The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 28 April 1923, Prague

Welcome Address for Members in Prague

Such warm words have just been spoken that it must sound rather prosaic when I now say that it gives me great and profound satisfaction to be able to spend time with you again after a few years. You know how closely we have come together here in Prague on anthroposophical ground, and since we know that spiritual work in the context of the world is real work, we can say that we have really worked together spiritually here. The very kind words that have been spoken here also contained a kind of value judgment about my work. Now, my dear friends, you may believe that I am extremely grateful, but that I naturally cannot judge what has been said as a judgment of my work in such a way myself, but that it must lie in the hearts and minds of our dear anthroposophical friends, how this work is judged. But that does not make me any less grateful. I am grateful because everything that has been said was imbued with warm love, and this warm love truly belongs to us. What would we anthroposophists be without this love?

We were also reminded of that painful event on New Year's Eve last year. It is not yet my responsibility to assess this painful event in its entirety. But the opposition that has arisen in the wake of that painful event may be described with the words that Professor Hauffen used here. For our friend, the Swiss poet Albert Steffen, was overcome when he perceived the lowest kind of accusations being thrown at our endeavor to speak a few words, not even too harshly, against the opposition: he was accused of all sorts of things. He recalled that among his literary works there was one that characterized coarseness; what he had presented was not presented against a world view but against coarseness. I do not want to talk to you today about the coarseness that has often increased to the point of becoming grotesque, since we have come together for something better. But I do want to share two things with you. One newspaper, which is particularly scathing about the things that were cultivated in Dornach, wrote: “Well, we know all the things that were done at the ‘Grutluanum’.” — Not even the name was known! Another newspaper wrote: “The absurdity went so far that the anthroposophists prayed in droves during the fire that the fire might stop.”

It is difficult to do anything against opponents who are as well organized as ours. As an example of this, I would like to mention the following incident, which occurred after a lecture I gave in a Swiss town. After the lecture, I spoke with a person who had never before approached us. But two days later, this person received the most defamatory brochures, which probably indicates the thorough organization of the opposition, for whom no means are too base. I will not cite any other examples.

On the other hand, there was a display of cooperation borne of rare devotion, and in this disaster in particular, love and devotion were shown in the most beautiful way – indeed, there was no other way to put it – in the attempt to quell the flames. This could not succeed; the fire was of such a nature that it could not be thought of being suppressed. And what has been built over the course of ten years, really by forces belonging to the most diverse nations, has become a victim of the flames this night. And it is true that the terrible light of the flames that burned there must prevail in all those connected with our cause. And you can believe that since then it has been impossible to talk about anthroposophy without being confronted with this loss.

What is physical can be consumed by flames. But the flames that I like to see in those who are enthusiastic are different flames; they do not destroy, but they blaze on – through them, what we strive for through our work will prove indestructible.