Some Preliminary Remarks
Readers of
this lecture-cycle who do not know from their own experience
what was taking place when it was being delivered in the
Theosophical Society, then headed by Annie Besant, will
perhaps object to the polemical tone of several passages,
especially those in which the conception of Christ held by
this individuality is criticized. To understand this tone it
must be realized that at that time the authority of Annie
Besant still counted for much among many of those for whom
the lectures were intended, and that the lecturer had to
defend his own interpretation of Christ which, however, was
in no way different from what he had hitherto maintained.
Now, since
these battles lie far back in the past, some readers may well
think that the polemical passages should be deleted. This is
not the view of the present editors, who believe that, for
historical reasons, the lectures should be preserved just as
they were given. In addition, some readers may find it not
without interest to know the superstitions against which the
interpretation of Christ advanced here had to be defended,
and how contrary to all Western feeling such superstitions
were. Anyone who envisages the matter correctly is bound to
see that for the lecturer it was really not a question of
quarreling in the way characteristic of those societies and
sects which hold their own views of the world. On the
contrary what was at stake was the validity of his views, for
which he had to answer before his own scientific conscience,
as against a distorted belief motivated by personal
interests. Reasonable people may certainly conclude that this
belief was self-evidently absurd. Nevertheless it was such
absurdities that were advanced in the Theosophical Society
against what the lecturer had to say. In the world of
reality, even things contrary to rational thinking may play
their part.
Now, because
the lecturer could not abandon his interpretation of Christ,
which he had advanced since 1902 and which had been entirely
unchallenged by leading members of the Theosophical Society,
the Society, under Annie Besant's authority, among other
similarly glorious deeds excluded all those members who,
convinced by the lecturer's arguments, refused to accept Mrs.
Besant's muddled beliefs. In this respect the Theosophical
Society behaved like all inquisitors in a case which the
lecturer himself had not thought of as a quarrel over dogma
and had not treated as such. All he wished to do was to make
an exposition based purely on facts. However, this is the
kind of thing that usually happens when there is a collision
between a valid factual presentation and a fanaticism
reinforced by personal interests. In the course of time those
who had been excluded from the Theosophical Society converted
themselves into an Anthroposophical Society, which has
continually increased its membership since then. Indeed, if
we take into account the foolish calumnies directed so
violently against the Anthroposophical Society and the
lecturer in particular by the idol of the theosophists, Annie
Besant, and by some of her idolizing followers, we can
certainly not regard the separation of the Anthroposophical
from the Theosophical Society as in any way a misfortune
— especially if we also take into account many other
things that since that time have emerged from the bosom of
the Theosophical Society, supposedly as products of
“the most noble philanthropy!”
Many readers
of this cycle, who were at that time interested in the
separation, will look upon the consequence of these battles,
an echo of which appears here and there in these studies, as
a kind of document that can be understood only in connection
with the words that had to be spoken here. It may also be
regarded as a demonstration of the manifold difficulties
encountered by someone who believes he must defend something
on purely factual grounds. However, if anyone does not agree
with this viewpoint, he should be tolerant enough to skip,
without resentment, those passages which in his opinion do
not concern him. However, those for whose sake the lectures
were given at the time they were delivered found in such
passages a certain significance that should not be
underestimated.
Rudolf Steiner.
Berlin, 1918
|