# The Fateful Year of 1923

## GA 259 — 8 December 1923, Dornach

### Assembly of Delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland

*in view of the imminent founding of the International Anthroposophical Society at Christmas*

*(following Rudolf Steiner's evening lecture) Minutes taken by Helene Finckh*

Albert Steffen greets Dr. Steiner and those present and says: Today's meeting is an assembly of delegates to which every member has been invited. He proposes the election of a committee of elders: Dr. Steiner, Mr. Geering, Dr. Grosheintz, Albert Steffen, Dr. Lagutt, and adds: “Now I would like to ask this committee of elders to discuss the question of how many delegates each branch should appoint.

Rudolf Geering comments.

Dr. Steiner: So now we will probably come to an understanding in the bosom of old age as to how many delegates each branch would like to nominate. And I will then take the liberty of asking the delegates themselves whether they will also give their consent. But I would ask you to bear in mind that if an elders' committee is elected, it is always elected on the basis that it is considered wise. So it is assumed that it has extremely good reasons for what it does. So it will simply be a matter of deciding how many delegates should be nominated by each branch.

Albert Steffen proposes allowing two delegates from each of the Swiss branches.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed to allow two delegates from each of the Swiss branches. This would mean that each branch represented here would have two delegate votes. So even if only one delegate is present from any one branch, he would also have two votes, including for this evening. However, if there is no delegate at all, I don't know who should cast the two votes.

Now I ask the most honored elders whether they agree with this proposal? (The answer is affirmative.) Since the elders agree, I now ask the delegates to express whether they have any objections or want to make a different proposal. — It seems that this is not the case. Then we would need to record the votes of the individual branches. We have the following branches: the branch at the Goetheanum. The two votes are present, but who exercises them?

Albert Steffen: We could do it this way, Doctor, that these two votes be represented by the whole working committee.

Dr. Steiner: So: the working committee! — Then there is the “New Generation” branch. Are these two votes represented? Who exercises them?

Answer: Mr. Stokar and Mr. Storrer.

Dr. Steiner: Basel branch: Dr. Lagutt, Mr. Geering; substitutes: Mr. Rudolf Hahn and Dr. Oskar Grosheintz. Bern branch: Miss Ramser, Miss Knüpfer. Zurich branch: Ms. Weiß, Dr. Hugentobler. St. Gallen branch: Mr. Dürler, Mr. Knopfli. Olten: Mr. Wulschleger is present and [probably Mr. Widmer]. Romanshorn:? Rorschach:? Neuchâtel: Mr. Hotz. Kreuzlingen: Miss Müller. Schaffhausen: Mr. Gnädinger. There is no one present from Lugano.

That makes 22 votes. So the simple majority: 12 votes, two-thirds majority: 15 votes. So the voting ratio would be: simple majority with 12 votes, two-thirds majority, if any comes into consideration, with 15 votes. The meeting is now constituted. And the next step would be for this meeting to elect its officers. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?

Albert Steffen: Perhaps I may propose Dr. Steiner himself as chair of this assembly of delegates?

Dr. Steiner: If there is to be a discussion about this, I would ask you to take the chair for a moment. (This happens. Mr. Steffen's proposal is accepted.)

Albert Steffen: So it is unanimously approved.

Dr. Steiner: Then thank you very much and I will try to lead the chairmanship. — There will then be further elections for a secretary and two assessors.

Willy Stokar would like to propose Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth as secretary.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that Dr. Wachsmuth be elected as secretary. If any of the delegates have any objections, I would ask them to raise their hands. – That does not appear to be the case. Then I would ask Dr. Wachsmuth to take on the role of secretary.

Now I would like to ask you to propose two assessors. Does anyone wish to comment on this? — Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz have been proposed. Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Dr. Grosheintz: Proposes Mr. Steffen. Dr. Lagutt: Proposes Mr. Steffen.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to make a proposal? — Does anyone wish to speak about the proposals? — If not, we will proceed to the vote. Shall we vote by acclamation? — I ask those friends who are in favor of voting by acclamation to raise their hands. — (The vote is by acclamation.) The following have been proposed: Dr. Hugentobler and Dr. Grosheintz.

Albert Steffen: I ask those friends who are in favor of electing the two gentlemen as assessors to raise their hands. (It happens.) – The two gentlemen have been elected as assessors.

We had actually intended that the delegates who have come from outside should be given the floor first, so that they themselves can speak about what we have recommended they study.

Dr. Steiner: So it has been suggested that the esteemed delegate friends express themselves about what they have brought with them from their branches. So I ask them to take the floor.

Edgar Dürler, St. Gallen, has a point of order: We have received an invitation in which two points are on the agenda. I would like to explain them in more detail and would like to mention that I am speaking on behalf of Neuchâtel, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, the “New Generation” and a working group in Winterthur. — He proposes as an agenda item that the only item to be discussed today should be the transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I would like to briefly explain the reasons for this: We are on the threshold of founding the International Anthroposophical Society. At this founding, the individual national societies, represented by their delegates, will have to declare their accession to the International Anthroposophical Society here at Christmas. It is necessary that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society also make such a declaration of accession. The fact is that we do not have a unified Swiss Anthroposophical Society. The new international society that is to be established will create a completely different situation. I believe that the Swiss Society must be able to take up a position corresponding to the particular position of the individual national societies. I would like to emphasize that the branch at the Goetheanum, which also belongs to the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, represents something very special and that this branch at the Goetheanum, which also has many foreign members, occupies a very special position. Just as there is an Anthroposophical Society in the Netherlands, in England and so on, and these are members of the International Anthroposophical Society, there should also be a Swiss Anthroposophical Society, autonomous but with the same rights and the same duties. I would like to repeat the proposal: transformation of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland into a Swiss Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note, so that the discussion is not conducted in an erroneous way, that I am not interfering with the esoteric of the discussion, but I would like to note that it would be quite natural if an International Anthroposophical Society were founded at Christmas, that it would not be identical with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, but that the present Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, as it now exists, would then have the same relationship to the international society to be founded as, for example, the English or Dutch Anthroposophical Societies. That is one thing. — So there would be no ambiguity in this respect.

Of course, it is a different matter to discuss whether the branch at the Goetheanum – this one branch at the Goetheanum – will remain a co-branch of the – call it either the “Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland” or the “Swiss Anthroposophical Society” – because by its very nature it will always include members from all countries. That would be a different matter, that would be a different question. But as I said, it would not be the case that the International Anthroposophical Society would coincide with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If the International Anthroposophical Society were founded in Switzerland, it would have two completely separate administrations and so on, and would be two completely different things. I think the actual establishment of what you mean would have to be formulated in a different way, something like: one would have to be clear about how the branch at the Goetheanum should be treated. Just imagine: if the branch at the Goetheanum is eliminated, then you will immediately notice that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland has exactly the same position in relation to the International Anthroposophical Society as the Dutch or any other.

Walter Knopfli (St. Gallen) would like to add briefly: We believe that precisely this should be kept separate. If there is a Swiss Society that really exists independently, and a branch at the Goetheanum, then the Swiss Anthroposophical Society can also be better represented. There should be a truly Swiss General Assembly one day. We have never really had that; there have only ever been two or three delegates here who live around Dornach, and the actual Swiss part has not been represented. What happens here in Dornach has more of an international character, is more directed towards the general human. It is necessary that the Society in Switzerland be recognized as a Swiss Anthroposophical Society. I therefore wish to see a separation of the Swiss Society and the branch at the Goetheanum.

Willy Storrer believes that the motion put forward by the representative of the St. Gallen, Mr. Knopfli, can also be justified by saying: It is important to us that an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland or a Swiss Anthroposophical Society exists not only in theory — the name is not important to us — but that such a society exists in practice, in reality. And that to this end, a further change is made on a larger scale. We thought that today would be a good opportunity for this. We wanted to propose that a general assembly of Swiss members take place as soon as possible, perhaps in Olten or Zurich, where it is more likely that members from all over Switzerland will be able to attend in larger numbers, and then use this opportunity to discuss the affairs of the entire Swiss Society in detail – not just after a lecture, but perhaps starting in the morning and continuing with discussions throughout the afternoon, as is the practice in the Netherlands and other countries. We believe that everything must be done to ensure that a concrete Swiss Society comes into being. This is also because the reconstruction of the Goetheanum is to begin soon, and safeguards for this reconstruction should be created here in Switzerland, where the Goetheanum is to be located, and this should be done now. We must, after all, reproach ourselves for not having such safeguards in place, for not having a real society around the Goetheanum in Switzerland, but only quite unconnected branches and individual members. We would now like to make certain proposals to change this.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to add: the things we regulate must be right inwardly. And there is no question that, for example, if the delegates agree, what you and the representative of St. Gallen understand by a Swiss Anthroposophical Society must come about. It goes without saying that this must come about if the delegates determine it. However, it must be clear that it is simply impossible in terms of the rules of procedure if we follow the path proposed by Mr. Storrer.

The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland currently exists, and includes the branch at the Goetheanum. So if a general assembly is convened, there is no way around the branch at the Goetheanum being represented at it. In its current constitution, there is no other option than for it to be represented! So if the matter is to be decided before the Christmas delegates' meeting, it would be necessary not to convene a general assembly – because it would then also include the members of the branch at the Goetheanum – but to convene an assembly, so to speak, a gathering of the Swiss members, and for these Swiss members to then decide to found a Swiss Anthroposophical Society without the branch at the Goetheanum. That is one thing. But that would initially be tantamount to a kind of exclusion of the branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, it would probably not be very well received. Of course, the other option would be to call a general assembly and, if the branch at the Goetheanum were to appear, to propose expelling the branch at the Goetheanum, and of course to expel it if the proposal were to be accepted. That would be the second way.

But the third, I think it is the most viable and the one that seems to me the most correct. The most opportune, it seems to me, would be if the Swiss members who believe that this should happen actually held a meeting and that the assembly, through its members or delegates or a number of delegates, would aim to achieve the following: the delegates' meeting at Christmas proposes to enable a Swiss Anthroposophical Society to consist of actual Swiss members, which means that the passage should be written that the branch at the Goetheanum should become an international branch, and thus be removed. If the Swiss members were to propose this at the Christmas assembly of delegates, I would consider that the best way forward: namely, to make the branch at the Goetheanum an international branch, if that is what it is all about. Then it is out. Then the question would be resolved – which I think is desirable for other reasons, quite apart from your proposal – by the fact that the branch at the Goetheanum is not a national but an international one. That is something that can be decided then. And then, on the basis of this decision, you would be able to found the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in whatever way you wish; the branch at the Goetheanum would no longer be involved because it would have become an international one beforehand. — Well, I would think that this would also be the friendliest way, it seems to me, simply because any other way looks as if the Swiss want to throw out those who are also members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland today. And, isn't it true, that would somehow leave a sting behind.

I do not want to make this a proposal on my part – otherwise I would not remain as chair but hand it over for the time being – but I just want to throw this into the discussion for the sake of clarification, so that the discussion is not based on false premises; because the proposal has been made that a general assembly should be convened. But a general assembly can only be convened with the members. So this is a simple explanation of the necessary management that I am making.

Albert Steffen says that two points are not quite clear to him: Is it impossible for a foreigner to join?

Will, Storrer: No, that's a misunderstanding. We did not mean that the Swiss Society would then consist only of Swiss people, but that it would be set up in such a way that the Swiss character of the Society would be expressed much better than has been the case so far. And we believe we can achieve this by actually holding the Swiss meeting in a place where we can all get to better than if it is in Dornach. Of course, I could well imagine that the members of the branch at the Goetheanum would also be present. I consider the second piece of advice from Dr. Steiner to be absolutely right. And the representatives of the various branches that Mr. Knopfli mentioned would also have understood that a general assembly of all Swiss members would take place, that is, of all members affiliated with the Swiss Society, regardless of whether they are French, Germans or Swiss – and that the organization of the Society would then be newly elected at this General Assembly from the majority of the members, and specifically as an organ of the Members' Assembly, the Assembly of Delegates, and then an actual active working committee. And we do not envision this as being identical to the already existing working committee, but rather it would have to be a new working committee, provided that it is elected.

Dr. Steiner (to Mr. Knopfli): Are the remarks of Mr. Storrer in line with yours?

Walter Knopfli: Not quite. I mean, the members of the branch at the Goetheanum should have the feeling that they are something different than, say, the members of the St. Gallen branch, because we in St. Gallen have different tasks. Of course one can be a member of both places, but then one has to pay the dues twice. It is not a matter of personal mistrust, but only a legal question, that one keeps it separate. I think it is good when a society is properly there with a seat, in legal registration, so that it can act as something that exists and is recognized. And that is what we want. It will only be properly recognized if it comes from the Swiss and if the headquarters of the new Anthroposophical Society is not here in Dornach but somewhere in Switzerland, in Zurich for example. It would be a better solution and would lead to much better collaboration.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note: This proposal to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum will come in any case, because it would actually be out of character if Dornach were to become an international center and not have an international branch here. I think the possibility of achieving what you want will actually be better achieved if this branch is internationalized. But that does not, of course, prevent a kind of founding meeting from being convened now, in Zurich or as far away as possible from Basel, from Dornach, if you like, which then decides on something or other in its nature. — But that is not true, you do not have to do such things in such a way that you think: just by convening a meeting in Zurich, it will then already have a Swiss character! What would you do if the people of Dornach all decided to go there? There is no difference at all! I believe that the question can only be resolved - and I have also gathered this from your discussion - if the branch at the Goetheanum is executed and

comes out of the matter. Then it will already be a Swiss matter.

Albert Steffen: But I still don't see how this society can have a Swiss character when there are so many foreigners in it. For example, all the members of the “New Generation” are in this society, and a fairly large percentage of the members are foreigners. So how is this branch Swiss then?

Walter Knopfli: We are 40 members in St. Gallen and have at least 5 foreigners. That does not matter. The delegates of the Swiss branches should express whether they might agree in principle to establish a Swiss society and in principle agree to internationalize the branch at the Goetheanum. Then, as Dr. Steiner suggested, we could convene a founding assembly of these members and decide on the founding of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society from the bosom of this founding assembly and then come here at Christmas with a proposal: that on the one hand there is the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and on the other hand the branch at the Goetheanum is an independent branch at the Goetheanum, with the same rights. And that from the outset it is made clear at a founding meeting: this is not a general assembly, but a founding meeting. Those who are at the Goetheanum will of course want to belong to this branch at the Goetheanum, I am completely convinced of that. Very few will want to pay twice.

Albert Steffen: I fear only that the branch at the Goetheanum will no longer be supported by the Swiss and that it will have a harder time with the authorities than it does now.

Dr. Steiner: That is a point of view that will be very much in question.

Dr. Emil Groshbeintz: As far as I understand, you want to give Swiss society a special task, a task that is different from the one represented by the Goetheanum branch, for example. Isn't it clear that nationality cannot play a role on Swiss soil, but different countries can set themselves different tasks? And for Switzerland it is a question of opportunity, whether it should be done in such a way that there is a Swiss Society in Switzerland in general and an international branch at the Goetheanum on top of that.

Dr. Steiner: The form must then be found. And I am convinced that, for example, today's applicants would not object to the mode that the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is formed and that the branch at the Goetheanum nevertheless belongs as a branch of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but without voting rights and without representation at the general meetings. Then the concerns you have would be eliminated. — So it would be necessary to find a way to do it, wouldn't it? There is a difference between how the administration is within the Anthroposophical Society itself and how it is externally. To have a completely separate branch at the Goetheanum on the outside, that is, a directly international branch on Swiss soil, would not be advisable. But your request is fully met if the branch at the Goetheanum is merely a member of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but does not have a seat and voting rights at the general meetings of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society. Because if I understand you correctly, you are merely concerned that the Swiss character in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society should come to the fore, which you see as being endangered if the Society consists only of a few Swiss people who are outside Dornach, and then of the majority of those who are in Dornach at the time. Because those who are only temporarily in Dornach do not allow themselves to be taken, even if they are there. And that is what — if I understand you correctly — is embarrassing about the whole thing.

Willy Storrer: This would mean that the Swiss members would lose their voting rights, and there are quite a few of them.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible at all. Willy Storrer: Since they live in Switzerland, it is probably the right thing to do.

Dr. Steiner: They can join the Swiss Anthroposophical Society if they want to have voting rights!

Dr. Lagutt: I would like to ask Mr. Knopfli if there are any regulations for the five members of other nationalities? If there are 20, for example, would you still accept the 21st? Assuming you get 21, would you still accept the 21st? Do you have any regulations about that? Or would you accept him too?

Walter Knopfli: Yes.

Dr. Lagutt: I don't understand why the Swiss branch at the Goetheanum cannot be included! If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to insist that you absolutely could not have a majority of foreigners over the Swiss in St. Gallen.

Rudolf Geering: I was pleased today that right from the start the delegates were counted and the voting rights distributed. That is progress. I believe that if this is done in future at the delegate meetings of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, then all the deliberations about what has been proposed here will become unnecessary. Today we see the fruits of something that has occurred at the last few delegates' meetings in Switzerland: that actually no one knew who was actually a delegate and had a say in the voting. Proposals have been made by all kinds of people who have nothing at all to do with Switzerland and who were purely business-like. This gave the impression throughout Switzerland: When we meet in Dornach, we are not a Swiss society at all, but an international society. We are simply at their disposal. And if we continue to act as we are doing today, we can remain in the old circumstances.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to say one thing about this. Switzerland is naturally in a somewhat different position to the Anthroposophical Society, to the world society that is now to be founded, than the other countries. And every country where the Goetheanum stands would be in the same relationship to it as Switzerland, because the Goetheanum is to become a kind of center for the world society. So of course Switzerland has a special relationship to what is now being formed as the Goetheanum. And I could imagine that there might be more will than there is now to support the Goetheanum if the Swiss Anthroposophical Society felt homogeneous – I could imagine that – if it knew where the boundary is between the Swiss Anthroposophical Society and the Goetheanum, which of course belongs just as much to the Swiss Society as it does to the Dutch Society, and so on. But they are simply protected by the fact that they are further away. And now the Friends want to erect a wall that puts Switzerland in the same position in relation to the Goetheanum as the Netherlands or England. I can well imagine the motives behind this proposal, and I think it will only be a matter of finding the right way to do it. Because members from all over the world will always meet here for shorter or longer periods of time. So it will have to be negotiated on the basis that it is desirable to simply create a proper boundary here between Swiss members and those who may only be here by chance. It's not an easy matter!

You see, if a general assembly of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is convened in Dornach, the guests from all over the world who happen to be present will of course not be there, but there will always be a place in the branch at the Goetheanum where they can meet again – that is desirable – and where they can also meet with Swiss friends. Isn't that right? Clearer conditions can be created than they are now. And precisely what you have now criticized is, of course, something that has come about, like so much in the Anthroposophical Society unfortunately comes about: namely, much comes about simply because people do not feel bound by the practices that arise naturally for our meetings. It cannot happen anywhere else in the world that you actually do not know who belongs to a meeting. At the meeting you just mentioned, no one knew – in practice, of course – who belonged to the meeting, because everyone who was there spoke, and the whole thing was an absolutely heterogeneous mass. But everyone felt they had equal rights, everyone voted and so on. After all, no one knew who was entitled to vote, what a majority was, and so on. Today it was only abandoned because yesterday I proposed that it be done so that people know who is actually in the assembly.2Apparently there was a preliminary discussion on December 7, but there is no report of it. So today it is only different on the basis of a precise understanding of the facts. But if you do not do something that clarifies the situation, who can guarantee that you will not have meetings like the last ones again in the future?

Walter Knopfli believes that when something happens here at the Goetheanum, a course or a lecture event, then every member has access, whether they are from Holland or Switzerland; there is no difference. But when it comes to other questions, such as contributions and so on, business to be done, then it is done separately in Holland, and Switzerland also has to do it for itself. Many more people will settle here, and he takes it for granted that the branch at the Goetheanum must take on a different position because mainly foreigners are here. If this branch becomes independent and international, then cooperation can still take place.

Dr. Steiner: That is quite right. It will then also turn out that this Swiss Society will preferably have Swiss representatives on its board, or at least representatives of the Swiss branches. So an office will emerge that has the character you want, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, the matter has now been taken over by an office that consisted largely of non-Swiss, except for Mr. Steffen.

Albert Steffen: The board members of the branches were always the same.

Dr. Steiner: I mean the office that convened the meeting. Of course, Mr. Steffen is signed here. But the conveners, apart from Mr. Steffen, are they all Swiss?

Albert Steffen: Not all of them, but Mr. Storrer, Mr. Stokar and Dr. Grosheintz.

Dr. Steiner: Do you now wish to make a specific proposal that can then be voted on?

Walter Knopfli: I would first like to propose a vote on whether, in principle, a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be considered in this way and should be established in the future, and whether the branch at the Goetheanum should become international in this sense.

Dr. Steiner: The proposal has been made. — I now just have to ask: Does anyone wish to propose a differently formulated proposal on the same subject?

Rudolf Geering: I would just like to request, in the interest of the Goetheanum itself, that, after all, the branch at the Goetheanum belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society in relation to the outside world. I believe that this is necessary for the sake of the branch's security, for the sake of the reputation it is to enjoy in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: That's right, we can find a way to do this, since what you actually want does not exclude the proposal. We can find a way to do this. And it will be easy to find: the Goetheanum branch belongs to the Swiss Anthroposophical Society without having a seat and vote there. Now Mr. Knopfli has proposed a motion to vote on whether to continue negotiations in principle on a demarcation between those present here and members who are permanently present but represent Switzerland to a lesser extent. I would now vote on this motion if a specially modified motion were not submitted.

Albert Steffen: We are all here quite unprepared, so that the matter should be thought through a little better and this motion should not be submitted until Christmas. I do not yet see the pros and cons clearly, I do not yet understand them completely.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to join Mr. Steffen because she believes that for most people this proposal comes as a bit of a surprise, so that they need time to think about it.

Dr. Steiner: I think that is not excluded, because the motion is to be put as to whether this question of founding a Swiss Anthroposophical Society should be approached or whether it should be negotiated. I think it does not exclude that. — Nor does it exclude yours! The proposal is not being made now to do this or that, but only to approach the question of whether a proposal to that effect should be made at the delegates' meeting. - If someone would like to make a modified proposal to that, I would ask them to do so.

Dr. Lagutt would like to propose that we only establish a Swiss Society and leave it to the branch at the Goetheanum to decide whether it wants to join the branch or not. So not that we decide to exclude a branch, but leave it to the branch. Because depending on how it corresponds to the statutes, this will become possible or impossible.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, even according to the rules of procedure, because the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland exists. So you can't establish it, you can only change the name. Whether it is called the “Swiss Society” or the “Society in Switzerland” is a mere name change. Something must therefore be done in the direction that the branch at the Goetheanum does not participate in the negotiations of the Society, which is supposed to represent what is meant here. — One must feel this more, it is not so precisely defined — I cannot say how it should be named. But otherwise it would only be a matter of a name change.

Dr. Lagutt: I believe that it will basically only be a name change.

Dr. Steiner: But if it is only a name change, it is immediately somewhat different. If a Swiss Anthroposophical Society is established that has the branch at the Goetheanum as a co-branch, but this branch in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society does not have a seat and vote, whereas the Swiss Anthroposophical Society is represented in the international society just like any other national society, I think that would be a very clear fact! And then the only question would be whether this would be opportune in terms of external representation. Because I could well imagine that this, just as it might complicate dealings with the authorities on the one hand, could also facilitate them on the other. So if we say to the authorities: We have a Swiss Anthroposophical Society — and those who are not Swiss, who are international, we want to avoid the word international altogether — do not have a seat and vote in the Swiss Society. That could also make a favorable impression, could it not? Isn't it true that things are always more to be weighed than to be discussed? Don't you agree, Dr. Lagutt?

Dr. Jan Lagutt is somewhat reluctant to the idea that one should exclude a branch. That should be left to that branch.

Rudolf Hahn believes that if a Swiss national association is formed without the association at the Goetheanum, then the association at the Goetheanum will carry more weight with the Swiss authorities, otherwise the authorities will regard the association at the Goetheanum directly as a foreign organization. And then our opponents will have a very strong weapon, namely to say: “These foreign Fötzel should get out!” — These expressions are already heard a lot in our country. — If, on the other hand, the association at the Goetheanum remains in the national society, then the latter may have a somewhat more difficult position vis-à-vis the authorities, but at the same time it protects the branch at the Goetheanum. I believe it needs this protection! I believe that this is worth more than if the Society in Switzerland were to face its authority without a branch at the Goetheanum. Therefore, I believe that the branch at the Goetheanum should remain inside, so that it has the support it needs from Swiss society.

Dr. Steiner: But would that not also be the case if this branch at the Goetheanum - it will not be an association, only a branch - had no seat or vote in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society? Rudolf Hahn: That would of course be correct.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, the way the gentlemen here see it, they would have to agree if this branch at the Goetheanum were a “co-branch” and only had no seat or vote in the Swiss Society.

Rudolf Hahn has not yet heard that this has been discussed. Dr. Steiner asks: Have you not done that?

Albert Steffen: It is perhaps possible that Swiss people, precisely because they are anthroposophists, no longer feel so nationally. And is it not perhaps conceivable that such Swiss people would want to join the branch at the Goetheanum in the event of such a separation? That is quite conceivable, namely — - so that this branch would grow very much. And then, under certain circumstances, the Swiss Society as such could also

be damaged and might lose a certain spiritual weight.

A gentleman proposes that Mr. Knopfli's proposal not be considered. If this proposal is not necessary, then it is a matter for the assembly itself, and then a general assembly of the Swiss should be convened, and the matter should be discussed and voted on in this general assembly of the Swiss. The proposer believes that Mr. Knopfli's view is certainly not shared by all anthroposophists, but only by some of them. He believes that Mr. Steffen tends to think much too internationally rather than having a character that is too strongly chauvinistic.

Dr. Steiner: If I understand this correctly, is this a motion to move on to the agenda? Does anyone wish to speak about this?

Willy Storrer: I would like to speak again and emphasize that he finds Dr. Steiner's advice Steiner as the real solution, and this is also the opinion of his friends: that the branch is internationalized in fact, but formally belongs to the Swiss Society; but then the members of the branch at the Goetheanum have no voting rights in the Swiss Anthroposophical Society, but Swiss members of that branch should then have the option of becoming members of another branch with a more Swiss orientation. And because many do not have the option of paying contributions twice, they should be allowed to be members of the other branch without paying contributions. But what matters is: We regard the present form and organs of the Society as provisional, and our proposal is that a general assembly of Swiss members should take place somewhere, in Olten or Zurich, and that the organs of a Swiss Society be elected there – that is, the delegates and the actual leadership of the Swiss Society, a kind of working committee – so that a strong Swiss Society will exist in public view as the Goetheanum is being rebuilt, and that it will have the possibility, through its organs, through its active leadership, to confront all the obstacles and opposition that exist in Switzerland with strength. We believe that this is not as possible with the previous forms as it would be in the future if the proposals and motions we are about to put forward are implemented.

Dr. Steiner: As far as I know, no one else has come forward? — We now first have to discuss the motion to move on to the agenda. Does anyone wish to speak on this motion?

Walter Knopfli would like the motion of principle questions to be voted on first: whether the question of principle should be approached.

Dr. Steiner: If a motion is made to move on to the agenda, then it must be dealt with first and voted on. There is no other way. Of course, if the transition to the agenda is accepted, it would mean that things would simply be pursued in a different way. There is no other way. But of course the motion to move on to the agenda can be discussed.

Willy Storrer proposes that we vote on this motion to move on to the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: That goes without saying! But if no one else wishes to speak, then I ask those delegates who are in favor of moving on to the agenda to represent the two votes, to raise both hands. Those who only have one vote, raise one hand. - (It happens.) 13 votes in favor of moving on to the agenda. A simple majority would be 12 votes. The request is accepted, so nothing can be done. The next point would be ——

Albert Steffen: Yes, there is something that is closely related to this question. We had intended to bring a resolution or to propose to the delegates, which reads something like this:

"On the day of the inaugural meeting of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland would like to express its gratitude and enthusiasm that the Goetheanum, which serves the cultural life of all humanity, may once again be built in Switzerland. It sees this as a good fortune and a great honor for its country. She wishes to express her determination to do everything possible to transmit from here to the whole world the inexhaustible wealth of spiritual impulses that Rudolf Steiner's work brings to the world. She is pleased to be able to work together with the other national societies to help ensure that this pure and healing source is accessible to all who seek it. The Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Since my name appears in this motion and Mr. Steffen is the proponent, I will ask Dr. Grosheintz to take the chair.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Does anyone wish to speak on this motion? Rudolf Geering thinks that this resolution should be accepted without further ado.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: It has been proposed that this resolution be adopted.

Willy Stokar: Excuse me, but I would like to ask you to state the purpose of the resolution again.

Albert Steffen: The purpose of the resolution is precisely that our Society in Switzerland has an easier time dealing with the authorities if, for example, our Society shows that it has a certain standing in Switzerland and that we stand up for it, so that it is recognized that we mean something as an Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Is it intended to be published? Albert Steffen: Yes.

Willy Stokar: In that case, if it is to be done, I would at least like to wish, from my own feelings, that it should only happen when the whole founding story is behind us, when we can present ourselves as a society that is really capable of emphatically representing something like this as a resolution, and that it should only happen after Christmas, when we are over the hill.

Albert Steffen: I have actually considered this too, since I started like this: “In the days when the founding meeting of the Anthroposophical Society took place in Dornach...” So I don't think it will be published now, but around Christmas.

Dr. Elisabeth Vreede: I would like to say that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! A decision may be taken to transform it into something else, but for the time being it still exists and could adopt the resolution. And it can then perhaps proclaim this once more in its last days or hours. The new society can adopt and proclaim the resolution again. But the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland still exists! I think it is a resolution that could find a little more approval and enthusiasm.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: So it is a matter of whether you want to agree to this resolution or reject it. Those in favor, please raise your hand. — It is the vast majority.

Dr. Steiner: Now, the next item on the agenda, which would be the point listed in our report in the July session of the 3rd International Delegates' Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach from July 20-23, 1923, see page 557..

Albert Steffen: It would be particularly important, Doctor, that the delegates now tell us who will speak at the relevant morning discussions on the areas related to anthroposophy, and who will report on the school or on medical achievements and so on, as it is stated here in the program.

Dr. Wachsmuth: May I say a few words about this? It says something like this: We will now appoint a person who will report, let's say, on education, medicine, literature and so on. First, let's say what has been reported in the Netherlands or England or somewhere else in the field of education, school studies or the preparation that has now been made in England in the field of schools. Secondly, what is planned for the future in the subject. And thirdly, what is expected from the international society for help. Another speaks more about the medical, founding of the clinic in Holland or report on this work in England. Another more about the literary work.

It would be conceivable that on the days set aside for discussion, one speaker at a time, also in Switzerland, would report on what has been achieved so far and what can be expected in the future, so that a picture of the international work can emerge.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak on this? Then it could only be a matter of whether someone from the assembly of delegates has something to announce for these topics, whether they have something to report.

Willy Storrer would like to register a short presentation about the work on the weekly journal “Das Goetheanum” for the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to register a topic? It seems not. Then we come to the next item on the agenda: the 12 points listed in our report on the July conference. Does anyone wish to say anything about them? Does anyone have a specific suggestion regarding them? (To Mr. Steffen:) Would you like to make a suggestion regarding them?

Albert Steffen: I expect these from the ranks of the delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish these 12 points to be read out? 4See page 571 ff.

Willy Storrer would like to suggest that perhaps Mr. Steffen could indicate a few of these 12 points that should be discussed, because it is only a few points that can be discussed here.

Dr. Wachsmuth: Item 8 is the following: It has been discussed in the Netherlands: statement of the Secretary General. - Then there are some things regarding the admission of new members; an extremely important point. You know that it was proposed that the members, i.e. new members, be admitted by the Secretary General of the country and that then these membership cards be countersigned by the international chairman or the official. This was proposed in Holland at the time, also in England, and will be proposed here at Christmas, purely formally. Now it will be necessary' to ask whether this is also to be the practice in Switzerland or whether it is to be left to the meeting.

The tenth point: fending off opponents.

The eleventh point: collaboration of members in all countries in supporting the initiatives launched by the Anthroposophical Society.

The twelfth point is the rebuilding of the Goetheanum and whatever can be done for it.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to address any other points?

Albert Steffen: A manuscript has arrived here regarding a proposal for regulating the financial capacity of the Society. I don't know whether it should be read out; it is from Mr. Hahn. Would you like to read it yourself, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn reads out the proposal. He recalls that Dr. Steiner once mentioned that not the tax on income but the tax on expenditure would be the right thing to do to bring in money. He proposes that the members pay a tax on expenditure.

Dr. Steiner: I would just like to note that the sentence that was in it, in which I spoke of “taxation of expenditure”, did not refer to taxation on the part of anthroposophical members of the Society. — It could very easily give rise to the opinion that I had somehow spoken of such taxation before, but that is not the case at all. I have only said that when public taxes, state taxes, are levied, a calculation cannot, in all fairness, be made according to income, but according to expenditure. I say this so that the opinion does not arise that I had something to do with the request or had said this before.

Rudolf Hahn says that he proposed it entirely on his own initiative.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak about points 8, 10, 11, 12, or about Mr. Hahn's proposal?

Mrs. Weiss (Zurich) cannot, however, represent the branch's view, but only speak personally, because the branch was not yet aware of the proposal. But she would just like to say that she personally does not like this proposal from Mr. Hahn at all. It would look very much like coercion if taxation were to be introduced as it is otherwise in churches, as a poor tax, as a school tax. She would really not welcome such taxation based on income and wealth for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. This should be left to the freedom of the individual.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak? — Are you putting this forward as a proposal, Mr. Hahn?

Rudolf Hahn proposes to see to it that money is raised in some way in order to increase the financial capacity of the Society. He sees this as a possibility for improvement. And we need to have money; we can't survive on our current income. Perhaps someone has another idea? — He doesn't see why we have to talk about taxation. We contribute 24 francs, which is not enough. But we have a large number of members who can't contribute any more. It has been suggested that voluntary contributions should be made, but nothing comes of that.

Walter Knopfli cannot agree with this proposal either. He believes that one must distinguish between membership fees of an association and donations made available to the institution. Contributions are necessary for management, administration and so on. What one gives for the Goetheanum or for the school is something else, that is, donation money. And here the freedom of the individual should be preserved.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Walter Knopfli: The contribution of 10 francs should actually suffice. It will then be up to the international society to decide how much the members of the foreign societies contribute to the central office of the international society. I believe that these contributions will then make it possible to manage the business.

Dr. Steiner: So you think that the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should propose that the international society determine what the individual national societies should contribute? Of course, there is also the difference between having a fixed amount delivered or a certain percentage of the membership fee of the respective national societies. I don't think it would be possible to introduce such a measure in the Anthroposophical Society. I believe that the antipathy to a taxation system, quite apart from how it is to be carried out in practice, would be extremely great. But that is not true. A society like the Anthroposophical Society in its present form should really be based on the freedom of its members with regard to membership fees and payments in general. It cannot be said that setting a fixed membership fee goes against the principle of freedom, because those who do not want to pay do not join in the first place, or they leave if they are already members. It is up to each person to pay the membership fee if it is not too high for them. But if you introduce a paragraph, a tax, I believe that would make us appear in a very strange light. And finally, I must say: the things that are mentioned here in point 11 will hardly flourish if that is the only way they are solved. The individual branches can of course dispose of their membership fees or decide from the bosom of their members what they like. But for all these special movements such as Waldorf schools, medicine and so on, it will always be necessary that special contributions be made, which will be made by those who can afford them. One can really only appeal to goodwill here. To exert any kind of compulsion there – which would only be possible with some members who are already inside the society – such a measure in the statutes would, of course, erect a fortress wall around the society, and no one, or very few people, would join. It's a bit strange, but I would still like to say: after all, you can't base the payment of contributions on making people look into their wallets.

Rudolf Hahn says that this was not meant. If you say that it is desirable to give 1 or 1% of your income, it is entirely left to the freedom or conscience of the individual. We have to have the money anyway!

There will be further negotiations.

Dr. Steiner: What is the difference in terms of merit between what you are talking about here and what the association actually charges? If, for example, the membership fee is set at a certain amount and people who cannot afford it are exempt, but people are free to pay a higher membership fee? We have a paragraph that says: ...can pay more! What is the difference?

Rudolf Hahn: The suggestion that perhaps more should be paid. It is just possible that no one pays 100 or 200 francs; but there are members who could afford that. On the other hand, there are members who could be forgiven a waiver of the contribution.

Dr. Jakob Hugentobler: Mr. Hahn has actually only mentioned a single example where the contributions are insufficient. He spoke of the library. It is his opinion that the contribution should not be used to finance the other purposes of the Society, but that the 24 francs should be sufficient for the actual business. Mr. Hahn should try to work in his branch in Basel in such a way that he receives his contributions for these special purposes from case to case. He will certainly succeed, as in other branches.

Rudolf Hahn says that in Basel you can have bad experiences with this.

Dr. Steiner: But this is not even a suggestion. One must, I would say, bring a moral impulse into it. I do not mean that it is immoral, but I do mean that one must think of more moral impulses than that. For you see, it is not possible for anyone to be asked to calculate something like a membership fee for the Anthroposophical Society according to their income or even according to their livelihood! Because it does come into consideration how much he is able to make deductions from a real income. Just imagine: if someone has an income of 1,000 marks a month and he is a single bachelor, and another has just as much and has ten children: how can one think of proceeding there?

Rudolf Hahn: Perhaps through a special commission?

Dr. Steiner: I think that would be the most dangerous thing. Apart from the fact that I already feel that the tax commission is sufficiently dangerous – do we then need another tax commission in the Anthroposophical Society? I cannot imagine that this would give us any special prestige.

Ms. Weiß asks whether the question was not completely settled at the last meeting, so that the office is submitting the proposals.

Dr. Wachsmuth says that he would like to mention that the proposal does not come from the office.

Rudolf Hahn: Dr. Blümel said that not 10, but 20 percent was needed. I, for one, already know what I have to do with the money.

Dr. Steiner: I am even convinced that you will not use it for yourself, but for society. But I don't know – it's really not appropriate to have a paragraph or a statute or something like that worded that way. Because it would actually have a deterrent effect on those people who want to become members first.

Question: Can't Dr. Steiner put this motion to the vote on a trial basis?

Dr. Steiner: But that would only mean that it is the motion to end the debate. The motion has been put. — Please raise your hand! Please raise your hand! It is adopted. — Then the motion is put to the vote. I therefore put Mr. Hahn's motion to the vote and ask those in favor to raise their hands. — It is unanimously rejected — by one vote, I think.

Isn't it the case – I'm really not being pedantic, but I would like to point this out – that it is best to follow these small nuances during the proceedings: There will be an immediate vote if someone proposes to end the debate. So those things that have already been properly introduced into parliamentary life contribute greatly to the meeting running in a proper manner. Does anyone have anything to add to any of these points? I think that the esteemed delegate friends will be a little unprepared to speak about these 12 points right now, because they probably haven't thought about them yet. It is probably in the invitation, but these things can only be fruitfully discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. If anyone has any further suggestions, I would ask them to do so.

One gentleman is not clear about why the admission of a new member should be countersigned by the international secretariat regarding point 8. What value should this have?

Dr. Steiner: This does have a certain value. I must say, however, that it is not made clear enough in point 8. But this point will, of course, be discussed at the Christmas meeting of delegates. It does have a certain value. It would be significant if all membership cards issued for the Anthroposophical Society had a uniform signature. As I said, it would have a value. And won't the responsibilities arise from the way in which the office of the international society is organized at Christmas? I cannot imagine that this responsibility arises in any other way than by the responsible officials here in Dornach having the necessary trust for the international society in the officials present in the individual countries: For example, where general secretaries have been appointed, as in Norway, England and the Netherlands. Of course, the person who is responsible for the Society here must have confidence in the respective general secretaries there. Only in this way can there be mutual responsibility. This was also recently established at the meeting of delegates of the Dutch Society, where it was stated: The founding assembly elects a general secretary. He has been elected. And now, isn't it true, of course, that this is subject to the proviso that the official in question, who will be at the head of the international society, gives his consent afterwards and that, if there is a change in the society - the Dutch society has decided this - then the question is put to Dornach as to whether they agree with it. Of course, that would not prevent the board of the respective national society from feeling completely autonomous. But those officials of the national society who mediate the contact with Dornach must somehow be designated or elected in agreement with Dornach, must they not? Otherwise we would not have the international society if something like that were not established.

Walter Knopfli would like to hear more about the first point of these 12 provisions, which has not yet been discussed at all. He says: We are here now as delegates of the Swiss Society and should be able to summarize what the Swiss Society is representing at this international conference. But if we now close the assembly of delegates and I have to report to my branch on what has just happened, I would have nothing to report. There has been some discussion, but a request has been made for the debate to be closed. It is precisely this point 1 that was declared necessary to discuss at the beginning of the agenda.

Dr. Steiner: It has been proposed that item 1 be discussed. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this?

Willy Storrer: We would like to repeat our proposal regarding this point: the previous form of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be regarded as provisional, and perhaps a founding, a primal assembly of Swiss members should be held next Saturday or Sunday in Zurich or Olten, at which the organization of the Society should be decided and those should be elected who are then to be represented at the Assembly of Delegates.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to speak on this?

Edgar Dürler would just like to strongly support Mr. Storrer's request and hope that it will not be destroyed again with buzzwords like “chauvinism”.

Miss Emma Ramser would like to request that this be postponed until after Christmas. She also thinks it necessary to discuss this thoroughly. There seems to be a lot of opposition to the current company. The reasons for the formation of a new Swiss company will then become clear. But in any case, the time before Christmas is too short to organize everything.

Miss...? says that if every delegate here reports back home, then at Christmas the delegates can also report on how the branch views this question.

Mrs. Weiss also thinks that this meeting should take place before Christmas so that everyone will know how to join the international society.

Albert Steffen: I don't see any reason why the Swiss members shouldn't gather. They should really gather.

Willy Storrer: I also don't see why this shouldn't be done. After all, the delegates and members of the surrounding area have also been invited to attend the meeting in order to carry out all the preparations for the delegates' meeting, and this invitation has been issued for a time that does not actually allow for such a discussion, namely at 10 o'clock at night. If it was thought that the matter could be dealt with in this relatively short period of time, a whole week should be allowed for the members to express their views. He thinks there is enough time, especially if a Saturday or Sunday is chosen as the meeting date.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but who should call the meeting? The matter is this: at present the Anthroposophical Society exists in Switzerland. It is represented today by its delegates. So far we have counted on them when it was a matter of bringing together the individual national societies. So formally everything would be in order for the Christmas Conference, and the suggestion that Mr. Knopfli first made can certainly be made at the Christmas Conference. So there are only two possibilities: either the same body could convene another meeting like the one today, or, for all I care, a meeting of Swiss members, or else a general meeting would have to be convened. And that can only be done if someone calls it.

Willy Storrer believes that this question could be resolved by saying: the previous delegates of the Swiss branches go home and call a general meeting and inform this general meeting that the previous delegates have decided to hold a meeting in Zurich for the individual members, who will then join. The secretariat could take care of this.

Dr. Steiner: That is not possible, of course, from a formal point of view. The delegates who are here now are delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. They cannot decide to convene a general assembly. They can only decide to convene a meeting of those who are now members of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. A general assembly can only be convened by someone who does so, well, from the original state. An original assembly can only be convened by someone taking responsibility – alone or with a number of comrades whom they elect themselves with – to issue a call to all those members whom they want and with whom they intend to hold an original assembly; and this assembly can then bring a proposal to the delegates' assembly at Christmas. But the Society's Assembly of Delegates cannot in any way propose the convening of a general assembly, because there is no such thing as a “general assembly” of an existing society.

Willy Storrer: In this case, we, that is, the representatives of the St. Gallen, Neuchâtel, Schaffhausen and “New Generation” branches who are present here, would convene this original assembly.

Dr. Steiner: Then you can convene it from these branches, but you must also create an independent office out of yourselves, out of your idea. But an “original assembly” cannot be convened from something that already exists. It can be decided to convene a second assembly, somewhere for my sake, but not an original assembly.

Walter Knopfli: A decision should not be made here, but the procedure should be followed in such a way that the branches agree among themselves on who wants to take charge of the matter. Then the person concerned, outside the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, outside the Assembly of Delegates, will issue this invitation and then convene it outside, in a completely neutral way, based entirely on the original state. Those who wish to do so can no doubt agree among themselves on who will do this. In the meantime, the delegates who are here can be asked to invite their members at home to take a preliminary position on the matter.

Dr. Steiner: That can certainly be done, but no resolution can be passed on it. Don't you see that? It is not possible to pass a resolution on it!

Walter Knopfli: Yes, that is a point that is very important to me regarding point 1: reporting on the national associations. There is a certain mood in favor of it.

Dr. Steiner: Yes, but is it really the case that so little is known about this intention to found an international society here? Is it really the case that so little is known about it?

Walter Knopfli: The intended founding of the international society is of course known to all members, but the question is how we as the Swiss society relate to it. The question is –

Dr. Emil Grosheintz (interrupts): But you are now opposing the Swiss Society! What you are asking for here is quite impossible. We are the delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. Now you do not like this Society and you are saying: We want to strangle ourselves by convening another assembly or by doing something else with the Society. It is simply that the present form of the Society does not suit you! Do you want us ourselves to strangle ourselves, as I can't say it any other way, to decide to form a primary assembly and start again immediately? And then it is impossible to understand how Mr. Storrer can say that this Society, as it now exists, is a provisional arrangement. It is not a provisional arrangement, it exists! And I believe that if something else is to happen in society, if it is to modify itself in such a way that the Swiss members join together more closely, then the group here, because it has an international character, this character of internationality, as it naturally exists in Dornach, this character is best expressed when an international branch is formed at the Goetheanum. If it can be done in the way Dr. Steiner has suggested, that is the very best and most natural way. I don't know why you are now pushing and insisting on bringing about this revolution before Christmas.

Dr. Steiner: But earlier it was quite possible to discuss the matter! Everything was absolutely clear, and in fact there was no reason to come back to the proposal again. It even seems — since it is being revisited — that ulterior motives are still at play that one does not want to express. Because now we are at a point where it is actually no longer possible to understand what is wanted. For example, I don't understand what Mr. Storrer wants.

Willy Storrer: All we want is for a members' meeting to take place.

Dr. Steiner: But a members' meeting can only be decided here by the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland.

Willy Storrer: That is what we want, Doctor! It is immaterial to us whether the meeting is an ordinary or an extraordinary one. The branch at the Goetheanum is represented here by Dr. Grosheintz and someone else. For example, I have not heard that it has been carried out that these representatives of their members are now taking a stand.

Dr. Steiner: You can of course decide here that a general meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland should be convened.

Martha Schelling says that she believes that only a few members will be able to respond to the call, because they cannot come twice in the short time available.

Dr. Steiner: We really ought to speak objectively on this question. Now that we have already elected the chairmen of the meeting, I would like to point out that it would be really necessary to give reasons for things when discussing such matters. Simply saying that we want this and that is not really a statement of reasons. I believe that now – today is December 8, and the delegates' meeting begins on the 24th – that calling a members' meeting in Switzerland in some place is such a drastic measure, something so incisive, that one should of course consider it very carefully. And above all, I believe that one should not proceed carelessly in such a matter. Because it is quite absolutely this to consider that every choice of a place that you make today can be made in such a way that a group can outvote the whole of Switzerland and the whole Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. You simply choose the place accordingly. You know, in some place nearby, there are members who want something specific. They want to create a majority for themselves, and to do that they choose a location. They know: if we choose St. Gallen, we have the majority there; if we choose Olten, we have the majority there, and so on. These things are of such importance that they must be considered in the face of the other point, which should actually be brought forward. Is there really such widespread dissatisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland that an extraordinary general meeting should be convened at such short notice? Is this dissatisfaction really so great? Or can what Mr. Knopfli has put forward, which I very much understood, simply be introduced in the form of a proposal put forward by those members who consider it necessary? — It can very well be put forward in the form of a proposal by individual members, then you have a very clean thing. Then there is a motion, which, for my part, is supported by 30 or however many members. There is a proper motion, and you do not now call a meeting with some ulterior motive through the will of an unequal majority, the will of individual members, that is, a vanishing minority! You have to take all that into account! Of course I have no right to interfere in this matter in any way. But I think it is absolutely dangerous if, after nothing has been said about the matter so far, after a long period of satisfaction with the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, a meeting is now to be convened from December 8 to December 24 with no explanation. At the very least, they should explain why they need a general meeting. Because they don't need a general meeting to make the request that Mr. Knopfli has made. I am completely convinced that - Walter Knopfli says he can agree to this. He thinks that individual representatives will also take a stand at Christmas - the delegate of the branch at the Goetheanum has taken a stand. If the decision is then made to establish the new Anthroposophical Society, as assumed, and to join the international Society, then the existing Society in Switzerland will formally give its consent, and only after that should the change take place.

Dr. Steiner: You see, something will be done about this at Christmas. A certain internationalization of the branch at the Goetheanum would take place, and in my opinion, conditions will then be created with which you can be satisfied. I do believe that in general – whether you change the name or not, that is really a secondary question – I do believe that you can have what you want, if there is no ulterior motive! What you say you want can certainly be achieved with the resolutions that deal with the right things.

Miss Emma Ramser: The gentlemen have stated that if their proposal is accepted, they will make specific proposals. If the proposal is accepted in such a way that the separation is addressed, they would like to make specific proposals.

Dr. Steiner: But you can't address the separation! That's quite impossible.

Miss Emma Ramser: Could the gentlemen not perhaps communicate what they have to say to the branches point by point over the next week, so that it can be discussed, so that the delegates are not, so to speak, faced with a fait accompli again, I don't want to say taken by surprise. But if the number of members cannot come at Christmas... so that we know what is to be discussed...

Dr. Steiner: It would have been quite good if the opinion had been expressed that, apart from what has been said, there are still some deficiencies in the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, it could have been brought up today!

Walter Knopfli: It was not meant as a vote of no confidence, I only said what had been said. And the specific proposals were to consider something like a primeval assembly and how society has to be reconstituted, how to do that to avoid misunderstandings. There are no hidden agendas

. Willy Storrer requests the floor.

Dr. Steiner: What you have proposed can indeed be arranged in the simplest way, also with regard to point 1. It is true that I have read this abbreviated report of the International Assembly of Delegates in Dornach with this appendix on the founding of the International Anthroposophical Society in Dornach [see $. 557]; but I must say: these 12 points look terrible, of course! And if we continue to debate this in the same way as now, we will not be finished by tomorrow morning. We will have to discuss the merger of the individual national societies that have already been founded. This first point can be dealt with in five minutes at the delegates' meeting. It just doesn't look like that, because there are four lines here; but all that is needed is to express the will to found this international society. And the reports on the various forms taken by the societies in different countries will not take up much time either. If there is the will to found this International Anthroposophical Society, then I believe we should not talk much about the formalities at all, but should find the transition to talking about a number of really important things in the anthroposophical field, which should then be discussed. I do not think it would be good to talk at length about these questions at all during this meeting at Christmas, questions which have been bandied about so much this evening and about which one usually does not know what is actually wanted. Isn't that right? According to the rules of procedure, I didn't even have to allow the motion to be discussed again. It was a concession that I allowed it to be discussed again, but then the reasons should have been presented.

Willy Storrer: Yes, Doctor, we have presented these reasons! Because we believe that it is necessary for the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland to re-establish itself, that it must do so, and we wanted to make proposals in this direction. We wanted this general meeting to express its opinion on this.

Dr. Emil Grosheintz: Mr. Storrer! We are now at a meeting of delegates of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland. If you make the request that this society should reconstitute itself - do not say “must”, it must re-establish itself - but then say the reasons why you believe that this should happen and what its shortcomings and damages are, other than those that have already been mentioned.

Willy Storrer says that Mr. Knopfli, Mr. Stokar and he agree that it would be better for the effect on the outside world if the leadership of the Swiss Anthroposophical Society consisted more of Swiss members, if there were another working committee instead of the working committee, which could still exist quite well at the Goetheanum, perhaps even composed of the individual branches in Switzerland.

Dr. Steiner: Please, then nominate other people at the next meeting where there is an election. That is not an item for discussion. You can't just make a request at any old time!

Willy Stokar: I request that the debate be closed.

Dr. Steiner: The motion to end the debate has been made. I ask those delegates who are in favor to raise their hands. - I now ask those who are against it to raise their hands. — The motion to end the debate has therefore been adopted.

Is there anything else? That does not appear to be the case. Then we come to the end. I thank the honored friends for attending this meeting of delegates. I hope that, despite the fact that we have spoken a little “opaque” about many things, that nevertheless what we have spoken about will bear good fruit at the very important meeting of delegates at Christmas.