I
have given you some idea of the forces which determined the first
two periods of the anthroposophical movement. But in order to
create a basis on which to deal with what happened in the third
stage, I still wish to deal with a number of phenomena from the
first two.
The
first period, up until approximately 1907, can be described as
being concerned with developing the fundamentals for a science of
the spirit in lectures, lecture cycles and in subsequent work
undertaken by others. This period concludes approximately with
the publication of my Occult
Science.
[ Note
1 ]
Occult
Science
actually appeared in print some one and a half years later, but
the publicizing of its essential content undoubtedly falls into
this first period. Some hope was definitely justified in this
period, up to 1905 or 1906, that the content of anthroposophy
might become the purpose of the Theosophical Society's existence.
During
this time it would have been an illusion not to recognize that
leading personalities in the Theosophical Society, and Annie
Besant in particular, had a very primitive understanding of
modern scientific method. Nevertheless, despite the amateurish
stamp which this gave to all her books, there was a certain sum
of wisdom, mostly unprocessed, in the people who belonged to the
Society. This became more marked as the focus of the Theosophical
Society gradually moved to London and slowly began to feed, in a
manner of speaking, on oriental wisdom. It sometimes led to the
most peculiar ideas. But if we ignore the fact that such ideas
were sometimes stretched so far that they lost all similarity to
their original and true meaning, such books as Annie Besant's
Ancient Wisdom, The Progress of Mankind, and even
Christianity transmit something which, although passed
down by traditional means, originated in ancient sources of
wisdom.
On
the other hand one must always be aware that in the modern world
beyond these circles there was no interest whatsoever in real
spiritual research. The reality was simply that the possibility
of kindling an interest in a truly modern science of the spirit
existed only among those who found their way into this group of
people.
Yet
within this first period in particular there was a great deal to
overcome. Many people were working towards something, but it was
in part a very egoistic and shallow striving. But even such
superficial societies frequently called themselves theosophical.
One need only think, for instance, of the theosophical branches
spread widely throughout central Europe — in Germany,
Austria and also Switzerland — which possessed only an
exceedingly anaemic version of Theosophical Society tenets,
impregnated with all kinds of foolish occult views.
One
person who was very active in such societies was Franz Hartmann.
[ Note
2 ]
But the kind of profound spirit and deep seriousness which
existed in these shallow societies will become obvious to you if
I describe the cynical character of this particular leader. The
Theosophical Society was at one time engaged in a dispute in
connection with an American called Judge [ Note
3 ]
about whether or not certain messages which had been distributed
by Judge originated with persons who really had reached a higher
stage of initiation, the so-called Masters. Judge had distributed
these “Mahatma Letters” in America.
While
they were both at the headquarters in India, Judge said he wanted
some letters from the Masters in order to gain credibility in
America, so that he could say he had been given a mission by
initiates. Franz Hartmann recounted how he had offered to write
some Mahatma Letters for Judge, and the latter had replied that
this would not permit him to claim their authenticity. They were
supposed to fly towards you through the air; they originated in a
magical way and then landed on your head, and that is what he had
to be able to say. Judge was a very small fellow, Hartmann told
us, and so he said to him “Stand on the floor and I will
stand on a chair and then I will drop the letters on your head.”
Then Judge could say with a clear conscience that he was
distributing letters which had landed on his head clean out of
the air!
That
is an extreme example of things which are not at all rare in the
world. I do not really want to waste your time with these shallow
societies. I only want to point out that the close proximity of
the anthroposophical to the theosophical movement made it
necessary for the former to defend itself against modern
scientific thinking during its first period.
I
do not know whether those who joined the anthroposophical
movement later as scientists, and observed anthroposophy during
its more developed third stage, have gained sufficient insight
into the fact that a critical assessment of modern scientific
thinking took place in a very specific way during the first
period of the anthroposophical movement. I only give instances,
because this process occurred in a number of different areas. But
these examples will show you how the theosophical movement was
strongly influenced by the deference to so-called scientific
authority which I described as particularly characteristic of
modern education.
Annie
Besant, for instance, tried to use in her books all kinds of
quotes from contemporary science, such as Weismann's theory of
heredity, [ Note
4 ]
which bore no relevance to the science of the spirit. She used
them as if they provided some sort of evidence. If you recall, at
the time when we were in a position to start a centre for the
anthroposophical movement in Munich many homeless souls were
already organized in the sense that they belonged to various
societies. Of course centres for the movement had begun to
develop gradually in Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, Kassel,
Dusseldorf, Cologne, Hamburg, Hanover and Leipzig, and in Vienna
as well as in Prague. When we were establishing the branch in
Munich it became necessary to assess critically the various
larger and smaller groups which were then in existence.
One
group called the Ketterl, consisting of extremely scholarly
people, was very much concerned with providing proofs from
natural science for the claims which were made on behalf of the
science of the spirit. If anthroposophy spoke about the etheric
body, they would say that science has recognized this or that
structure for atoms and molecules. Their formulae and definitions
and so on were applied not to processes of the spectrum or
electro-magnetism but to processes in the etheric or astral
field. There was nothing we could do about that. The whole thing
dissolved more or less amicably. In the end we no longer had any
links with these investigations.
Not
so very different were the efforts of a Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden,
[ Note
5 ]
who played an important role in the Theosophical Society. He was
a close friend of Blavatsky, and was the editor of Sphinx
for a long time. He, too, was obsessed with proving what he felt
was theosophical subject matter by means of natural-scientific
thinking. He took me to his home, a little way outside Hanover.
It was perhaps half an hour by tram. He spent the entire
half-hour describing the motion of atoms with his index fingers:
Yes, it has to happen in this way and that way and then we have
the answer. The atoms move in one incarnation and then the wave
motion continues through the spiritual worlds; then it changes
and that is the next incarnation. In the same way as modern
physicists calculate light in terms of wave lengths, he
calculated the passage of souls through various incarnations.
A
special version of this way of thinking was evident in the debate
about the permanent atom, which took place in the Theosophical
Society over a long period. This permanent atom was something
awful, but was taken incredibly seriously. For the people who
felt the full weight of modern science postulated that while of
course the physical body decomposes, a single atom remains,
passes through the time between death and a new birth, and
appears in the new incarnation. That is the permanent atom which
passes through incarnations.
This
may appear funny to you today, but you simply cannot understand
the seriousness with which these things were pursued,
specifically in the first period, and the difficulty which
existed in responding to the challenge: What is the point of
theosophy if it cannot be proved scientifically! During that
conversation in the tram the point was forcefully made that
things have to be presented in a manner which will allow a
matriculated schoolboy to understand theosophy in the same way
that he understands logic. That was the thrust of my companion's
argument. Then we arrived at his home and he took me into the
loft, and up there — I have to repeat that he was an
exceedingly kind, pleasant and intelligent man; in other words, a
sympathetic old gentleman — were very complicated wire
constructions. One of the models would represent the atom of a
physical entity; the next model, which was even more complex,
would represent the atom of something etheric; the third model,
still more complex, was an astral atom.
If
you pick up certain books by Leadbeater, [ Note
6 ]
a leading figure in the Theosophical Society, you will find such
models in grandiose form. Atomism flourished nowhere as greatly
as among those who joined our ranks from the Theosophical
Society. And when younger members such as Dr. Kolisko [ Note
7 ]
and others are engaged in the fight against the atom in our
research institute in Stuttgart, [ Note
8 ]
we might well recall that certain people at that time would not
have known how to get from one incarnation to the next without at
least one permanent atom.
That
is something of an image of the way in which the strong authority
of so-called natural-scientific thinking exerted its influence in
these circles. They were unable to conceive of any other valid
way of thinking than the natural-scientific one. So there was no
real understanding in this quarter either. Only as the
anthroposophical movement entered its second stage did these
atomistic endeavours gradually subside, and there was a gradual
transition to the subject matter which continued to be cultivated
in the anthroposophical movement. Every time I was in Munich, for
instance, it was possible to give a lecture designed more for the
group which gathered round a great friend of Blavatsky's. Things
were easier there because a genuine inner striving existed.
Within
our own ranks, too, there was a call at that time to justify the
content of anthroposophy using the current natural-scientific
approach. It was less radical, nevertheless, than the demands
made by external critics today. A large number of you heard Dr.
Blümel's [ Note
9 ]
lecture today. Imagine if someone had responded by saying that
everything Dr. Blümel spoke about was of no personal
concern; that he did not believe it, did not recognize it and did
not want to test it. Someone else might say: See whether it is
accurate, examine it with your reason and your soul faculties.
The first person says: It is no business of mine be it right or
wrong, I do not want to become involved with that. But I call on
Dr. Blümel to go to a psychological laboratory and there,
using my psychological methods, I will examine whether or not he
is a mathematician.
That
is, of course, piffle of the first order. But it is exactly the
demand made today by outside critics.
Sadly,
it is quite possible today to talk pure nonsense that goes
undetected. Even those who are upset by it fail to notice that it
is pure nonsense. They believe that it is only maliciousness or
something similar, because they cannot imagine the possibility of
someone who talks pure nonsense acquiring the role of a
scientific spokesman simply as a result of their social standing.
That is the extent to which our spiritual life has become
confused. The kind of things which I am explaining here must be
understood by anyone who wants to grasp the position of the
anthroposophical movement.
Well,
undeterred by all that, the most important human truths, the most
important cosmic truths, had to be made public during the first
stage. My Occult
Science
represents a sort of compendium of everything which had been put
forward in the anthroposophical movement until that point. Our
intention was always a concrete and never an abstract one,
because we never attempted to do more than could be achieved in
the given circumstances.
Let
me quote the following as evidence. We established a journal,
Luzifer-Gnosis,
[ Note
10 ]
right at the outset of the anthroposophical movement. At first it
was called Luzifer.
Then a Viennese journal called Gnosis
wanted to amalgamate with it. My sole intention in calling it
Luzifer with Gnosis was to express the practical union of the two
journals. Of course that was completely unacceptable to
Hübbe-Schleiden, for instance, who thought that this would
indicate an unnatural union. Well, I was not particularly
bothered, so we called it Luzifer-Gnosis
with a hyphen. People were very sharp-witted and they were
keeping a close eye on us at that time!
Of
course we started with a very small number of subscribers, but it
began to grow at a very fast pace, relatively speaking, and we
never really ran at a deficit because we only ever printed
approximately as many copies as we were able to sell. Once an
issue had been printed the copies were sent to my house in large
parcels. Then my wife and I put the wrappers around them. I
addressed them and then each of us took a washing basket and
carried the whole lot to the post office. We found that this
worked quite well. I wrote and held lectures while my wife
organized the whole Anthroposophical Society, [ Note
11 ]
but without a secretary. So we did that all on our own and never
attempted more than could be managed on a practical level. We did
not even, for example, take larger washing baskets than we could
just manage. When the number of subscribers grew we simply made
an extra journey.
When
we had been engaged in this interesting activity for some time,
Luzifer-Gnosis ceased publication — not because it
had to, for it had many more subscribers than it needed, but
because I no longer had the time to write. The demands of my
lecturing activity and of the spiritual administration of the
society in general began to take up a lot of time.
To
cease publication was a natural consequence of never attempting
more than could be managed on a practical level, one step at a
time. This belongs to the conditions which govern the existence
of a spiritual society. To build far-reaching ideals on phrases,
setting up programmes, is the worst thing which can happen to a
spiritual society. The work in this first period was such that
between 1907 and 1909 the foundations of a science of the spirit
appropriate to the modern age were put in place.
Then
we come to the second phase, which essentially concluded our
attempt to come to grips with natural science. The theologians
had not yet made their presence felt. They were still seated so
firmly in the saddle everywhere that they were simply not
bothered.
When
the issue of the natural sciences had been dealt with, we were
able to approach our other task. This was the debate over the
Gospels, over Genesis, the Christian tradition as a whole,
Christianity as such.
The
thread had already been laid out in Christianity
As Mystical Fact,
which appeared in 1902. But the elaboration, as it were, of an
anthroposophical understanding of Christianity was essentially
the task of the second stage up to approximately 1914. As a
consequence I gave lecture cycles on the various parts of the
Christian tradition in Hamburg, Kassel, Berlin, Basle, Berne,
Munich and Stuttgart.
That
was also when, for instance, The
Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity
[ Note
12 ]
was drawn up. It was, then, essentially the time in which the
Christian side of anthroposophy was worked out, following on from
the historical tradition of Christianity.
This
period also included what I might call the first expansion of
anthroposophy into the artistic field, with performances of the
mystery dramas in Munich. [ Note
13 ]
That, too, took place against the background of never wanting to
achieve more than circumstances allowed.
Also
during this time those events occurred which led to the exclusion
of anthroposophy from the Theosophical Society, a fact which was
actually of no great significance to the former, given that it
had followed its own path from the beginning. Those who wanted to
come along were free to do so. From the outset anthroposophy did
not concern itself with the spiritual content which came from the
Theososphical Society. But practical co-existence became
increasingly difficult as well.
At
the beginning there was a definite hope that circumstances, some
of which at least I have described, would allow the real
theosophical movement which had come together in the Theosophical
Society to become truly anthroposophical. The circumstances which
made such a hope appear justified included the serious
disappointment about the particular methods of investigation
pursued by the Theosophical Society, specifically among those
people who possessed a higher level of discrimination. And I have
to say that when I arrived in London on both the first and second
times, I experienced how its leaders were basically people who
adopted a very sceptical attitude towards one another, who felt
themselves to be on very insecure ground which, however, they did
not want to leave because they did not know where to look for
security.
There
were many disappointed people who had great reservations,
particularly among the leaders of the Theosophical Society. The
peculiar change which took place in Annie Besant from, say, 1900
to 1907 is an important factor in the subsequent course of events
in the Theosophical Society. She possessed a certain tolerance to
begin with. I believe she never really understood the phenomenon
of anthroposophy, but she accepted it and at the beginning
even defended against the rigid dogmatists its right to exist.
That is how we must describe it, for that is how it was.
But
there is something I must say which I would also urge members of
the Anthroposophical Society to consider very seriously. Certain
personal aspirations, purely personal sympathies and antipathies,
are absolutely irreconcilable with a spiritual society of this
kind. Someone, for instance, begins to idolize someone else, for
whatever underlying reasons within himself. He will not
acknowledge whatever compulsion it is, and sometimes it can be an
intellectual compulsion that drives him to do it. But he begins
to weave an artificial astral aura around the individual whom he
wants to idolize. The latter then becomes advanced. If he wants
to make an especially telling remark he will say: “Oh, that
individual is aware of three or four previous lives on earth and
even spoke to me about my earlier earth lives. That person knows
a lot!” And this is precisely what leads to a spiritual
interpretation of something which is human, all too human, to use
an expression of Nietzsche's.
It
would be sufficient to say: “I will not deny that I like
him.” Then everything would be fine, even in esoteric
societies. Max Seiling, [ Note
14 ]
for instance, was very amusing in certain ways, particularly when
he played the piano in that effervescent way of his, and he was
amusing to have tea with and so on. All would have been well if
people had admitted: We like that. That would have been more
sensible than idolizing him in the way the Munich group did.
You
see, all these things are in direct contradiction to the
conditions under which such a society should exist. And the prime
example of someone who fell prey to this kind of thing is Annie
Besant. For example — and I prefer to speak about these
things by quoting facts — a name cropped up on one
occasion. I did not bother much with the literature produced by
the Theosophical Society, and so I became acquainted with
Bhagavan Das's [ Note
15 ]
name only when a thick typewritten manuscript arrived one day.
The manuscript was arranged in two columns, with text on the left
side and a blank on the right. A covering letter from Bhagavan
Das said that he wanted to discuss with various people the
subject matter which he intended to reveal to the world through
the manuscript.
Well,
the anthroposophical movement was already so widespread at that
time that I did not manage to read the manuscript immediately.
That Bhagavan Das was a very esoteric man, a person who drew his
inspiration from profound spiritual sources — that was
approximately the view which people associated with Annie Besant
— spread about him. His name was on everyone's lips. So I
decided to have a look at the thing. I was presented with a
horrendously amateurish confusion of Fichtean philosophy,
Hegelian philosophy, and Schopenhauer's philosophy; everything
mixed up together without the slightest understanding. And the
whole thing was held together by “self” and “not
self”, like an endlessly repeated tune. The idolization of
Bhagavan Das was based purely on personal considerations. Such
things demonstrate how the personal element is introduced into
impulses which should be objective. The first step on the
slippery slope was taken with the appearance of this phenomenon,
which became increasingly strong from about 1905 onwards.
Everything else was basically a consequence of that.
Spiritual
societies must avoid such courses of action, particularly by
their leaders — otherwise they will, of necessity, slide
down the slippery slope. That is, indeed, what happened. Then
there was the absurd tale connected with Olcott's death, [ Note
16 ]
referred to as the Masters' nomination, which really represented
the beginning of the end for the Theosophical Society. That could
still be smoothed over, at least, by saying that such foolishness
was introduced into the Society by particular people, even if
they were acting on the basis of certain principles. It was,
however, followed by the Leadbeater affair, [ Note
17 ]
the details of which I do not want to discuss just now. And then
came the discovery of the boy who was to be brought up as Christ,
or to become Christ, and so on. And when people who did not want
to be involved in these absurd matters refused to accept them,
they were simply expelled.
Well,
the anthroposophical movement followed its set course throughout
the whole of this business and our inner development was not
affected by these events in any way. That has to be made
absolutely clear. It was really a matter of supreme indifference
— just as I was not especially surprised to hear recently
that Leadbeater has become an Old Catholic bishop in his old age.
There was no sense of direction and everything was going topsy
turvy.
Indeed,
there is no particular need to change one's personal relationship
with these people. Two years ago a gentleman who had delivered a
lecture at the Munich congress in 1907 [ Note
18 ]
approached me with the old cordial spirit. He still looked the
same, but in the meantime he had become an Old Catholic
archbishop. He was not wearing the garments, but that is what he
was!
It
must not be forgotten that the stream which we have been
describing also contained precisely those souls who were
searching most intensively for a link between the human soul and
the spiritual world. We are not being honest about the course of
modern culture if these contrasts are not made absolutely clear.
That is why I had to make these additional points today before
going on to the actual conditions which underlie the existence of
the Anthroposophical Society.
Thank
to the Rudolf Steiner Archive.
Continued
in the next issue of SCR.
Home