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 programs
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 judgment
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 fulfill 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 an attitude 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
[academic] 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
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 word “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.
Thanks to The
Rudolf Steiner Archive.
Continued in the
next issue of SCR.
Home
