The Constitution of the General Anthroposophical Society

GA 260a

Preliminary Remarks by the Editor on the Second Edition

When Rudolf Steiner decided at the beginning of the 20th century to advocate for the public dissemination of supersensible knowledge, he did so as a completely independent spiritual researcher in the tradition of Western Christian esotericism, but within the framework of an already existing organization, the Theosophical Society of that time. Together with Marie von Sivers (later Marie Steiner), he built up the German section, which he founded as general secretary and Marie von Sivers as secretary, from very small beginnings into an ever-expanding Central European movement.

Towards the end of this first ten years of development, profound spiritual differences arose with Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical Society, which ultimately led to the German section being officially expelled from the Theosophical Society in March 1913. As this had been expected, the Anthroposophical Society was founded at Christmas 1912, and theosophists from all over the world joined. Rudolf Steiner no longer wanted to perform any administrative functions because, as he later stated in retrospect, it was difficult to combine what an external office requires in today's world with the occult duties towards the revelations of the spiritual world (pp. 354 and 370).¹

After construction of a central building began in the fall of 1913 on the Dornach hill near Basel, bringing anthroposophy more strongly into the public consciousness than before, opposition to it grew accordingly. This became increasingly fierce during and especially immediately after the First World War, in the years 1918/19 to 1922/23, when active members devoted all their energies to realizing anthroposophy as the element they recognized as urgently necessary for a cultural renewal in various branches of life, which led to the movement for a threefold social order and the various practical foundations that emerged from it (the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, clinical-therapeutic institutes in Arlesheim, Switzerland, and Stuttgart, and the associative economic enterprises “Der Kommende Tag AG” in Stuttgart and “Futurum AG” in Switzerland). At that time, Rudolf Steiner had to conclude that the Anthroposophical Society had not grown to the extent he considered necessary to counter the opposition. He often said to Marie Steiner at the time: “Who knows whether it would not be better to continue the [anthroposophical] movement without the Society. I am held responsible for all the Society's mistakes, and the movement suffers as a result.”)² A reorganization of the Society proved to be more urgent with each passing day.

During a stay in Stuttgart, where the headquarters of the Anthroposophical Society had been moved in 1921, he sent a request to the Central Executive Council on December 10, 1922, asking them to make appropriate proposals for consolidating the Society. Three weeks later, the first Goetheanum, built entirely of wood, was destroyed by fire. This severe blow made the reorganization of the Society the main issue for the whole of 1923. In smaller and larger circles of the Society, Rudolf Steiner spoke emphatically of the need to develop a heightened sense of responsibility and a truly anthroposophical community consciousness.³

Preparations for the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society at the Christmas Conference 1923/24

The first step was to reorganize the German Society. At the delegates' meeting in Stuttgart at the end of February 1923, the previous Central Board was dissolved and a German national society (“Anthroposophical Society in Germany”) was founded, as well as a “Free Anthroposophical Society” for the needs of the anthroposophical youth of the time. In the following months, autonomous national societies were also established in other countries (see Register of Institutions, p. 712ff.).

At the beginning of June 1923, English friends sent a circular letter dated June 8, 1923, to “the branches of all countries” calling for an international delegates' meeting to be convened. As a result, the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland decided at its general meeting on June 10, 1923, to invite delegates to such a meeting in Dornach (July 20 to 23, 1923). As a kind of preparation for this, as an “stimulation for self-reflection,” as he himself called it, Rudolf Steiner gave eight lectures from June 10 to 17, 1923, on “The History and Conditions of the Anthroposophical Movement in Relation to the Anthroposophical Society” (GA 258). In these lectures, he stated, among other things, that the Society was not even in the early stages of forming a community body, a social ego, and that it had to find its way from the external social sphere into the real spiritual realm, because an “anthroposophical movement can only live in an anthroposophical society that is a reality.” By this he meant above all that anthroposophy itself should be regarded as “a living, supersensible, invisible being” walking among anthroposophists. At every moment of his life, an anthroposophist should feel connected to and responsible for the invisible being of anthroposophy (Dornach, June 17, 1923).

At the international delegates' meeting from July 20 to 23, two crucial decisions were made: the reconstruction of the Goetheanum (after the fire insurance money had been paid out on June 15), and the convening of a meeting in Dornach at Christmas 1923 to establish an “International Anthroposophical Society” with its seat at the Goetheanum, in which the individual autonomous national societies would see their center. Corresponding draft statutes and proposals for the secretary general to be elected for this purpose were to be prepared by then.

The latter became obsolete when Rudolf Steiner decided to take over the leadership of the newly founded society himself. He must have come to this decision immediately before his lecture tour to Holland, which began on November 12/13, 1923, where the last possible national society was to be founded on November 18, or perhaps only after his arrival. This can be inferred from the following events.

On November 9, 1923, Hitler's march on the Feldherrnhalle took place in Munich. When Rudolf Steiner noticed the newspaper report about it, which was posted on the bulletin board in the Goetheanum carpentry workshop, coincidentally together with Anna Samweber, a colleague from Berlin who was staying in Dornach at the time, he said to her: “If these gentlemen come to power, I can no longer set foot on German soil.” On the same day, he asked her to return to Berlin immediately to convey his request to terminate the rental agreements there.)⁴ According to this, he immediately decided to give up his and Marie Steiner's residence in Berlin and to move the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House from Berlin to Dornach. He must have agreed with Marie Steiner at that time that she would travel directly from Holland to Berlin and arrange for the move, while he himself would return to Dornach to prepare for the Christmas Conference.)⁵

In his opening lecture (Dornach, December 24, 1923), Rudolf Steiner characterized the “alternative question” he had faced in the weeks leading up to the Christmas Conference as follows:

"Well, today things stand in such a way that, after much inner struggle, the realization has dawned on me in recent weeks that It would be impossible for me to continue the anthroposophical movement within the Anthroposophical Society if this Christmas Conference did not agree that I should now formally take over the leadership or chairmanship of the Anthroposophical Society to be founded here in Dornach at the Goetheanum." He had already expressed himself in this sense several times before, for example in November in Holland. F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven reports on this as follows: "How heavily these concerns [about the new style of leadership] weighed on Rudolf Steiner's soul is evident from a conversation on November 17, 1923, on the eve of the formation of the Anthroposophical Society in Holland, when he expressed his doubts as to whether it was still possible to continue with the Society as such. He complained that no one seemed to understand what he wanted and that it might be necessary to continue working with only a few people within a strict association. This made an almost unbearably painful impression on the few who were present at this conversation.")⁷ Perhaps it was then that Marie Steiner asked him not to leave the society, which could not exist without him.)⁸ This seemed to him to be possible only if she were personally guided by him, since it had to be made clear to the world how he wanted anthroposophy to be represented through the Society. For up to that point, especially since 1918, the Society had continually deprived his own intentions of their “impulsing force”; in future, anthroposophy should no longer be merely taught and absorbed as substance, but should also be put into practice in all external measures, down to the smallest details (pp. 105, 383, 489).

Returning from Holland to Dornach, Rudolf Steiner reported on the Dutch events at the next members' lecture on November 23, 1923, and began preparing for the Christmas Conference with his lecture series “Mystery Formations” (GA 232). But until the day when the weekly magazine “Das Goetheanum” published in issue no. 19 of December 16, 1923, the official “Invitation to the Founding Meeting of the International Anthroposophical Society, Dornach Christmas 1923” issued by the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland⁹ appeared, no one except Marie Steiner knew that Rudolf Steiner had decided to take over the leadership himself, although he must have discussed the design of the invitation and the program with Albert Steffen, the editor of the weekly magazine “Das Goetheanum,” at least a week in advance. Apparently, it was only after he knew that Marie Steiner had finished her work in Berlin and would be traveling to Stuttgart on the night of December 17 to 18 that he called Dr. Wegman, Albert Steffen, and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth to a meeting on Sunday, December 16, 1923. Albert Steffen reported on this as follows, according to the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting of December 1930:

"In December, before the Christmas conference, on December 16, 1923, a meeting took place, a chairmanship meeting. Dr. Steiner called Dr. Wegman, Dr. Wachsmuth, and me to him and spoke in such a way that I heard for the first time how he envisioned the executive committee, and he said, and I wrote this down: ‘Vice President Dr. Steiner and Mr. Steffen’. Then he said: 'Dr. Wegman = Secretary, Dr. Wachsmuth = Treasurer. “)¹⁰ Dr. Vreede was not yet referred to as “Miss” at that time.¹¹ His diary entry, to which he referred here, reads as follows:)¹²

The following day, December 17, 1923, Rudolf Steiner traveled to Stuttgart to meet with Marie Steiner and then return with her to Dornach. In Stuttgart—it can only have been on December 18 or 19—Rudolf Steiner, in the presence of Marie Steiner, informed the executive committees of the two German societies of his intentions regarding the formation of a new society: "We learned that he intended to found a new society, under his chairmanship. A number of personalities (not yet named to us) would join him to form its executive committee. We also learned of the opening of a new esoteric school, the “Free University of Spiritual Science,” and of some of the basic features of its structure. Members would be free to accept his proposal, but once they had done so, the actions taken by this board would be binding on the membership.“)¹⁴

After Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner returned to Dornach on December 19 or 20, Rudolf Steiner addressed those present at the evening lecture on December 22, 1923, two days before the start of the Christmas Conference—many of the conference guests had already arrived—with the following words regarding the conference:

"This delegates' meeting will have to shape the Anthroposophical Society, and this shaping will now have to be such, my dear friends, that this Anthroposophical Society fulfills the conditions that simply arise from today's circumstances. And I must say that this Christmas meeting must proceed in such a way that we can expect it to result in the creation of an Anthroposophical Society that is capable of working. I must say that if this prospect does not exist, I would have to draw the conclusions I have repeatedly spoken of. Therefore, I consider what is to happen during and through this Christmas event for the founding of the Anthroposophical Society, which has been preceded by the founding of the national societies, to be something extremely serious and extremely significant. So that here in Dornach, something will indeed have to be created that is then simply real through its very existence. I will have to speak about the actual details at the opening meeting, which will take place next Monday. But what must already be said today — because even the very beginning, I would say, must happen in such a way that it is clear that the Anthroposophical Society that is being founded will now proceed from a different fundamental tone — what I must say today is that, first of all, starting tomorrow, when most of the friends who want to co-found this society will be there — a provisional executive committee, which, however, must become the definitive executive committee in the course of the next few days, will be present, which can really work as such. And really, my dear friends, I have been very, very busy lately with the question of how the Society should now be organized. I have also been involved in the founding of many regional societies, have experienced many things that are now alive among the members, and so on, and I have dealt quite thoroughly with what is immediately necessary in the near future. And so today I would like to present my proposals, preliminarily at first, because the matter simply has to be in place before we begin.

You see, it cannot be otherwise: the seriousness of the matter will not be taken into account if the conditions for the continued existence, that is, actually for the re-establishment of the Society — which I will talk about on Monday — if these conditions are not met. But in order to meet these conditions, I myself must set certain conditions, which may seem radical to some at first. However, these are conditions that are such that I say: I see only the possibility of continuing to work with the Society on anthroposophical ground if these conditions are met. And so, for my part, I would like to make a proposal—so that you can familiarize yourselves with the idea—I would like to make a proposal for the constitution of the Executive Council, which, simply by virtue of my making the proposal to you today, will initially function on a provisional basis, and I hope it will become a definitive Executive Council.

This Executive Council must be such that it can actually place Dornach at the center of the Anthroposophical Society. As I said, I have given a great deal of thought to the question of how the Society should be constituted, and you may believe me when I say that I have done so thoroughly. And after this thorough consideration, my dear friends, I can make no other proposal than that you elect me as the chairperson of the Anthroposophical Society that is being established, and indeed as the official chairperson. I must therefore simply draw the conclusion from the experiences of recent years that I can only really work if I myself become the actual chairperson — I want to renounce everything, honorary chairperson and so on, I will not go into that anymore, all those things where one has to stand behind the scenes, so to speak, and be good for what others do — so I will actually only be able to continue working if I myself am elected as the real chairperson of the Anthroposophical Society that is to be founded here. Of course, since I will be taking the work into my own hands, it is necessary that I will be supported by those people who, due to the conditions of the work that has been prepared, are now the next ones who can work here with me at the center. And so, for my part, I will propose – that is, if I am elected chairman, otherwise I would not participate at all – Mr. Steffen as second chairman, i.e., deputy chairman; Dr. Steiner as third board member; and Dr. Wegman as fourth board member and secretary. As the fifth member of the Executive Council, I propose Dr. Vreede, and as the sixth member, Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth, who would then hold the office of secretary and treasurer.

On Monday, I will explain the reasons why I am proposing only those individuals who are directly based here in Dornach for the actual Central Board. A board that has to be assembled from all over the world will never be able to work properly and cannot actually work. So they must be people who are established in Dornach. And those whom I have now proposed, as I said, myself, Mr. Steffen as deputy, Dr. Steiner, Dr. Wegman as secretary, Miss Dr. Vreede, and Dr. Wachsmuth as secretary and treasurer, would then be the Executive Council that would have to work from here.

Now, however, as I have already shown some friends recently in The Hague, I understand the executive committee to be not just on paper, but to be fully responsible in its position on the executive committee and to represent the society. Therefore, I would ask that, starting tomorrow, this provisional board of directors take every opportunity to represent the association to our friends here, so that things are really as I explained to our friends in The Hague: a proper association that is to function cannot do without a certain form. Form must be there from the beginning. I therefore ask that this be taken into account, that there are in fact so many provisional board members here, that chairs are provided and that these board members sit facing the other members, so that it is constantly clear that this is the board. If one sits here and the other there, it will never be possible to bring them together when they are needed. So it is a matter of really accepting things as realities from now on. As I said, it is only because I wanted us to have a board as of tomorrow that I have appointed this provisional board. I will explain the reasons for this in my opening speech on Monday. I will also propose a draft constitution on Monday – I hope the statutes will have been printed by then – which will form the basis for the constitution of the society under the current conditions.

Well, my dear friends, I have now said what I wanted to say at the beginning of our Christmas conference here." He also returned to this topic before the evening lecture the next day, December 23, 1923:

Then, from the wealth of what will have to be discussed tomorrow, I have to mention once again what I mentioned yesterday at the end, because it is connected with the whole arrangement of our delegates' meeting, which had to be prepared in advance and which, so to speak, has to be administered before it begins. I must mention that I have recently been thinking very thoroughly about how the Anthroposophical Society must be structured in the future if it is to achieve its task.

I have repeatedly emphasized in various places that the Anthroposophical Society should take on a certain form here at Christmas, which can be based on what has been achieved in the individual national societies. I have never thought, my dear friends, of a merely synthetic summary of the national societies. That would lead us back to an abstraction. If anything is to come of this Anthroposophical Society, we must actually form a society that carries its own forces of existence within itself. After the various experiences I have had there, after everything I have learned, I have decided not only to continue to work on the formation of the society as I have done in the past, but to work intensively and centrally on the formation of this society. Tomorrow, therefore, I will present to my friends a draft of the statutes that has emerged from the closest circle of my colleagues here in Dornach, and I would like to announce today, as I did yesterday, that, as difficult as it is for me to do so, in view of the course that anthroposophical society affairs have taken, I have no choice but to propose that in future the leadership of the society be formed in such a way that I myself, as chairman of the society that is being formed here in Dornach, have this leadership. And then it will be necessary that precisely those colleagues who have already participated in the Dornach work in the manner I will describe tomorrow stand by my side here in the inner circle, so that I can expect the proper development of anthroposophical work from the continuation of this work.

And so I myself have to propose that I myself exercise the chairmanship of the Anthroposophical Society that is being founded here, that Mr. Steffen then stands by my side as deputy chairman. Then Dr. Steiner would also be on this board, then Dr. Wegman as secretary. Also included in this innermost working board — it is to be a working board — would be Miss Dr. Vreede and Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth. That would be the working committee, and tomorrow in my opening lecture I would then have to justify why I have to think in this particular way about the founding and the progress of the Anthroposophical Society.

It is true that at present things must be taken very, very seriously, bitterly seriously. Otherwise, what I have often spoken of would actually have to happen, namely that I would have to withdraw from the Anthroposophical Society."

These proposals by Rudolf Steiner were fully accepted the next day at the opening of the Christmas Conference. This marked the most important decision for the new Anthroposophical Society, which Rudolf Steiner now expressly wanted to be understood as a general society and not as an international society (see opening lecture of the Christmas Conference in Dornach, December 24, 1923, in GA 260, 5. 41).

The idealistic goals associated with Rudolf Steiner's Christmas Conference decision

In his various statements (in this volume), Rudolf Steiner characterized the most important idealistic goals to be realized through the reformation of the Anthroposophical Society so that anthroposophy could fulfill its true cultural task—to form the necessary soul for the world body created by material culture (p. 491)—as follows:

Full publicity for the Society and the esoteric school as a “Free University of Spiritual Science,” while at the same time preserving the living conditions necessary for the esoteric. Full publicity of publications. To break with everything associated with associations and to place everything on a purely human basis. To develop a community consciousness as the necessary supporting force for comprehensive spiritual knowledge, especially in the field of reincarnation and karma.

Through full publicity, the Society was to become the most modern esoteric society in the world, and the esoteric impulse was to appear throughout its entire constitution (p. 209). . For this reason, the society was now constituted as completely public, and the manuscript prints of Rudolf Steiner's lecture cycles, previously available only to members, were released. The new esoteric school, the “School of Spiritual Science,” with its three classes and various scientific and artistic sections, was also not to “have the character of a secret society” in any way, because “secret societies are not possible today; the present age demands something else” (p. 127). Not only was it anchored as the “center of activity” in the statutes of the society (p. 5) and members were granted the right to apply for admission, but Rudolf Steiner also wanted to ensure that “people will always know, to the greatest extent possible, what it does” (p. 127f.). A first step in this direction was that Rudolf Steiner reported on the content of lectures he had given for the “general anthroposophical part of the School of Spiritual Science” within its first class in the general newsletter for members (p. 202) and commented: "These hints are intended to characterize the esoteric work of the School of Spiritual Science. (...) What is said here exoterically is developed esoterically in the school.“ On the other hand, those who wanted to enter the ”School of Spiritual Science" were urged to consider that they would be required to be true representatives of the anthroposophical cause wherever they were in life. This was not a restriction of freedom. The school's management must be as free to choose whom it shares its work with as those who receive this work must be free. The reference to the nineteen expulsions that had taken place in the short time since its founding was intended to show how seriously Rudolf Steiner wanted the requirements of this free contractual relationship to be taken (p. 374f.).

The effects of Rudolf Steiner's Christmas Conference decision on him personally

The serious obstacles that stood in the way of Rudolf Steiner's vision for the future began during the Christmas Conference, which was supported with great enthusiasm by the entire membership, but at the same time, as Marie Steiner writes, was associated with “infinite tragedy,” because "on the last of those days, January 1, 1924, he fell seriously and suddenly ill. It was like a sword blow that struck his life during that convivial gathering, which was accompanied by tea and accompanying refreshments, listed on the program as ‘Roub’.“ (Preface to ”The Christmas Conference...," GA 260).

This poisoning attack, documented several times by Marie Steiner (p. 589), must be considered one of the risks Rudolf Steiner took with his decision to unite the anthroposophical movement and society by taking over the leadership of the new society himself. Everywhere he gave lectures for the members of the Anthroposophical Society, from the Christmas Conference until his serious illness in September 1924, he described this decision not only as the “most difficult conceivable” (p. 382), but even as a “risk, especially in relation to the spiritual world” (p. 236). For he did not know how those spiritual powers that guide the anthroposophical movement in the spiritual world and to whom “it is solely incumbent to decide how the anthroposophical movement should be led” (p. 364) would respond to his decision. It could well have been that these spiritual powers would have withdrawn their support, thereby jeopardizing the continuation of spiritual revelations. However, the opposite occurred: the spiritual revelations, “on which we are entirely dependent when it comes to spreading anthroposophy,” became even stronger. But there was also “a promise” to the spiritual world that would be fulfilled “in an unbreakable way.” It would be seen that “in the future, things will happen as they were promised to the spiritual world” (pp. 236, 325, 371, 382). He once hinted at the consequences this had for him, saying that he must carry what happens in connection with the leadership up into the spiritual world, “not only to fulfill a responsibility within something that is here on the physical plane, but a responsibility that goes all the way up into the spiritual worlds.” Therefore, consideration should be given to the difficulties he must face when he “sometimes has to bring with him, along with what he is responsible for, that which comes from the personal aspirations of the people involved,” for this causes the “most terrible setbacks” (Dornach, May 3, 1924, see supplement p. 18). A few weeks later, he remarked that "very strong opposing, demonic forces are attacking the anthroposophical movement, but that it is nevertheless to be hoped that through the ‘forces of the alliance’ that were allowed to be formed with the good spiritual forces at the Christmas Conference, these opposing forces in the spiritual realm, which can be driven out of the field in order to achieve their effects “serve the people on earth” (Paris, May 23, 1924, see p. 236).

This is probably one of the reasons behind Marie Steiner's statement that Rudolf Steiner took on the karma of society through his decision to hold the Christmas Conference, which led to his early death:

“He took its karma upon himself. He was unable to lead any more Christmas Conferences. After a year and three months, he had left us.”

In the meantime, however, he has given us something that, if properly understood and lived, can have a world-transforming, soul-renewing, spiritually creative effect. If it is lived correctly, with the seriousness he asked for and with a pure heart. He had to leave us. What becomes of the society lies in its group soul awareness. The whole will tip the scales. One thing it will have achieved, whatever the outcome, whether upward or downward: it will have been the bridge that, like the green snake in the fairy tale,¹⁵ over the abyss into which humanity was threatening to sink; humanity will be able to cross over to the other side. There it will receive what Rudolf Steiner left behind as his legacy. The mistakes of society will also be atoned for by his death. He was able to give so much to society because he was willing to die for it and for humanity so that he could give.“)¹⁶

The constitutional implications of Rudolf Steiner's Christmas Conference decision

After the Christmas Conference had ended, Rudolf Steiner set about reorganizing the administration of the Anthroposophical Society and its existing institutions, always with the intention of taking personal responsibility for everything from then on. He clearly expressed this while still on his sickbed in his letter of December 31, 1924, to Felix Heinemann: “The entire structure of the Goetheanum administration must remain as it is now ... In particular, the financial administration must remain exactly the same, that is, it must be handled by me alone. Otherwise, I could not work” (p. 567). And in his lecture on April 12, 1924, in Dornach, he had said: “For of course the Anthroposophical Society must be something quite different if it is led by me or if it is led by someone else.” In all the places where he spoke about the conditions of the Christmas Conference (see p. 163 ff.), he also pointed out the fact that it is only because he personally took over the chairmanship that the spiritual current of the “anthroposophical movement” is connected with the Anthroposophical Society. For example, he said in England (Torquay, August 12, 1924): "Before this Christmas Conference at the Goetheanum, I often had to emphasize that a distinction must be made between the anthroposophical movement, which lives out a spiritual current in its reflection on earth, and the Anthroposophical Society, which is precisely a society that was administered in an external way by electing its officials or appointing them in some other way. Since Christmas, the opposite must be said. It is no longer possible to distinguish between the anthroposophical movement and the Anthroposophical Society. They are both one: for by my becoming chairman of the Society myself, the anthroposophical movement has become one with the Anthroposophical Society."

Step by step, the administration of the Goetheanum structure was also put in order, but this was by no means completed when Rudolf Steiner died shortly afterwards. The most essential form of the new organisation that had been created up to that point, which only became final with his death, was established by him at the 3rd extraordinary general meeting of the “Goetheanum Association” on June 29, 1924. In order to fulfill its task, this association had a small number of “ordinary” members, as stipulated in its statutes, who alone were entitled to vote. This meeting was preceded by the approval of the construction project for the new Goetheanum by the municipality of Dornach in April and its submission by Rudolf Steiner himself to the building department in Solothurn on May 21. Following his immediate subsequent stays in Paris, Koberwitz, and Breslau, the weekly newspaper “Das Goetheanum” and the “Nachrichtenblatt” of June 22, 1924, announced the 3rd extraordinary general meeting of the “Goetheanum Association.” At this meeting, which took place on Sunday, June 29, Rudolf Steiner pointed out that, based on the overall development, the General Anthroposophical Society, which is still to be registered as an association, should be divided into the following four subdivisions:

1. Anthroposophical Society in the narrower sense
2. Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House
3. Goetheanum Association
4. Clinical-Therapeutic Institute.

During this meeting, Rudolf Steiner first reorganized the executive committee of the “Goetheanum Association” so that he also took over as its first chair and Dr. Emil Grosheintz, the previous first chair, became the second chair. At the same time, the remaining five members of the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society, which had been formed at the Christmas Conference, as well as the previous members of the Executive Council of the Goetheanum Society, were admitted to this Executive Council. The statutes were amended because the General Anthroposophical Society was now to be entered in the commercial register. The statutes of the Christmas Conference could not be used for this purpose, as they were later, according to Dr. Guenther Wachsmuth, “given the designation ‘Principles’ at the express request of Dr. Steiner” (Newsletter 1935, No. 20). A first draft of the statutes for the commercial register is dated August 3, 1924. It is available in the handwriting of the secretary, Dr. Ita Wegman, with handwritten corrections and additions by Rudolf Steiner (p. 548f.) . According to two drafts by Rudolf Steiner dated August 2 for a power of attorney for Dr. Ita Wegman, a “founding meeting of the Anthroposophical Society” was planned for August 3 (supplement p. 30). As can be seen from the invoice from clerk Altermatt dated March 3, 1925 (supplement p. 31), a “general meeting” obviously took place on August 3, 1924, in which he participated as a certifying officer and minute-taker. However, there are no documents available on the course of this meeting or the resolutions passed; nor are there any entries in the commercial register (supplement p. 58).

While the resolutions of June 29, 1924, were still entirely dominated by the reconstitution of the “Goetheanum Association, the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach” as a subdivision of the General Anthroposophical Society, which was still to be entered in the commercial register, the draft statutes of August 3, 1924 dealt with the latter itself. What Rudolf Steiner had explained in his introductory remarks on June 29, namely “that out of the whole spirit of the Anthroposophical Society as it now exists, this Anthroposophical Society functions as the actually registered association, registered in the commercial register” (p. 503), was now to be put into a legally binding form (p. 548f.). In S 2 of the draft statutes of August 3, the four subdivisions mentioned by Rudolf Steiner on June 29 are listed. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary members made for the subdivision “Goetheanum Association” is also included in the draft of August 3 (cf. p. 4). The same applies to the appointment of ordinary members, which, according to p. 5, is carried out by the Executive Council.

The fact that no decision was made on August 3, 1924, and that the intended entry in the commercial register did not take place, may be related to the fact that it had become apparent in the meantime that the plan to run the “Goetheanum Association” – which was still the legal owner of the assets – as a subdivision of the General Anthroposophical Society, which was still to be registered, was not feasible, as the transfer of the high assets of this association to the General Anthroposophical Society would have involved high transfer costs (as also reported by the architect Ernst Aisenpreis). It is clear that no solution to the problems was found in the summer and early autumn of 1924, as Rudolf Steiner traveled to England a few days later and, after his return at the beginning of September, was extremely busy due to several specialist courses, some of which ran in parallel. The onset of his illness at the end of September made further steps impossible for the time being.

As can be seen from a note by Rudolf Steiner (see supplement, p. 43), he had meanwhile received a letter from clerk Altermatt, in which the latter requested a meeting to discuss the “founding of the Anthroposophical Society.” Several months must have passed before negotiations were resumed. At the general meetings in 1934 and 1935, Guenther Wachsmuth reported on the circumstances surrounding the registration of the statutes (see minutes) as follows:

"In 1925, when Dr. Steiner was already ill, I had to take care of the registration with the authorities. The entry in the commercial register had to be completed within a year if possible. At that time, I went down to see a clerk in Dornach. It was not very easy to discuss the statutes of an Anthroposophical Society with him. Not that he wasn't extremely willing, but it wasn't very easy to make the points clear to him. But since he is no longer among the living, I don't want to talk about it any further. But these statutes, as they then came into being, turned out to be so imperfect and inadequate to the principles that Dr. Steiner said: Yes, these statutes are not what we want; they will have to be changed slowly, and for us it is the principles that are decisive.“

And in 1935 he elaborated on this as follows:

”When the statutes were to be registered, Dr. Steiner was already ill. He commissioned Dr. Wachsmuth to conduct the negotiations with the registrar. Dr. Wachsmuth presented Dr. Steiner with the registrar's proposed amendments. Dr. Steiner still did not agree with some points in the wording. Nevertheless, he arranged for the registration to go ahead with the remark that it would be possible to make changes from time to time." (Newsletter 1935, No. 20). On February 8, 1925, the time had finally come for the new statutes to be adopted at the 4th extraordinary general meeting of the “Goetheanum Association,” which had to take place without Rudolf Steiner. On the one hand, these reflect what had already been the subject of negotiations on June 29 and in the draft of August 3, 1924, or what was to become the subject of negotiations. On the other hand, they contain fundamental innovations: for example, the General Anthroposophical Society appears in S 1 as the legal successor to the “Goetheanum Society.” Furthermore, the distinction between “leading (ordinary)” and “participating (extraordinary)” members, as laid down in the draft statutes of August 3, was changed to ‘ordinary’ and “contributing” members. Whereas previously full members, who held a leading function, were appointed solely by the Executive Council, membership can now be acquired by written application. The provision in the statutes of June 29 (S 10) that only full members were entitled to vote was also removed.

The resolutions of February 8, 1925, in particular the changes to the statutes of June 29 and the draft statutes of August 3, 1924, created a situation that resulted in profound changes to the entire social structure. Albert Steffen recorded the possible far-reaching consequences of the events of February 8 in his diary on February 9: "On February 8, the entry was made in the commercial register. Every member now has the right to vote. The company can say: No construction! No clinic. A different board of directors, etc.“)¹⁷

On March 3, 1925, the entry was made in the commercial register, and on March 7 and 11, it was published in the ”Schweizerisches Handelsamtsblatt" (Swiss Commercial Gazette). The wording entered in the commercial register corresponds to that of the “Application for the Commercial Register” (p. 564 ff.) drafted by registrar Altermatt. Contrary to the wording of the minutes of the meeting on February 8, where § 1 of the statutes states: " Under the name General Anthroposophical Society, an association exists as the legal successor to the Goetheanum Association, the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach ...“, the commercial register states: ”The name of the association is changed to < General Anthroposophical Society > ...". This name change was obviously intended to solve the problem associated with the high costs of changing ownership.

In the “Nachrichtenblatt” of March 22, 1925, a report on the meeting of February 8 appeared under the heading “Mitteilungen des Vorstandes” (Announcements from the Executive Board), in which the members were informed of the decisions taken there. Here, for the first time, a more detailed description is given of who is to be counted among the “ordinary” members. The exact wording is: “In future, the members of the General Anthroposophical Society will be: a) ‘full members (these are all members of the General Anthroposophical Society)’” (p. 570).

In order to maintain continuity in the administration of the Goetheanum building on the new basis, Rudolf Steiner wrote a letter dated March 19, 1925, a few days before his death, to seven Swiss members, five of whom belonged to the previous “full” members of the “Goetheanum Association,” to appoint them “to the management of the administration of the Goetheanum building,” the third subdivision, which was to take over the tasks of the previous “Goetheanum Association.” Although they were prepared to act in accordance with Rudolf Steiner's intentions, they were unable to exercise their office because, after Rudolf Steiner's death, the tasks intended for them were taken over by the Executive Council of the General Anthroposophical Society in connection with a treasury committee.

The question of what further or even final forms the work of the General Anthroposophical Society might have taken, especially since Rudolf Steiner had based the internal and external leadership entirely on his own person, must remain open. He deliberately did not give any instructions for the time after his death (p. 694). A complete reconstruction of the events from the Christmas Conference to March 1925 is still not possible today, even though various new documents have been found since the first edition of this volume in 1966. On the one hand, important documents are still missing (for example, the minutes of August 3, the letter from Altermatt and other correspondence relating to the problems associated with the entry of the General Anthroposophical Society in the commercial register), and on the other hand, there are no correspondingly meaningful statements, documents, etc. from those directly involved at the time.

The newly discovered documents, some of which were kindly made available by the Goetheanum, relate to the reorganization of the relationship between the various institutions involved (Anthroposophical Society, Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag, Goetheanum Association, Clinical-Therapeutic Institute) and are printed in the “supplement” to the second edition. The notes to this supplement establish its content-related and temporal connection with Rudolf Steiner's remarks reproduced in the volume. In the volume itself, reference is made to their chronological classification at the relevant points.

In addition to the historical developments of 1924/25, it should be noted that the real estate of the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute was acquired by the Goetheanum Association on the basis of the contracts of June 29 and 30, 1924, on the basis of the contracts of June 29 and 30, 1924, and thus incorporated into the General Anthroposophical Society (see supplement, p. 34ff.). In 1931, they were sold back to the Clinic Association.

After Rudolf Steiner's death, Marie Steiner, as its owner, transferred the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House to the General Anthroposophical Society by contract dated December 16, 1925, in such a way that she reserved the unrestricted management and full usufruct until her death and made the purchase price payable only after her death.

The arrangement of the institutions not belonging to the narrower Goetheanum structure, i.e., Futurum AG Dornach, Internationale Laboratorien AG (Weleda) Arlesheim, and Kommende Tag AG Stuttgart, was carried out in the manner evident from the minutes of March 24 and 25 and July 15, 1924, with the corresponding contracts.

This volume thus comprises all of Rudolf Steiner's written and oral statements on the intentions and measures initiated by the Christmas Conference of 1923/24 for the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society. Through the “Chronicle 1924-1925” (pp. 587-698), these documents are linked to the entire stream of his other immense anthroposophical activities that continued until his death.

Hella Wiesberger