Recounting the turbulent beginning of the Wochenschrift [the Goetheanum Weekly]—the work of an anthroposophical community—and the personalities that brought it into being.
Setting Off Under Adverse Circumstances
In the early 1920s, with the construction of the Goetheanum and the advent of Social Threefolding, Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy were in the public eye, and controversy arose as never before—Steiner had become a public figure, making waves that drew attention from the press and his opponents. This prompted the concert agency Wolff & Sachs to organize two lecture tours for Rudolf Steiner to take place in large concert halls throughout Germany. The income was guaranteed by the crowds.
This was the time after the First World War and the Nazis were organizing themselves under Hitler. Rudolf Steiner and Social Threefolding were in the crosshairs: rioters and thugs showed up at a lecture by Rudolf Steiner in Munich in May 1922; lies about Rudolf Steiner and slander against anthroposophy appeared in the press. “In lectures where anthroposophists tried to set right the falsehoods being spread, the speakers were interrupted by whistles and rattles. Posters announcing such lectures were torn down. Eventually, they did not even shy away from using physical violence and deployed thugs to break up Rudolf Steiner’s lectures. This was believed to be the way among their contemporaries: make Rudolf Steiner appear as the embodiment of all those characteristics that were perceived as negative at the time—undesirable foreigner, evil charlatan, runaway priest, Jesuit pupil in disguise, dubious occultist, hidden Bolshevik, Jewish bastard, irregular Freemason, half-educated dilettante, active traitor to the country. Rudolf Steiner—a man of evil to the highest degree.”1 Even the Swiss immigration police investigated rumors that Rudolf Steiner was a “dangerous socialist agitator” who was engaged in “Pan-German propaganda.”
Before the Das Goetheanum Wochenschrift [the Goetheanum Weekly] was founded, several anthroposophical journals had already been launched: Das Reich [The Realm] (Alexander von Bernus, Heidelberg/Munich, April 1916–July 1920), Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus [Threefolding of the Social Organism] (Stuttgart, since July 1919), Soziale Zukunft [Social Future] (Roman Boos, Zurich, July 1919–1921), Anthroposophy: A Journal of Higher Science (London, since November 1920), Die Drei [The Three] (Stuttgart, since February 1921), and Vidar (Norway, since November 1915).
A Circle of People Draws Together
Besides Rudolf Steiner, the people who played a key role in the journal during its first decades were there from the start: Albert Steffen, Willy Storrer, Paul Bühler, and Friedrich Hiebel. Roman Boos was only involved at the very beginning, in the founding, although he played a decisive role. Friedrich Hiebel was involved in the Nachrichtenblatt [News Sheet] from 1924 onward, and later, first as editor and then, until his death in 1989, as overseer of the editorial team that followed him. Albert Steffen, Paul Bühler, and Friedrich Hiebel became, successively, the first editors of the Wochenschrift, while Willy Storrer was the organizer at its founding and its first administrator.
In 1920, two quite opposite natures came to Dornach at almost the same time, from different directions. On July 23, 1920, Albert Steffen, a freelance writer from Munich, arrived in Dornach to begin living there. In the spring of 1920, Willy Storrer, who had worked as an editor and journalist in Stuttgart until the spring of 1919, moved with his partner Nora Berg, first from Winterthur to Basel and finally to Dornach. The lawyer Roman Boos, the first member of the to-be-founded journal project, was already there; he was Rudolf Steiner’s secretary.
Roman Boos and Albert Steffen had known each other since February 1919 (at the latest). Together, they formed the Committee for Switzerland, which disseminated Rudolf Steiner’s “To the German People and the Civilized World” by leaflet and in daily newspapers, co-signed by prominent contemporaries.2 Roman Boos and Willy Storrer had also known each other since October 1919, when the office of the Swiss Union for the Threefolding of the Social Organism [Schweizer Bund für Dreigliederung des Sozialen Organismus] was moved from Zurich to Dornach. Willy Storrer was Roman Boos’ secretary. Storrer became a founding member and secretary of both the branch at the Goetheanum and the Anthroposophical Society in Switzerland, and Boos was General Secretary. A few months later, when Roman Boos fell severely mentally ill and had to leave Dornach for several years, the young Willy Storrer took over his leading tasks in the Swiss Union for Threefolding, the Anthroposophical Society of Switzerland, and the secretariat at the Goetheanum.
How Did the Idea of a Weekly Magazine Come About?
Although it’s still unclear, it is conceivable that one of the conversations between Roman Boos and Willy Storrer was the spark. Certainly, it did not start with Albert Steffen—on the contrary, he was working on his next book and would have preferred to go back to Germany. Nor did Willy Storrer make such an initiative; otherwise, he would have explicitly added this in the letter to Ita Wegman, where he listed his merits.3 Roman Boos had regular contact with Rudolf Steiner, organized lectures for him, and conferences in Switzerland. He was probably the one who approached Rudolf Steiner about the need for a regular newsletter: a movement needs its own organ if it wants to make an impact in the world and spread its message. Threefolding was ready, and it had enough substance to engage with its contemporaries. “We hope, in one go, to tear apart the atmosphere that has been spread around Dr. Steiner by the naysayers over the years; thereby, we hope to gain an unshakeable position in public opinion, in the sense that we will be recognized as an indisputable spiritual potency in the public life of Switzerland and Europe,” wrote Roman Boos to Albert Steffen in Munich in a letter dated June 11, 1920.
People had something to say, and opponents and detractors were plentiful and were propagated through the press. The diatribes against Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy, and the Goetheanum by the Catholic priest Max Kully in the neighboring village of Arlesheim were especially vehement.
How Did People Come Together?
From December 1920, there were preliminary discussions about founding a journal, which were driven forward by Roman Boos, one of the most committed threefolders—“one of the most courageous representatives of anthroposophy,” as Rudolf Steiner said. In May 1921, when Roman Boos was diagnosed with mental illness and was unable to work for the next few years, Albert Steffen corrected his friend Hans Reinhart: “Of course Dr. Boos is not in an insane asylum but with his sister. He has overexerted himself and needs to recover. That’s all I know.” (Letter from August 1921.) That left Willy Storrer (not yet 26 years old), who dreamed of something topical with foreign journalists, as commissioning editor, and Albert Steffen to take care of cultural matters. Only one month before the launch, in July 1921, Rudolf Steiner cleared up the situation and proposed that Albert Steffen be the sole editor.
With the constitutional founding of Das Goetheanum: Internationale Wochenschrift für Anthroposophie und Dreigliederung [The Goetheanum: International Weekly for Anthroposophy and Threefolding] on July 5, 1921, Willy Storrer became the organizer and administrator, Edgar Dürler the advertiser, and Albert Steffen the editor. In addition to Rudolf Steiner, Albert Steffen, and Willy Storrer, Ernst Blümel, Ethel Bowen-Wedgwood, Willy Stokar, Elisabeth Vreede, and two unnamed Swedish women were also present at this meeting in the Futurum AG room in House Friedwart.
The publisher became the Verlag am Goetheanum [the publishing house at the Goetheanum], which was founded as a department of Futurum under Willy Storrer specifically to publish the Wochenschrift. But, not for long: in 1927, he was dismissed by the Dornach Executive Board, and three years later, at the age of 34, he crashed his sports aeroplane in Gempen [the small mountain town above and behind the Goetheanum] during a daredevil low-level flight. Roman Boos was out due to illness. Emil Gmelin then managed the administration for the next few decades until old age.4
The Content Develops
Albert Steffen’s descriptions5 of the conferences with Rudolf Steiner reveal some of Steiner’s wishes in terms of content. If it was to succeed, such a press enterprise had to be managed individually (no commissioning editor, no team): “Everything depended on the enthusiasm for the work of the person to whom it was entrusted. And this must be allowed to proceed freely.” “Only excellence in both content and form.” No party politics. “But, Rudolf Steiner wanted politics to be replaced by knowledge, and what resulted from this, namely, the threefolding of the human and social organism. He said that he would provide such a replacement himself. He wanted all politics to disappear from the anthroposophical movement.” It was Rudolf Steiner’s express wish that poems should also appear. He even intended to write a whole cycle on the seasons himself, but this never materialized.
There was a lot to organize for a new magazine. The financing of 10,000 Swiss francs was initially to be provided by Futurum AG. Next steps: Negotiations with the printers, production schedule, decisions on format, layout, and cover design with the logo based on Rudolf Steiner’s design, acquisition of advertisements, scheduling the lead typesetting of the articles, and proofreading. These were all things that at least Rudolf Steiner already had experience with, whereas Albert Steffen did not. The first advertisements appeared in January 1922 (not yet in every issue), and indications of “Events of the Anthroposophical and Threefolding Movement in Switzerland” were published regularly. The International Weekly for Anthroposophy and Threefolding was published by Emil Birkhäuser & Cie. in Basel, with an initial print run of 20,000 copies (as printed on the first page), with the content of the first issue being determined only one month prior.
What would happen next and where the contributions would come from was an open question. It was up to Rudolf Steiner and Albert Steffen. “On July 21, Dr. Steiner and I discussed the first issue. He intended to write about the world situation, I about Dornach. The rest remained uncertain, which is why after this meeting I walked up and down in front of the house where I lived with some concern and, looking at the garden beds, wondered what kind of contributions we would see in the future.”6 In any case, for the next four years, until Rudolf Steiner’s death, every issue of the Weekly was discussed by Albert Steffen and Rudolf Steiner as collaboratively as possible.
Indeed, the excitement wasn’t over after the first issue. A few days later, the next issue had to be ready, and on it went. The paper had to find more writers and also reach its readers, subscribers, and advertisers. The new product appeared at a favorable time. There was a creative mood at the Goetheanum, and a Summer Art Course began with artists from all over Europe and the USA. Subsequently, they traveled to Stuttgart for the eleven-day public congress, “The Cultural Outlook of the Anthroposophical Movement” [Kulturausblicke der anthroposophischen Bewegung]. Naturally, this was reported on in the Wochenschrift. Among the 1600 participants were 300 students, one of whom was Friedrich Hiebel. One of the speakers, Walter Johannes Stein, arranged for Friedrich Hiebel to meet with Rudolf Steiner. During the congress, the first issue of the Wochenschrift was distributed in large quantities to attract subscribers. Friedrich Hiebel thus came to know the Wochenschrift from the very beginning, soon becoming one of its authors and correspondents, and 45 years later, its editor-in-chief.
The News Sheet and Correspondents
From January 13, 1924, the weekly supplement Was in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft vorgeht: Nachrichten für deren Mitglieder [What is going on in the Anthroposophical Society: News for its Members] was added, a fruit of the recently concluded Christmas Conference for the founding of the General Anthroposophical Society. The last paragraph of the founding statutes states: “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.”7
During the Christmas Conference, Rudolf Steiner appointed “correspondents of the Executive Board who would take on the voluntary obligation to write us a letter every week about what they find remarkable in the spiritual world outside and what might interest the Anthroposophical Society.”8 To begin, Rudolf Steiner named Josef van Leer in Vienna, a Dutch businessman, patron of various anthroposophical institutions, and the first President of the Board of Directors of Weleda. Next, Rudolf Steiner named thirteen other people, mainly General Secretaries and country representatives. He bid the nominees to confirm by raising their hands if they were ready for this voluntary office and summarized: “All the personages have agreed to take on the obligation of sending a report here to the editors of Das Goetheanum every week.”9
A review of the first volumes proves sobering: The reporting from the General Secretaries and other people as regular correspondents of the Executive Board at the Goetheanum “on everything that can interest anthroposophists in the spiritual life and other life of the world” (Rudolf Steiner, Dec. 27, 1923) hardly worked at all, from the beginning up until today. In the first year, there were a few contributions from Wilhelm Zeylmans and Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz. Josef van Leer did nothing himself, but assigned the task to a young co-worker, Friedrich Hiebel. Rudolf Steiner remarked to Albert Steffen that Friedrich Hiebel was the only one who took this task to heart with regular contributions. Friedrich Hiebel had therefore worked on the journal from an early stage and took over the leadership of the Wochenschrift with the News Sheet at the age of 60 after Albert Steffen’s (1963) and Paul Bühler’s death (1966), as a newly elected member of the Executive Board of the Goetheanum and as leader of the Section for Literary Arts and Humanities. However, from the Dornach Executive Board, apart from Albert Steffen, only Günther Wachsmuth contributed a few articles to the News Sheet. In line with Rudolf Steiner’s expectations, there were glimpses into books and the daily press with critical commentaries and refutations by anthroposophical authors, often by Albert Steffen—and that was about it.
In the very first January issues, Rudolf Steiner described in his Letters to the Members why a supplement was needed: among other things, to “turn a chaos of different groups into a Society with a spiritual content” (Rudolf Steiner, Nachrichtenblatt, February 17, 1924 [see Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts]).
This supplement was intended to promote a unified, collaborative consciousness among anthroposophists. “The life that plays out in the individual groups should be able to come to life in view of the consciousness of the whole Society. Letters addressed to the editors by members filled with interest for the life of the groups will then be prepared by the editors. In this way, it will be possible to work for the emergence of a collaborative consciousness in the Society. Only when the members in New Zealand can find out what is going on in a group in Vienna will such a collaborative consciousness be possible. But this should not be the only thing. What is going on in the spiritual life of the present outside the Society should also be included in the collaborative consciousness” (Rudolf Steiner, Nachrichtenblatt, January 27, 1924 [see Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts]).
The new journal was about “widening the circle of vision,” “a lively interest in all phenomena of life,” and making sound judgments about these phenomena. Anthroposophy “can only be given the right form through an open eye for everything that is thought, willed, and done in the world. The News Sheet should become a reflection of this kind of thinking in society” (Rudolf Steiner, Nachrichtenblatt, January 27, 1924 [see Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts]). These are all things and points of view that also apply to the Wochenschrift.
Albert Steffen—The Continuity
Early fame had made it easier for Albert Steffen to live as a freelance writer (especially in Berlin and Munich), but he was still dependent on support. He’d lived in Dornach since July 1920. He’d received a tempting offer from a cultural magazine being founded in Basel, Ars Helvetica: Schweizer Kunst, Literatur, Musik [Ars Helvetica: Swiss art, literature, music]. In the end, the project came to nothing. Albert Steffen was thus spared a decision between Ars Helvetica and the Wochenschrift. In December 1920, Albert Steffen and Roman Boos met Dr. Lohmeyer from Rhein Verlag in Basel for a consultation. “He said that he would be happy to take a monthly magazine into his publishing house, but would recommend handing over a weekly magazine to a newspaper enterprise. Dr. Boos was more in favor of a weekly; I was more in favor of a monthly. However, it didn’t seem right for us to make a decision before we were sure that we had enough money” (Letter from Albert Steffens to Hans Reinhart dated January 9, 1921).
At the beginning of July 1921, the decision was made in favor of the Wochenschrift. “Important experiences have taken place for me in the last few days, which will probably lead to me wanting to collaborate more with Dr. Steiner in the future than I have done so far” (Albert Steffen to Hans Reinhart, July 9, 1921).
In the second half of 1921, not only was the first issue of “his” magazine published, but also Wegzehrung [Provisions], Albert Steffen’s first volume of poetry after several novels, published by Rhein Verlag, Basel. From then on, it was precisely these two opposing sides—editor and article writer on the one hand and poet, playwright, and novelist on the other—that would simultaneously tug at Albert Steffen and threaten to tear him apart. Leave or stay in Dornach? That was the existential question in the early years. His fellow writers no longer understood Albert Steffen and turned away from the anthroposophist. His publications were still reviewed, but hardly in line with his expectations. As late as 1947, Friedrich Dürrenmatt praised Albert Steffen’s language in general in his theatre review: “Steffen wrote good poems and very good prose.” In contrast, the dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt found nothing praiseworthy about the dramatist Albert Steffen. “The play was embarrassing. Bad art is always embarrassing. Our judgment is harsh, but we suffered in the premiere.”10 The anthroposophists hardly noticed or appreciated the poet’s poems, with the exception of Rudolf Steiner. In the 22nd issue of the Wochenschrift (January 15, 1922), on the first page, where Rudolf Steiner’s current views of the times were usually to be read, stands his article “Albert Steffen als Lyriker” [Albert Steffen as a lyric poet], an empathetic review of the new publication of poetry collected in Wegzehrung [Provisions].
If there had been an application process for the journal, Albert Steffen would have been the most unsuitable candidate in terms of requirements. But Rudolf Steiner’s choice clearly stood out. With his book publications, Albert Steffen was well known in the cultural world; he stood for a conscientious, artistic approach to language, and he also had the virtue of loyalty—at the time, yet to be proven—to Rudolf Steiner and his assignment to the leadership of the Wochenschrift with the News Sheet supplement, for over forty years, regardless of how the Society and the societal situation developed, or did not develop.
Albert Steffen as Editor
After Rudolf Steiner’s death, without his support and regular contributions, Albert Steffen soon found himself in need. “Editorial message. As a result of the ever-increasing workload, it is no longer possible for me to find the time and peace to write my essay in every issue of Das Goetheanum as before. I must therefore urge the contributors to redouble their efforts and submit solid papers. I am in great need of them. Albert Steffen” (Nachrichtenblatt, Feb. 21, 1926, p. 32). Roman Boos had planned to be at the forefront, unreservedly ready to give everything for Rudolf Steiner, the realization of anthroposophy, and Social Threefolding. Shortly before the start of the journal, when Boos fell ill for the next few years, Willy Storrer took his place and was given his tasks. When Boos returned, after his recovery, subsequent to Rudolf Steiner’s death, he wrote to Albert Steffen. “I see the ‘conflict’ between us as the same as when two warriors charging forward in one direction bump shoulders with each other for a moment because some obstacle has forced them together. . . . Infinitely more powerful than any conceivable ‘opposition’ that could be possible between us is concern and labour for the goal” (Letter from Roman Boos to Albert Steffen on February 13, 1926).
In the imaginary application process for the Wochenschrift, Willy Storrer would have had experience as a journalist and editor in several daily newspapers. However, he was not appointed to the editorial leadership, but was reassigned by Rudolf Steiner to the organization and administration of the magazine. Willy Storrer had energy, drive, and enthusiasm for the journal; he was hungry for it. Albert Steffen and Willy Storrer were actually colleagues, but it probably never felt that way for either of them. The numerous critical diary entries on Storrer’s behavior and lifestyle testify to a major difference.
From Gardening Assistant to Errand Boy to Editor-in-Chief
When the magazine had already been published for over a year, Paul Bühler joined. As a twenty-year-old student and Wandervogel [member of the “Wandering Bird” youth movement], he reached Dornach through his acquaintance with Willy Storrer. They had first met by chance at Eduard Reinacher’s in Stuttgart, a poet, radio, and stage playwright, and subsequently on the platform of Stuttgart railway station. Willy Storrer, wearing a fur coat and hat and smoking, seemed full of joie de vivre to the young lyricist, submerged in melancholy. They traveled a little way together on the same train, Willy Storrer drew, they talked; Storrer gave Paul Bühler Rudolf Steiner’s mystery drama The Souls’ Awakening to read. Before they parted company, Willy Storrer invited Paul Bühler to Dornach to dig up his garden and earn a bit of money. A week later, in April 1923, Paul Bühler ended up at House Friedwart, Willy Storrer’s home and workplace. During a lecture in Basel, Paul Bühler met Rudolf Steiner and immediately became a member.
A few months later, on his 21st birthday, Paul Bühler was back in Dornach, where he earned money by helping Willy Storrer in the administration and running as a messenger between Dornach and the printing works in Basel. He also became the messenger between the editorial and administrative offices and Rudolf Steiner. “It was before the Christmas Conference in 1923, when one evening after a lecture, a telephone call came from the house [Hansi] where Rudolf Steiner lived to House Friedwart, saying that he was missing the Das Goetheanum issue that had just come out. He wanted to see every new issue straight away. And the administrator [Storrer] always gave it to him after the lectures on Friday. . . . My host [Storrer] called me and asked me to bring the magazine. How astonished I was when Dr. Steiner himself came to the door and shouted in righteous anger that he would not put up with such treatment. I knew nothing about it and said I was sorry. Then, Rudolf Steiner became very kind, shook my hand most lovingly and said: ‘I know you can’t help it. But pass it on.’ I asked if he always wanted to receive the journal in person. Yes, the corrections also. This incident and the repeated tardiness of the person who was to collect the manuscripts of his essays from Rudolf Steiner had the fortunate consequence for me that I was entrusted with this task in the future. I often felt inhibited when I came to the studio door of the carpentry workshop, where Dr. Steiner worked with the correction sheets or the finished Das Goetheanum issues, and had to knock. Disturbing him seemed like an offense to me. Nevertheless, I said to myself: He wanted it after all. . . . I remember how, tormented by the conditions in House Friedwart, I wanted to speak to Rudolf Steiner and ask him what could be done. . . . Later, I regretted not having poured my heart out to him at the time, even at the risk of thereby compromising my benefactor [Storrer]. Perhaps, Dr. Steiner would have been able to steer him away from the doom into which he was drifting.”11
Over the decades, Paul Bühler was much more than just auxiliary help. He advised and made decisions on contributions, proofread, compiled the magazine, and edited many issues independently when Albert Steffen was traveling for weeks at a time. Bühler was therefore ideally prepared to continue editing the Weekly for the four years after Albert Steffen’s death, until his own death in 1966. After Paul Bühler’s death, Friedrich Hiebel took over the editorship at the age of 63; he had been asked by Albert Steffen to join the Executive Board and take on the leadership of the Section for Literary Arts and Humanities. In 1984, Friedrich Hiebel, aged 83, handed over the editorship to Martin Barkhoff and Manfred Krüger. Up until Friedrich Hiebel, the previous members of the Wochenschrift had known each other well and had known Rudolf Steiner and Albert Steffen.
After Friedrich Hiebel had followed the development of the Wochenschrift and its articles from afar for over forty years, he turned to the readers as editor to say that he was able to take a critical view of the relationship between editors and subscribers; and that he was immune enough to the (usual) accusations: “There is too much of this, too little of that in it. This is handled too extensively, that not enough. Why the one instead of the other! . . . Of course, the content and form leave plenty of room for wishes and suggestions for improvement! There is no shortage of programs and advertisements. But the reports that are written about the activities should go beyond mere pleasantries and indications in general phrases and worn-out forms. One wants to hear an individual heartbeat everywhere, to see a sketch permeated with the ‘I’ and not just read about an event ‘in a packed (!) hall, how the excellent (!) lecture aroused great (!) interest among the enthusiastic (!) audience through sustained applause (!).’ An appeal to General Secretaries and Country Representatives, to group leaders and speakers, to leading associations and institutions of the daughter movements is completely fruitless. Indeed, even at the time when Rudolf Steiner had appointed certain personages to report weekly at the Christmas Conference, it had virtually no effect, as Albert Steffen vouched to me in the autumn of 1924. Co-responsibility must stem from the heart, flowing from inner solidarity. If it only remains on the outside, then reports are nothing more than self-disclosure and group advertising. The editor is degraded to a clerk in an advertising office who has to publish reports and programs as quickly as possible!”12
Willy Storrer—Enfant Terrible
Back to the early days. On November 11, 1924, at eight o’clock in the evening, in a thick fog, a car collided with the Birseckbahn tram coming from Dornach near Basel’s Dreispitz. The administrator of the Wochenschrift was at the wheel. He had bought an Amilcar sports car, a French brand, just one and a half years earlier. Now, the front part of the car was torn right off, and the rest of the car was flung several meters away. The chauffeur held only the broken steering wheel in his hand. The passenger, Carl Bürckle, a friend who was an accountant at the Wochenschrift, jumped out of the car before the collision.
Willy Storrer and Carl Bürckle belonged to the Friedwart Operations and Communication Meeting Center of Dornach Anthroposophists [Aktions-Kommunikations-Begegnungszentrum Friedwart des anthroposophischen Dornachs] just down the hill from today’s Goetheanum building. On that evening, the Friedwart Center wasn’t worried about the whereabouts of the two. On the one hand, Willy Storrer’s spontaneous joyrides were the order of the day; on the other, everyone was still very busy. Russian music was blaring from under the roof.
On the ground floor, where Willy Storrer lived with Nora Berg, there were heated discussions between visitors. Piano music could be heard on the floor above. Willy Stokar and his sister, a eurythmist, took over the household from Roman Boos, who was ill and absent. Willy Stokar—from Schaffhausen, writer and lecturer, close collaborator of Willy Storrer, on the board of Futurum, founding member of the New Generation Branch—organized guided tours of the First Goetheanum, and was on the working committee at the Goetheanum. It was also Stokar who established contact between Willy Storrer and the patron Hans Reinhart. His colleague Edgar Dürler from St. Gallen was given a place to work and sleep in the house, where he now tapped away at his typewriter. He initially took over the advertising acquisition for the Weekly, was on the board of directors of Futurum, and was a founding member of the New Generation Branch. In 1931, he became president of Weleda Arlesheim.
House Friedwart was a living and working community of young employees of the Wochenschrift, with Willy Storrer’s chums, some of whom were on the Goetheanum’s payroll—the “Storrers” [Storrerei] according to Rudolf Steiner. During the day, Ms. Walter did office work in the administration department, where Mirjam Ebner from Stuttgart also worked; she was a founding member and secretary of Willy Storrer’s New Generation branch. Willy Storrer offered her to Rilke in Castle Muzot as domestic help, but he decided not to take her on in the end. Willy Storrer also had his colleague Hans Wilhelm Keller from Schaffhausen in reserve, a journalist, writer, and painter, who wrote material for cabaret and theatre. He was another founding member of the Dornach branch of the New Generation, editor of the Schweizerische Depeschenagentur (SDA) [Swiss Telegraphic Agency, national press agency of Switzerland] in Basel from 1925, and editor-in-chief of the SDA in Zurich from 1946.
At that time, the building housed the secretariats of various anthroposophical initiatives and even a publishing house. This was the contact point for all visitors to the Goetheanum and for all those who wanted to become members. Tickets for the Christmas Conference in 1923 for the founding of the Anthroposophical Society could also have been purchased at House Friedwart. Willy Storrer’s dealings with the various cash registers and accounts and his chronic lack of money meant that the mistrust towards him never diminished.
Back to Willy Storrer’s car. This was not the only car accident involving Willy Storrer, who also took part in races in the neighborhood. For the fatal accident, one of his many fast cars was not enough; it took an aeroplane. At the age of 34 years and seven months, Willy Storrer left behind not only a pile of rubble on the Gempen outcrop and a Waldorf student who died with him, but also a mountain of debts, the bankruptcy of his enterprises, book and publishing projects he had instigated, a “nameless jumble” (according to the poet and financier Hans Reinhart), and many unhappy people.
The life, behavior, talents, and unbridled self-confidence of someone like Willy Storrer are probably easier and more impressive to read about than to bear, as a contemporary or an employee. Quite a few experienced him as overbearing. For Albert Steffen, he was an imposition, as he noted in his diary on July 5, 1921, after the decisive day for him and the Weekly: “I was deeply depressed and empty because of this person.” It was clear to Willy Storrer from a young age that he wanted to become a writer and have his own magazine. His biggest coup was Individualität: Vierteljahresschrift für Philosophie und Kunst [Individuality: quarterly for philosophy and art], which was published in book form with the aim of creating “a platform on which the most diverse representatives of anthroposophy could meet those of modern spiritual life in the outside world before the eyes of Europe.”13 In the four years of its existence, he was able to attract Hermann Hesse, Robert Walser, Franz Werfel, Alexander von Bernus, and others to contribute. Willy Storrer’s suggestion to merge yet another journal of Goetheanum critique with Karl Balmer’s own journal Rudolf Steiner Blätter [Rudolf Steiner Pages] (originally entitled Ahrimans Spiegel [Ahriman’s Mirror]) was like a battle cry: “This much is clear to me, that the new organ should, if possible, put the previous journals, Die Drei [The Three], Das Goetheanum, and Anthroposophie [Anthroposophy] out of business.”14
Willy Storrer’s obituary by his friend, housemate, and co-editor of Individuality, Willy Stokar, clearly paints a picture that stands out to the point of being off-putting, despite his sensitively chosen words. “People were rightly always curious to see where the paths of his actions would lead, some with secret worry, others full of joyful expectation in their hearts. Perhaps it was this unpredictability that established the fact that he was a stranger in any kind of assembly or Society and hardly ever blended into a crowd.” His job in the secretariat at the Goetheanum meant that he “usually had to visit Dr. Steiner at least once a week to discuss business matters. . . . The years in which Willy Storrer managed the Goetheanum office were eventful, and without Dr. Steiner’s continued support, it would have been unthinkable that he would have remained in his post until the Christmas Conference.”15
After Rudolf Steiner’s death, Willy Storrer had become intolerable and ultimately untenable, and not just for the Dornach establishment. At the General Assembly, he made his dismissal by the Executive Board an issue and left the office of the Wochenschrift for good on March 31, 1927, one year after the first issue of his own cultural magazine, Individuality. Willy Storrer had already been on the verge of leaving Dornach in 1922 when his relationship with Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner had entered a temporary crisis. Another prominent voice and assessment is that of Hans Erhard Lauer. “I regret Mr. Storrer’s death above all from the point of view of the anthroposophical movement, because no matter how many sides he was attacked from within it, he was one of our strongest, most original personages, and represented an element within our movement that it must not lose, if it is not to become frozen.”16
Without the continuous commitment of Albert Steffen, the Wochenschrift would probably have struggled to maintain continuity over its first 42 years. Without the commitment of Willy Storrer, the first issue of the Wochenschrift would probably not have been published at such a ripe moment.
Sources
Götz Deimann, ed., with Norbert Deuchert, Christoph Lindenberg, Jan Pohl, and Mario Zadow, eds., Die anthroposophischen Zeitschriften von 1903 bis 1985: Bibliographie und Lebensbilder [The anthroposophical journals from 1903 to 1985: bibliography and biographies] (Stuttgart: Freies Geistesleben, 1987), pp. 85–92.
Friedrich Hiebel, ed., Autorenregister der Wochenschrift Das Goetheanum [Author index of the weekly Das Goetheanum], Volumes 1–61 (Dornach: unknown publisher, 1983).
Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts, CW 26 (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1973).
Rudolf Steiner, Der Goetheanumgedanke inmitten der Kulturkrisis der Gegenwart [The Goetheanum-thought in the midst of the cultural crisis of the present], GA 36, 2nd edn. (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2014).
Rudolf Steiner, The Christmas Conference for the Foundation of the General Anthroposophical Society 1923/24, CW 260 (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1990).
Rudolf Steiner, Die Konstitution der Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft und der Freien Hochschule für Geisteswissenschaft. Der Wiederaufbau des Goetheanum 1924/1925 [The constitution of the General Anthroposophical Society and the School for Spiritual Science. The rebuilding of the Goetheanum 1924/1925], GA 260a (Dornach: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 1987).
Albert Steffen, Meetings with Rudolf Steiner (Dornach: Verlag für Schöne Wissenschaften, 1961); see chapters “How the Weekly Das Goetheanum was Founded” and “On My Activity as Editor of Das Goetheanum during Rudolf Steiner’s Lifetime”.
Albert Steffen, “Einiges über meine Tätigkeit als Redaktor des Goetheanum zu Lebzeiten Rudolf Steiners” [A few things about my activity as editor of Das Goetheanum during Rudolf Steiner’s lifetime], Das Goetheanum 20, no. 33, Special Edition on the 20th Anniversary of the Weekly (Aug. 17, 1941): 260 f.
Friedrich Hiebel, “Zum fünfzigsten Jahrestag” [On the fiftieth anniversary], Das Goetheanum 50, no. 1 (Jan. 3, 1971): 1–3.
Friedrich Hiebel, “Rechenschaftsbericht des Vorstandes” [Statement of accounts of the Executive Board], Nachrichtenblatt 61, no. 24 (June 10, 1984): 102.
Friedrich Hiebel, Time of Decision with Rudolf Steiner: Experience and Encounter (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1989).
Heinz Matile, “Korrigierendes und Ergänzendes zu ‘Rudolf Steiner und seine Zeitschriften’” [Corrections and additions to “Rudolf Steiner and his Journals”], Das Goetheanum 74, nos. 37/38 (Dec. 24, 1995): 459 f. (with excerpts from letters and diary entries by Albert Steffens).
Ralf Lienhard, Der Kreis der Individualität: Willy Storrer im Briefwechsel mit Oskar Schlemmer, Hermann Hesse, Robert Walser und anderen [The circle of the Individuality: Willy Storrer in correspondence with Oskar Schlemmer, Hermann Hesse, Robert Walser, and others] (Bern: Paul Haupt, 2003).
Ralf Lienhard, “Publizist, Unternehmer, Abenteurer: Willy Storrer und das Goetheanum” [Publicist, entrepreneur, adventurer: Willy Storrer and the Goetheanum], Das Goetheanum 80, nos. 34/35 (Aug. 19, 2001): 601 f.
Paul Bühler, Erinnerungen: Mein Weg zur Anthroposophie [Memories: my path to anthroposophy] (Dornach: Literarischer Verlag, 1967); on Willy Storrer, see pp. 103 ff., 108 ff., 122 ff.
All quotations from letters and diaries, unless otherwise stated: Albert Steffen Stiftung, Dornach.
Translation Joshua Kelberman
Footnotes
- Alexander Lüscher in the introduction to Die Anthroposophie und ihre Gegner, GA 255b [Anthroposophy and its opponents].
- Rudolf Steiner, “To the German People and the Civilized World” in Towards Social Renewal: Rethinking the Basis of Society, CW 23 (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000). Originally published as Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und die Kulturwelt [Call to the German people and the cultural world], March 15, 1919, as a leaflet and in various newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
- Long letter from Willy Storrer to Ita Wegman dated November 20, 1925, in Lienhard, Der Kreis der “Individualität,” pp. 107 ff.
- Lucia Wachsmuth, “Emil Gmelin,” Nachrichtenblatt 56, no. 19 (May 13, 1979): p. 59.
- Albert Steffen, Meetings with Rudolf Steiner.
- Ibid.
- Rudolf Steiner, The Christmas Conference for the Foundation of the General Anthroposophical Society 1923/24, CW 260, Dec. 24, 1923, 11:15 a.m.
- Ibid., Dec. 27, 1923.
- Ibid.
- Friedrich Dürrenmatt, “Die Märtyrer, Drama von Albert Steffen” [The martyrs, a drama by Albert Steffen] in Kritik: Kritiken und Zeichnungen [Criticism: reviews and sketches] (Zurich: Diogenes, 1998), pp. 13–14.
- Paul Bühler, Erinnerungen, pp. 122 ff.
- Friedrich Hiebel, “Über die Führung der Beilage Was in der Anthroposophische Gesellschaft vorgeht,” [About the management of the supplement What goes on in the Anthroposophical Society] Nachrichtenblatt 46, no. 17 (April 27, 1969): p. 65 f.
- Hans Wilhelm Keller, “Individualität” [Individuality], Das Goetheanum 6, no. 18 (May 1, 1927): p. 143 f.
- Karl Balmer in a long letter to Willy Storrer, August 26, 1928, in Lienhard, Der Kreis der “Individualität,” p. 221.
- Willy Stokar, “Nach Willy Storrers Tod” [On Willy Storrer’s Death]. Stokar had offered his obituary to Steffen for publication. It never appeared. Archive of the Albert Steffen Stiftung.
- Hans Erhard Lauer, quoted in Lienhard, Der Kreis der “Individualität,” p. 38 f.
