thing—I have to leave very early tomorrow morning—is that here, in a skillful way, the youth movement, for example, must be reassured, because they are waiting for an answer. One must enter into negotiations with them on a broader basis. Today they are waiting for someone to say: something has happened here. Now the ground on which everything has taken place so far will have to expand. We will admit the youth and negotiate with them, and from tomorrow on it must be done without curtains.

Another suggestion has been made regarding negotiations with young people.

Dr. Steiner: It would be better than the leaders of the youth movement attending our meetings here. That would be an achievement. Above all, I would like to point out that within the youth movement, the word seems to have been dropped that the opposition to society should be organized. It would be very good if this organization of the opposition were actually understood. I imagined that, in addition to Dr. Palmer, Mr. von Grone and Mr. [Wolfgang] Wachsmuth could also relate to this dissatisfaction in society. I believe that people in Stuttgart could understand the dissatisfaction. Why should we only meet in phrases of harmony? If you show understanding for what people are dissatisfied with, something will have happened. Not from above, but by showing that you yourself have some of the sting of dissatisfaction, you will achieve something with young people. If the other person feels: This is someone who is content too, then he says to himself: I don't want anything to do with him. Take this as a humorous presentation of something that is meant seriously.

Jürgen von Grone speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: Now this has not been achieved in Stuttgart. Dissatisfaction that arises from the matter is sometimes very fruitful; but if this dissatisfaction is not reckoned with in terms of what people feel, but is passed over, then it has a destructive effect.

Marie Steiner: It refers to what was said in the cycle.

Dr. Steiner: Indeed, one must say that. We have had these two phases of the academic youth movement, which must be characterized as follows: First, the Hochschulbund was founded. The celebrities left the student leaders alone and did not stand behind them. The bond between the student leaders and the Stuttgart celebrities dissolved. Now the student leaders didn't know what to do, and then these kinds of student associations were formed, which Maikowski chose. Now, Maikowski is a person who is extremely easy to convince of something if you only know how to speak his language. Now any connection between this youth movement and the Stuttgart gentlemen was impossible. The young people were no longer open to anything that came from these gentlemen. Illusions arose. It is still the same today as it was when these people organized the “Pedagogical Youth Course” here. I think that the term “organization of the opposition” arose because people feel that they cannot get close to the gentlemen from Stuttgart. The older ones outside all have a very similar feeling.

The essentials should be discussed. I would characterize the situation as follows: there are many questions in Stuttgart to which one avoids giving an answer. This is one of them: if you talk to a lot of people today, they feel the need to talk about how the branch work is organized. The leading personalities, on the other hand, do not feel the need to talk about the organization of the branch work. But this must be done. It must even be included in the call, just as the communication of the anthroposophical spiritual heritage should be done. Now it could also happen that people avoid talking about these questions. The most important questions are kept quiet here at all.

Ernst Uehli: The branch leaders are always asking how the branch work should be organized.

Emil Leinhas speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: The main question is this: How can we get the branch work to be such that it satisfies us? All we hear is: How can we talk to the gentlemen in Stuttgart? How can we approach the gentlemen in Stuttgart so that they hear from us what we would like to have? The point is that there are questions to which an answer is avoided. A positive answer should be given to this. We should talk here about what answer we give to those who say: We are purely lost members, we used to enjoy the cycles; who should we turn to so that someone knows that we are not satisfied now?

Alexander Strakosch speaks appreciatively about the earlier work of Miss Stinde and about individual branches.

Dr. Unger speaks about the difficulties that arise from the new forces. One can only explain the branch work by example; descriptions should be given.

Emil Leinhas: People want to see personalities who themselves have anthroposophy within them.

Marie Steiner: The demand that one encounters is much greater after lectures than after reporting. There is an urgent demand for Dr. Steiner's lectures.

Dr. Unger asks about the way of reading.

Marie Steiner: One must read quite simply and sympathetically, not too quickly. Rhetorical behavior should be eliminated as far as possible and one should be permeable only to the content. It does not do for someone to read the lectures quickly while in the rush of business. One would have to read the matter through four times. You need to have a sense of the punctuation. Furthermore, the content must be able to flow through you. You have to work through the lectures thoroughly and then erase the personal element. You have to be able to live with them for several hours beforehand.

Emil Leinhas talks about the question of reading or lecturing.

Marie Steiner: Above all, a certain attitude of soul must be present. One must avoid the terribly insistent intellectual emphasis, always leaving oneself out and wanting to show oneself off as little as possible.

Dr. Peipers: Both must be done: reading aloud and lecturing.

Dr. Unger: The archives must be converted into reading rooms. It is hardly possible to give a presentation if you were not present at the lecture yourself. Courses should be held at different levels.

Marie Steiner: There is so much material in the cycles that it would take several lifetimes to absorb it all. If someone wants to do special studies, the opportunity for such purposes is also given. So this possibility is also there for particularly serious specialized work. It has been shown that there has been a strong need for this. Much of what has been presented has been said to be something that could be heard elsewhere, and that is not what is needed for a special branch work.

Dr. Steiner: We have digressed from what can be fruitful in the present moment. We have digressed from what could be fruitful for this evening, for standing behind this call. The way it is done in the branches is not what is meant at the present moment. What the members are now expressing as something that leaves them unsatisfied is something quite different. What the members mean is that they have the feeling that they hear too little about anthroposophy. Whether it is read to them or presented in an anthroposophical way is not the subject of today's discussion. The question is: what can be done so that the anthroposophical can be brought before the world, and first before the branches, in the right way?

Surely, to do that, the question would have to be addressed much more thoroughly. For the dissatisfaction that prevails goes back to the history of the last four years. You must not forget what compromises have been made by the speakers who have been wildly let loose out onto the branches and onto the world. What a stir there has been when cabbage has been talked about again and again! Mr. Uehli spoke in the Elberfeld branch. The most important thing is not what he said; the most important thing is that Damnitz was terrified. He is convinced that he can only achieve something personally by reading aloud. But people have come, brought up by the bad education in Stuttgart, people have appeared who have presented their own cabbage. These are the bad habits of Stuttgart that have been introduced into the “Association for Threefolding” through the bad habit of lecturing. What a load of nonsense is presented to the audience! The dissatisfaction goes back to what was done here in Stuttgart. An absolute failure in education has come from Stuttgart. We should meet the dissatisfaction halfway. There was this course of lectures of mine before a horde was unleashed on the German audience. Look at the echo of what has been done by this horde! What has been done out there is sometimes so grotesque that it surpasses everything. Whether it was the duplication of the lectures or the speakers' lack of control over them, there was no spirit in it. There was a hideous bureaucratic operation in it, there was no inwardness in it. Horribly duplicated transcripts were sent to people in a truly bureaucratic manner. This special thing that has been introduced here, this impersonal bureaucracy, the lack of inner attitude, everything that has been introduced as special nonsense from the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Federation for Threefolding), still has an effect, it has not yet been completely eliminated. This comes into everything, connected with the matter. There must be the will to refrain from many things that have been done and to do many things that have been neglected. Someone has to take responsibility for this; then things will improve. Similarly, it happens that, again, people who should be given the things are simply deprived of everything indiscriminately. On the other hand, someone who is merely sensationalistic gets things. A certain care should be taken here. When you hire people, it is also the case that you do not exercise care. You have to exercise care! You must not give the feeling that it is categorized, compartmentalized, but that there is a human impulse behind it. What is the use of saying that human relations must be cultivated if you then proceed in an inhumane way in the way you handle things? When you say something like that, nobody feels affected because you can't see how terrible the system is in the way it is handled. Often those who have practiced the mischief the worst are the ones who now criticize it the worst. As I said, in Elberfeld, gentlemen appeared who had been raised by the mischief that occurred in the threefolding movement. Damnitz would not have objected at all if free good lectures had been given. He himself said what he opposed. There were a few gentlemen at the Stuttgart Congress who felt called upon to give free lectures in Elberfeld-Barmen. I am convinced that they talked pure nonsense and that anthroposophy was discredited as a result. Damnitz himself might have said that he could not do it either. This system, that everyone should talk their own talk — I am not speaking against independence, but against this unwillingness to distinguish between what should be and what should not be —, it is easy to end up in speculative-dialectical discussions.

Of course, poor performance can always be undermined. But there is a great difference between a way of doing things that has emerged in recent years and a way of being human that is behind things. You can tell whether a performance is good or bad on the basis of the individual performances. I have nothing against someone giving their own lecture. On the contrary: as much as possible. I have demanded it myself: giving one's own lectures. Whether someone gives a lecture or their own lecture: within our movement, everything should serve to cultivate our cause, not to discredit it. That is what matters. Things are all relative. I can well imagine that it is handled differently in different branches. In one branch there will be someone who reads aloud; in another there will be someone who speaks on their own initiative.

Sometimes there are also strange conceptions. I know of a branch – and this also applies to the things I have just mentioned, because it leads to an overall judgment – whose leader would never have allowed himself to merely read out lectures, but instead got the material from me on things that I had not even presented myself. The personalities concerned chose the topics themselves. Now it is impossible to decide whether something like this is a lecture in its own right or not. It depends on the personality concerned whether it is more or less free or unfree.

The question of promoting the anthroposophical cause through shared attitudes: yes, this is a matter of principle. We would have to learn to distinguish certain things. Of course, you sometimes come up against things that are difficult to judge. And then, because you come up against such things, the judgment in the widest circle becomes confused. Isn't it true that sometimes it will be dreadful after all.

Enthusiasm must arise! And enthusiasm can only arise when one takes hold of something in the right way, for example, when one brings anthroposophy into the world in the appropriate way. Here one develops enthusiasm for many things that have nothing to do with the anthroposophical cause. On the other hand, it would not easily occur to someone to do the same for the things that grow on our soil, for example, eurythmy. To put eurythmy, with all that it entails, into the whole movement with enthusiasm, that is how one would work for the anthroposophical cause! While it actually detracts a little from our cause when something is arranged like a concert in our rooms next Saturday. That is something that distracts in the most eminent sense; what does it have to do with our cause?

Paul Baumann comments.

Dr. Steiner: This brings us to the point where it is a matter of having an anthroposophical attitude or not. That is why I say: we are touching on the limits here. The Stuttgart center is the starting point, where everything that is anthroposophy is being messed up. If it is at all possible, a singer is brought in to sing on our premises. In this way, we completely lose sight of the essential. Then we deserve to be treated by the world as it is when really perfidious ideas of anthroposophy arise. That is part of what it is about. I am not surprised that the whole Anthroposophical Society is being ruined from Stuttgart, that all feeling for what is actually supposed to be given with Anthroposophy has been lost.

Marie Steiner: The ladies who work here at the Eurythmy School are often asked by members what they actually do here. So, people have no idea that there is a eurythmy school here.

Dr. Steiner: If we stoop to wanting to be a dumping ground for anyone who could be anywhere else, without having anything to do with anthroposophy, then the movement loses its momentum.

Marie Steiner: There are only ladies who have come from out of town to go to the Eurythmy School here. There is not a single person from Stuttgart in this course.

The foundations are discussed.

Dr. Steiner: I would also like to see this transformed into something positive; I would like to see enthusiasm arise for carrying the anthroposophical into the world in the appropriate light. We really have no right to establish things externally and then not use them to cultivate the matter. That is what is so terrible. We have brought about the external possibility of cultivating the anthroposophical by making material sacrifices; we must also make use of this possibility. We have to come to the point where the journal 'Anthroposophie' is something completely different, where it serves the anthroposophical cause, where one does not just have the feeling that every week there is the worry that it will be full. That's part of it when I say you have to stand behind the call.

The call has now been successfully made. What difficulties! The necessary changes can be made easily; but the call has really been made. The discussion about standing behind the call is again such that in the next few weeks things could go back to the way they were before, with more or less reading aloud or speaking oneself. That is not what the people who are dissatisfied today mean. Things are going nowhere because people are not engaging with them.

Dr. Unger and Emil Leinhas speak; others make suggestions.

Dr. Steiner: I fear that if we only have lectures and eurythmy performances in the evenings, I fear that many will shirk the task of addressing the seriousness of the situation on the agenda. The lecturers will not be concerned with discussing the fate of the Anthroposophical Society. I fear that it would be something that could be excellent in itself, but that will not become what we need at the present moment. We have had brilliant such events. We have had the congresses one after the other. We have had them in Vienna, in Stuttgart, in Dornach. Yes, the things were excellent in themselves. But they did more harm than good to the anthroposophical movement because they were never utilized.

Emil Leinhas advises lectures by Dr. Steiner and reports about the institutions.

Dr. Kolisko comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: They also need to be treated. If today's discussion, from the moment we finished discussing the appeal, takes this course, it is a prime example of how this delegates' meeting must not be. It must not be like this! Couldn't the question of why this committee of 30 has become so sterile be discussed a little, when the cleverest people in Central Europe are sitting together? Perhaps it would be useful to ask why this illustrious circle has remained so barren?

Dr. Schwebsch speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: I know that there are personalities sitting here who consider the whole thing unnecessary, that one is dealing with the question of the consolidation of the Anthroposophical Society. If these things had never been dealt with, if no effort had been made to deal with them, then you would not be sitting here today. There would be no funds to support the Waldorf School. You can be sure of that, that it was once different. The Society was founded out of life, and that is what made it possible for you to be sitting here today and to find that all this is unfruitful. If it had always been like that, if, for example, many people like you had been at the starting point of society, then you would not be able to sit there today. You are like the famous person who wants to pull himself up by his own hair. Therefore, you would already be obliged to found the matter more deeply. Why don't you say the important thing yourself, which you lack here and which would raise the matter? Life is not just for our pleasure. If it is only about comfort, then one should not hold thirty-session meetings. Why don't you make it better yourself? One can also sit here and still not be there.

Marie Steiner: One must struggle when it comes to group-spirit insights.

Toni Völker: They have not understood how to take you, Doctor, as an esoteric teacher. They have not understood how to bring the esoteric into practical life. That seems to me to be the problem.

Dr. Steiner: The things that are to be discussed here - and actually discussed in real terms - have become necessary because of what has gradually emerged in society. But what used to be found in society, that a word of mine remained in a narrower circle, that no longer exists today. And so it has become impossible to talk about the necessary things in real terms. Today it is the case that I should not really make the claim to say a word in a narrower circle, because every word is carried out into the world. In the sense of esotericism, of esoteric truths, we can speak more than we used to. Now there is more esoteric content in the public lectures than there used to be in the cycles; but in the past it was still possible, in a sense, to bring something into narrower circles that remained in those narrower circles. But today that is out of the question; today it is absolutely out of the question.

Toni Völker: If you bring the esoteric into life, then the conditions could not arise as they are now. It would depend on doing things instead of talking about them.

Dr. Steiner: The things that one would never have dreamed of, that one would not even have imagined would come out of the circles, appear in the brutal articles in the newspapers; they have been discussed for years, and Father Kully writes about them in the newspapers. There should be an inclination to reflect on why society has become like this. This decline of society is linked to the course of events as it has developed in Stuttgart over the past four years. It has led to the Anthroposophical Society being so terribly run down. Gossip prevails over seriousness. Triviality prevails over what should be in this direction, in the direction of reverence. It would have been good if the time that has now been used for trivialities had been used to address the terrible situation of the Society with a little more clarity. The Anthroposophical Society should become a reality. It has become a shadow, but this shadow is truly a very Ahrimanic product. The Anthroposophical Society is full of Ahrimanic holes.

Ernst Uehli: The Society has sinned through the threefold social order movement. There was this circle of thirty, but no real action was taken. What was discussed was not put into the realm of the will. Dr. Röschl: The specific questions are not being addressed. I always have the thought: What am I supposed to do there?

Dr. Steiner: Things would improve immediately if we did not continue to tempt each other in the moment when we clearly see things. Of course, things also have their justification. On the other hand, the course of the negotiations lies in a certain psychological state of the group. If you have listened to how the discussions have gone, you will have noticed that a large part of the speeches, the requests to speak, for weeks has amounted to someone saying, “I propose that we talk about this or that.” Such a way of proposing has only emerged in this circle. It would not happen anywhere else for someone to speak up and say, I propose that we talk about this and that. — Here in this circle it has happened all the time. Elsewhere, people start talking about what they think about something. I could show how few people have said anything about their topic. A large part of the debate also boils down to someone saying: I fully support this and that. That doesn't change the material substance of the matter. One evening consisted of one person after another saying that they fully supported this or that. Just think, if this psychological moment were considered, how the content of what is said simply proves this: one does not feel oneself as a reality. One does not feel as a reality; one allows oneself to be a mere shadow. Look back and see how often these things have happened! It is easier to ask questions than to give answers. Look at the matter from the psychological side.

I would like to say the following. Things can be discussed in all good will. You are asking for something that you should not ask for. The one who talked about the seminar knows exactly what happened since he spoke to the gentleman in question.¹ If he brings up the matter, it could be that he has been thinking about it since he found out. He could bring the results of experience instead of the results of not thinking.

In general, in the thirties, there is a tendency to demand a lot from others but as little as possible from oneself. This cancels out so much; the calculation cancels itself out. Almost the impossible is demanded of others, and no one expects to demand the same of themselves. There is a lot in that. Therefore, I cannot fully agree when Dr. von Baravalle constantly says, “I have nothing from this circle.” Why does he never ask, “How much does the circle have from me?” This question should be raised by each individual. Because this takes its toll. This is the case here as long as the circle exists. There is so much cursing; everyone knows what damage the Thirty-Party has done; so one would assume that the damage would be stopped. Since everyone knows, everyone could have thought about it today. The cursing and not thinking about it has become such a habit, and people keep falling back into it.

Today the call has come about. It has emerged from the intellect of this illustrious body. Do you think it completely out of the question that this appeal could not have been made even after the third session? The appeal is an emanation of intellect. That it was not already accomplished three weeks ago is a lack of an outpouring of will. You would become terribly clever if we wanted to continue waiting for ten years. I do not think that the drafting of the appeal was helped all that much by yesterday's meeting. It is a matter of will. One must decide on these things. One must want something. Why can't we want something? Why is there only negativity, only rejection of the other? Why can't we commit ourselves to the other? Actually, it takes much more sophistry to recognize the other's faults as precisely as if we all had the intention of seeing the positive in the other as well. If we were to use only a quarter of it for the positive, much would come of it.

We are now clear about the fact that from now until the delegates' meeting, which must take place as soon as possible, this committee of seven will lead here [Dr. Unger, Dr. Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Palmer, Dr. Rittelmeyer, Miss Mücke, Mr. von Grone]. I wanted this committee of seven to do such a good job that the delegates would want it to stay.²

I have to give an answer this evening: when should we hold the delegates' meeting? I think in two weeks. We can plan for three days. It would be good if we could use this room for the daytime meetings and the Sieglehaus hall for the evening lectures.

The members comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: It would be better to send a report on the course of the meetings to the foreigners, because the whole thing should be treated as a closed one. The call, which does not concern foreigners, should not be sent.

Mr. Leinhas: Austria, Holland and Scandinavia have considered themselves to be part of this.

Dr. Steiner: I don't know if, if it is sent to Austria, it should be sent to the leadership in Austria and left to them to distribute it in Austria. It can be sent to the leadership in Vienna, and they should distribute it with their own signature.

Emil Leinhas: The local groups have no central office in Vienna. Dr. Steiner: As far as I'm concerned, it can also be sent.

Emil Leinhas: Mr. Steffen would probably have to be sent the appeal for information.

Dr. Steiner: You can give him the appeal privately. Officially it's none of his business. Mr. Leinbas: February 25, 26, 27 or 24? Eurythmy in the evening and two lectures.

Marie Steiner: I would have to be here for the rehearsals.

Dr. Steiner: I am very concerned that the enthusiasm is waning. I am extremely concerned about it. I will have to decide to come back on Monday. Only the shell of the building is there; the matter of the 'inner life' still needs to be carefully worked out. It must be presented on Monday in a form that can still be completely corrected. It can be printed on Tuesday. The envelopes can already be ready. It can go out on Tuesday.

---