Esoteric Lessons 1913–1923

GA 266III — Hildesheim

2. Notes from Rudolf Steiner's Remarks at Two Meetings with all Participants in the Educational Youth Course

Based on a photocopy in the archive. The original typewritten document on which the copy is based bears the stamp “Anthroposophische Vereeniging, Archief” and, in the upper right corner, the signature of Daniel van Bemmelen, presumably as the owner, not as the author. Minor corrections in the text are also likely to have been made by van Bemmelen.

This is probably an edited transcript of notes taken by individual participants during or immediately after the meetings. These texts must have been available to Ernst Lehrs and Wilhelm Rath when they wrote their reports; they have been reproduced almost verbatim. The page numbers indicate where the individual passages can be found in these reports. Nonsensical passages that arose during transcription have been corrected by Lehrs and marked with square brackets.

Meeting on October 6, 1922
Educational course October 2–15, 1922

Dr. Steiner: "I would like to say in advance that I would like to hear from as many different people as possible how you imagine that your community, which is to come into being, should be held together, how it should work, and what cohesion actually means to you. Please do not misunderstand me. Of course, in the end, only what is justified by the matter itself can come out of what is intended here. But it will be important that everyone first express their ideas from the most diverse perspectives about what they imagine should come out of this, so that we can see to what extent there really is, and not just supposedly, a free, completely free personal will. You can, of course, cooperate in various ways in pursuit of the goals that are now being discussed here during our joint campaign. But you also have more specific goals, or, I should say, you intend to achieve these goals in a more specific way, and I would need to hear from various sides what is actually desired before it is possible to place this matter in an objective framework. It is not what you have as mental images of what you want. One can only enter into such a thing as a completely free person, and therefore I would ask you to use this hour to speak frankly and freely, undeterred by anything else; but at the same time, take into account everything that is relevant to your free decision. I will say the rest when the discussion has taken place from various sides." [Lehrs p. 16).

Dr. Steiner: "It would be good if you could incorporate something of the positive task you want to set yourselves into your speeches. There is a certain vagueness flowing into the youth movement. It is peculiar that most of those who speak of the youth movement do not speak decisively, but rather out of a certain feeling. But even out of feeling, one can describe certain things, and it would be good at this moment if such concrete, positive feelings were expressed. You have characterized the two movements [Zionism and Wandervogel] that you have gone through well. In the [Zionist] youth movement, there is a certain longing for a regeneration of Judaism. But so that we don't end up in vagueness with this community [here], but rather in something concrete, it would be good if you really tried to describe what you have in mind. For example, if you would go into the question of what you were actually looking for in the youth movement. Not as if I wanted to inform myself, but so that you have to say to yourself: I sought this or that through the youth movement. Such things grow out of the vague, but one can try to characterize some of what one was striving for." [Lehrs p. 19].

Miss Spira: [no text]

Dr. Steiner: "You see, doesn't that tell us something that, by its very nature, can only be a transition? Because, you can't avoid getting older, can you? Now the question is whether you can stay where you are — and I mean that as a question — and strive for something that is complete in time, when we ourselves, simply through the natural course of things, continue in time. If you take the characteristic you have just given, it is limited in time. The objection that the next generation will have it easier is not entirely valid. It will be easier for them in part if those who grow older no longer behave toward their children as the older people of the past behaved. But you must not forget: You owe the enthusiasm, the great excitement you had, to the opposition, and this burned like fire within you. The next generation will not be able to have this fire, especially not if you make things easier for them, so that new difficulties will arise in the coming years, which [must be offset by something that you were able to draw from the forces of the opposition]. [Lehrs p. 20].

But life goes on and creates new conditions, and anyone who can observe life must nevertheless say: it is quite good that a generation that fought for something at the beginning of this century did so. But I can also tell you quite honestly what they fought for. It had the right character because of an inner reason. The fact is that at the end of the 19th century, new conditions emerged within the development of the human soul. The children born in 1897/98/99 were born under cosmically different conditions. That is why this mood of opposition arose in the first place. There has always been a contrast between the younger and older generations, but not this particular spirit of opposition. This led to seeing great difficulties in the near future and in the next generation. The next generation faces the great danger of becoming rootless, of not developing a core, despite everything. And I would like to know whether you are thinking about how the next generation can develop a core. You still had a core, because without it you could never have developed a spirit of opposition. The next generation will know nothing of Nietzsche, nor of Spitteler.¹ And when you think back to how you were in the youth movement and found something in the mysticism of Baal Schem,² you will have to say to yourself: The next generation will not be able to be as enthusiastic as you were. So now we are faced with this difficulty: What kind of picture can we paint for the next generation? [Lehrs p. 20].

We must work for the progress of humanity, and that is why I would like you to say something positive. But that does not depend on making grand statements and forming grand ideals; it often depends on little things that are actually great things. Among the many criticisms levelled at the Waldorf School is one that wonders why our children cannot read and write at the age of nine. There is nothing wrong with that. They can ... [Lehrs p. 20].

[at least one page is missing here]

[There is a mistake in the heading for the second meeting, which van Bemmelen probably corrected by hand:]

8.X.22 [October 8, 1922]

"A number of personalities know with all their energy what they want. Another part does not yet know. A circle is to be formed. However, the scope of the circle has not yet been determined. The individual personalities who want something energetically in a certain sense — that was Mr. Rath's argument — want to form a circle that contains a spiritual-essential substance within itself, that makes itself the bearer of something spiritual-essential. This gives the circle an esoteric character, although I would ask you not to misuse these terms too much. Today, people imagine all sorts of things when they hear the term ‘esoteric circle’. I don't mean you, but others. It is a question of what one wants. The name is not very important. If I myself want or am supposed to go into the esoteric, I must say that it is a matter of taking the esoteric seriously. For when the esoteric is taken seriously, it is acting according to concrete impulses from the spiritual world. One can only strive for that. Anthroposophy is a path to this. Forming such a community would then be the decision to embark on this path. This would lead to various measures that are suitable for achieving this goal. When you speak of spiritual content, you must be clear that this is something living. The spiritual must be something living, and the circle cannot be something dead. It must be something living, in other words, a circle of forces. It then has the properties of something living. One can assume everything that has already been said by the various personalities and by myself. But one must also be clear that common pains and common connections of destiny arise from the common body. All sorts of things emerge that, in a certain sense, are analogous to an organism, where when the fingers suffer, the brain also feels something. This presupposes that one does not do as is customary in other societies, where one says: § 1, § 2, etc. of the program—and then the various elements are united under the program. People must see themselves as human beings, not as members of a program community, as human beings, as fellow human beings with all their imperfections, and that is why it is a very fundamental task for you to form the circle, i.e., to be clear about how you come to bring together the people who unite under the points of view that Mr. Rath, Mr. Lehrs, and Mr. Maikowski have outlined. This circle can then also follow its esoteric path. This will become clear once the circle has been formed. You must first have the circle in order to be able to say whether it can follow an esoteric path. You do not yet have this. However, it is likely to present itself. That is why I believe there are personalities who know energetically what they want, but who have not yet all expressed this. You must create this clarity before you have finished with these preliminary works. You must work toward this; perhaps one comes to such things first when one starts from the beginning." [Lehrs p. 16f].

[Wilhelm Rath's report states on p. 31: ... and Dr. Steiner then turned to me and asked me to tie in with the starting point in order to create even greater clarity. These words were written down at the time:]

"It is perhaps quite easy to pick up on a starting point that you touched upon. You referred to the announcement of the League for Spiritual Science.³

[The report continues: "I then described how the style of this appeal had struck us young people in Berlin at the time as strange. We found it ‘advertising-like’. Anthroposophy could not be spread in the world in this way. We missed a spiritual substance. A truly free spiritual life must be founded in the spirit itself, and a ‘society’ that wanted to proclaim it to the world must itself stand together in a spirit of brotherhood, bound not only by an organizational but also by a spiritual bond. This awakened in us the idea of a living, spiritually united covenant, as we found it exemplified in the writings of the friend of God from the Oberland, except that such a covenant must be shaped in accordance with the demands of the present day. However, this spiritual background was not clearly recognizable in the appeal. Dr. Steiner then explained the following:

"That is precisely what must be established from the outset: a certain clarity about the matter. Perhaps I may highlight one thing you said, something you said about dissemination. The basis for this was quite different from the impression it made on you. The basis for this is as follows. Let us take the facts quite objectively. Take my “Outline of Secret Science,” a book that is not exactly light reading. The book reached so many souls in such a short time that one day it became clear that there were now an enormous number of people who knew the contents of this book. At that time, the book had reached its 12th edition, meaning 12,000 copies had been printed.⁴ That means four to five times as many readers were reached. Based on experience, however, it is probably many more. One would have to say: there are a great many people who long for what they can experience through anthroposophy. Wide circles of souls are calling for this, so that the passive longing for anthroposophy imposes on us the duty to do something so that anthroposophy can be something that is effective on earth. And active commitment to anthroposophy is such a thing that never before, again never before, has been so small for a cause that so many people long for as it is for anthroposophy. If you look at any impulses arising in humanity, you will generally find that they are small circles that have the thing and have a longing to spread it, that is, they want to bring the thing to people on their own initiative. In the case of anthroposophy, it is actually present in many souls, but they can only truly have what it contains when there are enough active participants, i.e., working people who correspond to this human longing. That would justify saying that there must actually be something like what was once strived for with the League for Spiritual Science, that activity must come between the passive. You will no longer find that so promotional. But you will also see how incredibly difficult it is to express oneself clearly. What you have said has simply taken on the form you have characterized simply because of the way it was expressed. What has created such great obstacles for anthroposophy is that there has been a great lack of clarity in its presentation, regardless of whether it is presented in an intimate setting or more outwardly. A clear stance is required. You must therefore create such clarity from the outset. You understand what I mean. Only I am not yet in a position to say what would be necessary.“ [Rath, p. 31f].

”You should not believe that I want to criticize what you have said about the League for Spiritual Life. I only wanted to explain how this came about. It was because this clarity was lacking in the appeal of the League for Spiritual Freedom. There was good will behind it. Perhaps you could have added that, as the outcome shows, it was not done correctly. The appeal had no effect.” [Rath, p. 33].

"I would like to point out that if you simply ignore the intentions of a number of people who expected various things from this conference in Stuttgart [educational youth course] and who perhaps still believe today that what they expected should be realized, by simply moving on to the agenda and leaving them out tomorrow, you may initially be accused of the following: Yes, we were summoned, we were invited, and now we are being left standing here; no one is paying any further attention to us because we want what was wanted in a different way. One thing is certain: a circle will form from those who are here today, who are working as they have set out to do."