The Gospel of St. Mark
GA 139
Some Preliminary Remarks
Readers of this lecture-cycle who do not know from their own experience what was taking place when it was being delivered in the Theosophical Society, then headed by Annie Besant, will perhaps object to the polemical tone of several passages, especially those in which the conception of Christ held by this individuality is criticized. To understand this tone it must be realized that at that time the authority of Annie Besant still counted for much among many of those for whom the lectures were intended, and that the lecturer had to defend his own interpretation of Christ which, however, was in no way different from what he had hitherto maintained.
Now, since these battles lie far back in the past, some readers may well think that the polemical passages should be deleted. This is not the view of the present editors, who believe that, for historical reasons, the lectures should be preserved just as they were given. In addition, some readers may find it not without interest to know the superstitions against which the interpretation of Christ advanced here had to be defended, and how contrary to all Western feeling such superstitions were. Anyone who envisages the matter correctly is bound to see that for the lecturer it was really not a question of quarreling in the way characteristic of those societies and sects which hold their own views of the world. On the contrary what was at stake was the validity of his views, for which he had to answer before his own scientific conscience, as against a distorted belief motivated by personal interests. Reasonable people may certainly conclude that this belief was self-evidently absurd. Nevertheless it was such absurdities that were advanced in the Theosophical Society against what the lecturer had to say. In the world of reality, even things contrary to rational thinking may play their part.
Now, because the lecturer could not abandon his interpretation of Christ, which he had advanced since 1902 and which had been entirely unchallenged by leading members of the Theosophical Society, the Society, under Annie Besant's authority, among other similarly glorious deeds excluded all those members who, convinced by the lecturer's arguments, refused to accept Mrs. Besant's muddled beliefs. In this respect the Theosophical Society behaved like all inquisitors in a case which the lecturer himself had not thought of as a quarrel over dogma and had not treated as such. All he wished to do was to make an exposition based purely on facts. However, this is the kind of thing that usually happens when there is a collision between a valid factual presentation and a fanaticism reinforced by personal interests. In the course of time those who had been excluded from the Theosophical Society converted themselves into an Anthroposophical Society, which has continually increased its membership since then. Indeed, if we take into account the foolish calumnies directed so violently against the Anthroposophical Society and the lecturer in particular by the idol of the theosophists, Annie Besant, and by some of her idolizing followers, we can certainly not regard the separation of the Anthroposophical from the Theosophical Society as in any way a misfortune—especially if we also take into account many other things that since that time have emerged from the bosom of the Theosophical Society, supposedly as products of “the most noble philanthropy!”
Many readers of this cycle, who were at that time interested in the separation, will look upon the consequence of these battles, an echo of which appears here and there in these studies, as a kind of document that can be understood only in connection with the words that had to be spoken here. It may also be regarded as a demonstration of the manifold difficulties encountered by someone who believes he must defend something on purely factual grounds. However, if anyone does not agree with this viewpoint, he should be tolerant enough to skip, without resentment, those passages which in his opinion do not concern him. However, those for whose sake the lectures were given at the time they were delivered found in such passages a certain significance that should not be underestimated.
Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, 1918
Vorbemerkung Zu Diesen Vorträgen
Leser dieses Vortragszyklus, die nicht miterlebt haben, was sich zur Zeit, als er gehalten worden ist, in der unter der Autorität von Annie Besant lebenden Theosophischen Gesellschaft abgespielt hat, werden vielleicht Anstoß daran nehmen, daß in demselben an vielen Stellen ein polemischer Ton angeschlagen ist, namentlich gegen die von dieser Persönlichkeit geltend gemachte Christusauffassung. Um diesen Ton zu verstehen, muß man ins Auge fassen, daß zu jener Zeit für viele Menschen, zu denen mit diesen Betrachtungen zu sprechen war, die Autorität Annie Besants noch etwas bedeutete und daß der Sprecher seine von ihm nie anders als hier vorgebrachte Christusauffassung zu verteidigen hatte. Jetzt, da diese Kämpfe weit zurückliegen, könnten die polemischen Stellen vielleicht getilgt werden nach mancher Meinung. Allein die gehaltenen Vorträge sollen nach der Meinung der sie Herausgebenden einfach historisch festgehalten werden, wie sie damals gegeben worden sind. Und für manchen könnte es ja auch nicht ohne Interesse sein, gegen welchen allem abendländischen Empfinden zuwiderlaufenden Aberglauben die hier vorgebrachte Christusauffassung zu verteidigen war. Man wird, wenn man die Sache recht ins Auge faßt, wohl auch sehen, daß es sich dem Vortragenden doch nicht um eines der in Weltanschauungsgesellschaften und Sekten üblichen Gezänke dogmatischer Art handelte, sondern um die Geltung dessen, was er vor seinem wissenschaftlichen Gewissen zu verantworten hatte gegen einen aus persönlichen Interessen aufgebrachten Wirrglauben, den man ja gewiß vernünftigen Menschen gegenüber durch seine Absurdität, durch sich selbst gerichtet glauben kann, der aber innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft damals als etwas dem von dem Vortragenden Vorgebrachten Gleichgeltendes entgegengehalten wurde. In der wirklichen Welt kann eben auch das eine Rolle spielen, was aller Vernunft zuwiderläuft.
Nun, daß der Vortragende auf seinem seit 1902 geltend gemachten und von hervorragenden Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft vorher durchaus nicht angefochtenen Christusstandpunkte stehenbleiben mußte, hat neben anderen ähnlich schönen Dingen dazu geführt, daß die unter Annie Besants Autorität stehende Theosophische Gesellschaft alle diejenigen Mitglieder ausschloß, die sich wegen der von dem Vortragenden vorgebrachten Gründe zu dem Besantschen Wirrglauben ablehnend verhielten. Die Theosophische Gesellschaft hat sich eben nach den Gepflogenheiten aller Ketzerrichter verhalten in einer Angelegenheit, die auf Seite des Vortragenden weder als dogmatisches Gezänk gedacht noch als solches behandelt worden war. Dieser wollte es nur mit einer sachlichen Auseinandersetzung zu tun haben. Allein es ging eben so, wie es immer geht, wenn sachlich geltend Gemachtes auf den aus persönlichen Interessen geborenen Fanatismus stößt. Nun, die Sache hat dazu geführt, daß die aus der Theosophischen Gesellschaft Ausgeschiedenen zu einer Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft wurden, die seither an Mitgliederzahl zugenommen hat. Und wenn man in Erwägung zieht, was an albernen Verleumdungen namentlich der theosophische Götze Annie Besant, aber auch manche in diesem Götzendienst benebelt Befangene, gegen die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft und gegen den Vortragenden insbesondere in die Welt geschleudert haben, und wenn man manches andere in Betracht zieht, was seither aus dem Schoße dieser Gesellschaft an Produkten «edelster Menschenliebe » aufgestiegen ist, so wird man die Abtrennung der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft von der Theosophischen als etwas durchaus nicht Übles ansehen können. Und auch mancher Leser dieser Vorträge, der damals an der Abtrennung interessiert war, wird den Niederschlag der Kämpfe, der in den Betrachtungen da und dort auftritt, als ein Dokument aufnehmen bezüglich auf etwas, was aus den damaligen Zusammenhängen heraus, aus denen gesprochen werden mußte, zu begreifen ist, und auch als ein Zeugnis für die mancherlei Schwierigkeiten, die man findet, wenn man etwas aus rein sachlichen Gründen glaubt verteidigen zu müssen. Und wer auch das nicht gelten läßt, der möge Toleranz genug dazu haben, um ohne Groll dasjenige zu überschlagen, wovon er glaubt, daß es ihn nichts angehe, was aber doch für diejenigen, zu denen durch die Vorträge gesprochen worden ist, in der Zeit, da gesprochen wurde, eine gewisse gar nicht zu unterschätzende Bedeutung gehabt hat.
Berlin, 1918
Rudolf Steiner
Preliminary remark on these lectures
Readers of this series of lectures who were not present at the time when it was given, and who are not familiar with what was happening in the Theosophical Society under the authority of Annie Besant, may take offense at the polemical tone that appears in many places, particularly against the view of Christ held by this personality. To understand this tone, one must bear in mind that at that time, for many of the people to whom these reflections were addressed, Annie Besant's authority still meant something, and that the speaker had to defend his view of Christ, which he never expressed in any other way than here. Now that these struggles are long past, some may think that the polemical passages could perhaps be deleted. However, in the opinion of the editors, the lectures should simply be recorded historically as they were given at the time. And for some, it may well be of interest to see the superstition contrary to all Western sensibilities against which the view of Christ presented here had to be defended. If one looks at the matter objectively, one will see that the lecturer was not concerned with the dogmatic quarrels that are common in ideological societies and sects, but with the validity of what he had to answer for before his scientific conscience against a confused belief raised out of personal interests, which one can certainly believe to be absurd and self-contradictory when presented to reasonable people, but which at that time was held up within the Theosophical Society as something equivalent to what the speaker had put forward. In the real world, even things that run counter to all reason can play a role.
Now, the fact that the lecturer had to stand by his Christ view, which he had held since 1902 and which had not been contested by any prominent members of the Society, led, among other similarly beautiful things, to the Theosophical Society, under Annie Besant's authority, expelling all those members who rejected Besant's confused beliefs for the reasons put forward by the lecturer. The Theosophical Society behaved in accordance with the customs of all heretics in a matter which, on the part of the lecturer, was neither intended as dogmatic quarrelling nor treated as such. He only wanted to engage in an objective discussion. But it turned out as it always does when objective arguments encounter fanaticism born of personal interests. Well, the matter has led to those who left the Theosophical Society forming an Anthroposophical Society, which has since grown in membership. And when one considers the silly slanders that the theosophical idol Annie Besant, in particular, but also many others blinded by this idolatry, against the Anthroposophical Society and against the lecturer in particular, and when one considers many other things that have since emerged from the bosom of this society as products of “the noblest human love,” one cannot regard the separation of the Anthroposophical Society from the Theosophical Society as anything bad at all. And even some readers of these lectures who were interested in the separation at the time will regard the repercussions of the struggles that appear here and there in the reflections as a document concerning something that must be understood in the context of the circumstances of that time, and also as a testimony to the many difficulties one encounters when one feels compelled to defend something for purely objective reasons. And those who do not accept this should have enough tolerance to overlook without resentment that which they believe does not concern them, but which nevertheless had a certain significance, not to be underestimated, for those to whom the lectures were addressed at the time they were given.
Berlin, 1918
Rudolf Steiner