{"id":66392,"date":"2025-06-10T21:28:56","date_gmt":"2025-06-10T19:28:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/?p=66392"},"modified":"2025-06-12T22:34:15","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T20:34:15","slug":"plomp-there-lay-our-philosopher-on-the-floor-the-beginning-of-the-friendship-between-rudolf-steiner-and-moritz-zitter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/plomp-there-lay-our-philosopher-on-the-floor-the-beginning-of-the-friendship-between-rudolf-steiner-and-moritz-zitter\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPlomp! There Lay Our Philosopher on the Floor\u201d\u2014The Beginning of the Friendship between Rudolf Steiner and Moritz Zitter"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Marginalia on Rudolf Steiner\u2019s Life and Work No. 35<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his autobiography, Rudolf Steiner describes Moritz Zitter (1861\u20131921), who was born the same year as Steiner and came from Transylvania, as one of his five closest friends during his youth. They remained friends until Zitter\u2019s death in 1921.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

After completing his studies, Moritz Zitter spent several years working as a private tutor in his hometown before returning to Vienna in 1892. He then worked in various editorial offices and advertising agencies. Eventually, he ran such an office himself and was the publisher of the Wiener Klinische Rundschau<\/em> [Vienna Clinical Review], among others. In 1898, he was also co-editor of the Magazin f\u00fcr Literatur<\/em> [Magazine for Literature] for a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The friendship between the two proved itself \u201cthrough many storms of life\u201d<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and was not without tension. Zitter seems always to have wished for more time and attention from Rudolf Steiner. As can be seen from their letters, he wavered between phases of great disappointment\u2014that Rudolf Steiner\u2019s next letter was once again too long in coming\u2014with phases of enthusiastic exuberance when the letter finally arrived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The beginning of their friendship was marked with a special signature. The friends met during their studies at the Technical Institute in Vienna, in a course led by Karl Julius Schr\u00f6er on \u201cPractice in Oral Lecturing and Written Presentation.\u201d Students practiced writing essays and giving lectures on topics of their own choosing, observing and reflecting on each other\u2019s work, and even giving \u201copposing lectures.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moritz Zitter once gave a lecture on pessimism: \u201cEverything Schopenhauer had put forward in favor of this view of life came alive in this lecture. Added to this was the young man\u2019s own pessimistic outlook on life.\u201d Rudolf Steiner offered to \u201cgive an opposing lecture\u201d in which he \u201crefuted pessimism with thunderous words,\u201d calling Schopenhauer a \u201cnarrow-minded genius\u201d and culminating with the sentence: \u201cIf the lecturer were right in his presentation on pessimism, then I would rather be the wooden beam upon which my feet stand than a human being.\u201d<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zitter responded (in writing and probably also orally), addressing Rudolf Steiner\u2019s opposing lecture in detail. This reply from the spring or summer of 1882,<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span> which still survives, is in a sense the earliest presentation of a lecture by Rudolf Steiner. Moritz Zitter writes:<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Moritz Zitter, ca. middle of the 1880s \u00a9 Rudolf Steiner Archive, Dornach<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

\u201cGentlemen! You\u2019ll readily admit that, judging by the applause you gave the work of Mr. Steiner, it is in itself a thankless task to criticize it. Yes, if I were so clever as to say: I agree with every word Mr. Steiner said, except for the dot on the \u2018i\u2019 and the beam upon which Mr. Steiner stood, and which he preferred to be rather than be a pessimist, you would probably be satisfied with my review and perhaps even reward me with applause . . . You know, gentlemen, it is the custom to only speak well of the dead. Gentlemen! Now that Mr. Steiner has finished his speech, I must also say something positive about it. And it truly does contain positive and beautiful elements. What makes Mr. Steiner\u2019s lecture especially remarkable is the broad knowledge upon which it is based. I have come to know Mr. Steiner quite well, also through personal interactions, and you will certainly agree with me when I call Mr. St. the \u2018philosopher\u2019 among us. Mr. Steiner has really studied Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Hartmann, Schopenhauer, Fichte, and all the others with great diligence and understanding. And the fact that he lets us hear about them is a special merit for which I believe I must express our gratitude on behalf of all of us here. We technicians rarely have the opportunity to hear such things, so we owe him all the more gratitude. And what elevates him and his lecture most in our eyes is probably the sincere enthusiasm he feels for the cause he represents, which is an essential requirement if it is to prevail. . . . There exists a certain elegance, what I\u2019d call, in this case, a mild, persuasive force that captivates and wins people over\u2014and I found this elegance completely lacking in Mr. Steiner\u2019s presentation of his ideas; Mr. Steiner simply tore down Schopenhauer with a speed and energy that astounded me. Without further ado, he calls Schopenhauer prosaically poor, morally narrow-minded\u2014and what means did he use to do so? He presented us with a caricature of his philosophy and indulged in unproven claims, and plomp, there lay our philosopher on the floor, and Mr. Steiner cast him a crushing glance. I felt\u2014I don\u2019t know whether you felt it too gentlemen\u2014that my funny bone was often tickled by the suddenness of expression used by Mr. Steiner, so I often hardly noticed his irony when he spoke about originality and naivety of expression . . . . I do not wish to defend Schopenhauer in everything, but I ask you not to misunderstand my endeavor, gentlemen. First, I would like to show you how Mr. Steiner, upon closer inspection, has quite often become entangled in contradictions; and second, I would wish that you not have as bad an opinion of Schopenhauer as Mr. Steiner has given in his portrayal of him. Schopenhauer\u2019s services to our philosophy are great because he tried to popularize it and because he is, as it were, a supplement to Kant, our greatest philosopher. Mr. Steiner goes on to explain that those who hold to an idealism that finds its ideals in reality are opposed to those who do not see ideals realized in the world. And he is right! But is he right when he explains that the latter are incorrect and that the best way to cure them is to demand that they present this ideal world to us in thought, and how then it will be made clear that they actually have no ideals in their head at all, but instead merely delude themselves with rapturous illusions? . . . I believe in the same ideal as Mr. Steiner, but I do not believe that the ideal also exists in reality. And I call it a fantasy of Mr. Steiner when he claims that I cannot bring forth my ideal, as he said; and, if I am to agree with him, I demand he do what he has yet to do\u2014that he shows me these ideals as realized in nature. He just baldly asserts that these ideals are embodied in nature and in history, in art, religion, and science. . . . From my point of view, of one who does not see the ideals manifested in reality, I must strictly deny the embodiment of ideals in nature; and as far as history, art, and religion are concerned, these are such ideal fields that one cannot speak of ideals existing there at all. . . .\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to see that Rudolf Steiner was apparently already recognized as a \u201cphilosopher\u201d among his peers at that time\u2014and that he spoke out so vehemently against Schopenhauer, whose works he would publish some ten years later as part of the world literature series published by Cotta.<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span> We can further gather from the text that he emphatically advocated a kind of realistic idealism, proceeding from the assumption that ideals could also be found in reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moritz Zitter concludes his text by quoting in more detail the context of the \u201cwooden beam\u201d statement that Rudolf Steiner mentioned more than forty years later in his autobiography, and ends with a critique of his classmate\u2019s speed of speaking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn my opinion, these are false statements by Mr. Steiner. And I would conclude with that, were I not left with no other choice but to remind you of those passages where Mr. Steiner escalated to the point of exaggeration. After explaining indifferentism, he asks: What is the human being according to this view? And he gives the answer: a lump of flesh stuck in a medium (called ether), which has a little drum on the front surface of its body that ordinary people call eyes, etc. He continues in this nerve-racking manner until he finally goes so far as to say that under such circumstances, he would rather be the floor beam upon which he stood. I confess openly that I would not want to be that; I still prefer to be a human being who sees, hears, smells, and speaks rather than a piece of wood, and I hereby declare that this was probably just a lapse of taste on Mr. Steiner\u2019s part. So that you, gentlemen, can breathe more freely already, I would like to inform you that I am coming to a close and, although I have already done so privately, I would like to ask Mr. Steiner, for the sake of aiding comprehension, to moderate his speech somewhat and not to speak so quickly. Firstly, he will then not easily find himself in the position of leaving sentences unfinished and, secondly, of making his words incomprehensible. . . .\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These notes also include an interesting reply by Rudolf Steiner to Moritz Zitter\u2019s contribution. It reads: \u201cThe situation called for one to actually touch upon the views themselves. The business of a critic cannot consist in running around talking about things that are external and unessential to the lecture itself. When Mr. Zitter says that my interpretation of Schopenhauer is a caricature, he should have provided a corrected view. He accuses me of having proven nothing, yet it is he who indulges in the most unproven statements. The act of exposing my opponent\u2019s views is proof enough for my argument. Any other proof is unconvincing. One can prove all possibilities through sophistry and formulas. Popularity is not a sign of a high-standing philosophy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rudolf Steiner\u2019s explanation that if Zitter was right in his pessimism, he would rather be the wooden beam he was standing on than a human being was, as he recounts in his autobiography, \u201cmocked by my acquaintances for some time.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d which may come as a surprise after the heated argument, \u201cit made the young pessimist and me close friends.\u201d<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Translation <\/strong>Joshua Kelberman<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Marginalia on Rudolf Steiner\u2019s Life and Work No. 35 In his autobiography, Rudolf Steiner describes Moritz Zitter (1861\u20131921), who was born the same year as Steiner and came from Transylvania, as one of his five closest friends during his youth. They remained friends until Zitter\u2019s death in 1921. After completing his studies, Moritz Zitter spent several years working as a private tutor in his hometown before returning to Vienna in 1892. He then worked in various editorial offices and advertising […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9190,"featured_media":66113,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8788,8846,8793],"tags":[11664,11665,8814],"class_list":["post-66392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-essay-en","category-history","category-philosophy","tag-ausgabe-22-2025-en","tag-english-issue-24-2025","tag-musings"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9190"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66392\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}