The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 10 June 1923, Dornach

Annual General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland

Schreinereisaal in continuation of the meeting of April 22 Minutes by Helene Finckh

Albert Steffen: Dear friends, Today, too, I extend a warm welcome to those present at this continuation of the Annual General Meeting of April 22. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Steiner for his presence and for the fact that he will give a series of lectures every evening this week that is of such great importance for our movement, namely on the history and conditions of the anthroposophical movement in relation to our society.

And I also extend a warm welcome to our members from abroad, who I am delighted to see here. I do not want to give the slightest impression that we Swiss want to discuss everything among ourselves. We Swiss would like to have a firm foundation in our society, but then we would like to look as far as possible. Society encompasses the whole earth. We would actually like to be what our country is already modelling: it has a granite foundation and very high mountains, which we have of course not achieved in any way as yet. Dr. Steiner once described Switzerland itself as something that could become the centre of a spiritual movement. Perhaps I may quote the passage he had me print in the 'Goetheanum' at the time [from the Dornach lecture, 14 October 1921, in CW 339]: '.... A state like Switzerland... is something very special. Firstly, as was already apparent during the war if one only wanted to see it, Switzerland is something of a center of gravity in the world. And it could use its lack of engagement in relation to the various world conditions to develop free judgment and free action in relation to its surroundings. The world is just waiting for the Swiss to realize in their heads what they realize in their pockets. In their pockets they notice that the franc is not really affected by the rise and fall of currencies, by the corruption of currencies. The Swiss do notice that the whole world revolves around the Swiss franc. That this is also the case in spiritual terms is something the Swiss do not notice. But just as they appreciate the immovable franc, which has become the regulator, as it were, of currencies throughout the world, so they should also understand their position, which is truly independent of world events and through which Switzerland could actually be a kind of pivot for world events – the Swiss should understand this...

Dear attendees, what this actually says is that our Swiss anthroposophical movement is not only based on spiritual foundations but also on natural ones, and that if we cannot found this society, we are not only doing something that is unspiritual but also something that is unnatural.

Now Switzerland has been chosen by fate – which is also a fact of nature in this case – to have the Goetheanum here. It is simply necessary, if we really want to fulfill our task, that the Goetheanum be rebuilt here. This fact was also expressed at the last General Assembly, but in a highly chaotic manner and without any real outcome. But in the end, the mood was unanimous: the Goetheanum must stand here again.

You are all aware of what was discussed at this meeting, partly because you were present and partly because the report was sent out all over the world. 1The report can be found on page 557. This report, so kindly and well written by Mr. Heywood-Smith, was sent to America, England, California, Italy, France and so on, and it has met with an extraordinarily enthusiastic response. Enthusiastic letters came from everywhere, and there were also assurances of support for the organization with money. I would like to read some of these letters to you. First, the letter from Mrs. Greene from New York to our friend Mr. Heywood-Smith:

"You were kind enough to send us the reports of the events of the general assembly held in the carpentry workshop. I immediately called an extra meeting and the members of the St. Mark's Group decided to send the following cable to Dr. Steiner: “It is the wish of the members of the St. Mark's Group that the Goetheanum be rebuilt as soon as possible and that we will support the work morally and financially to the best of our ability.”

A similar letter came from Mme. Ferreri in Milan. Unfortunately, she has asked me not to read it in its entirety. I will just say that she has also sent or plans to send large sums of money and that she is strongly supported in this by her group. In general, this letter conveys such a strong sense of community with Dornach and the whole movement.

Then there is a letter from California from Mrs. Love, who gives the same assurance of spiritual and financial support.

And then, especially from England, the report from the General Assembly there. After the English work had been discussed at this General Assembly, and it had been made clear that very good work was being done there, Mr. Wheeler reported that since the fire at the Goetheanum it had been possible to send an average of 100 pounds per month to Dr. Steiner. Mr. Metaxa then says: [was not noted, see page 517]. And then a whole series of members of the local branches speak in this sense. Mr. Kaufmann, for example, also said that the primary concern was to establish the necessary spiritual foundation for the building, and that this must be the goal in a new solidarity and unity that exists in society. Mr. Dunlop then said that this was the right thing to do at the present moment. The Society should come to Dr. Steiner with a definite will and aim and should not leave everything to him; if we face the world squarely and show our will and determination to build, there will be no question of the authorities being able to prevent it, rather they would welcome it if they felt there was a living international movement behind it. Miss Schlesinger and Mr. Kaufmann then proposed that a committee be appointed to immediately take the necessary steps to rebuild the Goetheanum throughout the world through the will and efforts of the Anthroposophical Society. This motion was unanimously adopted.

Now the situation with the authorities is as follows. According to the information we have received from these authorities themselves in response to our enquiries, we will receive the insurance sum and the reconstruction will be allowed. It would take something quite unexpected for this not to be the case, but in our view that will not be the case. So there will be no obstacles from the authorities. The only thing missing to build the structure is the construction fund, the money. Dr. Steiner said that the construction would cost about double the sum insured.

We then immediately began to work on this matter. Dr. Wegman in particular set to work with great energy. She suggested that each member, if they were able, donate a thousand francs, and that would actually make it possible to start building, if it could be carried out. This plan was then immediately tackled, and in three days we raised 35,000 francs here in Dornach.

In St. Gallen, too, Mr. Knopfli immediately set to work and also raised a relatively large sum there. So there is something of an—in a good sense—epidemic of giving money. This is because a truly energetic and kind-hearted person has taken the initiative to do so, and precisely such a person, whose job it is to prevent epidemics in his daily work, has already succeeded in many respects. I do not wish to pre-empt the report of the laboratories here, but I would like to say that a meeting of doctors was recently held in Zurich which recommended the hay fever remedy, and that, as a result, I believe 200 doctors have turned to the laboratories to order this remedy. So you see, here everything comes from a willingness to make sacrifices. We know that Dr. Wegman is truly very willing to make sacrifices. She takes in many sick people to the clinic for free, and that should actually also prompt us to support her in this. I would ask you in general to really look at the inner being.

Nature is making leaps. So it will, because the Goetheanum is also to be built on a natural foundation, so to speak, it will also make leaps in that respect and lead people to us who really give donations. But it only makes leaps, nature - I mean in a spiritual way - when there is a spiritual foundation, that is, when people come together and have a heart, when they really have a willingness to make sacrifices. For nature certainly makes leaps in such a case, namely when one knows: Here spirit is present. Then nature will give. But if there is no spirit, then nature will not cause a person to give anything. For example, a person who is happy to give a thousand francs will perhaps quarrel over ten francs in another case. I would therefore like to ask Swiss society to come to a decision and pass a resolution urgently asking Dr. Steiner to take over the construction of the Goetheanum. This resolution was passed by the delegates yesterday, and I will read it out in general terms, as it has not yet been precisely formulated.

There is another important point, esteemed attendees, on this occasion. We have often experienced that Dr. Steiner's work is discredited by people who do not properly represent anthroposophy. At the very least, Dr. Steiner should be guaranteed complete freedom at the Goetheanum to rebuild it; that is, no one should interfere with him; that he should be able to choose the workers he wants to help rebuild the Goetheanum himself, and not have them imposed on him; that he should be able to carry out everything according to his own plans and so on. This is also expressed in the resolution. There are two versions, so perhaps I will read one first.

“Resolution. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland expresses the wish in today's general assembly that Dr. Steiner may take the reconstruction of the Goetheanum into his own hands. The Society grants Dr. Steiner full authority to carry out this reconstruction in every respect at his own discretion, without interference from the members.”

It is a bit bluntly put; perhaps it could be softened a bit. But I think we all agree with it, and I now ask you to take the floor on this matter. Before we move on to something else, we really want to come to a decision here. I believe that if we do this, we will really have a foundation on which society can grow and flourish again.

Harriet von Vacano: Asks everyone present to accept Mr. Steffen's proposal by acclamation and present the fact as a given. (It happens.)

Albert Steffen: The most pressing matter, of course, is how to get the building fund off the ground. Mr. Metaxa has already tackled this issue in England and will perhaps say a few words about it himself.

George Metaxa: Since Mr. Steffen has already read part of the minutes of the General Assembly that was recently held in London to you, perhaps I may just tell you now that the committee that was formed to discuss the matters of reconstruction was of the opinion that the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international matter in the fullest sense. Members in all countries should really feel that they can participate in this reconstruction even if they are not able to come here themselves. And as you know, only very few are able to do so. Therefore, a proposal was made, approved by Dr. Steiner, and I am authorized to officially announce it to you. It is that we would like to call an international assembly of delegates here at the end of July, at which members from all countries would be represented. Then the matter of raising funds for the reconstruction could truly become an international affair, and all anthroposophical forces could be utilized for it. There could then perhaps also be other matters to discuss, so that the full strength of the anthroposophical movement could really be made available there too. If this proposal for an international assembly of delegates is officially accepted here by the Swiss Society, then the date could be announced. Details could perhaps be discussed with Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: Such a proposal can of course only be most warmly welcomed by our Swiss Society.

Emanuel van Leer: My dear friends, at the last meeting I already had to talk about the financial situation at the Goetheanum. The intention was to start a major campaign immediately to raise the funds, 2 to 3 million francs. In the meantime, I have had the opportunity to get to know the strong initiative in Switzerland that Dr. Wegman had introduced. I have also been to England, and it seems to me that it is not possible to rush into something, but to do something very carefully. I do not want to use the general word “programme”, but I would like to say, as Mr. Metaxa suggested, that an international assembly of delegates should take place at the end of July. We can set it for July 22 or 29. The most important thing today and in the next few days is to communicate exactly what is being done and what is intended here, that certain plans be specified and that the various countries then discuss all the various issues in their own country and that the delegates who are really delegates come together, not that it works like in Stuttgart. You went there and perhaps first had to hear: What do the people in Stuttgart actually want? There was a chaotic mass of ideas and the delegates were often not authorized to say anything binding when it came to something. If we discussed it earlier, this and that could be done, then the delegates went to their countries, but the results were rather weak. We should now try the opposite. We should give people four weeks to think up their ideas, so that the countries come up with their various proposals. It is of course right for Switzerland to ask Dr. Steiner to build up. But as Mr. Metaxa said: It depends on the international. If we get the call from everywhere and the delegates come, we will be seen as one big body. Ideas are as cheap as blackberries. It is important to stick with them. For example, our British friends stand by their ideas. I must say that in some respects the British proposals seem more pleasant and more congenial to me than our Swiss ones, for the reason that up to now all the proposals have always come from Switzerland. In England, the attitude is: we want to do it together, but we also want to have a say in it. — The form in which this is done can still be discussed, but the important thing is to make it international. I am convinced that Mr. Steffen did not mean it to be Swiss. But so far everything has been done from Switzerland. The English believe that if they get behind the cause, it would be good. I would like to suggest that if these proposals seem acceptable, we will send out an appeal or a program or whatever you want to call such a paper in the next few days, stating that we will hold an international assembly and specifying exactly what is wanted here, so that the various groups in the different countries appoint their delegates, who also know what they want. It is not factual to say: those who are currently in Dornach are our delegates. If all countries send their delegates, I believe that only then will the results of today's meeting come out.

Albert Steffen: It is quite natural that the structure is an international affair. I just wanted to express what seems necessary to me in our Swiss Society, and we, the branches of the Swiss Society, the branch leaders have met and they have unanimously agreed to work towards raising a building fund. I think we can never do too much in this regard, if we make an effort, so to speak. This will in no way affect the international aspect, it can only inspire it. I think it should be the case that delegates from the various countries should now come together in the next few days, because they are here after all, and consult with each other, and that we might have the pleasure of having Dr. Steiner with us, who alone can give us the right advice. We don't want to interfere with his work in such matters. So my suggestion would be that we, the various friends from abroad who are here, gather separately – because such things cannot be discussed in sufficient detail in the plenary session – under the chairmanship of Dr. Steiner.

Wilhelm Nedella: Dear friends! I am allowed to say a few words, not only on behalf of those friends from America who cannot be with us today and whose names do not appear among those listed by Mr. Steffen, especially those of the St. Michael Group in Chicago. When the painful news of the destruction of the Goetheanum reached us and we had recovered somewhat from the heavy blow, the unanimous wish was: will we be able to have a Goetheanum again? Impossible without Goetheanum! This wish was intensified by the last general assembly. (A letter from the St. Michael Group to Dr. Steiner is read out.) 1This letter is not available. These words apply from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. There is a definite layer in America that is sincerely seeking a spirituality, that is listening to what is coming from Dornach, and there is not only pain over the loss, but also a strong will to be able to work on the new creation of the Goetheanum, a new creation in a different material. We see the destruction of the Goetheanum as a challenge to our best efforts, a test of how serious our will is and how great our devotion to the work is, and we hope that we will be equal to this test in every respect. What comes from Switzerland is always seen in America as an inspiration, an encouragement. This is on behalf of all absent friends in America who cannot be here today.

Albert Steffen thanks Mr. Nedella for his words.

George Kaufmann: Dear friends! Regarding the matter that has just been discussed by Mr. van Leer and answered by Mr. Steffen, I would like to say from the English side that what we have proposed is not intended to interfere with this Swiss assembly, so to speak, not at the beginning of this assembly, and also not, as was expressed in rather strong terms by Mr. van Leer, that the initiative for the reconstruction of the Goetheanum should be an international one — not that this could be understood in any immodest sense, because according to the external facts we in England have no reason at all to be immodest in this sense, but it is really practical, with a view to the best results for the future. And we are convinced that if the new initiative for the reconstruction comes entirely from the International Anthroposophical Society, also in formal terms, it will have the best results for the financing and for the ongoing support of the building work, which would also be necessary in the years to come. If, for example, it were to happen that now, since, as it happens, these or those representatives, these or those members should I say, are present from different countries, these are consulted for discussions and then let these discussions be the final ones and sent the members back to their countries, who then report what has been decided, that is not quite the same as when the members come as authorized delegates from their countries. They might not receive an explicit answer, but an implicit one: But who authorized you to decide something like that? — And so we think that a delegate assembly, a real delegate assembly, would be a good thing. But it can only be determined from this discussion whether or not this is a practical proposal. Perhaps, among the international members here, the right agenda for the delegates' meeting and a practical call from Switzerland to the various countries could be sent out, based on the discussions that Mr. Steffen proposed. This will only make practical sense if this meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland now discusses further what Mr. Steffen has suggested. When the General Assembly was in England two weeks ago, the report from the last General Assembly was presented here, but not yet the knowledge of the very gratifying action initiated by Dr. Wegman. It would be very nice if the decision and the taking up of the work and also the bearing of responsibility on the part of the friends in the various countries really emerged and the societies in the various countries know that they have taken it upon themselves, that they then bear the responsibility through their own will. Letters should be sent to all branches; the feeling is that contact should be established in a modest but friendly way between anthroposophists in all countries, as it could perhaps come about in a practical way on this occasion of the reconstruction of the Goetheanum.

Albert Steffen replied to George Kaufmann's words that we are indeed dependent on the help of the foreign branches and societies and that such a meeting of delegates is therefore really the most necessary thing. As proposed by Kaufmann and van Leer, this meeting could take place on July 22.

There are other matters that need to be discussed, but I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to say a few words about the structure of the Goetheanum.

Dr. Steiner: I myself have nothing to add to what you have said. I would just like to say this: if this meeting of delegates from different countries comes about, I do not want to chair it, I just want to be there, but I want the chair to be taken by someone else.

Albert Steffen: I would like to suggest that the chair should be taken by Mr. van Leer or Mr. Metaxa or Mr. Kaufmann or whoever you decide on at the time. Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?

Willy Storrer: Mr. Kaufmann said very nicely that the proposals of our foreign friends cannot prevent us from expressing our will and taking a stand on the reconstruction. In other countries, practical discussions have also taken place about the fact that there is no longer a Goetheanum and that a Goetheanum must be rebuilt. Anthroposophy contains world forces and not philistine forces. I think we can express our will today in general and in specific details. This has already been done to some extent by the resolution that Mr. Steffen read out, and then by the initiative of Dr. Wegman and various others, for example Dr. Wachsmuth and Mr. Pfeiffer in Dornach and Mr. Knopfli in St. Gallen, who are working in this field. I would like to make a motion that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society as a whole should try to pay a contribution of one thousand francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for each of its registered members within a year. This would make a contribution of 700,000 francs towards the reconstruction of the Goetheanum for the Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Mr. Koller: What I wanted to say has now been partly said by Mr. Storrer. My suggestion would be that despite all that has been said, we can still declare our agreement, which is expressed in the resolution. Since we are all present, whether it is internal now or serves as a basis for inviting international delegates, we can now confirm by show of hands that we agree with what has been written in the resolution.

Mr. Steffen: Yes, is anyone not in agreement? Let them raise their hand. I believe we can consider this point settled for the time being. I would now like to give Dr. Blümel the floor to report on what we discussed yesterday at the delegates' meeting.

Dr. Ernst Blümel: He reported on the meeting that took place yesterday afternoon at 3:00 p.m., in which the question of rebuilding the Goetheanum was the first item on the agenda, and in which the resolution that was read was essentially formulated. Then the actual internal affairs of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society were discussed. Various voices were raised that the way the internal administration of the Society is organized, and indeed the whole internal structure of the Society, as it exists here at the moment, is not up to the demands that will increasingly arise. In particular, certain possibilities for reorganizing the office at the Goetheanum were considered, so that a clearer relationship with the branches and the council, which represents the Anthroposophical Society, must be tackled. Mr. Storrer then resigned as managing director at the Goetheanum. A provisional decision was taken to the effect that until this question of the office is definitively settled, the current officeholder will continue to be commissioned until this matter is resolved at the next conference of delegates. In connection with these questions, it was then natural that the financial side of anthroposophical affairs should also be addressed, since what is currently going on in this direction is quite unable to meet the demands. A proposal was then made as to how certain tasks could be set for the Society and how much the Society would need in order to fulfill those tasks, which are initially of a purely social nature. It turned out – and these proposals were then adopted in plenary – that it would be necessary to finance the purely administrative side in such a way that it could really count on a fixed subsidy in the appropriate manner, so that these difficulties would not arise again and again, and that something like a sum of 6,000 francs a year would be needed, partly for administrative purposes and partly for a certain contact between the office and the various branches. For library support, 2,000 francs; for the creation of something similar to a reserve fund for sick and disabled care – something similar would also be tackled – about 2,000 francs. And then perhaps, which could be one of the most pressing tasks, to actively promote the payment of contributions in Switzerland. Now it is 12,000 to 13,000 francs a year. On the other hand, the current membership fee that is paid in is actually only so much on average, so it is only 7,000 to 8,000 francs a year. The necessity for an increase in membership fees arises from this. It has become apparent that it was not possible to raise the actually necessary membership fee of CHF 20 per member, which is to be paid to the headquarters. One can only demand CHF 10 from the members. It would be good to also get the opinion of those gathered here. It has been suggested that a consortium or committee appointed by the association should maintain close contact with the headquarters here, which would manage this committee, so that it would take responsibility for the finances. So that what may be a small seed here will have the opportunity to become a strong plant. And if our society were to set a good example, perhaps the other societies would also make a certain contribution. Funds are needed for the reorganization as a foundation, but the most necessary funds are not available for this.

Edgar Dürler: Mr. Steffen has given me a suggestion, namely to report on my impressions as a Swiss in New Zealand. It is very remote from Europe, but there are good seeds for anthroposophy there. An anthroposophical group or section has been formed there that wants to join the general anthroposophical society. Mr. Crompton-Smith has led the work there, along with a few others. He has been in New Zealand for two years and in Paris for a year. He very much regrets not having known, for example, that Mr. Collison had traveled to New Zealand and given lectures there to a small group. They had had no support so far at the Swiss headquarters, which is why he had to miss the opportunity to hear Mr. Collison there. Mr. Dürler emphasizes the necessity of an international society, which is absolutely necessary, and says that it can only be welcomed when an international center of the Anthroposophical Society is created.

Albert Steffen: This is, of course, a point that must also be discussed, which has become urgently necessary in recent times; but now we must remain on the point at which we are, with the things that Dr. Blümel has suggested.

Willi Aeppli: Hopes that this financial matter will be settled very quickly: the contribution must be increased; it is impossible to finance anything with Fr. 3.50; it is easier to do something with Fr. 7. And if we have further plans, such as a library and financing of the school system, the contribution will later have to be 10 francs and possibly increased again. Perhaps some of you would like to comment on this?

Albert Steffen: I have just been asked to say that in this case a consortium would be formed, on the one hand, from the working committee at the Goetheanum and, on the other hand, from representatives of the branches in Bern, Basel, Zurich, St. Gallen and Olten. They would each have a representative in this consortium, so that the Society would really be represented peripherally and would take on a certain responsibility in the regulation of financial matters.

Willy Storrer: I would like the individual members to pay 20 francs instead of 15 francs a year, or to give 20-30 francs of it now and have the individual members pay 20 francs, so that the groups do not miss out.

A gentleman, not recorded by name, proposes that the groups should charge 25 francs.

Both proposals are accepted, both that for the branch members an increase of Fr. 5 to Fr. 10 occurs, and the second that for the individual members who are not connected to branches, a total of Fr. 25 is to be paid to the central location.

Albert Steffen: There is still a question to be answered as to how it should be in 1923, because neither the individual members nor the branches paid an amount.

Karl Keller: It is not possible to do it retroactively; it has to be determined from July 1.

Willy Storrer: With regard to the Basel branch, he proposes: retroactively to January 1.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Supports the Keller proposal.

Albert Steffen: Is actually also in favor of the Storrer proposal... It seems to me that Mr. Storrer has won.

Dr. Blümel: If the branches do not receive this money from their members, then perhaps they could be introduced to receive the full amount. They simply received what was paid in, not what the members should contribute.

Willy Storrer: Is of the opinion that the representatives cannot decide practically on their own; they have to go back to their members and ask what can be guaranteed; whether they can pay for the contribution of all members. There is actually only one large branch in Switzerland: 650 branch and 50 individual members. He believes that if individual personalities are available to do so, they can make up the difference for the members who cannot pay [so this would be the best].

The assembly agrees with this proposal.

We are here as the General Assembly and have a quorum. We have voted on this and it has been adopted. It is simply a matter of courtesy that the money be received. How we deal with members who are unable to pay is our business, not that of the General Assembly.

Dr. Blümel: There must be contact with the head office. Perhaps voluntary donations and so on should also be obtained for the society. One can also look in other directions.

Dr. Steiner: I really do not have a say in these matters, but I would like to add a small comment. As I already had the opportunity to mention at the last general assembly here in April, the establishment of the individual national societies is currently underway. I said that this must be the goal. Isn't it true that the German Anthroposophical Society was established by carving itself out of the general world society? The Norwegian Anthroposophical Society was established during my last visit to Norway. The Swedish Anthroposophical Society has existed for as long as the Anthroposophical Society has existed. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists here. And so, with due regard to the fact that proper administration can be established in small areas, these national societies will form. But it will be a matter of course that once a sufficient number of these national societies have been formed, they will have to join together to form the unified, international society, with its center in Dornach. This has not yet happened, but it must grow, so to speak, with the idea of rebuilding the Goetheanum and the like.

So, we have to think today about the fact that in a relatively short time, the individual national societies will again merge into an international society based in Dornach, and that the international center in Dornach will also have very important work to do, namely, precisely such work that, for example, if someone is in New Zealand and wants to know whether someone can be met there and the like... [gap in the protocol].

And even if not in a detailed way, it will still be necessary for the individual national societies to make contributions – however modest – to the international center, so that it can function once it is in place. This is something that has to be deferred, but it has to be thought of, as do the other things. For it is connected with the living conditions that such an international Anthroposophical Society be created here in Dornach as soon as the individual national societies have been established in an appropriate way.

Albert Steffen: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner for these remarks. They actually form the framework for our work so that we can really take up Dr. Steiner's work properly. Our idea — I think it is the idea of all of us who understand the work here correctly — is that we have to make something out of Dornach like a new Weimar. And we want the Anthroposophical Society to have the same kind of relationship with Dornach that Grand Duke Karl August had with Goethe. In other words, the Anthroposophical Society should enable Dr. Steiner to spread his impulses throughout the world. I would say that the Society is the only organization that has a real chance of lasting today. We see how today's communities are collapsing one after the other. We see it in socialism, in Bolshevism, how it really leads to murderous catastrophes. But on the other hand, we also see how religious communities take away people's freedom. Here in anthroposophy, there really is the possibility for everyone to be a person who can have an interest in society out of freedom. And if we really bring about such an organization, then we have actually achieved the ideal.

But now, I believe, there are still matters to be dealt with that concern us in Switzerland.

I would like to ask: Who would like to take the floor regarding what Dr. Blümel said? — namely, regarding the matters we discussed at the delegates' meeting yesterday and which Dr. Blümel read out in the summary?

If that is not the case, then we will have to postpone these matters for about four weeks, where they will be discussed again at a meeting of delegates. I believe that this is the will of the assembly.

Dr. Blümel asks whether this assembly is actually supposed to be the last one in these days.

Albert Steffen: If those gathered have something to report, then of course it is not the last. I hope it is the first of many. There are so many matters in the Society that really need to be discussed. I would like to say, for example, the matter of the enemies -- I have to run the “Goetheanum”, the magazine; but I stand there all alone. I really need to be supported by our friends so that I can write certain things; they should report to me about it. So far, this has been the case to a very small extent. The only ones who have kept me up to date have been Dr. Stein in Stuttgart and Dr. Hugentobler here in Switzerland. Through him, for example, I know exactly the hostile mood that prevails in certain editorial offices in Zurich. And through others, for example from Bern, I am also quite well informed about what is going on in the circles of pastors. For example, reports from pastors' meetings are brought to me, which I may not be able to use directly, but I still get an impression of what is going on in Switzerland. But this should be done from all sides. When meetings take place in Zurich, Bern or Geneva, some of our members should really go and write down what is going on there so that I can act on it. For example, there was a recent lecture in Zurich at a linguistic society about Professor Beckh's small brochure on speech sounds and so on. One of our members should have been there. It was a very important discussion among the linguists. Professor Beckh was presented as an important phenomenon, but he was also rejected. It would have been good to have a presentation here that had not been passed through the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” and that would have been more objective. But that is how many things are. I don't think any of you are really familiar with the excellent organization of the enemies. A year ago in Berlin, a conference of “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy” was held, based on the work of our former member, if one can call it that, Dr. Goesch, and on the lectures of private lecturer Dr. Leisegang [see $. 795]. I cannot read this to you in full. But I would like to read to you what these people decided at the end about how to fight anthroposophy. ... [The protocol is very sketchy here, as a lot is quoted, not only about this Berlin conference, but also in relation to other cases.]

Dr. Steiner: Even at the risk of repeating myself, I would still like to say a few words. And I will now really have to touch on some things that I already said at the general assembly in April.

I would like to take up what our dear Mr. Steffen said about the association - because that is what it must be called - of non-anthroposophical connoisseurs of anthroposophy. What is behind it and how things are run was probably clear to you from Mr. Steffen's words. But I would like to tie in with the fact that these people are indeed able to work and organize themselves so well. And so the organization emerged from this society for lecturers, who are now sent around and who, at the individual locations that are considered appropriate, put forward the things with which they are appropriately equipped. A directory has been produced by this organization listing everything that the people concerned have to say in the individual places. And now, on a large scale, I might say, in all the areas to which these people have access, the program developed by this center is being put forward. I ask you to accept this as a fact for the time being and again as proof of how extraordinarily well our opponents understand organization.

Now, I have often emphasized this, especially at the last delegates' meeting on April 22nd.

I said that one should not believe that so-called refutations, anthroposophical refutations, achieve very much through what is presented by this or that person. Certainly, I do not want to blunt in any way the zeal with which our dear friends advocate what they know to say about anthroposophy; and the more that happens, the better, of course. It is quite natural that each of us, speaking from our own experience, reporting and so on, represents what we have to say from, about and in connection with anthroposophy. I would like to say: that is one side of the matter. And it must be noted again and again that one also expects an extraordinary amount with regard to the question of opponents if one, so to speak, stands on the ground of anthroposophy and tries to refute from anthroposophy what the opponents put forward from their point of view. It is a great merit of Mr. Steffen's essay on Ragaz that he did not do this, but went straight to the task of demonstrating the inner contradictions, absurdities, follies and falsehoods in a case such as the one he recently discussed. Because with back and forth from this point of view to that and vice versa, nothing is achieved with regard to the question of opponents – I explicitly note this. All the counter-booklets and the like that are written achieve nothing if they get involved in these things, because the opponents do not want to be convinced and simply do not understand the issues either.

Therefore, a clear distinction should be made – this is what I said at the last delegates' meeting – between the content of the opponents' objections, so to speak, and the content of our reply. In this respect, anthroposophy will go its way. This should be clearly distinguished from something else. You see, if opponents had emerged over the last two decades and only raised factual objections to anthroposophy, these opponents would have achieved nothing. They would have achieved nothing at all if they had only raised factual objections. But they know that and that is why they make factual objections, well, one or the other – depending on the case – more or less dishonestly. But that is not the point in the question of opponents; they invent untruths, they lie; and we must make a sharp distinction between what they object to, so to speak, factually, and what is simply a lie. We have often had occasion to become acquainted with the capital lies invented by our opponents. How often has the Frohnmeyersche lie not appeared, about Christ having ideal features above and animal features below, and the like. So these lies as big as your fist, they have to be faced, because it is through them that the opponents achieve something, and that is because people believe the matter. And as long as we do not have the courage to really face the mendacity of a very, very large and ever-increasing opposition, to face the mendacity, we will achieve nothing. And I would say that in many cases the courage to do so is lacking. People shrink from saying to this or that person who is in a certain position and is not really allowed to lie, but who does lie, “You lied, it is not true; you are just lying, you are not telling the truth.” As long as we do not face this, nothing will be achieved in the whole question of opponents. We must have the courage to face up to the eminently immoral behavior that has allowed the opponents to achieve their great successes.

But you see, I would also like to cite evidence for what I have just said. Summarizing what I have said, I would like to say: Anthroposophy has within itself the potential to spread and penetrate human hearts. What harms it are the lies of its opponents, not the refutations. And I would like to prove this to you, again with reference to that association of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy. You see, they now have their speakers. One of them – I believe his name is Schweitzer – gave a lecture in Hamburg to a large audience, in which he listed all the untruths. Now, when you are listening to such a lecture, you have to distinguish between the two things I emphasized: the inner power of anthroposophy and the power that the opponents have because they lie.

Now, the proof of the inner strength of anthroposophy was the next consequence of the fact that this emissary of the non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy gave a lecture in Hamburg – the opponents did not come, because, as you know, they are not interested in talking back and forth, but in slandering; so the opponents did not come, of course — and it turned out that the lecture was a real success — not Mr. Werbeck's lecture, which was only a defensive lecture and was very good, and must be greeted with extraordinary gratitude, but Mr. Schweitzer's lecture, and that was insofar as 200 people have registered who now want to hear something directly about anthroposophy, because they want to hear the other side of something that is being attacked in such a cynical and frivolous way. And these 200 people who have come forward are serious people who will probably take it very seriously. So there you have the inner strength of anthroposophy. Schweitzer's lecture in Hamburg has made 200 people aware that it is actually time to hear something about anthroposophy. So we don't need to be concerned about the clout of anthroposophy, my dear friends. But we have to get beyond the fact that our water is being cut off every day by dishonesty, untruthfulness and slander. And this requires more courage than to present oneself and refute the opponents of anthroposophy, to say something of what one knows but which the other does not know because he does not understand it after all. But to prove to people that they are telling untruths is something that must first be learned in the Anthroposophical Society, because people shy away from it. They think: You can't! He is a pastor or a professor, after all; you can't tell such a person that he has lied, that's not done!

You see, we have to face this squarely and find ways of dealing with it. It is really the case that the empty principle of internationality must take hold there as well. You see, in Switzerland it is already possible, if you have the courage, to tell someone in a very tangible way that they have lied. But in England, for example, you could not say it in the same way, because there it is much more frowned upon to tell someone whom science believes cannot do it to say that he has told an untruth. We must learn to handle such matters everywhere. But it is absolutely necessary to draw attention to this again and again, otherwise you will experience that Anthroposophy will spread... [gap].

At the same meeting [of non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy in Berlin], Dr. Jeremias, who lectures at the university as a private lecturer, even made the comment: What we like about anthroposophy, what we find in it, what we can use, we want to take. But we want to wipe out Steiner and the Anthroposophical Society. That is more or less how it is stated in the report. This Dr. Jeremias is a special character, isn't he? He threw himself at the Anthroposophical Society and at me in a grotesque way, in a manner that one here in Central Europe calls “throwing oneself at someone”. He once got permission to attend a more intimate lecture. And when there was a eurythmy performance in Berlin, he came to me on stage, asked to be introduced to Dr. Steiner in the box as well, and so on. In short, he attached himself in an outrageous way in order to make the impression: You can have some of this. But afterwards he will spread it in a [different] institution. You see, there are people who would prefer me to be dead and the Anthroposophical Society to have scattered to the four winds long ago, so that they could take what they want from our books and put it into theirs. Because they are not interested in refuting the subject at all, only in what I have characterized for you.

If you, my dear friends, do not take this into account, if you continue to believe that opponents can be refuted anthroposophically, that mere anthroposophical refutations will suffice, then you are undermining the possibility of pursuing anthroposophy in a progressive way — so that not only the books are exploited —. Of course, you are also destroying the Anthroposophical Society.

You see, it is true: anthroposophy is very useful for opponents. When Mr. Werbeck, who is indeed writing a very witty book about the opponents, looked through the opponents' literature, he came across some strange things. Among all the rather stupid things that are said, he also found some very good counter-remarks, some very good objections to anthroposophy. But the style of these was somewhat different from those of those who always say that I have a bad style because they naturally want the good one. So they had a different style. He looked into the matter and now found that these objections had been copied from my own books. As you know, for years I have followed the practice of stating the possible objections myself at the relevant points. So it is easy for opponents to copy my own counter-remarks and counter-objections from my books if they want. Consider the logical implications of this: if they want to quote something they believe they can ridicule, then they quote “Occult Science”, page so-and-so-many, cycle so-and-so - because the cycles have long since been published by the opponents. But when they raise the objections that I put forward as an example, they do not quote me; they present them as their own views. Yes, that has become a method in a number of opponents' writings. What inner hypocrisy lies in the opponents' entire fight against anthroposophy! For us, it is important to be aware of this and to know how to behave in this world, to have the courage to act accordingly. I have to keep emphasizing this.

Please forgive me, I am terrible at this, always having to repeat myself. But I really want to emphasize this to you, because you always hear from some people, very good-naturedly, that they say: Yes, everyone can have their own opinion. Of course, but one's own opinion must not go so far as to lie, because that happens in a way that is very familiar to opponents.

So that is what confronts one, I would say, with primeval significance, that it is said in a good-natured way: Yes, the anthroposophists do not need to complain that other people have different opinions. Of course we must not give the impression that other people should not have different opinions; but we must insist with all our might that lies must not be told about us and that we wish to defend ourselves against them. That is what I would like to say again today, even though I have already said it many times.

Willi Aeppli: We are extremely grateful to Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen for enlightening us about this question of opponents. Because, to be honest, we are extremely harmless and naive! I believe that we have been convinced that we must be more attentive and work harder on this point, and above all, that we must actually support Mr. Steffen in this exhausting struggle. Mr. Steffen has already revealed the possibilities for us to inform him about the opponents' methods and, secondly, to work as hard as we can to familiarize ourselves with them. It seems to me that the opponents' method of fighting has changed somewhat. For example, Dr. Stein mentioned the Frohnmeyer pamphlet. This pamphlet was written with a sinfulness and carelessness, with a falsehood that, coming from a man who comes from the circles we know, is truly astonishing. But he has also made a fool of himself with this writing. His intellectual heirs are well aware of this. One might think that this would be the end of his pamphlet. One might think that one lesson could be learned from it and that one should hold back. But that is not the case. Frohnmeyer's pamphlet will be published again in the next few days: revised, expanded, supplemented. Prof. Heinzelmann in Basel, who was asked if he would do the reworking, declined after a moment's reflection; I don't think it was because he was put off by the untruthfulness, but because as an academic, as a university professor, he was afraid. So an Indian missionary, a pastor in Zurich [Alfred Blum-Ernst], took on the task. I must now note: Frohnmeyer has not read the writings of Dr. Steiner at all; the editor, he has read them, and indeed both the public ones: “Philosophy of Freedom”, “Riddle of Philosophy”, “Theosophy” as well as the cycles. This cycle question is a difficult question! He has read 32 cycles – not just 31, but 32 – and from these he has gained his knowledge of anthroposophy. From these public writings and these cycles, he has now formed a tool with which to give anthroposophy another push. The purpose of this book is to bring the circles of the Basel Mission, etc. to a final judgment of anthroposophy, to impose a judgment on it. So the fact is that a writing that has been presented as untrue by the anthroposophical side, that it has been reworked and is appearing a second time, and that the untruthfulness, the mendacity, is continuing. This is an example of the psychology of the opposition.

Miss Simons, Mulhouse in Alsace: In Berlin we were previously affiliated to an organization. Since the peace agreement, the matter has been left hanging in the air. I would now like to ask whether we should join together with France or whether we Alsatians – I can only speak for Mulhouse, not for all Alsatians – can join here in Dornach? It would be easier for us to hear Dr. Steiner here in Dornach than to have to wait a long time for Dr. Steiner to come to Paris. The beautiful work in Alsace is lying fallow. We can only harm the cause if we join in Paris; besides, nothing has happened in Paris yet. I would be very grateful if these matters could be discussed, since Miss Sauerwein is here.

Emanuel van Leer: Perhaps it would be possible to talk about the task that Miss Sauerwein has taken on, whether she feels supported by Kolmar, Strasbourg, Mulhouse? If you say: You want to hear Dr. Steiner here – so what? You can go to Dornach every week! – The things are in preparation. Dr. Steiner will be in England in August and was in Scandinavia last month. It will be carried out in such a way that there will be a French Society. So just support Miss Sauerwein in her efforts.

Miss Sauerwein wants to meet with the friends concerned to discuss the matter.

Albert Steffen: The question now is whether the meeting should continue this afternoon, because I fear that many people will no longer be here tomorrow. If there really are people here who want to continue talking, which I very much hope, then they should speak up. Or is there no one left who has anything to say? — As for myself, I would like to continue the meeting.

George Kaufmann: I am not quite sure whether this assembly of delegates, which we have requested, is accepted from here! The invitation would have to come from here and so on, all that would have to be determined. If it is the will of this assembly that this be done, for example, through the working committee here, before -

Interjection: It will happen!

Albert Steffen: In my opinion that has already been settled. I believe we have decided that after all? My view was that we might talk about it afterwards, but in principle the matter is self-evident.

The meeting is adjourned. It will be continued this afternoon at 2:30.

Afternoon, 2:30, continuation

Albert Steffen: Dear attendees, we don't have much longer to continue the discussion, because at 4 o'clock the hall has to be cleared for the eurythmy performance; so let's jump right into the matter at hand. Dr. Blümel would like to talk about school matters.

Dr. Blümel: Please report on the plans that are in place to ensure that the school movement in Switzerland can grow in size and understanding.

Albert Steffen: Dr. Schmiedel will perhaps say something about the clinic?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I am not very good at talking about the clinic; maybe someone else wants to do it?

Albert Steffen: Miss Vreede has now come forward for the library report.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: Dear friends, I can only say a few words. The library came into being at the time when our old Goetheanum was being built, and was originally intended to bring together some reading material for the carpenters and workers on the building site. It was created from donations and was later systematically expanded, as far as limited funds allowed, by Miss Hanna Günther, who is unfortunately very ill. It contains works from the time of the idealists, especially Goetheanists, that she collected, and the very writings that Dr. Steiner referred to as significant in his lectures.

As for the library's external situation, once it had reached a certain size – it did not arise from external initiatives but from a private initiative – it was, in a sense, transferred to the Goetheanum Association by mutual agreement, with the branch at the Goetheanum being responsible for it. Since this situation has existed, since last October or November, the branch at the Goetheanum has contributed 50 francs a month to this library, which is a tiny sum for new acquisitions, because the other work has been done voluntarily. Hopefully, an opportunity will arise to develop this library on a larger scale. If the whole Anthroposophical Society were to take an interest in this library, it would be very good. But it could also be used in a much larger circle. And perhaps there will be an opportunity to take a look at it during the week. It would, of course, be very gratifying if the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland were to help here. The branch at the Goetheanum has just taken on the obligation, but is happy to share it with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Ita Wegman is asked if she would speak about the clinic. She says that she is not a speaker, but rather a woman of action.

Albert Steffen: An argument that cannot really be refuted. Will Dr. Schmiedel perhaps say something about it after all?

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: I do not think I need say very much about the clinic, because everyone is aware of what Dr. Wegman did there. Many of you are already very grateful to her for your healing. I would like to give more information about the work in the laboratories. In general, not very much seems to be known about the laboratories. I do believe that it is very important for society to take more interest in these laboratories and the efforts associated with them. One of the laboratories' most important and central tasks is to make the impulses given by Dr. Steiner in the medical and therapeutic fields fruitful for a larger number of people, to make them more and more useful to the general public. If a pharmaceutical industry, laboratories, is to be brought into the world, one has to struggle with great obstacles in the external field. The pharmaceutical market is overcrowded. For us, the difficulty is even greater. Not only do we have to deal with this overabundance, but we also want to take a completely different path than conventional pharmaceutical science, namely to initiate a new therapy. On the other hand, there is the difficulty that all these endeavors are met with a certain animosity. So we are in a much more difficult position in the world than everyone else. It's all happening gradually.

But we can now look to the future with increasing hope and confidence if a number of doctors decide to use our preparations, which in and of themselves already do the advertising and speak for themselves. Recently, we have been trying to promote the hay fever remedy to doctors more actively. To this end, a special report on the cases collected to date was prepared with the assistance of Dr. Knauer. This article has been sent to a large number of Swiss doctors, and there is great interest. Usually, when such things go out, we get 2-3% inquiries; this time we had four times as many inquiries as usual. Requests for samples were made. We have already received a number of orders and messages about how well the remedy works. From a report on the cantonal doctors' meeting about hay fever... [space in the post script].

This is how we will be able to gain more and more ground. You also know the name. We called ourselves “Internationale Laboratorien A. G.”. The name was chosen with the following in mind: we would establish sister societies in all countries, which would in turn form 'national societies' that also have their own production facilities and work very closely with us, so that the individual national societies then supply and process the countries. This idea is based on roughly the same principle as the way in which the Anthroposophical Society is to be organized: that you have separate societies, so to speak, but which in turn form a unity. So far we have institutions in the following countries: 1. in France (St. Louis near Basel), 2. in the Netherlands and 3. recently in England (London). The latest, as far as we know, will also be possible in the near future: that we establish our own branch, company, in America. The matter is not yet completely settled, but it seems to be fairly certain. For the time being, it has not yet reached the stage where all the preparations are produced there ourselves, but it is still the case that we manufacture the things, send them in concentrated form, and then they are further processed and bottled there. As a result, the countries are already familiar with our products.

You also know that we owe a whole series of preparations to the suggestions and impulses of Dr. Steiner and that we deliberately do not yet bring all preparations into the larger trade. It goes without saying that we make the products available to all doctors who request them. A good number of doctors work with our products all the time and send us their reports regularly. The products are in their original packaging. But the more products we want to send out, the more money we need. Financially, we don't have as much support as we would like. We already have remedies for influenza, hay fever, chronic migraines - not to mention narcotics such as phenozin, aspirin and so on. A remedy for seasickness and motion sickness in trains will be coming out soon, along with a treatment for the early stages of sclerosis, which is already in the pipeline. You are also aware that we have brought cosmetic products such as tooth water, mouth wash, hair tonic and toothpaste onto the market.

I must touch on one point that has somewhat disappointed us. We thought that when we sent out these things, we would have an echo from all sides of the Anthroposophical Society, that in a very short time, when it became known that we were sending out such preparations under the impulses and suggestions of Dr. Steiner, which most of you need every day after all, we would not be able to meet the demand! They did not know where to get the things, they said. We have therefore sent out a list of all the depots. We have been disappointed because, unfortunately, the number of enquiries was not particularly high either. We could have easily met the demand. I would like to kindly ask you to make our endeavors yours as well. On the one hand, you will be doing yourself the best service by being able and having to convince yourself that what we publish is truly unrivaled and superior to all other means available in the trade. For the remedies are quite different products, from the source from which they flow, and will be useful in quite a different way. Therefore, one should not only use them oneself, as far as is necessary and appropriate, but also send or recommend them to one's acquaintances, doctors and friends. For example, the experiences with the hay fever remedy are already very encouraging; many doctors outside our movement are already using it. And the migraine remedy is also working excellently in England. The first settlement in May was already beyond all expectations. We cannot currently do such propaganda as in England in Switzerland to this extent. But if you all help personally, the newspaper propaganda will also increase. It is distressing when opponents arise from within, from people who are not on the outside. In our circles, some of you will know, I must say, the most untrue, the most dishonest things are being spread about the laboratories, and individual personalities are being attacked in the most insulting way. But I would ask you to inform yourself to the extent that you have the ability to judge. From the outset, the things are completely dishonest, and if there is any truth in them, the facts are so twisted. Some of these elaborations – we cannot, of course, get into all these things – but there must be a protest from some quarter about individual ones. In particular, a letter contains malicious accusations that are completely untrue and dishonest. You can truly have confidence that we work out of the best conviction and that if you support us and things can continue as they appear to now, we are heading for a very gratifying future in the laboratories. All the net profit that comes from the laboratories will be able to flow back to all the endeavors that are rooted in the Anthroposophical Society. All the financial complaints that money is missing here and there, for the school movement for example, will have to disappear sooner or later, given that we have so much capital from our industry that we are able to support spiritual movements such as the school movement.

We often hear complaints that our products are a little expensive or at least as expensive as the most expensive products from our competitors, and whether it would be possible to supply the usual toothpaste and so on at least at the same price? The entire processing method for mouthwash, toothpaste and so on is such that it cannot be done any differently. I would ask you to trust us and not think that we are making excessive profits from this.

Albert Steffen gives Dr. Usteri the floor.

Dr. Alfred Usteri: I would like to raise an issue here that seems to me to require a certain amount of negotiation. I have repeatedly spoken with the workers here. Time and again, I have heard complaints about the construction management. I am not here to play the accuser. The accusations may be unfounded, but it is important that the workers who have to work for us are satisfied in every way. However, I have also pointed out that it would be right to take these complaints, not to me, but to the appropriate authority. They said: We are just in a position and have to risk something happening to us, that we will be disciplined. — I would like the workers who are present here to be allowed to present their complaints, if they have any. They should be allowed to present their complaints. You can always hear: Yes, Dr. Steiner, we like him; but we want absolutely nothing to do with the Society as such. — The same motive was guiding: they don't want to say anything because it could happen to them that they would lose their jobs. If complaints are to be directed against me personally, I am prepared to give an account.

Albert Steffen: Who would like to speak about this statement? I have never personally heard such complaints; I can't really say anything about them. At most, I can imagine that individual members suffer from a certain inability to be polite, even to workers. But I would like to ask that the complaints be stated. Yes - perhaps some who get along well with the workers will speak on this topic.

Mrs. Bollig: Perhaps I can offer a small explanation that would not be in any way offensive to anyone in the group. But it is like this: the socialist spirit that fills these people has a certain antipathy towards us, so that they did not even want to speak to the ladies when they met them. So it is not a fault of the Society, but lies with the workers. The members could be twice as amiable in order to smooth things over.

Albert Steffen: I fear that the fault lies with our members; for when the workers say that they can't get along with Dr. Steiner, it cannot be because of the world view. I believe there can be socialism that is anthroposophical. But these are things that you also hear from non-workers: when a stranger comes to Dornach, he notices that he is not greeted. The second stage is that he hears moralizing.

Mr. Kaufmann Jr., Basel: He is just a simple proletarian and cannot express himself as he should. But there is something that makes workers feel deep inside that there is still something like a class difference here. I feel that too, he said, but I have risen above this attitude, I can overcome it. But other workers really have it much harder. In the tram, for example: workers who work at the Goetheanum have already complained – I have also heard complaints about the construction management, which people have exchanged among themselves and railed against. For example, I have heard the name Schleutermann and Aisenpreis. I met them often on the tram; they say: They can preach morals, but they do nothing in fact. — It is good to build a Goetheanum, but we did not eat with it — — The class difference is very strongly felt, so that it comes to the fore that one is just a despised proletarian. Especially those who have the money act very arrogantly, and that is felt. For example, the workers who live in Basel associate with many workers in Basel and bring these things to their colleagues. We have a tremendously difficult time with the socialist impulses in the “key points”; it is said: That is done with for us, they cannot bring us anything. — All sorts of complaints come through Schleutermann -

Albert Steffen: Does anyone wish to speak on this subject? You see, it would also have to be borne in mind that it is in the Swiss character to be coarse; but that when he is coarse, he does not mean everything so terribly seriously. I have heard a great deal of good about Mr. Aisenpreis, for example, here in the area, I must say, especially from the farmers. I have not heard anything bad about Mr. Schleutermann. But I would like to come back to one thing, namely the tram that goes from here to Basel. We have actually heard about conversations that take place in it. It may have been a year ago, there was a German in it, talking to a Swiss and saying: Yes, there is nothing here, it has to be organized quite differently in Switzerland! - and more of that kind of thing. And the people sitting in the tram naturally became angry. And when such angry people read the Kully paper, yes, then these statements, the lies of Kully, fall on fertile ground. That is quite natural, and it is then very difficult to eradicate. It might be wise not to speak in this way in the tram.

Mr. (name not noted): This topic, which has been touched on here, is an everyday one and seems to exist just as much here in Dornach among anthroposophists as on other construction sites. I myself am a construction expert and was in a leading position on construction sites for 35 years — you can never please everyone! I have had a lot of experience in this regard. You really have to be a very solid, I don't know how to put it, person to find your way around and to maneuver between the workers and the employers to do the right thing by both of these extremes. I have heard the name Aisenpreis; he is the foreman here at this construction site. You all know what it's like: the foreman is the first to be criticized. You have to take things as they are. People imagine that when they work here, they should be treated somewhat more socially than by other employers, who simply look at their profit. On the other hand, you also have to consider: the person who supervises the construction here also has a certain responsibility towards society. This must also be kept in mind. Society is always dependent on outside help; the members must constantly be begged, as we say in Switzerland, so that people are very much in demand to raise the funds to build again. We are also there to do our honest work, not only to get our wages, but also to do productive work. And if a superior should say something that hurts you, you have to remember: the man has a lot to live up to that other workers might not take on; he can't just stop working when the bell rings, that's when his work really begins. There should be mutual understanding on both sides and care should be taken to ensure that things are not needlessly made more expensive. But these are local matters; they should not really be discussed in a general assembly. Perhaps they could be discussed in a building meeting.

Albert Steffen: They are certainly local matters, but there is an important core to them, namely something that affects community life. If you have the right inner anthroposophical disposition, you will actually get along well with a worker, I think even better than with any other person.

(name not noted): I agree. In the Bern Lecture, given on 36 April 1923, in CW 224., the doctor spoke a great deal about universal love; this should be seen in practice. It should be possible to achieve a better mutual understanding, and we should learn to understand each other better.

Dr. Steiner: I don't want to say much, but it seems to me that there is something underlying the matter. That seemed to me to emerge from various things. Anyone who is familiar with life knows that some of the things that have been criticized here do happen everywhere, and rightly so. But when we had the Annual General Meeting here in April, well, it seemed to us as if this Annual General Meeting had not been fully concluded. Mr. Steffen, in particular, felt that it had not been fully concluded, and he felt the need for a continuation. Not, he said to me at the time, but the continuation would then have to be combined with a lecture cycle. And then I thought about what topic it should be, and he said that perhaps a kind of anthroposophical etiquette for dealing with anthroposophists could be the topic. (Laughter) Well, that seemed to me to point to a certain feeling, and then, don't you think, all sorts of ideas come to mind. It's really true that if I were to present you with the voices that come to me from all the most diverse sides, one by one, you would be able to become a statistician, so many come from all sides. Well, they can be summarized because one remark is heard everywhere: Yes, anthroposophy, that would be quite nice, but we are not joining the Society. And when one then asks: Yes, why not? Then it is said: Well, this Society lacks philanthropy; and the people who are inside are so strangely arrogant.

Well, as you have seen, I changed the subject for the simple reason that I did not want to sin against what is expected of me with this topic. If one wanted to talk about an “anthroposophical etiquette”, one would immediately sin against it, because it is decidedly a kind of rudeness. But isn't it, from the outside it comes so often. I once heard the saying: “Politeness is an ornament, but you get further without it.” This is very often applied to anthroposophists. Recently, in a lecture 4Dornach, February 16, 1923, in GA 221., I spoke about various personalities and how they understood moral principles. I also mentioned a personality who included politeness among the virtues. I listed the virtues that this personality had mentioned, and that included politeness. And then it occurred to me that the audience found it so amusing that politeness should be a virtue. Of course nothing was said, but it was sensed; one knows how the audience feels. It was so striking for the audience: politeness should be a virtue. And, I certainly do not want to be impolite myself, but I would like to point out that this arises from all kinds of sectarian tendencies and from the fact that many members are only concerned with themselves, that there is little interest, natural interest in other people.

Of course, there are many theories of philanthropy and helpfulness, and in an emergency they are indeed there in reality. But on the one hand there is the general view of general philanthropy – and then: well, in an emergency it is there, this philanthropy, of course – but now something is in between. And unfortunately, everyday life also comes between us, and then human love is reduced to mutual accommodation. And there, there you sometimes see – when you pass by, how an anthroposophist encounters a non-anthroposophist - something that you then have to add to such an assertion, that people tell you: Yes, we cannot join when we look at the members. — And that happens in all sorts of ways. There is something inherent in the matter, which, if it were discussed now — I don't want to discuss it myself, but if people were to talk about it honestly, — much would come out, why the Anthroposophical Society remains so closed in many respects. The reasons for this seclusion lie in the fact that it is so difficult to find the generally human tone that lies beyond everything. Whether he is a grand duke or a laborer, he is a human being, and this universal humanity, this completely unbiased encounter, even without theory, is of course something that is not felt to any great extent.

So, there are real things underlying the complaints. And I don't think Mr. Steffen would have made this suggestion to me without a real underlying feeling: I am supposed to write an “anthroposophical etiquette guide” in front of you for eight days. Of course I will not do it out of a sense of etiquette. But I think it points to all sorts of things, and you can also recognize something symptomatic in it.

Albert Steffen: Does anyone else want to speak?

A lady: Since Mr. Steffen has already pointed out the need for politeness, I would like to say, since I am allowed to come here: You walk into the hall in the evening, happy and grateful to be here for once, and then there is a tumult and noise in the hall and a restlessness at the beginning and also at the end -- It seems like a discourtesy to Dr. Steiner.

Albert Steffen: I was instructed to say what the lady said in this meeting as well; but I thought someone might say it before me. I actually wanted to bring it up too. Anyway, when you go up to the Goetheanum, you should really know where you are going. I know that many of our friends almost always go up newborn. You know, they could not see everything they see, the flowers all around and the light and the trees, if they had not been deciphered for them. They have truly come to a new view, to a new view of nature. And that gives most of us, at least I think so, a solemn feeling when they come up there. And one should actually enter this hall with this feeling, and should have yet another feeling, namely that of experiencing history. Truly: here we experience history! What will be said about Dornach a hundred years from now? Looking back, Dornach will be recognized as the center of spiritual life! And everyone will say: if only we had lived at that time, if only we had stood face to face with this personality, even just once! To have heard him just once! — This feeling of joy, honored attendees, first of all, towards nature, which has been given to us anew through anthroposophy, and secondly, towards history, which we can experience here in its highest impulse, that is hardly ever encountered when one is here in the hall. There is a tumult and chatter, everyone is saying what they are going to cook for lunch tomorrow and so on, but it is terrible. Perhaps I am mistaken, in which case I would like to apologize.

Dear attendees, would anyone else like to take the floor?

Miss (name not recorded) from Strasbourg: Asks a question about the opponents, in particular the “non-anthroposophical experts on anthroposophy”. They actually want to be fully acquainted with the document in question.5See page 795 ff.

Albert Steffen: It is terribly long and sometimes very boring. But perhaps I could read out the most symptomatic parts if anyone wishes.

Questioner: Too little is known about it. There was talk of a league against it; can't that be set up soon?

Albert Steffen: Yes, this “alliance” should be society itself.

Questioner: One should meet more often when one is in Dornach and talk about it; one would be more up to date and could also get advice; otherwise it just peters out.

Albert Steffen: It is a fact that various people are already working on it. Yesterday Dr. Stein wrote to me about a medical personality who will look at the Goesch case from the medical point of view, in relation to delusions and the like. And Leisegang is also being worked on. There is no lack of people who want to do this, but they also have to get material from the others, and above all they have to find interest in the others. You will recall that in Stuttgart they did not want to listen to the lecture about the opposition at first? 6At the Stuttgart delegates' meeting, see page 385 f. I must say that I find this topic particularly interesting for the present time. You can learn so much about the decadence of our time. And we Anthroposophists should really be healing what is sick. And so we have to get to know it. Everyone must do their best.

Dr. Oskar Schmiedel: There is such a lack of correct information. Not everyone can go to Mr. Steffen. Could we not meet here once a month? We would be informed about the question of opponents or other vital questions.

Albert Steffen: Of course I am prepared to do so; but I myself would also have to be informed.

Dr. Steiner: Now the big difficulty arises, to draw attention to the fact that we have a eurythmy performance here in an hour, and because we don't have much time left, I don't want to waste many words. And when I say short words, it is particularly difficult to be polite, and I don't want to be impolite at this moment, do I? So I would like to ask you to kindly accept the invitation to enter the nature outside, and to do so as quickly as possible! (Laughter.)

End of meeting.