The Fateful Year of 1923

GA 259 — 2 September 1923, London

Rudolf Steiner's Address at the Meeting for the Establishment of the English National Society

My dear friends!¹ If it is necessary to discuss certain questions of the Society's constitution in the individual countries, this is due in particular to the fact that the anthroposophical movement has undergone a certain development in recent years. The Anthroposophical Movement began more or less with the spiritual life that it seeks to convey, and for a long time it worked together with the Theosophical Movement. And in recent years it has become the case that the anthroposophical movement as such is standing before the whole world with a certain necessity and is being judged a lot - and therefore also, which must be a self-evident side effect, is being met with a lot of hostility. The whole form of the anthroposophical movement, not inwardly but outwardly, is different.

Now, in a spiritual movement such as anthroposophy, everything is connected with inner laws, so that one does nothing other than what arises out of the necessity of spiritual life itself, as one recognizes it. So of course in this movement itself no consideration can be given to what comes from outside, whether it be opposition and hostility or recognition. The meaning of the anthroposophical movement must flow purely from the subject itself. One must do nothing but what one recognizes as necessary for a particular age, based on the spiritual life. Any consideration of external factors, be it recognition, be it success, be it contradiction and hostility, leads to a weakening of the spiritual life that should be fostered in such a movement. And that necessarily always gives rise to a kind of conflict: one must follow one's inner forces and, of course, in order for the movement not to perish, one must do what can advance the movement in the world. This always results in a conflict that requires constant vigilance on the part of the members. And so the constitution of the Society must be such that this vigilance is possible, that, as it were, a kind of vacuum is created for such a spiritual movement, an empty free space in which it can truly unfold. This is only possible if the individual groups and the connections between the groups are organized and administered in the right way.

Now, no spiritual movement can flourish in our time that is some kind of special movement of humanity. There is simply an occult, let us say, law that every truly viable and fruitful spiritual movement is universally human, that is, in trivial terms, what is called international in everyday life, is universally human. In the present day and age, if a group of people, rather than the general public, becomes in some form or other the, in a sense, group-centered, egoistic bearer of a spiritual movement, then in that moment universal human progress is harmed, not helped, and not truly furthered.

This matter is not really open to discussion, any more than a law of nature is open to discussion. It is a spiritual law that every spiritual movement that really furthers humanity must be generally human.

Of course, this does not prevent it from being fair to all human groupings. One can be just as fair to one's own nation as to the others. Every nation naturally has more or less of its great impulses to bring to the whole of humanity. And to believe that the international is linked to a disregard for one's own nation, that is not at all justified. It is precisely within the international that the points of view are given to assess one's own nation in the right way and to put it in the right light.

If, therefore, what Mr. Collison has said corresponds to a real, non-illusory judgment, then it is, of course, a deviation, should two groups form as a result, in that one group cannot abandon itself to its national feelings, would like to see a kind of selflessness in it, even to the point of opposing the valuable aspects of its own nation. If you are truly grounded in anthroposophy, if you truly understand the essence of anthroposophy, then it cannot be a matter of even entertaining a different opinion about these things.

Just as there can be no conflict in the world – forgive me for saying this triviality – about the fact that mountain air is good and sea air is good; if people have different constitutions, then one needs mountain air, it is perhaps good for a certain type of disposition to fall ill, the other needs sea air, it is good for him. Just as one cannot understand why someone sent to live in the mountain air rants terribly about the sea air, so one cannot expect that enthusiasm for one's own nation should in any way affect one's international, that is, unbiased judgment of everything in the world that has to do with the cooperation, not the antagonism, of nationalities. So in the real understanding of what the deepest anthroposophical impulse must be, such a dichotomy cannot arise. And of course it must be said: the most essential task of anthroposophical branches is precisely to avoid such dichotomies, to come to an understanding about these things. If things always go so that one group turns against the other and always says, if they do this or that, it is against what Dr. Steiner says, they are not real anthroposophists — if these things then go on in the underground and only ever talk about the fact that there are not homogeneous groups and no general groups, then nothing particularly fruitful can arise. But why should it not be possible for such things to be sorted out through the openness of the discussions in the anthroposophical branches? You see, that is what I would call — in addition to observing the way the outside world relates to anthroposophy, whether in a hostile or friendly way: vigilance within an anthroposophical branch.

One can be awake in life, or one can be asleep. I do not mean the usual states here – we will talk about that in the lecture [in GA 228] – but rather the states in relation to what is happening in the world. One can be asleep even though one appears to be awake on the outside. But to be asleep really means nothing more than to divert one's attention from something. When we really sleep at night, it also means nothing more than diverting our attention from everything that can occupy us in the earthly world. We then turn our attention to things for which we do not yet have the perceptive faculty in the present human evolution. That is why sleeping [to what is happening in the world] means nothing more than diverting our attention from something. But as anthroposophists we must take a keen interest in what is going on in the world. The world is interested in anthroposophy; if we are not interested in it, the world will become antagonistic. This requires vigilance. And it is in the spirit of this vigilance that the Anthroposophical Society as a whole must now be constituted. That is why I have been emphasizing for some time the need to organize the individual national societies into national associations. Such national associations have been formed in Switzerland, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Norway, and this year they will be established in Austria and the Netherlands, and so on. And it is of the utmost importance that such a national society also be formed here and that these individual national societies in turn join together to form the International Anthroposophical Society, which in the future can have its center in Dornach. As was planned at the delegates' meeting in July 1923 in Dornach, the merger to form the international society is to take place at Christmas in Dornach.

But this can only happen if the national societies have organized themselves in advance, because only something that has already been formed can join together. And so it would be good if the constitution of the English Anthroposophical Society emerged from the negotiations of this meeting as a national body, with the tendency to then merge with the international society at Christmas and then have the national center in London and the international center in Dornach, Switzerland. That would be good.

That is basically all I can recommend myself. Of course, everything that is to be done in detail and in particular must depend on what the friends here consider to be best.

If I may point out anything, it is that in the future there must be a much stronger connection, a much stronger collaboration, between anthroposophists in all countries. Again and again, wherever I go, I am made aware that there is a real longing to hear about what is happening here or there. Today, anthroposophists live, one can truly say, almost in the whole civilized world, but they know very little about each other. Sometimes it is so strong that someone living on one street does not even know that someone else lives around the corner. They know nothing about each other. And one longs for an international organ of communication. But this cannot be created out of the idea, but only when the national groups are really there and have come together as an international group. Then we in Dornach will also really find the possibilities for creating such an understanding across the whole world. Until now, it has always been aimed at in the abstract. When the journal Das Goetheanum was founded in Dornach, the idea was of course that it should convey messages everywhere. Yes, but first it has to be received! First everything has to be reported to Dornach, and then it can be passed on from there. Then we also get international perceptions and international opinions. That would be the way to go. But it cannot be done from here; it can only be achieved through genuine international cooperation.

A national group like this has also been set up in France under the General Secretariat of Mlle. Sauerwein.

As for the other issues discussed here, it seems to me that not a single obstacle emerges from all the individual statements made, that Mr. Collison has the very best prerequisites for his General Secretariat. I cannot see that anything speaks against it. The things that he himself has expressed here, namely about Freemasonry, do not seem to me to be at all decisive. Because – please forgive me for having to be trivial about such things, but they are things of everyday life, and in everyday life some everyday things happen. Please forgive me for having to be trivial about this – I have always said, when it was a matter of whether someone should come into the anthroposophical movement from some other movement – in this case, freemasonry was meant – what matters is not what someone is in some other movement, but that when he enters this anthroposophical movement, he is a good anthroposophist. So it is really not a matter of whether someone also belongs, let us say, to a shoemakers' guild or a locksmiths' guild – I am not making any comparisons, I am just stating the principle. It does not need to be the case that, just because he belongs to a shoemakers' or locksmiths' guild and so on, it in any way detracts from what is anthroposophical in him. If he is a good anthroposophist, that is what matters for the anthroposophical movement. Whether he is a good, bad or mediocre freemason is of no concern to the Anthroposophical Society. And I actually find it somewhat strange that people pay attention to the judgments that one or the other has, if Mr. Collison's suspicions should be correct – otherwise it would be modified –; I always say: among anthroposophists this does not happen, but in general life it does happen that one or the other makes an unwise judgment. And it would be an unwise judgment to make the value of a member as an anthroposophist dependent on whether he is a Freemason or not.

I answered Mr. Collison's question in the Netherlands from this point of view. I said that a number of the oldest and most valuable members are Freemasons. I cannot imagine how an obstacle could arise from some form of Freemasonry for belonging to the Anthroposophical Society. I cannot imagine it at all. I think the Anthroposophical movement wants to be something in itself. It would not be able to bear fruit in the world if it did not work positively out of itself, let me use the expression, out of its own seed. That is what matters: what it works positively. How it appears when compared with one thing or another is not important. When I buy a suit, it is important that it suits my taste and arises out of my intentions. What does it matter if someone comes and says: “That suit doesn't look like the one the other person is wearing.” The point is really not to wear the other person's suit, but one's own. You don't put on freemasonry when you become an anthroposophist. So it is actually quite impossible to make this judgment.

But of course there is something else behind such a thing. It becomes - forgive me for saying so - in my opinion anthroposophy is not always valued highly enough by the members. There is a tendency in present-day humanity to always value more highly that which is older, which has more fuss about it, which acts more mysteriously, and so on, and to disparage that which appears openly and honestly simple, judging it by the standard of the fuss and the like, which presents itself in an indeterminate way. It is a kind of disparagement of the anthroposophical movement when it is judged in such a way that one says: it can be harmed by the fact that this or that member comes from this or that other movement. — It would have to be terribly weak if it could be harmed by such things!

So I think what is really behind it is that somewhere or other there is always a secret longing to say: this person or that person is not a good anthroposophist. —Then you look for reasons. We are always looking for reasons for what we like or dislike. We do not base our liking on the reasons, but we look for reasons for what we like or dislike. We look for reasons and then find, for example, that the other person is a Freemason and therefore cannot be a proper Anthroposophist, and so on. — One should see whether he is an Anthroposophist, a genuine one, and only then come to the judgment that he belongs or does not belong; one should not look at whether he is a Freemason or something like that.

This always reminds me of a judgment I heard in enlightened Weimar – but I don't mean that ironically, it's something I really heard once in the market square: Two women were talking, and one said of someone that he was a liberal. The other said, “What, a liberal is he? I've known him for years, he's a shoemaker!”

The thing is, though, that you would be judged in much the same way if you said: Freemasons can't be part of the anthroposophical movement!

It's not that I, myself, if it weren't for the opposition or hostility, would refrain from judging other contemporary movements. Of course, the moment hostility, open or secret, comes from some movement, then it is a matter of taking a stand. But as long as that is not the case, it is not possible to take any stand on other movements, officially or unofficially. And that is even one of the inner laws of development of such a movement as anthroposophy. If you are constantly pushing to one side and looking to the other, you do not have the freedom to proceed positively from your own inner seed of the matter. You have to try to surrender completely to your inner impulses, not to go outwards. And I think that should be the basis of the negotiations. And if this is the actual basis of the negotiations, then I think everything will go quite well.

I believe that Mr. Collison will accept the General Secretariat from this point of view, which will undoubtedly be his. He is the man who has done the most for the translation and distribution of anthroposophical literature here in England and in the colonies; he will also be able to represent and best serve the impulsive power of the Society here in the future. It is obvious that a man like Mr. Collison cannot write every letter himself, nor be present at every meeting or council. He must therefore have a truly capable secretary. The way in which the board is composed here is something that the hearts of the members, who take the position just described and forget for a while what other difficulties there are here, will best find out for themselves from their community. I believe that this is the best way to address the question at hand.

Dr. Steiner on the proposal to add his name to the Anthroposophical Society:

Just a few words on this: because of the form that the anthroposophical movement has taken over the years, as I mentioned earlier, it is always a difficult question for me to relate to something that is named externally. I have already pointed out that the anthroposophical movement has certain laws of its own for a spiritual movement of this kind, and that is what naturally makes me think again and again when I am dealing with a question like the one that Mr. Dunlop put to me a few days ago, or actually months ago, at last year's meeting, and so it is necessary for me to say a few words about the matter here.

Externally, the anthroposophical movement must be vigilantly represented. Internally, as I have already said today, it must work purely from its own germ and do nothing but that which is in accordance with real occult laws. This is why, for a long time now, in relation to everything that is really going on between me and the anthroposophical movement, I have wanted to be nothing in relation to society other than what arises from what I am absolutely necessary for within society.

So, within society itself, so to speak, I want to be nothing other than what comes about by doing certain things that have to be done by me.

In a certain respect, this will also apply to Dr. Steiner, with whom this has been discussed again and again for years, that she too should be considered, should be named, if one may say so, as that which must be done by her.

From this the position arises by itself. And this position should be improved neither by choice nor by anything else – or mostly it is only worsened – but it should be so that everything that exists in the relationship arises directly from the way in which the personalities are needed.

Now, of course, it is important that this be understood as the basis entirely within society, then, with regard to what one considers necessary, one can fully appreciate such reasons as those put forward by Mr. Dunlop. And insofar as it is understood in society that they are only the reasons that Mr. Dunlop has presented, in the representation, also the ideal representation of the company to the outside world - the identification of the company with me in a certain respect - insofar as these are the only reasons that perhaps make it desirable today that I do not resist accepting what is offered here for this area, I want to do it. But that is just one thing: accepting, taking on this name. The other thing, however, is that society really understands that I draw no other conclusion from such an official designation than the one I have drawn from the obviousness of the facts so far: I do not want to gain any other power, any other prestige, any other authority that may be reminiscent of a right by such a naming, but only want to work in society as it arises from the matter itself. I only want to be in society what I must be one day because the things that come into consideration want to be made by me. And that is what makes the matter a duality. Both sides must be given sufficient consideration.

If that is the case – and that is indeed the intention of Mr. Dunlop, the reasons have emerged from it – then there is nothing to prevent Mr. Dunlop's proposal from being accepted. I do not believe that it will lead to anything other than what I cannot deviate from, not even a single step. The anthroposophical movement must remain an inner one, must in certain respects bear the esoteric character, so that nothing else is done by myself than what directly arises from the matter. So the matter must be viewed only really thoroughly in this way: I do not strive for any other power than that which arises from the matter itself. I must do this because of the laws of spiritual movement. And precisely in view of the way in which the Anthroposophical Society and movement are situated in the world today, it must be most strictly observed that we do not deviate from what is prescribed by the inner laws of the movement itself.