Continuation of the Foundation Meeting
27 December, 10 a.m.
Lecture by Dr Guenther Wachsmuth
on anthroposophy and the destiny of the earth
11.15
The
Words of the Foundation Stone, then
discussion of the Statutes
DR STEINER:
My dear friends!
Once more let us fill our
hearts with the words which out of the signs of the times are
to give us in the right way the self knowledge we need:
Soul of Man!
Thou livest in the limbs
Which bear thee through the world of space
In the spirit's ocean-being.
Practise spirit-recalling
In depths of soul,
Where in the wielding will
Of world-creating
Thine own I
Comes to being
Within God's I.
And thou wilt truly live
In the World-Being of Man.
Soul of Man!
Thou livest in the beat of heart and lung
Which leads thee through the rhythm of time
Into the realm of thine own soul's feeling.
Practise spirit-awareness
In balance of the soul,
Where the surging deeds
Of the world's becoming
Thine own I
Unite
With the World-I.
And thou wilt truly feel
In the Soul-Weaving of Man.
Soul of Man!
Thou livest in the resting head
Which from the grounds of eternity
Opens to thee the world-thoughts.
Practise spirit-beholding
In stillness of thought,
Where the eternal aims of Gods
World-Being's Light
On thine own I
Bestow
For thy free willing.
And thou wilt truly think
In the Spirit-Foundations of Man.
Once more out of these cosmic verses let us write down
before our souls a rhythm so that we may gradually press
forward spiritually to their structure. From the first verse
we take the words:
[ Rudolf Steiner
writes on the blackboard as he speaks. See
Facsimile 4, Page XIV bottom. ]
Thine own I
Comes to being
Within God's I.
And from the second verse, which contains a second soul
process, we take:
Thine own I
Unite
With the World-I.
And from the third verse we take:
On thine own I
Bestow
For thy free willing.
With these words, to form the corresponding rhythm,
we now unite those words which always sound with them, having an
inner soul connection with these that I have already written
on the blackboard:
And thou wilt truly live
In the World-Being of Man.
And from the second verse:
And thou wilt truly feel
In the Soul-Weaving of Man.
The final harmony of the third verse is:
And thou wilt truly think
In the Spirit-Foundations of Man.
[As shown on the blackboard]
Thine own I
Comes to being
Within God's I
live
World-Being of Man
|
Thine own I
Unite
With the World-I
feel
Soul-Weaving of Man
|
On thine own I
Bestow
For thy free willing
think
Spirit-Foundation of Man
|
You will find,
my dear friends, that if you pay attention to the inner
rhythms that lie in these verses, if you then present these
inner rhythms to your soul and perform a suitable meditation
within yourself, allowing your thoughts to come to rest upon
them, then these sayings can be felt to be the speaking of
cosmic secrets in so far as these cosmic secrets are
resurrected in the human soul as human self knowledge.
Now, dear
friends, let us prepare to have — if you will pardon
the ugly expression — a general debate about the
Statutes. To start with let me draw your attention to what
kind of points come into question for this general debate.
Later — if you will pardon an even uglier expression
— we shall have a kind of detailed debate on special
concerns about the individual Paragraphs.
The first thing
to be considered would be the fact that in future the
Vorstand-committee situated in Dornach is to be a true
Vorstand which takes into account the central initiative
necessary in every single case with respect to one thing or
another. It will be less a matter of knowing that there is a
Vorstand in such and such a place to which it is possible to
turn in one matter or another — though this too is
possible and necessary, of course. Rather it will be a matter
of the Vorstand developing the capacity to have active
initiatives of its own in the affairs of the Anthroposophical
Movement, giving suggestions which are really necessary in
the sense of the final point in the last Paragraph of the
Statutes:
‘The
organ of the Society is
Das Goetheanum,
which for this purpose is provided with a
Supplement containing the official communications of the
Society. This enlarged edition of
Das Goetheanum
will be supplied to members of the Anthroposophical Society only.’
In this
Supplement will be found everything the Vorstand thinks,
would like to do and, on occasion, will be able to do. Thus
especially through the Supplement to
Das Goetheanum
the Vorstand will
constantly have the intention of working outwards in a living
way. But as you know, for blood to circulate there have to be
not only centrifugal forces but also centripetal forces that
work inwards. Therefore arrangements will have to be made so
that a number of members unite themselves closely in their
soul with the Vorstand in everything that might concern not
only the Anthroposophical Society in the narrower sense but
also in the whole cultural life of the present day in
relation to the working of the Anthroposophical Society. A
number of members will be closely linked in their soul with
the Vorstand in order to communicate back all that goes on
outside in the world. By this means we shall achieve an
entirely free constitution of the Anthroposophical Society, a
constitution built on a free interchange. Then stimulus and
suggestion will come from every direction. And these
suggestions will bear fruit depending on the way in which
things are recognized. So it will have to be arranged that
there are correspondents for the Vorstand which is located in
Dornach, where it works.
At the present
moment of the Anthroposophical Society's development it is
important that we make our arrangements on the basis of
reality and not of principles. There is, is there not, a
difference between the two. If you base your considerations
on the structure of a society and arrange its affairs in
accordance with this, then you have a theoretical structure
of principles. We have had plenty of this kind of thing
recently, and it was absolutely no use. Indeed in many ways
it caused us serious difficulties. So I want to exert every
effort to make arrangements in the future that arise out of
the real forces of the Society, out of the forces that exist
already and have already had their effect, and of which it
can be seen from their context that they can work. So it
seems to me that it would be a good thing to be clear at
least in spirit about the establishment of correspondents of
the Vorstand, people who would take on the voluntary duty of
writing to us every week about what they consider noteworthy
in cultural life outside in the world and about what might be
interesting for the Anthroposophical Society. A number of
people, which could always of course be extended, ought to
take on this obligation here and now. I for my part should
like to suggest several people straight away to constitute an
externally supporting Vorstand that is exactly equivalent to
the central Vorstand which, as I have already said, is
located here in Dornach, which means that it cannot have any
members who do not live here in Dornach. In this way we would
achieve a genuine circulation of blood. So I want to suggest
that certain persons of the following kind — forgive me
for generalizing; we can certainly discuss this further
— keep in regular contact with the Vorstand on a weekly
basis. The kind of person I mean is someone who has already
resolved to work very actively out there in the periphery for
our anthroposophical cause: Herr van Leer. Secondly I am
thinking of the following people: Mr Monges, Mr Collison, Mrs
Mackenzie, Herr Ingerö, Herr Zeylmans, Mademoiselle
Sauerwein, Baroness de Renzis, Madame Ferreri, Fräulein
Schwarz, Count Polzer, Dr Unger, Herr Leinhas, Dr
Büchenbacher.
I have started
by naming these people because I am of the opinion that if
they would commit themselves voluntarily to report in a
letter every week to the editors of Das Goetheanum, not only
on what is going on in the anthroposophical field but on
anything that might be interesting for Anthroposophy in the
cultural life of the world and indeed life in general, this
would give us a good opportunity to shape this Supplement to
Das Goetheanum
very fruitfully.
The second
thing to consider in the general debate about the Statutes is
the fact that the establishment of a Vorstand in the way I
have suggested to you means that the Anthroposophical Society
will be properly represented, so that other associations or
organizations which exist for the promotion of the cause of
Anthroposophy, wherever they happen to be, can refer back to
this central Vorstand. The central Vorstand will have to
consider its task to be solely whatever lies in the direction
of fulfilling the Statutes. It will have to do everything
that lies in the direction of fulfilling the Statutes. This
gives it great freedom. But at the same time we shall all
know what this central Vorstand represents, since from the
Statutes we can gain a complete picture of what it will be
doing. As a result, wherever other organizations arise, for
instance the
Goetheanum Bauverein,
it will be possible for them to stand on
realistic ground. Over the next few days there will be the
task of creating a suitable relationship between the Vorstand
that has come into being and the
Goetheanum Bauverein.
[ Note 46 ]
But today in the general
debate about the Statutes we can discuss anything of this
kind which might be worrying you about them.
The third thing
to consider will be a matter raised in a meeting of delegates
of the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, namely how to
organize the relationship between the members of the
Anthroposophical Society who live here close to the
Goetheanum either permanently or on a temporary basis on the
one hand and the members of the Swiss Anthroposophical
Society on the other. It was quite justifiably stated here
the other day at a delegates' meeting of our Swiss friends
[ Note 47 ]
that if people who
happen to be present by coincidence, or perhaps not by
coincidence but only temporarily, for a short while,
interfere too much in the affairs of the Swiss Society, then
the Swiss friends might feel pressured in their meetings. We
need to ensure that the Goetheanum branch — though for
obvious reasons it should and must be a part of the Swiss
Anthroposophical Society — is given a position which
prevents it, even if it has non-Swiss members, from ever
becoming an instrument for persuasion or for creating a
majority. This is what was particularly bothering the Swiss
members at their delegates' meeting recently. This situation
has become somewhat awkward for the following reasons:
The suggestion
had been made by me to found national Societies on the basis
of which the General Anthroposophical Society would be
founded here at Christmas. These national Societies have
indeed come into being almost without exception in every
country where there are anthroposophists. At all these
anthroposophical foundation meetings it was said in one way
or another that a national Society would be founded like the
one already in existence in Switzerland. So national
Societies were founded everywhere along the lines of the
Swiss Anthroposophical Society. However, it is important to
base whatever happens on clear statements. If this had been
done there would have been no misunderstanding which led to
people saying that since national Societies were being
founded everywhere a Swiss national Society ought to be
formed too. After all, it was the Swiss Society on which the
others were modelled. However, the situation was that the
Swiss Society did not have a proper Council, since its
Council was made up of the chairmen of the different
branches. This therefore remains an elastic but rather
indeterminate body. For things to appear in a more orderly
fashion in the future, it will be necessary for the Swiss
Anthroposophical Society to form itself with a Council and
perhaps also a General Secretary like those of the other
national Anthroposophical Societies. Then it will be possible
to regularize the relationship with the Goetheanum branch.
This is merely a suggestion. But in connection with it I want
to say something else.
The whole way
in which I consider that the central Vorstand, working here
at the Goetheanum, should carry out its duties means that of
necessity there is an incompatibility between the offices of
this Vorstand and any other offices of the Anthroposophical
Society. Thus a member of the Vorstand I have suggested to
you here ought not to occupy any other position within the
Anthroposophical Society. Indeed, dear friends, proper work
cannot be done when offices are heaped one on top of another.
Above all else let us in future avoid piling offices one on
top of the other. So it will be necessary for our dear Swiss
friends to concern themselves with choosing a General
Secretary, since Herr Steffen, as the representative of the
Swiss, whose guests we are in a certain way as a worldwide
Society, will in future be taking up the function of
Vice-president of the central Society. You were justifiably
immensely pleased to agree with this. I do not mean to say
that this is incompatible with any other offices but only
with other offices within the Anthroposophical Society.
Another thing I
want to say is that I intend to carry out point 5 by
arranging the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach in
Sections as follows. These will be different from the
Classes.
[ Note 48 ]
The Classes will encompass all the Sections. Let me make a
drawing similar to that made by Dr Wachsmuth; not the same,
but I hope it encompasses the whole earth in the same way.
The Classes will be like this: General Anthroposophical
Society, First Class, Second Class, Third Class of the School
of Spiritual Science.
[ See
Facsimile 5, Page XVII bottom. ]
The Sections
will reach from top to bottom, so that within each Section it
will be possible to be a member of whichever Class has been
attained. The Sections I would like to found are:
First of all a
General Anthroposophical Section, which will to start with be
combined with the Pedagogical Section. I myself should like
to take this on in addition to the overall leadership of the
School of Spiritual Science. Then I want to arrange the
School in such a way that each Section has a Section Leader
who is responsible for it; I believe these must be people
residing here. One Section will encompass what in France is called
‘belles-lettres.’
Another will encompass the spoken arts and music together
with eurythmy. A third Section will encompass the plastic
arts. A fourth Section is to encompass medicine. A fifth is
to encompass mathematics and astronomy. And the last, for the
moment, is to be for the natural sciences. So suitable
representatives will be found here for these Sections which
are those which for the time being can responsibly be
included within the general anthroposophical sphere which I
myself shall lead. The Section Leaders must, of course, be
resident here.
These, then,
are the main points on which I would like the general debate
to be based. I now ask whether the applications to speak,
already handed in, refer to these points. Applications to
speak have been handed in by Herr Leinhas, Dr Kolisko, Dr
Stein, Dr Palmer, Herr Werbeck, Miss Cross, Mademoiselle
Rihouët, Frau Hart-Nibbrig, Herr de Haan, Herr Stibbe,
Herr Tymstra, Herr Zagwijn, Frau Ljungquist. On behalf of
Switzerland, the working committee. On behalf of
Czechoslovakia, Dr Krkavec, Herr Pollak, Dr Reichel, Frau
Freund. Do these speakers wish to refer to the debate which
is about to begin? (From various quarters the answer is:
No!)
DR STEINER: Then may I ask those wishing
to speak to raise their hands and to come up here to the
platform. Who would like to speak to the general debate?
DR ZEYLMANS: Ladies and gentlemen, I
merely want to say that I shall be very happy to take on the
task allotted to me by Dr Steiner and shall endeavour to send
news about the work in Holland to Dornach each week.
DR STEINER: Perhaps we can settle this
matter by asking all those I have so far mentioned —
the list is not necessarily complete — to be so good as
to raise their hands. (All those mentioned do so.)
Is there anyone
who does not want to take on this task? Please raise your
hand. (Nobody does so.) You see what a good example has been
set in dealing with this first point. All those requested to
do so have declared themselves prepared to send a report each
week to the editors of
Das Goetheanum.
This will certainly amount to quite a task
for Herr Steffen, but it has to be done, for of course the
reports must be read here once they arrive.
Does anyone
else wish to speak to the general debate? If not, may I now
ask those friends who agree in principle with the Statutes as
Statutes of the General Anthroposophical Society to raise
their hands. In the second reading we shall discuss each
Paragraph separately. But will those who agree in principle
please raise their hands. (They do.)
Will those who
do not wish to accept these Statutes in principle please
raise their hands. (Nobody does.)
The draft
Statutes have thus been accepted in their first reading.
(Lively applause.)
We now come to
the detailed debate, the second reading, and I shall ask Dr
Wachsmuth to read the Statutes Paragraph by Paragraph for
this debate in detail.
Dr Wachsmuth reads Paragraph 1 of the
Statutes:
‘1. The
Anthroposophical Society is to be an association of people
whose will it is to nurture the life of the soul, both in
the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true
knowledge of the spiritual world.’
DR STEINER: Would anyone now like to speak
to the content or style and phrasing of this first Paragraph
of the Statutes? Dear friends, you have been in possession of
the Statutes for more than three days. I am quite sure that
you have thought deeply about them.
HERR KAISER: With reference to the
expression ‘the life of the soul’ I wondered
whether people might not ask: Why not life as a whole? This
is one of the things I wanted to say. Perhaps an expression
that is more general than ‘of the soul’ could be
used.
DR STEINER: Would you like to make a
suggestion to help us understand better what you mean?
HERR KAISER: I have only just noticed this
expression. I shall have to rely on your help as I can't
think of anything better at the moment. I just wanted to
point out that the general public might be offended by the
idea that we seem to want to go and hide away with our soul
in a vague kind of way.
DR STEINER: Paragraph 1 is concerned with
the following: Its phrasing is such that it points to a
certain nurturing of the life of the soul without saying in
detail what the content of the activity of the
Anthroposophical Society is to be. I believe that especially
at the present time it is of paramount importance to point
out that in the Anthroposophical Society the life of the soul
is of central concern. That is why it says that the
Anthroposophical Society is to be an association of people
who cultivate the life of the soul in this way. We can talk
about the other words later. The other things it does are
stated in the subsequent points. We shall speak more about
this. This is the first Paragraph. Even the first Paragraph
should say something as concrete as possible. If I am to ask:
What is a writer? I shall have to say: A writer is a person
who uses language in order to express his thoughts, or
something similar. This does not mean to say that this
encompasses the whole of his activity as a human being; it
merely points out what he is with regard to being a writer.
Similarly I think that the first point indicates that the
Anthroposophical Society, among all kinds of other things
which are expressed in the subsequent points, also cultivates
the life of the soul in the individual and in human society
in such a way that this cultivation is based on a true
knowledge of the spiritual world. I think perhaps Herr Kaiser
meant that this point ought to include a kind of survey of
all the subsequent points. But this is not how we want to do
it. We want to remain concrete all the time. The only thing
to be stated in the first point is the manner in which the
life of the soul is to be cultivated. After that is stated
what else we do and do not want to do. Taken in this way, I
don't think there is anything objectionable in this
Paragraph. Or is there? If anyone has a better suggestion I
am quite prepared to replace ‘of the soul’ with
something else. But as you see, Herr Kaiser did think briefly
about it and did not come up with any other expression. I
have been thinking about it for quite a long time, several
weeks, and have also not found any other expression for this
Paragraph. It will indeed be very difficult to find a
different expression to indicate the general activity of the
Anthroposophical Society. For the life of the soul does,
after all, encompass everything. On the one hand in practical
life we want to cultivate the life of the soul in such a way
that the human being can learn to master life at the
practical level. On the other hand in scientific life we want
to conduct science in such a way that the human soul finds it
satisfying. Understood rightly, the expression ‘the
life of the soul’ really does express something
universal.
Does anyone
else want to speak to Paragraph 1? If not, I shall put this
point 1 of the Statutes to the vote. Please will those who
are in favour of adopting this point raise their hands. This
vote refers to this one point only, so you are not committing
yourselves to anything else in the Statutes. (The vote is
taken.)
If anyone
objects to Paragraph 1, please raise your hand. (Nobody
does.) Our point 1 is accepted. Please read point 2 of the
Statutes.
Dr Wachsmuth reads Paragraph 2 of the
Statutes:
‘2. The persons
gathered at the Goetheanum in Dornach at Christmas, 1923,
both the individuals and the groups represented, form the
nucleus of the Society. They are convinced that there
exists in our time a genuine science of the spiritual world
and that the civilizaton of today is lacking the
cultivation of such a science. This cultivation is to be
the task of the Anthroposophical Society. It will endeavour
to fulfil this task by making the anthroposophical
spiritual science cultivated at the Goetheanum in Dornach
the centre of its activities, together with all that
results from this for brotherhood in human relationships
and for the moral and religious as well as the artistic and
cultural life in the human being.’
DR STEINER: The first purpose of this
Paragraph is to express what it is that unites the individual
members of the Anthroposophical Society. As I said in a
general discussion a few days ago, we want to build on facts,
not on ideas and principles. The first fact to be considered
is most gratifying, and that is that eight hundred people are
gathered together here in Dornach who can make a declaration.
They are not going to make a declaration of ideas and
principles to which they intend to adhere. They are going to
declare: At the Goetheanum in Dornach there exists a certain
fundamental conviction. This fundamental conviction, which is
expressed in this point, is essentially shared by all of us
and we are therefore the nucleus of the Anthroposophical
Society. Today we are not dealing with principles but with
human beings. You see these people sitting here in front of
you who first entertained this conviction; they are those who
have been working out of this conviction for quite some time
at the Goetheanum. You have come in order to found the
Anthroposophical Society. You declare in the Statutes your
agreement with what is being done at the Goetheanum. Thus the
Society is formed, humanly formed. Human beings are joining
other human beings. Human beings are not declaring their
agreement with Paragraphs which can be interpreted in this
way or in that way, and so on. Would anyone like to speak to
Paragraph 2?
DR UNGER: My dear friends! Considering the
very thing that has brought all these people together here we
must see this point 2 as something which is expressed as a
whole by all those members of the Anthroposophical Society
gathered here. Acknowledgement of the very thing which has
brought us together is what is important. That is why I
wonder whether we might not find a stronger way of expressing
the part which says ‘are convinced that there exists in
our time a genuine science of the spiritual world ... ’
As it stands it sounds rather as though spiritual
science just happens to exist, whereas what every one of us
here knows, and what we have all committed ourselves to carry
out into the world, has in fact been built up over many
years. Would it not be possible to formulate something which
expresses the years of work in wide-reaching circles? I am
quite aware that Dr Steiner does not wish to see his name
mentioned here because this could give a false impression. We
ought to be capable of expressing through the Society that
this science exists, given by the spiritual world, and that
it has been put before all mankind in an extensive
literature. This ‘having been put before all
mankind’ ought to be more strongly expressed as the
thing that unites the Society.
DR STEINER: Dear friends, you can imagine
that the formulation of this sentence was quite a headache
for me too. Or don't you believe me? Perhaps Dr Unger could
make a suggestion.
DR UNGER suggests:
‘represented by a body of literature that has
been presented to all mankind over many years.’
This could simply be added to the sentence as it stands.
DR STEINER: Would your suggestion be met
by the following formulation: ‘are convinced that there
exists in our time a genuine science of the spiritual world
elaborated for years past, and in important particulars already
published?’
DR UNGER: Yes.
DR STEINER: So we shall put
‘elaborated for years past, and in important
particulars already published ...’ Does anyone else
wish to speak?
Dr Schmeidel wishes to put ‘for
decades past’ instead of ‘for years
past’.
DR STEINER: Many people would be able to
point out that actually two decades have passed since the
appearance of
The Philosophy of Freedom.
[ Note 49 ]
I do not think there is any
need to make the formulation all that strong. If we are
really to add anything more in this direction then I would
suggest not ‘or decades past’ but ‘for many
years past’. Does anyone else wish to speak?
DR PEIPERS: I do not see why Dr Steiner's
name should not be mentioned at this point. I should like to
make an alternative suggestion: ‘in the spiritual
science founded by Dr. Steiner.’
DR STEINER: This is impossible, my dear
friends. What has been done here must have the best possible
form and it must be possible for us to stand for what we say.
It would not do for the world to discover that the draft for
these Statutes was written by me and then to find my name
appearing here in full. Such a thing would provide the
opportunity for the greatest possible misunderstandings and
convenient points for attack. I think it is quite sufficient
to leave this sentence as general as it is: ‘elaborated
for many years past, and in important particulars already
published ...’ There is no doubt at all that all
these proceedings will become public knowledge and therefore
everything must be correct, inwardly as well.
Would anyone else like to speak?
HERR VAN LEER: The Goetheanum is mentioned
here; but we have no Goetheanum.
DR STEINER: We are not of the opinion that
we have no Goetheanum. My dear Herr van Leer, we are of the
opinion that we have no building, but that as soon as
possible we shall have one. We are of the opinion that the
Goetheanum continues to exist. For this very reason, and also
out of the deep needs of our heart, it was necessary last
year, while the flames were still burning, to continue with
the work here on the very next day, without, as Herr Steffen
said, having slept. For we had to prove to the world that we
stand here as a Goetheanum in the soul, as a Goetheanum of
soul, which of course must receive an external building as
soon as possible.
HERR VAN LEER: But in the outside world,
or in twenty years' time, it will be said: In the year 1923
there was no Goetheanum in Dornach.
DR STEINER: I believe we really cannot
speak like this. We can indeed say: The building remained in
the soul. Is it not important, dear Herr van Leer, to make
the point as strongly as possible that here, as everywhere
else, we place spiritual things in the foreground? And that
what we see with our physical eyes therefore does not prevent
us from saying ‘at the Goetheanum’? The
Goetheanum does stand before our spiritual eyes!
HERR VAN LEER: Yes indeed.
DR STEINER: Does anyone else wish to speak
to Paragraph 2?
HERR LEINHAS: I only want to ask whether
it is advisable to leave in the words ‘in important
particulars already published’. Newspapers publish the
fact that we do, actually, have some secret literature such
as those cycles which have not yet been published. Keeping
these things secret will now be made impossible by the
Statutes. Is it right to indicate at this point the
literature which has so far not been published?
DR STEINER: Actually, this is not even
what is meant. All that is meant is that there are also other
truths which are not included in the lecture cycles, that is
they have never yet been made public, not even in the cycles.
I think we can remedy this by saying: ‘elaborated for
years past and in important particulars already
published’ or
‘also already
published.’ This should take account of this. The
‘already’ will take account of this objection.
Would anyone else like to speak to Paragraph 2 of the
Statutes?
HERR INGERÖ: I have a purely
practical question: There are individual members here as well
as representatives of groups. Obviously the groups who have
sent representatives will agree to these Statutes. But
otherwise will the Statutes have to be formally ratified when
we get home? Will the members have to be presented with all
this once again after which we would write to you to say that
the Statutes have been adopted?
DR STEINER: No. I have assumed that
delegates from individual groups have arrived with a full
mandate so that they can make valid decisions on behalf of
their group. That is what is meant by this sentence.
(Applause and agreement.) This was also my interpretation in
regard to all the different foundation meetings of the
national groups at which I was present. It will be quite
sufficient if the delegates of the national groups give their
agreement on the basis of the full mandate vested in them.
Otherwise we should be unable to adopt the Statutes fully at
this meeting.
DR KOLISKO: I would like to ask about the
fact that an Anthroposophical Society did exist already,
known publicly as the Anthroposophical Society, yet now it
appears to be an entirely new inauguration; there is no
mention in Paragraph 2 of what was, up till now, the
Anthroposophical Society in a way which would show that this
is now an entirely new foundation. I wonder whether people
might not question why there is no mention of the
Anthroposophical Society which has existed for the last ten
years but only of something entirely new.
DR STEINER: I too have thought about this.
While the Statutes were being printed I wondered whether a
note might be added to this point: ‘The General
Anthroposophical Society founded here was preceded by the
Anthroposophical Society founded in 1912.’ Something
like that. I shall suggest the full text of this note at the
end of this detailed debate. For the moment let us stick to
the Paragraph itself. I shall add this as a note to the
Statutes. I believe very firmly that it is necessary to
become strongly aware of what has become noticeable in the
last few days and of what I mentioned a day or two ago when I
said that we want to link up once again where we attempted to
link up in the year 1912. It is necessary to become strongly
aware of this, so a strong light does in fact need to be shed
on the fact of the foundation of the Anthroposophical Society
here and now during this present Christmas Conference. I
therefore do not want to make a history lesson out of the
Statutes by pointing out a historical fact, but would prefer
to include this in a note, the text of which I shall suggest.
I think this will be sufficient. Does anyone else wish to
speak about the formulation of Paragraph 2? If not, please
would those dear friends who are in favour of the adoption of
this Paragraph 2 raise their hands. (They do.) Please would
those who are not in favour raise their hands. Paragraph 2 is
adopted herewith. Please now read Paragraph 3.
Dr Wachsmuth reads Paragraph 3:
‘3. The persons
gathered in Dornach as the nucleus of the Society recognize
and endorse the view of the leadership at the Goetheanum:
“Anthroposophy, as fostered at the Goetheanum, leads
to results which can serve every human being as a stimulus
to spiritual life, whatever his nation, social standing or
religion. They can lead to a social life genuinely built on
brotherly love. No special degree of academic learning is
required to make them one's own and to found one's life
upon them, but only an open-minded human nature. Research
into these results, however, as well as competent
evaluation of them, depends upon spiritual-scientific
training, which is to be acquired step by step. These
results are in their own way as exact as the results of
genuine natural science. When they attain general
recognition in the same way as these, they will bring about
comparable progress in all spheres of life, not only in the
spiritual but also in the practical realm.”
’
DR STEINER: Please note, dear friends,
that something has been left out in the printed version. The
Paragraph should read as follows: ‘The persons gathered
in Dornach as the nucleaus of the Society recognize and
endorse the view of the leadership at the Goetheanum:’
What now follows, right to the end of the Paragraph, should
be within quotation marks. This is to do with my having said
that here we ought to build on the purely human element.
Consider the difference from what was said earlier. In the
past it was said: The Anthroposophical Society is an
association of people who recognize the brotherhood of man
without regard to nationality — and so on, all the
various points. This is an acceptance of principles and
smacks strongly of a dogmatic confession. But a dogmatic
confession such as this must be banned from a society of the
most modern kind; and the Anthroposophical Society we are
founding here is to be a society of the most modern kind. The
passage shown here within quotation marks expresses the view
of the leadership at the Goetheanum, and in Paragraph 3 one
is reminded of one's attitude of agreement with the view of
the leadership at the Goetheanum. We are not dealing with a
principle. Instead we have before us human beings who hold
this conviction and this view. And we wish to join with these
people to form the Anthroposophical Society. The most
important sentence is the one which states that the results,
and that means all the results, of spiritual science can be
equally understood by every human being and human soul but
that, in contrast, for an evaluation of the research results
a training is needed which is to be cultivated in the School
of Spiritual Science within its three Classes. It is, then,
not stated that people must accept brotherhood without regard
to nation or race and so on, but it is stated that it is the
conviction of those who up till now have been entrusted with
the leadership at the Goetheanum that what is cultivated
there leads to this; it leads to brotherhood and whatever
else is mentioned here. So by agreeing to this Paragraph one
is agreeing with this conviction. This is what I wanted to
say by way of further interpretation.
DR TRIMLER: For the purpose of openness
would it not be necessary here to state who constitutes the
leadership at the Goetheanum? Otherwise ‘the leadership
at the Goetheanum’ remains an abstract term.
DR STEINER: In a following Paragraph of
the Statutes the leadership of the School of Spiritual
Science is mentioned, and at another point in the Statutes
the Vorstand will be mentioned; the names of the members of
the Vorstand will be stated. Presumably this will be
sufficient for what you mean? However, the naming of the
Vorstand will probably be in the final point of the Statutes,
where it will be stated that the Vorstand and the leadership
at the Goetheanum are one and the same. So if you thought it
would be more fitting, we could say:
‘The
persons gathered in Dornach as the nucleus of the Society
recognize and endorse the view of the leadership at the
Goetheanum which is represented by the Vorstand nominated
by this foundation gathering.’ This could of
course be added. So it would read: ‘recognize and
endorse the view of the leadership at the Goetheanum which is
represented by the Vorstand nominated by this foundation
gathering’. This will do. Who else would like to
speak?
HERR LEINHAS: Does this constitute a
contradiction with point 7 where it says that Rudolf Steiner
organizes the School of Spiritual Science and appoints his
collaborators and his possible successor? Supposing you were
not to choose as your collaborators those who are in the
Vorstand as it stands at the moment?
DR STEINER: Why should there be a
contradiction? You see, it is like this, as I have already
said: Here, as the leadership at the Goetheanum, we shall
have the Vorstand. And the Vorstand as it now stands will be
joined, in the capacity of advisers, by the leaders of the
different Sections of the School of Spiritual Science. In
future, this will be the leadership of the Goetheanum. Do you
still find this contradictory?
HERR LEINHAS: No.
HERR SCHMIDT: I have one worry: Someone
reading the sentence ‘Research into these results,
however, as well as competent evaluation of them, depends
upon spiritual-scientific training ... ’ might gain
the impression that something is being drummed into
people.
DR STEINER: What is being drummed in?
HERR SCHMIDT: It is possible for people to
gain this impression. Personally I would prefer it if we
could say: ‘depends upon spiritual-scientific training,
which is to be acquired step by step, and which is suggested in the
published works of Dr Steiner’, so that the impression is
not aroused of something that is not quite above-board or not
quite comprehensible for outsiders.
DR STEINER: But this would eliminate the
essential point which must be included because of the very
manner in which the lecture cycles must be treated. What we
have to achieve, as I have already said, is the following: We
must bring it about that judgments can be justified, not in
the sense of a logical justification but in the sense that
they must be based on a solid foundation, so that a situation
can arise — not as regards a recognition of the results
but as regards an assessment of the research — in which
there are people who are experts in the subject matter and
others who are not. In the subsequent Paragraph we dissociate
ourselves from those who are not experts in the sense that we
refuse to enter into any discussion with them. As I said, we
simply want to bring about this difference in the same way
that it exists in the field of the integration of partial
differential equations. In this way we can work at a moral
level against the possibility of someone saying: I have read
Dr Steiner's book
Knowledge of the Higher Worlds
and therefore I am fully
competent to assess everything else that has been published.
This is what must be avoided. Therefore the very point to be
made is that on the basis of my published books it is not
possible to form a judgment on all the other things that are
discussed above and beyond these. It would be wrong if we
were not to refuse such judgments.
Herr Schmidt feels that he has been
misunderstood.
DR STEINER: It says here: ‘Research
into these results, however, as well as competent evaluation
of them, depends upon spiritual-scientific training, which is
to be acquired step by step.’ Why is this not clear? It
does not mean that anything is drummed into anybody but
rather that as with everything in the world you have to learn
something before you can allow yourself to form a judgment.
What we are rejecting is the assumption that anthroposophical
matters can be judged from other points of view. There is a
history behind this too. Let me tell you about it, for all
these formulations are based on the experience of decades, as
I have already said. I once gave a cycle of lectures in Bremens
[ Note 50 ]
to a certain group of people who were permitted to attend not so
much on the basis of their intellectual capacity as on that
of their moral maturity. Now there was a very well-known
philosopher, a Platonist, who reckoned that anyone who had
read the whole of Plato ought to be able to form a judgment
about Anthroposophy. On this basis he sent people to me about
whom he said: These are good philosophers so they ought to be
allowed to attend, since they are capable of forming
judgments. Of course they were less capable of forming
judgments than were some quite simple, humble people whose
very mood of soul made them capable of forming judgments. I
had to exclude them. So it is important that particularly in
the case of this Paragraph we are extremely accurate. And it
would not be accurate if we were to say that the necessary
schooling can be attained on the basis of my published books.
The interpretation of what constitutes the necessary
schooling is stated in Paragraph 8: ‘All publications
of the Society shall be public, in the same sense as are
those of other public societies. The publications of the
School of Spiritual Science’ — let us say in
future the cycles — ‘will form no exception as
regards this public character; however, the leadership of the
School reserves the right to deny in advance the validity of
any judgment of these publications which is not
based on the same training from which they have been derived.
Consequently they will regard as justified no judgment which
is not based on an appropriate preliminary training, as is
also the common practice in the recognized scientific world.
Thus’ and so on. So you see, the requirement in Paragraph 3
must accord with that in Paragraph 8. If you have another
suggestion, please go ahead. But the one you suggested just
now is quite impossible.
HERR SCHMIDT: Perhaps there could be a
reference to Paragraph 8 at this point, for instance in the
form of a note which says that the published books reveal the
principles of the schooling.
DR STEINER: This could certainly be
pointed out in a note. But this note belongs at the point
where it is stated that all publications shall be public,
including the books about the conditions of the schooling.
That is where such a note should be put. But I thought that
saying that all books shall be public, all publications shall
be public, would include the fact that all books about the
schooling would be public.
FRÄULEIN X: Ought it not to say:
anthroposophical
spiritual science; ‘as well as competent evaluation of
them, depends upon anthroposophical
spiritual-scientific training?’
DR STEINER: What you want to bring out
here is made quite clear in Paragraph 8 by the reference to
Dornach. If we say ‘anthroposophical’ we have
once again an abstract word. I especially want to express
here that everything is concrete. Thus the
spiritual-scientific training meant — it is shown in
this Statute — is that represented in Dornach. If we
say anthroposophical
spiritual science we are unprotected, for of course anyone
can give the name of Anthroposophy to whatever he regards as
spiritual science.
HERR VAN LEER: I would like the final
sentence to be changed from ‘not only in the spiritual
but also in the practical realm’ to:
‘in the spiritual as
well as in the practical realm.’
DR STEINER: I formulated this sentence
like this because I thought of it as being based on life.
This is what I thought: It is easy for people to admit in
what is said here that it can constitute the foundation for
progress in the spiritual realm. This will meet with less
contradiction — there will be some, but less —
than that Anthroposophy can also lead to something in the
practical realm. This is more likely to be contradicted. That
is why I formulated this sentence in this way. Otherwise the
two realms are placed side by side as being of equal value in
such an abstract manner: ‘in the spiritual as well as
in the practical realm’. My formulation is based on
life. Amongst anthroposophists there are very many who will
easily admit that a very great deal can be achieved in the
spiritual realm. But many people, also anthroposophists, do
not agree that things can also be achieved in the practical
realm. That is why I formulated the sentence in this way.
MR KAUFMANN: Please forgive me, but it
seems to me that the contradiction between Paragraph 3 and
Paragraph 7 pointed out by Herr Leinhas is still there.
Paragraph 7 says: ‘The organizing of the School of
Spiritual Science is, to begin with, the responsibility of
Rudolf Steiner, who will appoint his collaborators and his
possible successor.’ I was under the impression that
the Vorstand suggested by Dr Steiner has been elected
en bloc by the
present gathering. But now if Paragraph 3 calls the Vorstand,
elected at the foundation meeting, the leadership at the
Goetheanum, this seems to contradict Paragraph 7. I had
understood Paragraph 3 to mean the leadership at the
Goetheanum to be Dr Steiner and such persons as he has
already nominated or will nominate who, in their confidence
in him as the leadership at the Goetheanum, in accordance
with Paragraph 7, hold the views stated within quotation
marks in Paragraph 3 which are recognized positively by those
present at the meeting. But if this is carried out by the
Vorstand of the Anthroposophical Society elected here, then
this seems to me to be an apparent contradiction, at least in
the way it is put.
DR STEINER: I should like to ask when was
the Vorstand elected? When was the Vorstand
elected?
MR KAUFMANN: I was under the impression
that it was accepted when you proposed it; and the agreement
of the meeting was expressed very clearly.
DR STEINER: You must understand that I do
not regard this as an election, and that is why just now I
did not suggest: ‘the leadership at the Goetheanum
which is represented by the Vorstand elected by this
foundation gathering’ but ‘formed’.
MR KAUFMANN: Is this Vorstand identical
with that mentioned in Paragraph 7?
DR STEINER: Surely the Vorstand cannot be
identical with my single person if it consists of five
different members!
Mr Kaufmann asks once again.
DR STEINER: No, it is not identical.
Paragraph 7 refers to the establishment of the School of
Spiritual Science which I sketched earlier on. We shall name
the Vorstand in a final Paragraph. But I regard this Vorstand
as being absolutely bound up with the whole constitution of
the Statutes. I have not suggested this Vorstand as a group
of people who will merely do my bidding but, as I have said,
as people of whom each one will bear the full responsibility
for what he or she does. The significance for me of this
particular formation of this Vorstand is that in future it
will consist of the very people of whom I myself believe that
work can be done with them in the right way. So the Vorstand
is in the first place the Vorstand of the Society. What is
mentioned in Paragraph 7 is the leadership of the School of
Spiritual Science. These are two things. The School of
Spiritual Science will function in the future with myself as
its leader. And the leaders of the different Sections will be
what might be called the Collegium of the School. And then
there will be the Vorstand of the Anthroposophical Society
which you now know and which will be complemented by those
leaders of the different Sections of the School of Spiritual
Science who are not anyway members of the Vorstand. Is this
not comprehensible?
MR KAUFMANN: Yes, but in the way it is put
it seems to me that the contradiction is still there.
DR STEINER: What is contradictory?
MR KAUFMANN: Reading the words, you gain
the impression that the Vorstand has been nominated by you
personally. This would contradict Paragraph 7.
DR STEINER: Yes, but why is this not
sufficient? It has nothing to do with Paragraph 7. Paragraph
7 refers only to the preceding Paragraph 5, the School of
Spiritual Science. What we are now settling has nothing to do
with Paragraph 7. We are only concerned here with the fact
that the Vorstand has been formed. It has been formed in the
most free manner imaginable. I said that I would take on the
leadership of the Society. But I shall only do so if the
Society grants me this Vorstand. The Society has granted me
this Vorstand, so it is now formed. The matter seems to me to
be as accurate as it possibly can be. Of course the worst
thing that could possibly happen would be for the Statutes to
express that the Vorstand had been ‘nominated’ by
me. And this is indeed not the case in view of the manner in
which the whole Society expressed its agreement, as occurred
here.
HERR KAISER: Please excuse me for being so
immodest as to speak once again. As regards Paragraph 1,
[ Note 51 ]
the only thing I
would suggest is that you simply say ‘life’ and
nothing else; not ‘intellectual life’ and not
‘life of the soul’, but simply
‘life’.
With regard to point 3, I would not want
to alter a single word in the version which Dr Steiner has
given with almost mathematical precision. But in order to
meet the concern of our respected friend I would merely
suggest the omission of the words ‘which is to be
acquired step by step’.
DR STEINER: Yes, but then we do not
express what ought to be expressed, namely that the schooling
is indeed to be acquired step by step. We shall print on the
cycles: First Class, Second Class, Third Class. And apart
from this it is necessary to express in some way that there
are stages within the schooling. These stages are quite
simply a fact of spiritual science. Otherwise, you will
agree, we have no way of distinguishing between schooling and
dilettantism. Someone who has only just achieved the first
stage of the schooling is a dilettante for the second and
third stage. So I am afraid we cannot avoid wording it in
this way.
DR UNGER: I should like to suggest that we
conclude the debate about this third point.
A SPEAKER: I believe we should agree to
recognize the formulation of Paragraph 1 as it has emerged
from the discussion. ANOTHER: I should only like to make a
small suggestion. A word that could be improved: the word
‘the same’
[ See
footnote A. ]
in ‘the same progress’ in the last sentence of
Paragraph 3. I would like to see it deleted and replaced by
‘also progress’.
DR STEINER: We could do this, of course.
But we would not be — what shall I say? — using
language in as meaningful a way. ‘Gleich’ is such
a beautiful word, and one which in the German language, just
in this kind of context, has gradually come to be used
increasingly sloppily. It would be better to express
ourselves in a way which still gives a certain fragrance to
what we want to say. Wherever we can it is better to use
concrete expressions rather than abstract ones. You see, I do
actually mean ‘the same progress as in the other
realms’. So that it reads: ‘These results are in
their own way as exact as the results of genuine natural
science. When they attain general recognition in the same way
as these, they will bring about the same progress in all
spheres ...’
Of course I do not want to insist on this.
But I do think it is not at all a bad thing to retain, or
bring back to recognition, a word in the German language
which was originally so resonant, instead of replacing it by
an abstract expression. We are anyway, unfortunately, even in
language on the way to abstraction.
Now we are in the following situation:
Since an application to close the debate has been made, I
ought to adjourn any further debate, if people still want to
speak about Paragraph 3, till tomorrow. We should then not be
able to vote on this Paragraph today. Please understand that
I am obliged to ask you to vote on the application to close
the debate. In the interests of proper procedure, please
would those friends who wish the conclusion of the debate
indicate their agreement.
DR UNGER: I only meant the discussion on
point 3. We are in the middle of the detailed debate.
DR STEINER: Will those who are opposed to
closing the debate please raise their hands. I am sorry, that
is not possible! We shall now vote on the acceptance or
rejection of Paragraph 3. Will those respected friends who
are in favour of adopting point 3 please raise their hands.
(They do.)
Will those respected friends who are
against it please raise their hands. (Nobody does.) Point 3
has thus been adopted at the second reading. Tomorrow we
shall continue with the detailed debate, beginning with point
4.
We shall gather, as we did today, after
the lecture by Herr Jan Stuten on the subject of music and
the spiritual world. So the continuation of the detailed
debate will take place in tomorrow's meeting, which will
begin at the same time as today. This afternoon at 4.30 there
will be a performance of the Three Kings play.
Footnotes:
A. The
German word in Paragraph 3 is
‘gleich’, which is translated as
‘comparable’ in the official translation into
English of the Statutes. For the purpose of the present
passage in the discussion, the word ‘same’
has been substituted. It is an equally appropriate
rendering for ‘gleich’ and makes the
discussion as translated here more comprehensible. (Tr.
)
|