The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 13 February 1923, Stuttgart

Meeting of the Circle of Thirty

The course of the negotiations [of the assembly of delegates] is discussed. Schwebsch's proposal with the six points is mentioned again.

Dr. Unger: The formation of the committee must be described and the replacement of the central committee by this committee.

Dr. Steiner: This point is very important. Actually, everything depends on this point. First of all, Dr. Schwebsch has very well described the tendency of the matter and that the matter is known in Stuttgart. It would just have to be characterized a little more specifically. It would have to be said what is meant by it; furthermore, how to characterize the wrong position of the tax - you can't just always complain - and how to characterize the reversal of the tax. That would have to be presented by the person who is thinking of giving the presentation. A great deal depends on this being presented in the right way.

The matter requires a thorough study.

Theodor Lauer and Jose del Monte ask Dr. Kolisko to give this report.

Dr. Unger: It should be done together with a member of the old Central Executive Board & 5.

Dr. Schwebsch speaks.

Dr. Kolisko: It should be done by Mr. Leinhas.

Dr. Steiner: If it is done by a member of the old Central Committee, it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. It should be done by someone who speaks from the outside, as an observer from the outside, and at most the old Central Committee should comment on it afterwards. He does not have to offer any justification, otherwise it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. How can the old central council give this report impartially? I would like to know that!

Emil Leinhas: It would be more impressive if someone who was in opposition to the leadership did it.

Dr. Steiner: In the last few weeks, everyone has been well aware of the content of such a lecture. It should be possible to prepare a respectable lecture with the appropriate study and organization of thoughts. Many people knew exactly what the sins were.

Emil Leinhas and others suggested Dr. Kolisko for the lecture.

Dr. Kolisko: The failings could be explained as being due to a lack of awareness.

Dr. Steiner: It is a great pity that this first lecture cannot be given by someone who is linked to the life of the Anthroposophical Movement through having founded a branch. For many reasons, the life of the anthroposophical movement has dwindled to the same extent that personalities who were not connected with the founding of branches have entered leading positions. Everywhere the branches will die under the successors, because the successors do not muster the same enthusiasm as the founders. You may judge the quality of having founded a branch or of having established it, but that means something quite different from having entered a position that had already been created. In a sense, it would be true of Werbeck that he could have been well informed about what was lacking in the founding of a branch because there was no central leadership. Someone like that would know, from the former branch leaders.

If you take Mrs. Wolfram or anyone who has set up a branch, you will find that they know how it is to work with a central administration. Certain branch leaders have lacked this. Werbeck will not have any complaints in this regard. Tell him, Mr. Leinhas, to account for all his friendship for you, and then ask him for his opinion. Of course, he will only bring up the negative things; but that is useful if it is presented in such a way that one can see what positive things will come out of it.

Emil Leinhas answers.

Dr. Steiner: It would be necessary to study from this point of view what someone who should lead a branch has missed due to the lack of central leadership.

Dr. Krüger speaks to this. Jose del Monte: Dr. Kolisko should give the report.

Dr. Steiner: It seems to me that the main reason for this is that no one else can be found. This task should not be underestimated. You have to bear in mind that the person who gives this lecture is, in a sense, in the position of someone who has been at the forefront of the opposition so far, and who actually has the sympathy of this opposition. He must be able to inspire people just by the way he presents himself. He must represent the counter-complex of what was, namely, what should become. It is the most difficult task imaginable that anyone could undertake with regard to the Anthroposophical Society.

Emil Leinhas: So we can entrust Dr. Kolisko with this task?

Dr. Steiner: He will have to do it. The difficulty lies only in the fact that as a member of the Anthroposophical Society he is only nine years old, for his membership dates from 1914; so he is a child of the Society. Well, war years count double; Austrian noses are always more amiable than others, even when you throw your head back.¹

Dr. Unger: Whether [he] should reel off the whole opposition?

Dr. Steiner: With sufficient cooperation, it would be possible. Of course, in the bosom of the community that is sitting here, it will be very easy to find everything that needs to be presented.

Emil Leinhas: Surely it will be possible to treat it so that we have to present a joint confession of guilt?

Dr. Steiner: Nevertheless, it doesn't have to be.

Emil Leinhas and several others talk about the inner history of the Society (and the history of its institutions).

Dr. Kolisko: These include: the Religious Renewal Movement, the League for Free Spiritual Life and the Waldorf School.

Dr. Steiner: It is a very difficult story. Care must be taken to ensure that the matter is dealt with objectively, very objectively. Up to now, discussion of this point has been emotionally unobjective. It should be dealt with objectively. The point of “inner history” is in itself suitable for raising the whole thing to a very serious level. It must be shown how individual institutions have arisen from a universal of anthroposophy, and how they therefore also have the inner conditions for flourishing. And then one must show how these institutions can flourish, how, for example, the Waldorf school can attract a Japanese professor to look at it, that the English come and so on. The thing is that from what is healthy in the institutions, and from what is sick, the repercussions on society show up. Care must be taken that such institutions, which are already established in the outer world, do not suffer damage. The Waldorf School and the “Kommenden Tag” must not be harmed, they must be used. One must not blindly rush into it. On the other hand, it must also be emphasized that the other institutions must emulate those that are flourishing.

Dr. Kolisko: The difficult question of religious renewal must also be dealt with.

Dr. Hahn speaks to this question.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps someone could at least hint at how something like religious renewal should be treated; at least the direction of it. Otherwise there is no certainty. There must be an awareness of how to treat something like this, from which points of view. Especially when the living conditions of society come into consideration, one must be clear about the points of view from which religious renewal must be treated.

Emil Leinhas: Surely Dr. Rittelmeyer is not supposed to present the fundamentals?

Dr. Steiner: It will be necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to bring the right point of view to the discussion.

Dr. Unger and Stockmeyer speak to this.

Marie Steiner: If we go back to the starting points and take as our first point the lack of interest in the path of knowledge, and make point 3 into point 1, because that shows the starting point of the religious movement, that would be good. The starting point was that theologians came to Dr. Steiner and said: Religion can no longer give us what we need to satisfy people's spiritual needs. But the fact is that the Anthroposophical Society puts some people off. Could we give them what their souls need in a more religiously attuned form? In any case, the theologians are the ones who asked for it and who knew that all knowledge could be given through anthroposophy and through Dr. Steiner. I had a conversation with Prof. Beckh, who said, “We have made a big mistake. We have done it in such a way that we do not convey the knowledge, the Anthroposophy, to the community, so that we talk about Anthroposophical knowledge among ourselves, but not in the community. — The starting point was that the Anthroposophical Society should not become involved with the religious renewal movement, which does not primarily pass on knowledge but rather provides pastoral care. What has happened is that the content of anthroposophical knowledge has been taken and the material basis of the Anthroposophical Society has been used, and now it is being claimed that all the knowledge comes from theology. But it was not anthroposophy that needed religious renewal, but the others, the theologians.

Dr. Steiner: Why should the main thing not be asserted as such, that with full recognition of the content of the religious movement (note from Dr. Heyer: “Unger obviously knows it too little”), the fact that the anthroposophical movement is the creator of the religious renewal movement is placed in the foreground? Why should this point, which is the main point, not be emphasized? If one describes it conscientiously, it was the case that younger theologians emerged who said: We are at the end, we are finished. No more pastoral care can be gained from theology. Theology has no understanding of true Christianity. Now we need anthroposophy, which gives us that again. — That has happened. A cult has really emerged.

Now, that this is a necessity in the present within civilization, that simply follows from the fact that this longing has already emerged strongly precisely within the Theosophical Society. When Olcott was still president of the Theosophical Society, some people converted to Catholicism. Olcott said: If all Theosophists convert to Catholicism, then we can close the Theosophical Society. This was already an acute problem within the Theosophical Society. Then the whole calamity occurred with the Leadbeater crisis in the Theosophical Society, and all with the most repulsive degenerations. Leadbeater converted to an Old Catholic Church. What was completely missing was the creative element. There was a convulsive return to the old cult. Outwardly, it was connected with the theory, which in the theory of descent went back to the original ape. I don't know if people know the things better?

But here in the Anthroposophical Society, something new has emerged creatively. Of course, every cult will include the old elements; but here the necessary creative element has emerged anew. Why not point out that the Anthroposophical Society has been able to create what the religious movement needs? There is no need to emphasize the petty mutual rancor. The point is to emphasize the fact that the Anthroposophical Society was able to create this religious movement. The point is to regulate the mutual relationship, and to do so in a very clear way. Now the devil's advocate would have to come and say that the Anthroposophical Society has not had the right instinct. That is what should come, that one develops an awareness of everything that is going on in the Anthroposophical Society. But the Anthroposophical Society has slept through all the facts.

There is much talk in the world about the Waldorf school. But the people in the anthroposophical movement had to be made aware of the Waldorf school. Little has come from the Anthroposophical Society that has put the Waldorf school movement in the appropriate anthroposophical light. It is precisely from the anthroposophical side that the moment could be emphasized that it is only the anthroposophical movement that has succeeded in founding a school that is universally human. Anthroposophy sets out not to found an anthroposophical school of thought, but a school for all humanity. The fact that something can be anthroposophical without necessarily being “anthroposophical” is something that must come out on this occasion, with striking examples. There was no article in “Anthroposophie” about the religious movement. I know that the magazine “Anthroposophie” is not very well known in this circle here. The most important event in anthroposophical history is missing from the work of the Anthroposophical Society.² She just trots on. When I come to the Waldorf School, I see the numbers of “Anthroposophie” lying there; they are picked up quite late. But I think what I said belongs to the history of the religious movement. When we return to this starting point, everything will be said.

Emil Leinhas: Within the religious renewal movement, the origin from anthroposophy is not discussed.

Marie Steiner: I could see from what the gentleman said [the name was not recorded] that this point of view is strictly adhered to. I cannot imagine Dr. Rittelmeyer doing such a thing. But what others have done seems more questionable.

Several people talk about keeping quiet about the anthroposophical origin of the religious renewal movement: Dr. Streicher, Dr. Heyer, etc.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to avoid the opponents adding new antagonism to the old antagonism. By pointing the finger of accusation at the fact that things have been given in Dornach and here in Stuttgart, one only makes new enemies. It is not necessary to present this to people on a plate. The point of this discussion is that something like this can be avoided quite well, because that would only be grist to the opponents' mill. You don't have to deny such a fact, but you don't have to present it either.

I didn't say that you should point out how it happened. There is no need to present the outer story. That the religious movement is a child of anthroposophy can be deduced from the nature of things. It is not necessary for anyone to present the outer history now. It is not a matter of pointing the finger at things that will give the opponents ammunition. It was agreed that one should not present the things of the world in an unclear and vague way, but should present the matter clearly from its essence. What I have outlined above can be put forward without anyone from the religious movement being able to object to it. It only leads to quarrels when they are accused of denying their origin. They can say what they themselves believe to be the truth.

Emil Leinhas speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: When it is said that they do not talk about anthroposophy, that is nonsense: they only talk about anthroposophy. What is the significance of approaching these people in such a way? If they introduce other people to spiritual life, what does it matter if they do not immediately label it as nonsense by using the word “anthroposophy”? They have every reason to avoid the word “anthroposophy”.

Marie Steiner: I had the impression that you present it as if all of this could be derived from theology.

Dr. Steiner: This is a dispute about ownership. This is about something other than the dispute over ownership. It is about characterizing the anthroposophical movement itself. Turn the question around: Would there be a religious renewal if there were no anthroposophy? But that already answers the question. One could just as well ask Emil Bock whether his essays represent anthroposophy. It is up to the Anthroposophical Society to take care of the matter of anthroposophy. I do not notice any tactics in this regard among people. The tactic was collecting money.

There are various things to be considered. You have to bear in mind that here in Stuttgart, the task of dealing with such matters is different from that of any other branch. Here, the right balance should have been established.

Imagine any branch that is led by someone very well-behaved. One of the best-behaved branches is in Elberfeld. Let us assume that one of the personalities who is now within the renewal movement also appears in Elberfeld. Now it is natural that these people - even if they are the youngest - have a range of concepts that the others do not even suspect; one is then differently prepared for the spiritual questions.

It is spoken about this.

Dr. Steiner: These are special questions that cannot be treated in this way. Here in Stuttgart, the task would be to gradually develop the right relationship. This would consist of what happens at Landhausstrasse 70 becoming so important for the theologians themselves that they would always appear in person. Then the community members will also be present. The point is that the Anthroposophical Society is not just the mother, but also remains the mother. For this to happen, there must be real life in the Anthroposophical Society. That must be there. Now it is no longer possible for the Anthroposophical Society to simply go on trotting along; it must grow with these things. It is necessary that a center of this growth be formed in Stuttgart.

You can say anything, but you have to say it with the awareness that the tradition of ritual to the religious renewal gave this religious movement the backbone. If you simply have my lecture of December 30, 1922 [in CW 219] interpreted in such a way that you are merely told negatively that anthroposophy does not need a cult, then people lose this backbone. It is never a matter of putting forward the negative assertions alone, but of also putting forward the other thing that I have radically emphasized: For present-day civilization it is necessary that there should be a separate Anthroposophical Society to nourish this other movement. If this is presented in the right way, the Anthroposophical Society can only gain from it, and there is no need to go into the question of ranks. The Anthroposophical Society is independent of the daughter movements, but the daughter movements are not independent of the Anthroposophical Society.

There are a few comments.

Dr. Steiner: Most of the people working outside don't really know very much about the way the financial side of things is handled.³For us, however, it is a matter of showing the fertility of the anthroposophical movement at the delegates' meeting.

Marie Steiner: I have read letters from representatives of religious renewal that did not give this impression of restraint. There is a terribly strong competition that seems authoritative.

It is suggested that a speaker for the question of religious renewal must be found. Dr. Hahn is suggested. Leinhas and Dr. Hahn are discussing this.

Dr. Steiner: We have a textbook example here again. Just think how easy it would be for a representative of the religious renewal movement to speak from his point of view about the matter. But the Anthroposophical Society has neglected to inform itself about the matter. I am convinced that this information will be missing if it is not followed by a thorough study. It must be discussed in a proper and professional manner.

Marie Steiner: They will not report on what happened during the courses.

Dr. Steiner: One should not talk about these things at all in terms of believing that one has to communicate the content of the external story, but rather the essence and significance of the matter for the anthroposophical movement.

Ernst Uehli comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: You don't need to say anything about the religious movement. You can get to know it. So you don't need to characterize it to people. But the anthroposophical point of view, which has not been asserted so far, must be taken into account. This anthroposophical point of view is terribly easy to find if you are only interested in it. Steffen is now publishing my lectures on scholasticism in the “Goetheanum”. In them you have all the points of view you need. Of course you have to familiarize yourself with the material. If you just inform yourself a little, then you have everything you need. Leo XIH revived Thomism for the Catholic Church, but in a dead way. In this dead way, all of Christianity persists. But the religious renewal movement demands a living way. You have everything in this lecture series on scholasticism. The elements have been given everywhere.

There must be a center somewhere that is interested in anthroposophical questions, and that should be Stuttgart. These things should be present! The Goetheanum is also coming to Stuttgart. I see it lying upstairs in the Waldorf School. But in any case, what is in it can be processed. The points of view are everywhere, the points of view are really there.

Dr. Hahn: On this positive basis, I would be happy to give the presentation.

The Waldorf School will be discussed.

Dr. Steiner: That can be done. But I don't see why this should be the main point. The main thing is that there is a Waldorf School. There are enough things about this. The person who wants to give a presentation should comment on this. So Dr. von Heydebrand wants to talk about the Waldorf School. Hopefully she will then stop being a Waldorf teacher and be an anthroposophist.

The Hamburg school is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: From here, no position can be taken on other schools. The financial question will decide the matter by itself. You can't let both schools exist and thereby perish, while you could maintain one. That should be terribly easy to arrange. Werbeck himself and his entire entourage are not in favor of this school being established in Hamburg. The Werbeck branch is very large. It will be very difficult to found a second branch based on Pohlmann's and Kändler's authority.

Blumenthal once said that you can fake everything at the theater: criticism, applause – but you can't fake the box office. The members who are only fictitious will pay nothing for the Goetheanum.

Emil Leinhas: They are not only turning outside. Pohlmann has threatened that he also wants to turn to the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: The letters to me will not prove much. The whole school came about because Pohlmann wanted to pay. I do not yet know about this other intention of his, that he wants to turn to the Society. But that proves nothing at all. It seems that an understanding is not possible. Then it must be left without an understanding. I do not believe that Werbeck wants an understanding. I do not believe that it can lead to anything other than Werbeck speaking out against it. So all our things are private matters. The old question arises as to whether the whole Anthroposophical Society can be used as a school. The only thing we can talk about is whether we should do something to have Kändler there.

Emil Leinhas: Perhaps we can come to an agreement to the effect that there is a division of interest in Hamburg.

Dr. Steiner: Pohlmann is the founder. Kändler fits in quite well with Pohlmann. Why can't we take this point of view: “Mr. Pohlmann, you are the founder of the school; do what you want. We cannot support it because we have no money. We must first let the Waldorf School in Stuttgart exist as a model school.

It does not need to be taken to the point where hostility can arise. It cannot be resolved in any way. People will not have any money for it if Pohlmann does not do it. He has not sent me any minutes. It cannot say anything other than that Pohlmann wanted to found the school and that Kändler is the teacher. I told them: When I come to Hamburg, I will visit the school.

Dr. Heyer will speak at the delegates' meeting about the Hochschulbund and the threefold social order. Dr. Unger will speak on this.

Dr. Steiner: The Hochschulbund should show how not to do it.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko want to take on the question of science and university courses. The question arises about the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life). Ernst Uehli knows nothing about it. Dr. Unger comments on this question.

Dr. Steiner: More than twelve personalities have signed this paper [“Federation for a Free Intellectual Life”]. They were former members of the committee. All those named are prime examples of the curule chairs.

Would it not perhaps be better not to talk about the “Federation for a Free Intellectual Life” since it is not an offshoot of the Anthroposophical Society? It has been buried enough already. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The Bund could still become something today.”) It is strange that no one has thought of reviving the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life).

Dr. Kolisko and Dr. Krüger comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: We recently added up our researchers. Of these eleven researchers, not a single one seems to have been interested in the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life), although it is precisely this free intellectual life that should be the foundation on which these researchers stand.

Dr. Streicher will say something about this.

Dr. Steiner: (Note from Dr. Heyer: The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” was intended to win over people who are only just searching for a standpoint.) There are many people who are searching for a standpoint. If the Anthroposophical Society itself had been founded in the same way as this one, with only 12 signatures on the paper and then nothing more (Dr. Heyer's note: “Kurulische Stühle” [curule chairs]), then the Anthroposophical Society would not exist at all. The “Association for a Free Spiritual Life” could be a good advance troop for the Anthroposophical Society, in that people who do not initially want to become members of the Anthroposophical Society but who want to participate in a real spiritual life that is building itself up independently would join. So far nothing has been done about this, just as our researchers have done nothing at all. It should also be possible for someone to get behind this idea and be a kind of vanguard for the Society. Why should these things not be possible? Why should something like this not be done?

You yourself are a symptom of this whole complex of problems. Your calling was only brought about, only made sense, because the threefolding movement was understood as a “federation for free spiritual life”. Now, from the time you were called until the time you came, they had forgotten what they had called you for.

Dr. Kolisko: Many people would be interested in the scientific work.

Dr. Steiner: Try to get the heavy mass of the Research Institute on its feet so that it will stand behind you as one block at the delegates' meeting.

The question is discussed as to who will take over a presentation about the institutes.

Dr. Steiner: The only question is whether someone who is inside or someone who is outside should speak.

It is decided that Strakosch and Maier will speak about the scientific research institute. Dr. Palmer should speak about the clinical-therapeutic institute, Emil Leinhas should take over the co-presentation.

Dr. Steiner: You were mistaken about the comparison of the horse. It started with the most primitive means. The matter only started to stop when the horse was to be brought to a trot with the right bridle.

Dr. Kolisko and Emil Leinhas discuss the question of propagation.

Dr. Steiner: At the delegates' meeting, some kind of human trust should be inaugurated. At the very least, we should take advantage of the fact that we have a number of representatives of the Society here who are working to spread the means. From the way people speak, it should be clear that the Anthroposophical Society would become a kind of collaborator in spreading the word. On the part of the physicians, someone should appear who explains the full significance of the medical stream, who speaks the preface to the Vademecum. In the medical field it is terribly easy to present a matter that strikes like a bomb. Such things, which must ultimately be decided by the experts, cannot be decided at a meeting of delegates. It would only lead to idle talk. We should approach it in such a way that we use the opportunity to get the Society to work with us on this. We only have to consider how easily people take an interest in two areas: religion and medicine, because people are afraid for their souls after death and for their physical bodies before death. These two areas are the easiest to work with.

Dr. Palmer speaks on this matter.

Dr. Steiner: Regarding specific things, I would think it desirable to point out the centrifuge. It is like when two spouses quarrel. Neither is to blame; the blame lies in the middle.

The branch work is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: At most, the results of the branch work can be discussed. You cannot give directives there. You can only have a discussion about the experiences that have been achieved. But in any case, interference in the freedom of the branches must be avoided.

Jürgen von Grone: I am in favor of not talking about the youth movement.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to find someone who will speak about the youth movement from an anthroposophical point of view. It can only be a question of how far one has to intervene in a supportive way in order to have the next generation among young people. It is a delicate question. The fact that the connection between the generations has been completely broken means that it is easy to make young people obstinate when you approach them in a fatherly, motherly or auntly way. You must not flatter them, be unjust to them or flatter them.

Emil Leinhas talks about it.

Dr. Röschl wants to help Dr. Hahn prepare the presentation on the youth movement. Dr. Wachsmuth speaks about it. The question of opponents is discussed. Dr. Rittelmeyer should speak about it, as he has extensive experience. Dr. Stein comments on it.

Dr. Kolisko: One should characterize the opponents, for example Seiling and Goesch.

Kolisko wants to take on the Seiling case, Dr. Unger the Goesch case.

Marie Steiner: Fräulein von Heydebrand should treat the Schmettau case.

Dr. Steiner: Why should we treat the Schmettau case as such?

The Schmettau case is not a case that comes into consideration.

Marie Steiner: But the opponents use this case - ——

Dr. Steiner: But now it is so that I have only seen her a few times.

The opponents, as for what happened in the case of Schmettau – Fräulein von Schmettau – [here is a larger gap in the notes] – things are simple. There is no need to discuss the psychological case of Ruth von Schmettau. On the other hand, Goesch needs psychiatric treatment because of the many indicatives and conjunctions. It must be shown that some people are ordinary liars. With Goesch, one must not shy away from showing that the whole gang takes a madman seriously. The things must be grasped from the characteristic side. You can't just dish up all the gossip. I don't think it's hard to do.

Dr. Kolisko and others talk about the trust organization and the management of the Society, Leinhas about the publications and the publishing house, the magazines “Dreigliederung” and “Anthroposophie”.

Dr. Steiner: The last issue of “Anthroposophie” was unsatisfactory. There will have to be a change.

Dr. Kolisko: We must take up the fight against the opponents of “Anthroposophy”. Articles about Seiling, Goesch and Leisegang must appear in it. I am thinking of writing an article about Seiling, one of the doctors about Goesch. The number of subscribers is much too small.

Dr. Steiner: “Anthroposophy” must be placed on the cultural basis to which it belongs. “Anthroposophy” must become the expression of the movement.

One should not talk theoretically, one should indicate how things can be carried through the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Heyer speaks to this.

Marie Steiner: There will be another presentation for the students. Call for and invitation to the delegates'

---