Letters to the Editor 


RE: My Cat is a Magician by Frank Thomas Smith

Thanks for the stories mate. You really have discovered your vein of gold.

Eddie Hyland,


RE: Last Day of the Last Furlough by J.D. Salinger

I first discovered this short story in an actual copy of the original SATURDAY EVENING POST on a shelf in the PALM BEACH JUNIOR COLLEGE library in the fall of 1965. As I held it in my hands reading it, it changed my life and perceptions as a would-be novelist. As a long-time reader of Salinger's, I was astonished to find out that writers often make allusions to other works and other characters in their earlier writing.  Here was proof that a full six years before the publication of The Catcher in the Rye, Salinger had invented the character, even possible eventual demise, of Holden Caulfield.

Now, forty-eight years later, as a teacher at PALM BEACH STATE COLLEGE,  I re-read it on your web posting and it moved me as much as it did that day a lifetime ago. Why this story was never collected and published is something I've never been able to figure out. It is heartbreaking on so many levels, including the Salinger biography level.

This story should be required reading by everyone who has ever been introduced to olden. It adds so much perspective to the story and possibly answerses the question, "Whatever happened to my old friend?" It is tragic that Salinger never let more of his work or his process be known to scholars.

 Thanks for posting this.

 Frank Eberling



Comments about the open letter -or- the Judith von Halle Phenomenon continued

 Dear Friends,

 Being one of the AAG Members who signed the “Open Letter” I would like to mention that the reason for this letter was not the position of Sergej O. Prokofieff towards stigmatization. This position is well known. He considers the Christian path of schooling as incompatible with anthroposophy. As the stigmatization can take place within this path of schooling as part of the fourth stage, he rejects this phenomenon as well. He has the full right to have and express this opinion, of course. Also the fact that he considers a psycho-pathological defect as the real cause of stigmatization is not the reason for the Open Letter. The problem with [his book] “Zeitreisen”  is that Prokofieff tried to prove his stand by putting words in Judith von Halle's mouth which she has never used. We call that “incorrect citing” or even “paraphrasing”. That is “not done”. It is his way of argumentation which was considered morally unacceptable by the signers.

  I agree with the stand that Judith von Halle is able to deal with the discussion. In the case of her book “Anna Katharina Emmerick” things are different however. Judith had a “Holy Anger” about the way that Prokofieff had spoken about Anna Katharina Emmerick. That was the reason behind the origin of this book. The first part deals with this aspect. Then, two parts were written of a kind that has never occurred before. This is a book about a person that carries the Stigmata, written by a person who lives in a comparable situation. I think it is the first time in history that this has occurred.   

  The regrettable conflict about “Zeitreisen” converged with the departure of Prokofieff from the Board [of the General Anthroposophical Society]. The official reason was his illness, but everybody knows that there existed a situation of “incompatibilité des humeurs”. Peter Selg explained in a separate letter that this played an important role in this drama. I was myself present at the General Meeting in Dornach last March.  It was very sad to see that it was a departure without Prokofieff being present, and without reconciliation.

 I am sure that we AAG members will do our utmost to find solutions for this problem.  This is anthroposophy!

 Rob Steinbuch,

Driebergen, Holland


From the copious and detailed information you have provided, it seems to me that poor Mr. Prokofiev now appears to have become some kind of charlatan!  Perhaps one who has finally met his match in Judith Von Halle, and is now desperately fighting for his livelihood!

 Life must have been good for him as the chief pontificator on all things Anthroposophical.  Apparently, he can't bear the thought that after all his study and effort, along comes a young lady who magically receives such power.  Poor man.  Yet he has had his time in the sun, and sadly for him, that time is now drawing to a close. 

 Thank you for all your efforts to clear a path to the truth!

 Best regards,

 Ben Gregg

Boston, MA USA


Dear Sir

It is good, that your stand up for the right and lies about Judith von Halle, but there is no reason to use the same method (war), as those who criticize her.

 Kærlig hilsen



Greetings Southern Cross!

Thank you for publishing the very interesting letter defending Judith von Halle.

Sergei Prokofieff is a vicious anti-Catholic and it is amazing to me that he has achieved such prominence in the Anthroposophical Society.

Anyone concerned with the Christian future of Anthroposophy must be deeply concerned about Prokofieff and his books. A friend of mine attempted to read his volume on folk-souls but found it extremely unreadable if not distasteful and said she would be embarrassed for anyone not familiar with Anthroposophy to see it -- she threw the book away.

I would be interested in hearing from you about new issues. Thanks again for your fine publication-which oddly enough, I haven't looked into recently - since you published my essay on Simone Weil some years ago. Glad to know you're still going strong!

 Best wishes,

 Caryl Johnston


Well, the positions seem to have hardened. There is something very mysterious in Prokofiev's attack. Is this a Battle between Aristotelianism, and Platonism? Steiner was far more inclusive I feel. No Good will come of this Division (in the Society). And I think this letter is being quite personal against Prokofiev, understandable though it might be. What of Felix Balde in the Mystery Dramas? It is really such a shame that we in Anthroposophy can't be more accomodating. I have no Idea as to Prokofiev's motives, but there should be room for dissent. I have a Good friend who said that everything is Anthroposophy! ( if one Practices it with full consciousness and a good Heart) I would welcome a thorough debate. Especially in the Das Goetheanum weekly.

 Thanks very much for translating and posting this, Frank, i would otherwise  be uninformed.

 Regards, Mark Rossell


Mr. Prokofieff reveals clearly why the Anthroposophical Society has failed Rudolf Steiner.   Judith von Halle has come to make sure the Anthroposophical Movement continues.  If one can not see the Christ and Rudolf Steiner in and with Judith von Halle, it is so very sad.  Shame on Mr. Prokofieff - it is obvious he does not have a relationship with Anthroposohia.   Thank you to Judith von Halle for revitalizing the Christ in me.  

 Skip Shook



 Since you published my last letter I have no expectation you will publish this one, but I did want to share with you (and others if you see fit) a couple of additional thoughts...

I like that Jeff pointed out the lack of a discussion of von Halle's works, as something in themselves, although there is a kind of technical problem that needs addressing were that to be pursued … Reading can't give us "knowledge" in the fashion in which Steiner framed that "idea". Knowledge requires the union of percept and concept, and when we read all we get (assuming we strive to actually get "it") is a set of concepts which are manufactured in our own mind.  To "read" Steiner, or von Halle, or even Prokofeff, is to acquire perceptless concepts - or thoughts unrelated to experience. Now it is technically possible to do pure conceptual thinking and find the "idea" (Being) behind the concept, but that is an art we hardly speak of, understand or know how to pursue.  For a hint see Steiner's comments in The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception where Steiner points out that there is only one concept, for example, of the idea: "triangle".

Yet the mental habit of most anthroposophists is to not get that, and so it is assumed that if Steiner said a thing we can rely upon it as a fact of knowledge.  Steiner is clear (read carefully the introductions to Occult Science and Theosophy) that he can only transmit "understanding", not knowledge. Understanding is a powerful tool, but absent direct personal experience (the percept) we don't have knowledge.  (although, again: a concept properly thought can be a percept - see the other hint in The Philosophy of Freedom, last sentence original preface: "One must be able to confront an idea and experience it, otherwise one will fall into its bondage." The point of this is to suggest that a discussion - wherein Steiner, v.Halle and Prokofieff are quoted and compared, is a fruitless discussion - if it is the truth we are after.  Of course, in the case where von Halle or Prokofieff are quoting Steiner then we have perceptless concepts made up out of percerptless concepts. Each of them has written what they have written, and we - if we want actual knowledge - have to find our own Way there.

One last bit, regarding von Halle. … In my view it is all well and good to have someone present to us their thoughts about their experiences of Christ and others in the time of the Gospels, but to me a much more important question is what is Christ up to now ... not then, now. Who is telling us how to understand Now?

Joel Wendt


RE:The Rise and Fall of the Airlines


I am doing my master thesis in Economic History at the University of Geneva, on IATA's Traffic Conferences, and have stumbled upon your article on "The rise and fall of the airlines" (http://southerncrossreview.org/69/iata.htm) when searching for compliance procedures. I found it extremely interesting and definitely intriguing, so I was hoping I could get in touch with the author, mr. Smith, for a bit more details on that - if possible.  Thank you in advance for your time and help!

 Kind regards,

 Diana Dascalu

RE:Esoteric Lessons for the First Class... by Rudof Steiner

 Dear Frank. I am studying this class lesson 10 now, and I want to thank you so much.  For years I went to the class lessons, and lived into the Cosmic worlds and then went home, forgot, and just like steiner says, “mechanically  meditated” on the mantras. Without having before you these admonitions and the advise, how can one do otherwise? So what you are doing (in translating and publishing these lessons) is of the greatest of Help! It was all well and good when Steiner was around, for he could personally awake in those present, the necessary forces to work fruitfully, but the link now is too tenuous. And may i say,  because we haven't had the access to the lessons in English, the Class reader becomes (unwittingly perhaps) a PRIEST!, yes, an intermediator, one who has the knowledge and imparts it, and that will never do! In particular, this lesson 10: if one were to just meditate on this one alone... It would take one very very far!

 Best wishes, Mark Rossell



When will volumes two and three of Rudolf Steiner's Class Lessons be available for the Amazon 'kindle'?

Andrew Kennedy.

Hi Andrew,

Good question. Each volume will be available in Kindle after it is translated. Each lesson corresponds to a SCR issue, which mean a lesson every 2 months, which means that volume 2 (10 lessons) will be ready around November 2014. Volume 3 (another 10) go figure. It is of course possible that this rhythm be accelerated, but that's the plan for now.

Best regards,



RE: Spiritual Cosmology by Rudolf Steiner

 How interesting Frank!  Thanks for doing the translation.  Do you know which GA it's been lumped into by any chance?

 Robert Stolzenberger, Quebec)

Hi Robert,

GA89 - Bewusstsein, Leben, Form.