LECTURE SEVEN
The Consolidation of the Anthroposophic Movement
Dornach, 16 June 1923
Having talked about various outer circumstances as well as the
more intimate aspects of modern spiritual movements, I will attempt
today and tomorrow to provide an interpretation of the conditions
which govern the existence of the Anthroposophical Society in
particular. And I will do so by means of various events which have
occurred during the third phase of the movement.
We have to understand clearly our position at the time when the
second phase of the anthroposophical movement was coming to an end,
around 1913 and 1914, and our position today. Let us look back at the
progress which was achieved in the first and second phases by
adhering essentially to the principle that progress should be made in
line with actual circumstances, that the movement should move forward
at the same speed as the inner life of anthroposophy expands.
I said that in the first phase — approximately up to 1907,
1908, 1909 — we gradually worked out the inner spiritual
content of the movement. The foundations were laid for a truly modern
science of the spirit with the consequences which that entailed in
various directions. The journal
Luzifer-Gnosis
was produced until
the end of the period. It regularly carried material by me and others
which built up the content of anthroposophy in stages. When the
second phase began, the science of the spirit came to grips, in
lectures and lecture cycles, with those texts which are particularly
significant for the spiritual development of the West, the Gospels
and Genesis, a development which included the broader public in
certain ways. Once again real progress was made.
We started with the Gospel of St. John, and moved from there to the
other Gospels. They were used to demonstrate certain wisdom and
truths. The spiritual content was built up with each step. The
expansion of the Society was essentially linked with this inner
development of its spiritual content.
Of course programmes and similar things had to be organized to
take care of everyday business. But that was not the priority. The
main thing was that positive spiritual work was undertaken at each
stage and that these spiritual achievements could then be deepened
esoterically in the appropriate way.
In this context it was particularly at the end of the second phase
that anthroposophy spread more widely into general culture and
civilization, as with the Munich performances of the mystery dramas.
We reached the stage at the end of the second phase when we could
begin to think about the construction of the building which has
suffered such a misfortune here. This was an exceedingly important
stage in the development of the Anthroposophical Society. The
construction of such a building assumed that a considerable number of
people had an interest in creating a home for the real substance of
anthroposophy. But it also meant that the first significant step was
being taken beyond the measured progress which had kept pace with the
overall development of the Anthroposophical Society. Because it is
obvious that a building like the Goetheanum, in contrast to
everything that had gone before, would focus the attention of the
world at large in quite a different way on what the Society had
become.
We had our opponents in various camps before this point. They even
went so far as to publish what they said about us. But they failed to
draw people's attention. It was the construction of the building
which first created the opportunity for our opponents to find an
audience.
The opportunity to construct the building assumed that something
existed which made it worthwhile to do that. It did exist. A larger
number of people experienced its presence as something with a certain
inner vitality. Indeed, we had gathered, valuable experience over a
considerable period of time. Since a society existed, this experience
could have been put to good use, could be put to good use today.
Everything I have spoken about in the last few days was meant to
point to certain events which can be taken as valuable
experience.
Now this period has come to an end. The burning of the Goetheanum
represents the shattering event which demonstrated that this period
has run out. Remember that these lectures are also intended to allow
for self-reflection among anthroposophists. That self-reflection
should lead us to remember today how at that time we also had to
anticipate, anticipate actively, that when anthroposophy stepped into
the limelight the opposition would inevitably grow.
Now we are talking in the first instance about the start and the
finish. The start is represented in the courage to begin the
construction of the Goetheanum. Let us examine in what form the
effect achieved by the Goetheanum, in that it exposed anthroposophy
to the judgement of an unlimited number of people, is evident
today.
The latest evidence is contained in a pamphlet which has just
appeared and which is entitled
The Secret Machinery of Revolution.
[ Note 1 ]
On page 13 of this pamphlet you will find the following exposition:
At this stage of my
inquiry I may refer briefly to the existence of an offshoot of the
Theosophical Society, known as the Anthroposophical Society. This was
formed as the result of a schism in the ranks of the Theosophists, by
a man of Jewish birth who was connected with one of the modern branches
of the Carbonari. Not only so, but in association with another Theosophist
he is engaged in organizing certain singular commercial undertakings
not unconnected with Communist propaganda; almost precisely in the
manner in which Count St. Germain
[ Note 2 ]
organized his dyeworks
and other commercial ventures with a like purpose. And this queer
business group has its connections with the Irish Republican
movement, with the German groups already mentioned, and also with
another mysterious group which was founded by Jewish intellectuals in
France about four years ago, and which includes in its membership
many well-known politicians, scientists, university professors, and
literary men in France, Germany, America, and England. It is a secret
society, but some idea of its real aims may be gathered from the fact
that it sponsored the Ligue des Anciens Combattants, whose aim
appears to be to undermine the discipline of the armies in the Allied
countries. Although nominally a Right Wing society, it is in direct
touch with members of the Soviet Government of Russia; in Britain it
is also connected with certain Fabians and with the Union of
Democratic Control, which opposes secret diplomacy.
The only thing I need add is that my trip to London is planned for
August, and you can see from this that our opponents are very well
organized and know very well what they are doing. As you know, I have
said for some time that one should never believe there is not always
a worse surprise in store.
As you can see, we have our opponents today and that is the other
point which marks the end of the third phase who are not afraid to
make use of any lie and who know very well how to utilize it to best
advantage. It is wrong to believe that it is somehow appropriate to
pass over these things lightly with the argument that not only are
they devoid of truth, but the lies are so crude no one will believe
them. People who say that simply show that they are deeply unaware of
the nature of contemporary western civilization, and do not recognize
the powerful impulses to untruth which are accepted as true, I have
to say, even by the best people, because it is convenient and they
are only half awake.
For us it is particularly important to look at what lies between
these two points. In 1914 the anthroposophical movement had
undoubtedly reached the point at which it could have survived in the
world on the strength of its own spiritual resources, its spiritual
content. But conditions dictated that we should continue to work with
vitality after 1914. The work since then consisted essentially of a
spiritual deepening, and in that respect we took the direct path once
again. We sought that spiritual deepening stage by stage, without
concern for the external events of the world, because it was and
still is the case that the spiritual content which needs to be
revealed for mankind to progress has to be incorporated into our
civilization initially in any form available. We can never do
anything in speaking about or working on this material other than
base our actions on these very spiritual resources.
In this respect anthroposophy was broadened in its third phase
through the introduction of eurythmy. No one can ever claim that
eurythmy is based on anything other than the sources of
anthroposophy. Everything is taken from the sources of anthroposophy.
After all, there are at present all kinds of dance forms which
attempt in one way or another to achieve something which might
superficially resemble eurythmy to a certain extent. But look at
events from the point when Marie Steiner took charge of eurythmy.
[ Note 3 ]
During the war it was cultivated in what I might describe as
internal circles, but then it became public and met with ever
increasing interest. Look at everything which has contributed to
eurythmy. Believe me, there were many people who insinuated that here
or there something very similar existed which had to be taken into
account or incorporated into eurythmy? The only way in which fruitful
progress could be made was to look neither left nor right but simply
work directly from the sources themselves. If there had been any
compromise about eurythmy it would not have turned into what it has
become. That is one of the conditions which govern the existence of
such a movement; there must be an absolute certainty that the
material required can be gathered directly from the sources in a
continuous process of expansion.
Working from the centre like this, which was, of course,
relatively easy until 1914 because it was self-evident, is the only
way to make proper progress with anthroposophy.
This third period, from 1914 onwards, witnessed an
all-encompassing phenomenon which naturally affected the
anthroposophical movement as it affected everything else. Now it must
be strongly emphasized that during the war, when countries were
tearing each other apart, members of sixteen or seventeen nations
were present here and working together; it must be emphasized that
the Anthroposophical Society passed through this period without in
any way forfeiting its essential nature. But neither must it be
forgotten that all the feelings which passed through people's minds
during this period, and thus also through the minds of
anthroposophists, had a splintering effect on the Anthroposophical
Society in many respects. This cannot be denied.
In talking about these things in an objective manner, I do not
want to criticize or invalidate in any way the good characteristics
which anthroposophists possess. We should take them for granted. It
is true that within the Anthroposophical Society we managed to
overcome to a certain extent the things which so divided people
between 1914 and 1918. But anyone watching these things will have
noticed that the Society could not avoid the ripple effect, even if
it appeared in a somewhat different form from usual, and that in this
context something came strongly to the surface which I have described
before by saying that in this third phase we saw the beginnings of
what I might call a certain inner opposition to the tasks I had to
fulfil in the Anthroposophical Society.
Of course most people are surprised when I talk of this inner
opposition, because many of them are unaware of it. But I have to say
that this does not make it any better, because these feelings of
inner opposition grew particularly strongly in the third phase. That
was also evident in outer symptoms. When a movement like ours has
passed through two phases in the way I have described, there is
certainly no need for blind trust when certain actions are taken in
the third phase given that the precedents already exist whose full
ramifications are not immediately clear to everyone. But remember
that these actions were undertaken in a context in which, while most
certainly not everyone understood their full implications, many
things had to be held together and it was of paramount importance
that the anthroposophical movement itself should be defined in the
right way. That is when we observed what might be described as such
inner opposition.
I am aware, of course, that when I speak about these things, many
people will say: But shouldn't we have our own opinions? One should
certainly have one's own opinions about what one does, but when
someone else does something with which one is connected it is also
true that trust must play some role, particularly when such
precedents exist as I have described.
Now at a certain point of the third phase during the war, I wrote
the booklet
Thoughts in Time of War.
[ Note 4 ]
This particular work elicited inner
opposition which was especially noticeable. People told me that they
thought anthroposophy never intervened in politics, as if that
booklet involved itself with politics! And there was more of the
same. Something had affected them which should not grow on the ground
of anthroposophy although it sprouts in quite different soil. There
were quite a few such objections to
Thoughts in Time of War,
but I am about
to say something terribly arrogant, but true nevertheless; no one
ever acknowledged that the whole thing was not really comprehensible
to them at the time but if they waited until 1935 they might perhaps
understand why that booklet was written.
And this is only one example among many which demonstrates clearly
the strong intervention of something whose almost exclusive purpose
was to undermine the freedom and self-determination within the
Anthroposophical Society which we take for granted. It should have
been self-evident that the writing of this publication was my
business alone. Instead, an opinion began to form: If he wants to be
the one with whom we build the Anthroposophical Society, then he is
allowed to write only the things we approve of.
These things have to be stated in a direct manner, otherwise they
will not be understood. They are symptomatic of a mood which arose in
the Society and which ran counter to the conditions governing the
existence of the anthroposophical movement!
But what has to play a particularly significant role in this third
phase is the awareness of having created a Society which has taken
the first steps along a road which a large part of mankind will later
follow. Consider carefully that a relatively small society is set up
which has taken upon itself the task of doing something which a large
part of mankind is eventually supposed to follow.
Anthroposophists today must not think that they have only the same
commitments which future anthroposophists will have when they exist
by the million rather than the thousand. When limited numbers are
active in the vanguard of a movement they have to show commitment of
a much higher order. It means that they are obliged to show greater
courage, greater energy, greater patience, greater tolerance and,
above all, greater truthfulness in every respect. And in our present
third stage a situation arose which specifically tested our
truthfulness and seriousness. It related in a certain sense to the
subject matter discussed at one point in the lectures to theologians.
[ Note 5 ]
Irrespective of the fact that individual anthroposophists
exist, a feeling should have developed, and must develop, among them
that Anthroposophia exists as a separate being, who moves about among
us, as it were, towards whom we carry a responsibility in every
moment of our lives. Anthroposophia is actually an invisible person
who walks among visible people and towards whom we must show the
greatest responsibility for as long as we are a small group.
Anthroposophia is someone who must be understood as an invisible
person, as someone with a real existence, who should be consulted in
the individual actions of our lives.
Thus, if connections form between people — friendships,
cliques and so on — at a time when the group of
anthroposophists is still small, it is all the more necessary to
consult and to be able to justify all one's actions before this
invisible person.
This will, of course, apply less and less as anthroposophy
spreads. But as long as it remains the property of a small group of
people, it is necessary for every action to follow from consultation
with the person Anthroposophia. That Anthroposophia should be seen as
a living being is an essential condition of its existence. It will
only be allowed to die when its group of supporters has expanded
immeasurably. What we require, then, is a deeply serious commitment
to the invisible person I have just spoken about. That commitment has
to grow with every passing day. If it does so, there can be no doubt
that everything we do will begin and proceed in the right way.
Let me emphasize the fact. While the second phase from 1907, 1908,
1909 to 1914 was essentially a period in which the feeling side, the
religious knowledge of anthroposophy, was developed, something
recurred in the third phase which was already present in the first,
as I described yesterday. The relationship between anthroposophy and
the sciences was again brought to the forefront.
It was already evident during the war that a number of scientists
were beginning to lean towards anthroposophy. That meant that the
Anthroposophical Society gained collaborators in the scientific
field. At first they remained rather in the background. Until 1919 or
1920 the scientific work of the Society remained a hope rather than a
reality, with the exception of the fruitful results which Dr. Unger
[ Note 6 ]
achieved on the basis of
The Philosophy of Freedom
and other
writings from the pre-anthroposophical period. Otherwise, if we
disregard the constructive epistemological work done in this respect,
which provided an important and substantive basis for the future
content of the movement, we have to say that at the start of the
third phase the scientific aspect remained a hope. For scientific
work became effective at this stage in a way exactly opposite to what
had happened in the first phase. In the latter period people were
concerned, as I explained yesterday, to justify anthroposophy to
science; anthroposophy was to have its credentials checked by
science. Since it did not achieve that, its scientific work slowly
dried up. In the second phase it did not exist at all, and towards
the end everything concentrated on the artistic side. General human
interests took the upper hand.
Scientific aspirations emerged again in the third phase, but this
time in the opposite way. Now they were not concerned, at least not
primarily, with justifying anthroposophy to science, but rather
sought to use anthroposophy to fertilize it. All kinds of people
began to arrive who had reached the limits of their scientific work
and were looking for something to fertilize their endeavours.
Researchers were no longer looking for atomic structures, as they had
done when physics and astronomy had led them to look for atomic
theories to apply to the etheric and astral bodies. Now, when enough
progress had been made to make a contribution to science, the exact
opposite occurred.
This tendency, and I wish to discuss only its positive aspects
today, will only be effective for the benefit of the anthroposophical
movement if it can find a way of working purely from anthroposophical
sources, rather in the way that eurythmy has done in the artistic
field, and if it is accompanied by the commitment which I have
mentioned. As long as so much of the present scientific mode of
thinking is carried unconsciously into the anthroposophical movement
it will not be able to make progress productively.
In particular, there will be a lack of progress as long as people
believe that the current scientific establishment can be persuaded
about anything without their first adopting a more positive attitude
towards anthroposophy. Once they have done that, a dialogue can
begin. Our task with regard to those who are fighting against
anthroposophy today can only be to demonstrate clearly where they are
not telling the truth. That is something which can be discussed. But
of course there can be no dialogue about matters of substance,
matters of content, with people who not only do not want to be
convinced, but who cannot be convinced because they lack the
necessary basic knowledge.
That, above all, is where the work needs to be done: to undertake
basic research for ourselves in the various fields, but to do that
from the core of anthroposophy.
When an attempt was made after the war to tackle practical issues
in people's lives and the problems facing the world, that again had
to be done on the basis of anthroposophy, and with the recognition
that with these practical tasks in particular it was hardly possible
to count on any sort of understanding. The only proper course we can
pursue is to tell the world what we have found through anthroposophy
itself, and then wait and see how many people are able to understand
it. We certainly cannot approach the world with the core material of
anthroposophy in the hope that there might be a party or a person who
can be won over. That is impossible. That is contrary to the
fundamental circumstances governing the existence of the
anthroposophical movement. Take a women's movement or a social
movement, for instance, where it is possible to take the view that
we should join and compromise our position because its members' views
may incline towards anthroposophy in one way or another; that is
absolutely impossible. What matters is to have enough inner security
regarding anthroposophy to be able to advocate it under any
circumstances.
Let me give you an amusing example of this. Whenever people are
angry with me for having used the Theosophical Society for my work, I
always reply that I will advocate anthroposophy wherever there is a
demand. I have done it in places where it was only possible once, for
the simple reason that people did not want to hear anything further
from me a second time. But I never spoke in a way that, given their
inner constitution, they could have been persuaded by superficial
charm to listen to me a second time. That is something which has to
be avoided. When people demand to hear something we have to present
them with anthroposophy, pure anthroposophy, which is drawn with
courage from its innermost core.
Let me say that these things have all happened before in the
anthroposophical movement, as if to illustrate the point. For
instance, we were invited to a spiritualist society in Berlin,
[ Note 7 ]
where I was to talk about anthroposophy. It did not occur to me
to say no. Why should those people not have the right to hear
something like that? I delivered my lecture and saw immediately
afterwards that they were quite unsuited, that in reality this was
not what they were seeking. For something happened which turned out
to be quite funny. I was elected immediately and unanimously as the
president of this society. Marie Steiner and her sister, who had
accompanied me, were shocked. What should we do now, they asked? I
had become president of this society: What should we do? I simply
said: Stay away! That was perfectly obvious. By electing as their
president someone they had heard speak on only one occasion, those
people showed that they wanted something quite different from
anthroposophy. They wanted to infuse anthroposophy with spiritualism
and thought that they could achieve it by this means. We come across
that kind of thing all the time.
We need not hold back from advocating anthroposophy before anyone.
I was invited once to speak about anthroposophy to the Gottsched Society
[ Note 8 ]
in Berlin. Why should I not have done that? The
important thing was not to compromise over the anthroposophical
content.
That was particularly difficult after I had written the
“Appeal to the German People and the Civilized World”,
and after
Towards Social Renewal: Basic Issues of the Social Question
had been published.
[ Note 9 ]
The essential thing at that time was to advocate only what could
be done on the basis of the sources underpinning these books, and
then to wait and see who wanted to participate.
I am convinced that if we had done that, if we had simply adopted
the positive position which was contained in the “Appeal”
and in the book, without seeking links with any particular party
— something which I was always against — we would not be
stumbling today over obstacles which have been put in our way from
this quarter, and would probably have been able to achieve one or two
successes. Whereas now we have achieved no successes at all in this
field.
It is part of the conditions governing the existence of a society
like ours that opportunities must always be found to work out of the
spirit itself. That should not, of course, lead to the stupid
conclusion that we have to barge in everywhere like bulls in china
shops or that we do not have to adjust to the conditions dictated by
life, that we should become impractical people. Quite the contrary.
It is necessary to inject some real practical life experience into
the so-called practical life of today. Anyone who has some
understanding of the conditions governing life itself will find it
hard not to draw parallels between contemporary life and the life of
really practical people,
[ Note 10 ]
who have such a practical
attitude to life that they immediately fall over as soon as they try
to stand on both feet at once. That is what many people today
describe as practical life. If these people and their real life
experience manage to penetrate a spiritual movement, things really
begin to look bad for the latter.
As I said, today I would rather dwell on the positive side of the
matter. We should not pursue a course so rigid that we run headlong
into any obstacle in the way; of course we need to take avoiding
action, make use of the things which will achieve practical progress.
The important factor is that everything should contain the impulse
which comes from the core.
If we could progress in this way the Anthroposophical Society
would quickly shed the image — not in any superficial or
conventional way, but justifiably — which still makes it appear
sectarian to other people.
What is the use of telling people repeatedly that the Society is
not a sect and then behave as if it were one? The one thing which
needs to be understood by the members of the Anthroposophical Society
is that of the general conditions which govern the existence of a
society in our modern age. A society cannot be sectarian. That is
why, if the Anthroposophical Society were standing on its proper
ground, the we should never play a role. One repeatedly hears
anthroposophists saying we, the Society, have this or that view in
relation to the outside world: Something or other is happening to us.
We want one thing or another. In ancient times it was possible for
societies to face the world with such conformity. Now it is no longer
possible. In our time each person who is a member of a society like
this one has to be a really free human being. Views, thoughts,
opinions are held only by individuals. The Society does not have an
opinion. And that should be expressed in the way that individuals
speak about the Society. The we should actually disappear.
There is something else connected with this. If this we
disappears, people in the Society
will not feel as if they are in a pool which supports them and which
they can call on for support when it matters. But if a person has
expressed his own views in the Society and has to represent himself,
he will also feel fully responsible for what he says as an
individual.
This feeling of responsibility is something which has to grow as
long as the Society remains a small group of people. The way in which
that has been put into practice so far has not succeeded in making
the world at large understand the Anthroposophical Society as an
eminently modern society, because this practice has repeatedly led to
a situation in which the image which has been set before the public
is we believe, we are of the opinion, it is
our conception of the world.
So today the world outside holds the view that the Society is a
compacted mass which holds certain collective opinions to which one
has to subscribe as a member. Of course this will deter any
independently minded person.
Since this is the case, we have to consider a measure today which
need not have been thought about, perhaps a year ago, because things
had not progressed to a stage in which we are tarred with the same
brush — with certain ulterior motives, of course — as the
Carbonari,
[ Note 11 ]
the Soviet government and Irish republicanism. So now it seems
necessary to think seriously about how the three objects
[ Note 12 ]
which are always being quoted as an issue might
be put in context: fraternity without racial distinctions and so on,
the comparative study of religions, and the study of the spiritual
worlds and spiritual methodology. By concentrating on these three
objects, the impression is given that one has to swear by them. A
completely different form has to be found for them, above all a form
which allows anyone who does not want to subscribe to a particular
opinion, but who has an interest in the cultivation of the spiritual
life, to feel that he need not commit himself body and soul to
certain points of view. That is what we have to think about today,
because it belongs to the conditions governing the existence of the
Society in the particular circumstances of the third phase.
I have often been asked by people whether they would be able to
join the Anthroposophical Society as they could not yet profess to
the prescriptions of anthroposophy. I respond that it would be a sad
state of affairs if a society in today's context recruited its
members only from among those who profess what is prescribed there.
That would be terrible. I always say that honest membership should
involve only one thing: an interest in a society which in general
terms seeks the path to the spiritual world. How that is done in
specific terms is then the business of those who are members of the
society, with individual contributions from all of them.
I can understand very well why someone would not want to be member
of a society in which he had to subscribe to certain articles of
faith. But if one says that anyone can be a member of this Society
who has an interest in the cultivation of the spiritual life, then
those who have such an interest will come. And the others, well, they
will remain outside, but they will be led increasingly into the
absurdities of life.
No account is taken of the circumstances of the Anthroposophical
Society until one starts to think about conditions such as these
which govern its life, until one stops shuffling along in the same
old rut. Only when the Society achieves the ability to deal with
these issues in a completely free way, without pettiness and with
generosity, will it be possible for it to become what it should
become through the fact that it contains the anthroposophical
movement. For the anthroposophical movement connects in a positive
way without compromise, but in a positive way to what exists in the
present and what can act productively into the future.
It is necessary to develop a certain sensitivity to these points.
And it is necessary for anthroposophists to develop this sensitivity
in a matter of weeks. If that happens, the way forward will be found
as a practical consequence.
But people will only be able to think in this direction if they
radically discard the petty aspects of their character and truly
begin to be understand the need to recognize Anthroposophia as an
independent, invisible being.
I have had to consider the third phase in a different way, of
course, to the two preceding ones. The latter are already history.
The third, although we are nearing its end, is the present and
everyone should be aware of its circumstances. We have to work our
way towards guidelines concerning the smallest details. Such
guidelines are not dogma, they are simply a natural consequence.
|