Writings on the History of the
Anthroposophical Movement and Society
1902–1925
GA 37
14 November 1912
Translated by SteinerOnline Library
To the Members of the General Council of the Theosophical Society
Dear Colleagues,
With regard to the letter sent under “Confidential” by Mrs. Besant, President of the TS, to the members of the esteemed General Council (undated), the undersigned takes the liberty of submitting the following to these members as a basis for their assessment of the situation.
I would just like to say in advance that writing the following is not a sympathetic task for me, as I completely lack any sympathy for what the allure of opposition entails. I would certainly refrain from doing so if the challenge posed by the letter of the P[resident of the] TS were not so apt to convey completely erroneous opinions to the members of the Theosophical Society regarding the matters concerning the German section and myself. Some criticize that I have remained silent about many things so far. Well, I can also tolerate unjustified criticism, and would continue to tolerate it if I did not do a disservice to the truth by continuing to do so. The following statements may show anyone who is willing to evaluate facts that I have not adopted any position that is incompatible with theosophical principles, but that one day I was confronted with such a position from another quarter and now, as the letter mentioned testifies, I am confronted with it to an ever greater extent. My only aspiration is to achieve peace for a calm possibility of communicating spiritual knowledge.
1. The case of Dr. Vollrath, cited by the President of the TS on p. 3 of the aforementioned letter, has nothing to do with what the President of the T.S. describes on p. 2 of the letter as a “restriction on the opinions of a person”. The case is as follows: in 1908, the board of the German section decided by one vote to one (the undersigned did not vote personally) that Dr. Vollrath could no longer be considered a member. The reasons for this were Dr. Vollrath's general behavior within the Society, which made working with him seem impossible, and not at all his opinions. After some time, Dr. Vollrath sent a letter to Mrs. Besant, the President of the TS, with a whole series of unjustified accusations about me. Mrs. Besant sent me this letter at the time. I answered this letter confidentially and in detail – all this happened in 1909 – and Mrs. Besant was thus fully informed about Dr. Vollrath's behavior from that time on. Since then she knew what unjustified accusations Dr. Vollrath was making. It was therefore not important that Dr. Vollrath repeated these accusations in 1911, adding others, in a printed pamphlet. For me, the “Dr. Vollrath case” came to an end in 1909. I myself did not reply to Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet of 1911 and I did not object in the slightest when Dr. Vollrath was appointed as a representative of the “Star of the East” in [1911]. I have now stated my position in the whole matter in March 1912 in a detailed letter to Mrs. Besant, President of the TS, with the following words:) 1I must make an insertion here. The detailed letters that I wrote to Mrs. Besant regarding the matters touched upon in these pages were written by me in German and then translated into English by Miss v. Sivers so as not to inconvenience Mrs. Besant by making her read a German letter. Now, Miss v. Sivers feels that she translated absolutely accurately, but not in good English. Of course, the letters must be printed here as they were sent to Mrs. Besant at the time. However, I would ask you to excuse the translation, which Miss von Sivers did not seem to have mastered entirely, with the following: Due to being overburdened with theosophical work, I was unable to write the decisive letter to Mrs. Besant at any other time than at night, immediately before a journey to be undertaken the next morning. Miss v. Sivers, indisposed, had to complete the translation in a few hours of the night. So that a comparison with my German text is possible, I am including the same here.
"Now to the point Dr. Vollrath. This is the thing through which you have made it simply impossible for me to represent you in the proper way in Germany. Dr. Vollrath has been carrying on a violent personal antagonism against me for a long time, he is writing a pamphlet, the falsity of which, dear Mrs. Besant, must be known to you, because I informed you in 1909 in a detailed manner about the real state of things. In Germany it is known that you made Dr. Vollrath the representative of the Order of the Star at exactly the same moment when, in the form of a pamphlet full of objective untruths, he made a new attack on me and some of my colleagues. You thus put me into the really undesired necessity, either to be silent, and thus admit that something in the attacks of Dr. Vollrath must be true, as he is the representative of Mrs. Besant in Germany, aye, as he is appealing to it; or, if I am not doing this, to turn myself against it, and thus against you. It seems that scarcely anything could be comparable to this enormity: The President of the Theosophical Society herself makes it impossible for the representative of a section to stand for the president. The objection that the representation has been taken from Dr. Vollrath could only have had a value if I had not reported to you in 1909 the whole state of affairs concerning Dr. Vollrath. I would like to make it clear once again that I personally take the matter with absolute indifference; as for myself, things worse than these can be undertaken against me; I read these things as if they did not concern me. I have only compassion for Dr. Vollrath, not the slightest rancour. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, I would like to be able to feel affection as I do always. But as little as the matter comes into consideration for me, as much it comes into consideration for the German Section, which, if it would not think too soundly about the things, could lose its faith in everything. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, have expressed, as President, by nominating Dr. Vollrath, a full vote of no confidence in the General Secretary of the German Section. I am only stating this as a fact because I do not, of course, discuss in the least your right to nominate any person you feel pleased with, with whom I do not want to have anything to do. [These words have nothing to do] with the personality of Dr. Vollrath, but only with the fact that [to] the eyes of the members of the German Section you have given a full vote of mistrust to its General Secretary. Herewith I have simply characterized with dry words, that may sound harsh, a state of things, but I have reflected for a long time if I [could] use other words.
It may well be pointed out that Mrs. Besant's objection to the matter, which she had already raised, cannot be accepted, that she had recommended Dr. Vollrath not in her capacity as President of the TS, but as protector of the Order of the “Star in the East.” For the German section, just as I myself, has never denied Mrs. Besant the right to make this recommendation; she merely stated that if Mrs. Besant, who after all is one person in both capacities, recommends Dr. Vollrath as her representative in an important public matter, despite the fact that Dr. Steiner had already informed her in 1909 about Dr. Vollrath's behavior, then Mrs. Besant does not trust Dr. Steiner's words. So it was not that the German Section wanted to interfere with Mrs. Besant's actions, but only to make it clear that Dr. Steiner's words meant nothing to Mrs. Besant when she publicly performed important acts. This was expressed at the General Assembly of the German Section in 1911; and I merely explained this in detail in the above-mentioned letter.
What has Mrs. Besant done? She wrote the letter to me printed on S. 12 of her present letter to the members of the General Council, in which she does not mention that she was fully informed about everything concerning Dr. Vollrath not only through his pamphlet of 1911, but already through my letter of 1909, and declares that she did not know the pamphlet of 1911 when she recommended Dr. Vollrath. But in doing so, she only confirms that she was completely indifferent to what my letter of 1909 already contained, that what the German section was accusing her of, my communications meant nothing to her.
One more example of Mrs. Besant's recent actions against me is worth mentioning. At the last general assembly of the German section, I was forced – because I had been asked – to discuss the objective facts of the cancellation of the congress in Genoa. I said that after the cancellation, I contacted the Secretary General of the Italian section to find out the reasons for the cancellation. He replied, “I was acting on strict orders from President Mrs. Besant and Secretary Mr. Wallace. Please contact them.” This was the strictly objective fact as I presented it. Mrs. Besant is now spreading the rumor that I have misrepresented the matter, because she would never have canceled the congress, but only reported to Genoa that she would not be coming there. I would like to point out that I only told the facts, and Mrs. Besant is twisting the matter so that the reader must conclude from her words that I have presented the matter incorrectly. Moreover, Mr. Wallace later gave a version of the matter in a letter to me that was entirely consistent with the telegram from the General Secretary of the Italian Section.
The fact that this letter, which Mrs. Besant $12 prints, has not yet appeared in the “Mitteilungen der deutschen Section” is simply because no further issue of these messages has appeared since that time. It will be published when one appears.
But for me, this letter can only mean that Mrs. Besant finds everything I have communicated to be meaningless, because she does not answer the question that is at the heart of my letter, but rather something that I have explicitly stated is not important.
Since Mrs. Besant's various printed statements are likely to create the belief that I have violated the principle of general tolerance of opinions in the Theosophical Society, it is necessary to also reproduce the statements that I also made to Mrs. Besant in my letter of March 1912:
“And here I come to another point, one of principle. You, dear Mrs. Besant, said in your last address at the Adyar Convention that here in Germany Theosophy is brought forth upon lines that are particularly adopted to German circumstances and which other nations could not accept. Nothing of this is in reality the case. There are actually two points that have to be considered. The first concerns my occult position, which differs in some points from yours and Mr. Leadbeater's, and which seems to culminate in the Christ-question. I say “seems” on purpose. This point concerns not only the German members of the Theosophical Society, but also many members of other sections. As for the first point: it is at least strange that an agitation is being stirred up over it, and that things are being distorted so as to suggest aggressive action on our part or even on mine. In the principal lines I have already stated my point of view concerning the Christ-problem in my book 'Christianity as a Mystical Fact', which appeared in 1903. That this point of view differs from yours and Mr. Leadbeaters has been remarked immediately by Mr. Keightley and has been expressed by him in the article which he wrote about it for the 'Theosophical Review'. All that which since then has been added to the statements put forth in this book, are details of occult investigation, which I had to bring forth in the course of years, because I, who had to work essentially in Christian countries, was obliged to give an objective interpretation of the gospels. Thus, in the whole trend of my work since I entered the Theosophical Society nothing has been changed, except that in the course of time, in many territories, more and more people have got attentive to my point of view. I could think the more, dear Mrs. Besant, to have your approval in all I did, as this way of action was a natural consequence of the conversations I had with you in Munich in 1907 and in Budapest in 1909. As for other deviations from yours and Mr. Leadbeater's point of view, I had no reason to think about your contradiction, as you yourself had written a warm preface to the English edition of my book “Initiation” and had recommended the translation. From my part nothing has happened, but that I could not endorse your views about the “coming Christ which you brought to expression only after the fixation of my point of view. In the beginning I did everything to equalize the gap, in order to give members the opportunity to remain neutral. When then the opinion got stronger and stronger that my point of view could not be brought into line with the opinions you brought forth only since 1909, I could not do more than rely upon the fact that the Theosophical Society could give expression in her midst to the most varied points of view. I do not think that with all that happened, I have done, even in the slightest measure, something which is in contradiction with this principle of the Theosophical Society. It was quite self-evident that on the basis of all I have just explained, I could not have anything to do with the “Star of the East” and with anything concerning Krishnamurti. I have done that in the way that I simply did not speak about these things. I will continue to do so, and will [not put anything into the way] of those that are working for these things in Germany. For this is the good right of any one, just as I cannot do else, but ignore these things. Despite my absolute silence about the ‹Star of the East› Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, as your representative in Germany, made violent opposition to me in this matter. Why must this be, as I shall not put anything into his way in doing what he wants, if he will respect [the fact] that no one can compel me to act otherwise, when my conviction forces me simply to pass by a thing and be silent about it. This question too has nothing to do with any national point of view, so that the characteristic you give about it, saying that my conception of Christ is adapted to German circumstances, gives an unright conception of it. What I am saying about Christ has as little to do with anything national as a mathematical assertion has to do with it. To my insight there is no other possibility of turning against me than to say quite distinctly: in the Theosophical Society nothing else is permitted to be brought than that which is brought by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater. Only when one is proclaiming this principle can one turn against that which comes from me. I will not complain if one is opposing me, but I cannot consider it right when one is spreading about: this or that is done because of national reasons, and there are not such ones, or when aggressiveness is reproached to us, and we do nothing but expose our point of view».
It might appear that these different standpoints have nothing to do with the questions that are being considered and that have been put to the General Council by the President of the TS. And it is absolutely true: in theory they have nothing to do with it. But the reality of Mrs. Besant's statement forces us to start from this point. For I may well ask anyone who wants to look objectively at facts, and not at the words that people say about these facts, to ask themselves, in view of everything that has happened on the part of the President, the question: Can such an unprejudiced judge believe for a moment that I would have been treated by the President in the well-known manner if, from the time about three years ago when Mrs. Besant began to expound her teachings of the “Coming Christ,” I had also begun to expound these teachings at her behest, and if I had joined the “Star of the East”? No matter how you look at it, the fact is that I and a number of other members of the TG did not follow the teachings of the “coming Christ” and the “Star of the East”. In reality, everything else followed from this. Just look at the most superficial points. Mrs. Besant repeatedly expressed her approval of the election of certain members of the board of the German Section for life, in print, in letters, and also orally – on the occasion of a conversation at the Budapest Congress in 1909 –; now she turns on p. 4 of her letter to the General Council what she previously approved, as a weapon against the German Section and me.
It can be substantiated at any time upon request that within my sphere of influence nothing has been done that could be described as an attack on the teachings of Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater, but that as soon as Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden took over Mrs. Besant's representation of the “Star of the East” in Germany, the latter immediately turned against me and the German section in an aggressive manner. It is even true, which hardly anyone will find credible, that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me suggesting that I teach in such a way that my teachings could not be understood by my audience as contradicting Mrs. Besant's teachings.
While those who attack us always emphasize that all opinions must be tolerated in the Theosophical Society, the only thing that all accusations are based on is the fact that a number of members of the Theosophical Society do not blindly follow Mrs. Besant's and Leadbeater's teachings with me. In reality, those who do not agree that the entire Theosophical Society must follow the dogmatism of Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater are being accused of dogmatism. Look around you, among the members of the Theosophical Society who have become my audience, and see if any dogma has ever been imposed on them, if they have ever been asked to rely on anything other than their own free consent to what is said and on the inner truth of what is presented. Just try to imagine how carefully we try to avoid any possibility of dogmatism.
And then compare this to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's description, in a letter about an “Undogmatic Association” he founded, of the German section as an organization that is led by a pope and in which individual branches are treated dogmatically as if by bishops. Compare this with the opinions deviating from mine that were expressed within the German section, for example at our last general assembly.
Anyone who really considers all this with an evaluation of the facts will perhaps understand when I dare to say the following – sincerely and honestly: For years now, the only reason I have not resigned from my position as Secretary General of the German Section is the trust that a large number of members place in me, which imposes on me the ironclad duty not to leave the post where a work has been begun that I must not leave. Because of the behavior of Mrs. Besant and some of her supporters, the office of General Secretary of the German Section is nothing but a source of bitterness. I do not say martyrdom, just to avoid being accused of sentimentality. I would bear all this myself, perhaps even without a word of protest; but I must speak for the members who have placed their trust in me.
And I would truly have a lot to say in this regard. But for the time being, I am optimistic that what has been said in support of my words is enough. And perhaps it will not be necessary to add to the list of evidence given. I will only say that Mrs. Besant's only response to the above account of the true facts was the very matter-of-fact words: “As regards difference of opinion on the Christ question or on any other, such difference is legitimate within the Society. I have often said, both publicly and privately, that you [and I] and others have an equal right to form and to express our opinions; I think differences of opinion are useful, not harmful, and I have often urged people to read your books.
These few self-evident lines I received in reply to a detailed account of the matter from the same Mrs. Besant, who in her letter to the members of the General Council complains that I leave her letters unanswered. But what do these words mean in fact? Since there is no other reason for all the accusations against the German Section and me than the difference of opinion, these lines mean: One may accuse someone if they do not unconditionally follow the teachings one wants to have oneself, and one is justified for this act if one only says: I find different opinions useful and not harmful.
As Mrs. Besant reports to the General Council, the following case may serve to illustrate: Mrs. Besant writes (p. 7): “Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestion to form a German-Swiss National Society -...” I now ask you to compare this “ignoring” with the objective fact that I wrote the following to Mrs. Besant in March 1912 regarding this matter: “In my last letter I tried to describe to you the position of those lodges in Switzerland that formerly belonged to the German Section, according to the real state of things. In my presentation I have stated that I have no personal desires in this matter; I have only given an expression to the desires and opinions of the said lodges. In consequence of the way in which you, dear Mrs. Besant, received this presentation of mine, and owing to the statements made in the 'Adyar bulletin report', the whole matter has been removed from its ground, so that there will be now the greatest difficulty to set it aright. What the above-mentioned lodges in Switzerland want has nothing to do with national sentiment. And if the matter is presented as being based on national animosity, our Swiss lodges are being deeply wronged. The matter is – I have emphasized this in my last letter – that the way in which the Geneva section was founded was felt by our lodges, and could not be felt otherwise, as a wrong done to them, an action through which violence has been done to them, and because they find the spirit of the Geneva foundation untheosophical, these lodges want to form a separate section, or, if for some reason the consent from Adyar should not be given to it, to leave the Theosophical Society. In my last letter already I accentuated, that one could easily call such an action from their part untheosophical, but it really ought not be possible to turn things round in such a way, that in the Theosophical Society first something untheosophical is done, and then, when another resists, that he should be called untheosophical. Our Swiss lodges do not feel in any way aggressive, but absolutely in the defensive. What I myself am thinking about the matter is of no concern, only this, that all the lodges formerly belonging to the German Section, have expressed their will to remain united, not excluding Lugano and Neuchâtel but with these together. The national point of view is not the one in question; therefore these united lodges do not want to be separated by national points of view. Therefore I really can but repeat today what I expressed in my last letter concerning this point."
I now ask the objective judge, firstly, how this fact of my detailed letter agrees with the other fact that Mrs. Besant says on p. 7 of her letter: ‘Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestions to form a German-Swiss-National Society’.
Unfortunately, I was again in the position of having to do the same this time as I had to do in the case of the alleged attack on Mrs. Besant at our 1911 general assembly. At the time, I said nothing other than the objective facts that had occurred. Mrs. Besant called this account of facts that she herself had brought about an attack on her person. Now, is it not the case that I have not said anything against Mrs. Besant, but that it is enough to tell the facts that happened through Mrs. Besant, and Mrs. Besant finds a sharp attack on herself in these facts brought about by her.
I have in fact written to Mrs. Besant about everything concerning the Swiss lodges and other matters; and I had no reason to write the same things again because Mrs. Besant formally answered my letters, but her letters contained nothing on the points that mattered. It is quite easy to answer letters when these letters do not touch on the important points. Whether it is justified in such a case to say of the other person that he is remaining silent, I ask the esteemed colleagues to judge.
On pp. 14 ff. of the letter to the members of the General Council, Mrs. Besant shares a letter written by Mr. Bernhard Hubo, a member of the German section and chairman of a Hamburg branch, in response to a letter from Mr. Cordes. The content of this letter, written out of honest conviction and probably also indignation, can easily be misunderstood if one does not know Mr. Cordes' letter, to which Mr. Hubo's letter is the answer. Mr. Cordes' letter reads verbatim: “Dear Mr. Hubo: I had sent you all kinds of catalogs and lessons to Hohenfelde, all of which came back. But through the ‘Theosophist’ I found your present address, so you did come to Munich after all! Our esteemed President, Mrs. Besant, has appointed me National Representative for Germany for the International Council meeting in Adyar. I have already written to Mr. Westphal, whose acquaintance I owe to your kindness. I know only what I have heard from you, because since 1900 I have only been to Hamburg once, and that was those four weeks in June 1911. Mrs. Besant asked me to contact Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, you and Leipzig. Can you help me to get short, concise notes for the public and as much private and intimate news as possible? I don't know anyone in Leipzig, but if I have your valuable help – Munich, Mr. Westphal – Hamburg, Mr. Koethin – Hanover and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Göttingen, things will go well. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden has just sent me his book 'Diene dem Ewigen' (Serve the Eternal) with the following dedication: 'To his spiritual brother Cordes, in devotion, steadfastness and gentleness'. I will write to him today. If you honor me with private messages, I will of course maintain the strictest discretion. Otherwise a postcard with brief notes intended for the public will suffice. The important thing is to maintain this connection with Germany, and once you have agreed to correspond with me, once a month will help. You are not the man to let it drop. Because if you ever want to have workers in the German field, you must not be deterred from taking the trouble to train apprentices. In friendship, J.H. Cordes.
Although I should be allowed to have my thoughts about someone who, in league with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, “serves the eternal” by “wanting to get as much private and intimate news as possible” in order to publish them in “devotion, steadfastness and gentleness”, or, if necessary, to maintain “strict discretion”, the fact is that I have never worried about Mr. Cordes in truth, and I have never even in the slightest way hindered his steps. Mr. Hubo wrote his letter to Mr. Cordes quite freely and of his own accord, as is the custom in our section, and without the slightest influence from me. And I could only say afterwards that I found Mr. Hubo's words understandable, since he had been expected to become the mediator of “private and intimate news”.
What does Mrs. Besant do? Without the slightest reason, she writes on page 19 of her letter to the General Council: “Dr. Steiner evidently regards him - Mr. Cordes - as an enemy, for he was refused, by Fräulein von Sivers, an invitation to the Congress lately held in Munich.
Apart from the fact that there was no “Congress” in Munich at the time, but only the performance of four mystery dramas and a lecture cycle by me, it truly does not require enmity to let a gentleman know that one does not exactly love his presence, who “serves the Eternal” by collecting “private and intimate news” for the public or discretion. The real reason why, out of honest feeling, organizing members did not want to invite Mr. Cordes to Munich was because they found his behavior incompatible with the seriousness of theosophical brotherhood, especially when such behavior always speaks of brotherhood.The only thing in the letter that Mrs. Besant wrote to the members of the General Council that could even give the appearance of justifying any kind of accusation concerns the case of Leonhardi, which is mentioned on p. 19 f. But so that it can be seen that here, too, only the appearance of a violation of the statutes having occurred is being created, the case should be reported here, although I am extremely reluctant to touch on the matter, for reasons that will become apparent from the narrative itself. Mrs. and Miss Leonardi applied for admission to our Leipzig Lodge. I must now confess that I have a certain sense of responsibility when I put my name to an admission diploma of the Theosophical Society. When the application for admission of the two ladies mentioned was submitted to me, this fact had been preceded by several others. In the preceding months I had received several letters from one of the ladies. These letters were for the most part pure hymns of praise to me. The address was “To the Master of German Theosophy” and the letter contained many intensifications of this designation of my person on the outer address. From the content of these letters, I formed the conviction that the two ladies, whom I otherwise hold in high esteem as a result of a previous fleeting encounter after one of my lectures in Berlin, had not yet been convinced of how we work within the Theosophical Society and that, in my opinion, the emphasis on one person – in this case mine – over the objective truth must be overcome above all else. In short, after all the praise for me, I couldn't bring myself to put my name all too quickly on the relevant admission diplomas. This is how the rumor arose: Mrs. Wolfram rejected the ladies because they were connected to Dr. Vollrath and corresponded with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. As soon as I heard that this was being said, I immediately asked Frau Wolfram, the president of our Leipzig lodge, whether this was the case. I myself had not even known that the ladies were corresponding with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Frau Wolfram categorically denied having said anything of the sort to the ladies. But I assure the esteemed members of the General Council that there was no other reason for not signing the admission diplomas of the two ladies than that which arose from the content of the letters mentioned. Call it weakness on my part, but I am convinced that someone who writes me letters of such praise is not yet fully aware of the nature of the Theosophical movement and would do better to wait a little while before accepting until he can properly distinguish the personal from the objective.
What Mrs. Besant says on page 4 about certain additions to our statutes of the German Section is completely unfounded for the reason that the added points (lifelong membership, signature of the chairman of a lodge for someone who wants to be admitted to one of our lodges) have never violated the general statutes of the Theosophical Society in any way. No one has been rejected by us after the addition of these points who would not have been rejected before the addition of these points.
Of notable rejections in our organization, only the following comes into consideration. I was unable to issue the diploma for some of the admissions recommended by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden because I knew that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden did not even know the applicants. I could not, on my own responsibility, authorize the founding within the German Section of a branch that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wanted to found under the name “Freedom Branch,” because Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has been behaving in the most unbrotherly way against the German Section for a long time, publicly defaming it and spreading demonstrably untrue characterizations. As I have indicated to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, I will submit the request of the “Freedom Branch” to the next board meeting. A branch in Leipzig wanted to be established. I could not approve it as a branch of the German Section because Mrs. Besant had already indicated to me that this same branch had already been established as a branch directly affiliated with Adyar. But a branch that is already connected to Adyar cannot at the same time be a branch of a section.
It seems to me that I have sufficiently characterized the accusations that Mrs. Besant directed against the German Section and against me in the aforementioned letter. I wanted to give the esteemed members of the General Council at least some material for their judgment. It was difficult enough for me to write these pages. Anyone who wants to know what it is about will find that I have done nothing but present the positive results of my spiritual research in all peace, and that a number of members are among my audience for inner reasons. After this increase in the size of my audience, I was suddenly confronted with attacks from Mrs. Besant and a number of her supporters, among whom Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden is working in the manner described above. I want nothing at all but the recognition of the fact, not by words, but by facts, that the Theosophical Society may still be a place for the representation of what has been recognized as true and that it is not in reality developing into a Leadbeater-Besant sect, which, instead of confessing that it only wants to be that, speaks of freedom of opinion and accuses those who take the matter seriously of things that in reality do not even exist. Those who have followed my work know that the opinion that one likes to spread – that we are pursuing a particular “Christian-German” view – is only suitable for creating the misconception that other religions are not viewed as objectively as Christianity.
My dear colleagues! I have presented you with facts; judge them. I am optimistic enough to believe that the facts will be enough for you. I do not want to accuse anyone; and if these pages do contain an accusation, it is only the facts that accuse. Only one thing needs to be emphasized: if Mrs. Besant, about whom I have to write this with great regret, wants to accuse me, then she should openly admit that within the Theosophical Society no opinion should exist other than hers and Mr. Leadbeater's. For I have nothing to accuse myself of other than not being able and not being allowed to blindly follow Mr. Leadbeater and Mrs. Besant. Objectively speaking, everything else is only the consequence of this cardinal transgression of mine.
With brotherly love, Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society.
An Die Mitglieder Des Generalrates Der Theosophischen Gesellschaft
Meine lieben Kollegen,
In Bezug auf den unter «Confidential» von Mrs. Besant Pfresident of the] TS an die Mitglieder des verehrten General-Councils (ohne Datum) gesandten Briefes gestattet sich der Unterzeichnete, das Folgende diesen Mitgliedern als Unterlage zu Ihrer Beurteilung der Sachlage zu unterbreiten.
Voraussenden möchte ich nur, dass mir die Abfassung der folgenden Ausführungen keine sympathische Arbeit ist, da mir alle Sympathie mit dem, was die Allure der Gegnerschaft an sich trägt, gänzlich abgeht. Ich würde sie ganz gewiss unterlassen, wenn die Herausforderung, die in dem Briefe des P[resident of the] TS liegt, nicht allzu sehr geeignet wäre, den Mitgliedern der theosophischen Gesellschaft völlig irrtümliche Meinungen über die Angelegenheiten, welche die deutsche Sektion und mich betreffen, zu übermitteln. Manche tadeln, dass ich bisher über vieles geschwiegen habe. Nun ich kann auch ungerechten Tadel dulden, und würde ihn weiter dulden, wenn ich mit weiterer solcher Duldung nicht der Wahrheit schlechte Dienste leisten würde. Die folgenden Ausführungen können zeigen für den, der Tatsachen werten will, dass von mir keine mit den theosophischen Prinzipien unvereinbare Gegnerschaft ausgegangen ist, sondern dass ich eines Tages einer solchen von andrer Seite gegenüberstand und nun, wie der genannte Brief bezeugt, in immer schärferem Maße gegenüberstehe. Mein einziges Streben geht nach Frieden für eine ruhige Möglichkeit der Mitteilung spiritueller Erkenntnisse.
1. Der auf S. 3 des genannten Briefes von dem P[resident of the] TS angeführte Fall Dr. Vollrath hat mit nichts zu tun, was bezeichnet werden könnte, wie es von dem President of the T.S. auf S. 2 des Briefes geschieht, als: «restriction on the opinions of a person». Der Fall verhält sich in der folgenden Weise: Der Vorstand der deutschen Sektion hat im Jahre 1908 mit allen gegen eine Stimme (der Unterzeichnete gab dabei selbst keine Stimme ab) beschlossen, Dr. Vollrath fortan nicht mehr als Mitglied betrachten zu können. Die Gründe lagen in dem allgemeinen Verhalten Dr. Vollraths innerhalb der Gesellschaft, die ein Zusammenarbeiten mit ihm unmöglich erscheinen ließen, und durchaus nicht in seinen Meinungen. Dr. Vollrath hat dann nach einiger Zeit einen Brief an den P[resident of the] TS Mrs. Besant gesandt mit einer ganzen Reihe ungerechtfertigter Anklagen über mich. Mrs. Besant hat mir damals diesen Brief zugesandt. Ich habe diesen Brief vertraulich ausführlich beantwortet - dies geschah alles schon 1909 -und Mrs. Besant war somit seit jener Zeit über das Verhalten des Herrn Dr. Vollrath in ganzem Umfange aufgeklärt. Sie wusste seit dieser Zeit, welche ungerechtfertigten Anklagen Dr. Vollrath vorbringt. Es kam somit nicht darauf an, dass Dr. Vollrath 1911 diese Anklagen unter Hinzufügung andrer gedruckt in einem Pamphlete wiederholte. Für mich selbst war damals 1909 der «Fall Dr. Vollrath» zu Ende. Ich habe selbst nichts auf das Pamphlet Dr. Vollraths von 1911 erwidert und auch nicht das geringste eingewendet, als [1911] die Ernennung Dr. Vollraths zu einem Vertreter des «Sternes vom Osten» erfolgte. Meinen Standpunkt habe ich nun in der ganzen Angelegenheit im März 1912 in einem ausführlichen Briefe an P[resident of the] TS Mrs. Besant mit den folgenden Worten geschrieben:) 1Ich muss hier an dieser Stelle eine Einfügung machen. Die ausführlichen Briefe, welche ich in den auf diesen Seiten berührten Angelegenheiten an Mrs. Besant geschrieben habe, waren von mir deutsch abgefasst und dann von Frl. v. Sivers ins Englische übersetzt, um Mrs. Besant nicht die Unbequemlichkeit zu machen, einen deutschen Brief lesen zu müssen. Nun findet gegenwärtig Frl. v. Sivers, dass sie zwar absolut getreu, aber nicht in einem guten Englisch übersetzt habe. Selbstverständlich müssen die Briefe hier so abgedruckt werden, wie sie damals wörtlich an Mrs. Besant abgegangen sind. Doch bitte ich, die Frl. v. Sivers nicht ganz gelungen scheinende Übersetzung mit Folgendem zu entschuldigen: Es ist mir nicht möglich gewesen, den entscheidenden Brief an Mrs. Besant wegen Überbürdung mit theosophischer Arbeit zu andrer Zeit als in der Nacht unmittelbar vor einer am nächsten Morgen anzutretenden Reise zu schreiben. Frl. v. Sivers musste, unpässlich, die Übersetzung in wenigen Nachtstunden herstellen. Damit auch die Vergleichung mit meinem deutschen Texte möglich ist, gebe ich denselben hier nebenbei mit.
«Now to the point Dr. Vollrath. This is the thing through which you have made it simply impossible for me to represent you in the proper way in Germany. Dr. Vollrath is carrying on since long a violent personal antagonism against me, he writes a pamphlet, the falsity of which, dear Mrs. Besant, must be known to you, because I informed you in 1909 in a detailed manner about the real state of things. In Germany it gets known, that you have made Dr. Vollrath the representative of the Order of the Star, exactly in the [same] moment, when, in form of a pamphlet full of objective untruth, a new attack is made by him upon me and some of my coworkers. You put me thus into the really undesired necessity, either to be silent, and thus admit that something in the attacks of Dr. Vollrath must be true, as he is the representative of Mrs. Besant in Germany, aye, as he is appealing to it; or, if I am not doing this, to turn myself against it, and thus against you. It seems that scarcely anything could be comparable to this enormity: The President of the Theosophical Society herself makes it impossible to the representative of a Section to stand for the president. The objection that the representation has been taken again from Dr. Vollrath, could only have a value if I had not reported to you in 1909 the whole state of things concerning Dr. Vollrath. I put it again distinctly, that I personally am taking the matter with absolute indifference; as to myself things worse than these can be undertaken against me; I am reading these things so as if they did not regard me. For Dr. Vollrath I have only compassion, not the least rancour. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, I would like to be able to feel always affection as I do. But as little as the matter comes into consideration for me, as much it comes into consideration for the German Section, which, if it would not think too soundly about the things, could lose its faith in everything. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, have expressed, as President, by the nomination of Dr. Vollrath, a full vote of mistrust against the General Secretary of the German Section. This I am only stating as a fact, because I do of course not discuss in the least your right of nominating any personality you feel pleased with, with whom I do not want to have anything to do. [These words have neither anything to do] with the personality of Dr. Vollrath, but only with the fact, that [to] the eyes of the members of the German Section you have given a full vote of mistrust to its General Secretary. Herewith I have simply characterised with dry words, that may sound sharp, a state of things, but I have reflected a long time if I [could] use other words.»
Es darf wohl darauf hingewiesen werden, dass Mrs. Besants in der Angelegenheit schon vorher gemachter Einwand nicht gelten könne, dass sie Dr. Vollrath doch empfohlen habe, nicht in ihrer Eigenschaft als P[resident of the] TS, sondern als Protektor des Ordens vom «Stern im Osten». Denn die deutsche Sektion hat ebenso wenig wie ich selber Mrs. Besant das Recht auf diese Empfehlung jemals bestritten; sie hat nur konstatiert, wenn Mrs. Besant, die doch schließlich in beiden Eigenschaften eine Person ist, in einer ihr wichtigen öffentlichen Sache Dr. Vollrath empfiehlt als ihren Repräsentanten, trotzdem Dr. Steiner sie schon 1909 über das Verhalten Dr. Vollraths aufgeklärt hat, so schenkt eben Mrs. Besant Dr. Steiners Worten kein Vertrauen. Also nicht eine Einmischung in Mrs. Besants Handlungen wollte die deutsche Sektion, sondern sie wollte nur feststellen, dass für Mrs. Besant, wenn sie öffentlich ihr wichtige Handlungen vollzieht, Dr. Steiners Worte nichts bedeuten. Dies ist in der General-Versammlung der deutschen Sektion 1911 zum Ausdruck gekommen; und lediglich dies habe ich in dem oben angeführten Briefe ausführlich klargelegt.
Was hat nun Mrs. Besant getan. Sie schrieb den auf $. 12 ihres gegenwärtigen Briefes an die Mitglieder des General Couneils abgedruckten Brief an mich, worinnen sie nicht erwähnt, dass sie über alles Dr. Vollrath Betreffende nicht erst durch sein Pamphlet von 1911, sondern bereits durch meinen Brief von 1909 voll unterrichtet war und erklärt, dass sie das Pamphlet von 1911 bei ihrer Empfehlung Dr. Vollraths nicht gekannt habe. Damit bestätigt sie aber nur, dass ihr, was bereits mein Brief von 1909 enthielt, völlig gleichgültig war, dass ihr also, was eben die deutsche Sektion ihr zum Vorwurfe machte, meine Mitteilungen nichts bedeuten.
Von der Art, wie Mrs. Besant gegen mich in der letzten Zeit gehandelt hat, sei hier nur noch ein Beispiel angeführt. Ich war gezwungen - weil ich gefragt worden war -, in der letzten General-Versammlung der deutschen Sektion den objektiven Tatbestand der Absage des Kongresses in Genua zu besprechen. Ich sagte, dass ich mich nach der Absage an den Generalsekretär der italienischen Sektion gewandt habe, um die Gründe zu erfahren der Absage. Der antwortete mir: «Ich habe auf strikte Ordre des Präsidenten Mrs. Besant und des Sekretärs Mr. Wallace gehandelt. Bitte sich dahin zu wenden.» Dies war der von mir dargestellte streng objektive Tatbestand. Mrs. Besant verbreitet jetzt, ich hätte die Sache falsch dargestellt, denn sie hätte niemals den Kongress abgesagt, sondern nur nach Genua gemeldet, dass sie nicht dahin käme. Ich bitte zu bemerken, dass es sich darum handelt, dass ich nur Tatsachen erzählt habe, und Mrs. Besant die Sache so wendet, dass aus ihren Worten der Leser folgern muss, ich hätte die Sache falsch dargestellt. Überdies gab später Mr. Wallace eine Darstellung der Sache in einem Briefe an mich, die durchaus mit dem Telegramm des General Sekretärs der italienischen Sektion im Einklang war.
Dass dieser Brief, den Mrs. Besant S. 12 abdruckt, in den «Mitteilungen der deutschen Sektion» bis jetzt noch nicht erschienen [ist], hat lediglich seinen Grund darin, dass von diesen Mitteilungen seit jenem Zeitpunkte noch keine weitere Nummer erschienen ist. Er wird, wenn eine solche erscheint, veröffentlicht werden.
Für mich selbst kann aber dieser Brief nichts andres bedeuten, als eine neue Bestätigung dafür sein, dass Mrs. Besant alles von mir Mitgeteilte bedeutungslos findet, denn sie antwortet nicht auf dasjenige, worauf es nach meinem Briefe ankommt, sondern auf etwas, wovon ich ausdrücklich erklärt habe, dass es nicht ankomme.
Da Mrs. Besants verschiedene gedruckte Äußerungen geeignet sind, den Glauben zu erwecken, als ob durch mich gegen den Grundsatz allgemeiner Toleranz der Meinungen in der theosophischen Gesellschaft verstoßen worden wäre, ist es notwendig, auch noch die Darlegungen wiederzugeben, die ich ebenfalls in meinem Briefe vom März 1912 an Mrs. Besant habe gelangen lassen:
«And here I come to another point, one of principle. You, dear Mrs. Besant, have said in your last address at the Adyar-Convention, that here in Germany Theosophy is brought forth upon lines, that are particularly adopted to German circumstances and which other nations could not accept. Nothing of this is in reality the case. There are actually two points that have to be considered. The first concerning my occult position, divergent in some points from yours and Mr. Leadbeaters, which seems to culminate in the Christ-question. I say with intention: seems. The point touches not only the German members of the Theosophical Society, but also many members of other sections. [As to] the first point: It is at least strange, that through it an agitation is stirred up, and that things are distorted so, as if aggressive action from our or even my part comes into consideration. In the principal lines I have already stated my point of view concerning the Christ-problem in my book ‹Christianity as a Mystical Fact› which appeared in 1903. That this point of view differs from yours and Mr. Leadbeaters has been remarked immediately by Mr. Keightley and has been expressed by him in the article which he wrote about it for the «Theosophical Review». All that which since then has been added to the statements put forth in this book, are details of occult investigation, which I had to bring forth in the course of years, because I, who had to work essentially in christian countries, was obliged to give an objective interpretation of the gospels. Thus, in the whole trend of my work since I entered the Theosophical Society nothing has been changed, except that in the course of time, in many territories, more and more people have got attentive to my point of view. I could think the more, dear Mrs. Besant, to have your approval in all I did, as this way of action was a natural consequence of the conversations I had with you in Munich 1907 and in Budapest 1909. As to other deviations from yours and Mr. Leadbeaters point of view, I had no reason to think about your contradiction, as you yourself had written a warm preface to the English edition of my book «Initiation» and have recommended the translation. From my part nothing has happened, but that I could not endorse your views about the «coming Christ which you brought to expression only after the fixation of my point of view. In the beginning I have done everything for equalising the gap thus given, in order to give to members the possibility of remaining neutral. When then the opinion got always stronger, that my point of view could not be brought into accordance with the opinions you brought forth only since 1909, I could not do more than rely upon the fact, that the Theosophical Society could give expression in her midst to the most varying points of view. I do not think, that with all that happened, I have done, even in the slightest measure, something which is in contradiction with this principle of the Theosophical Society It was quite self-evident that upon the basis of all I’ve just explained, I could not have anything to do with the «Star of the East» and with anything concerning Krishnamurti. I have done that in the way, that I simply did not speak about these things. I will continue to do so, and will [not put anything into the way] of those that are working for these things in Germany. For this is the good right of any one, just as I cannot do else, but ignore these things. Despite my absolute silence about the ‹Star of the East› Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, as your representative in Germany, made violent opposition to me in this matter. Why must this be, as I shall not put anything into his way in doing what he wants, if he will respect [the fact], that no one can compel me to act otherwise, when my conviction forces me simply to pass by a thing and be silent about it. This question too has nothing to do with any national point of view, so that the characteristic you give about it, saying that my conception of Christ is adapted to German circumstances, gives an unright conception of it. What I am saying about the Christ, has as little to do with anything national, as a mathematical assertion has to do with it. To my insight there is no other possibility whatever of turning against me, than to say quite distinctly: in the theosophical Society nothing else is permitted to be brought, than that which is brought by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater. Only when one is proclaiming this principle, one can turn against that which comes from me. I will not complain if one is opposing me, but I cannot consider it right when one is spreading about: this or that is done because of national reasons, and there are not such ones, or when aggressiveness is reproached to us, and we do nothing but expose our point of view».
Es könnte nun so erscheinen, als ob diese Anführung verschiedener Standpunkte der spirituellen Forschung nichts zu tun habe mit den Fragen, welche in Betracht kommen und dem verehrten General-Council durch President of the TS vorgelegt sind. Und es ist durchaus wahr: In der Theorie haben oder, besser gesagt, sollten sie nichts damit zu tun haben. Die Wirklichkeit der Stellungnahme Mrs. Besants zwingt aber dazu, gerade von diesem Punkte auszugehen. Denn ich darf wohl jedermann, der Tatsachen objektiv ins Auge fassen will, und nicht die Worte, welche Menschen über diese Tatsachen sagen, bitten, sich im Hinblicke auf alles, was von Seite der Präsidentin geschehen ist, die Frage vorzulegen: Kann ein so unbefangen Urteilender auch nur einen Augenblick glauben, dass ich in der bekannten Weise von der Präsidentin je behandelt worden wäre, wenn ich von der Zeit vor etwa drei Jahren an, da Mrs. Besant ihre Lehren von dem «kommenden Christus» vorzutragen begann, diese Lehren ebenfalls hätte auf ihren Wink hin vorzutragen begonnen, und wenn ich mich hätte dem «Stern des Ostens» angeschlossen? Man mag suchen, wo man will, in Wirklichkeit ist nichts anderes geschehen, als dass ich und eine Reihe andrer Mitglieder der TG sich den Lehren vom «kommenden Christus» und dem «Stern des Ostens» nicht angeschlossen haben. In Wahrheit folgte alles andre aus diesem. Man sehe doch selbst die äußerlichsten Punkte ruhig an. Mrs. Besant drückte ihre Zustimmung zur Wahl gewisser Mitglieder des Vorstandes der deutschen Sektion auf Lebenszeit wiederholt aus, gedruckt, brieflich und auch mündlich - gelegentlich eines Gespräches auf dem Budapester Kongress 1909 -; jetzt wendet sie auf S. 4 ihres Briefes an das General Council das, was sie vorher gebilligt hat, als Waffe gegen die deutsche Sektion und mich.
Es kann jederzeit auf Verlangen durch Tatsachen erhärtet werden, dass gegenüber den Lehren Mrs. Besants und Leadbeaters innerhalb meines Wirkungskreises nichts getan worden ist, was irgendwie als ein Angriff bezeichnet werden kann, dass dagegen in dem Augenblicke, in welchem Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Deutschland die Vertretung Mrs. Besants für den «Stern des Ostens» übernommen hat, dieser sofort in aggressiver Weise sich gegen mich und die deutsche Sektion wandte. Ja es ist sogar wahr, was kaum jemand wird glaubhaft erscheinen können, dass Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden mir brieflich zugemutet hat, so zu lehren, dass meine Lehren von den Zuhörern nicht als ein Widerspruch gegen Mrs. Besants Lehren verstanden werden können.
Während so von denjenigen, welche uns angreifen, stets betont wird, es müssten in der theosophischen Gesellschaft alle Meinungen toleriert werden, ist in Wahrheit das Einzige, worauf alle Anklagen beruhen, der Umstand, dass eine Anzahl von Mitgliedern der theosophischen Gesellschaft mit mir nicht blindlings den Lehren Mrs. Besants und Leadbeaters folgen. Man klagt in Wahrheit des Dogmatismus diejenigen an, welche nicht der Meinung sind, dass die ganze theosophische Gesellschaft folgen müsse dem Dogmatismus Mrs. Besants und Leadbeaters. Man halte der Wahrheit getreu Umschau bei den Mitgliedern der theosophischen Gesellschaft, welche meine Zuhörer geworden sind, ob jemals ihnen ein Dogma aufgedrungen worden ist, ob jemals auf etwas andres gebaut worden ist als auf ihre völlig freie Zustimmung zu dem, was gesagt wird, und auf den innern Wahrheitsgehalt des Vorgetragenen. Man versuche doch einmal sich eine Vorstellung davon zu machen, wie sorgsam bei uns jede Möglichkeit eines Dogmatismus zu verhüten gesucht wird.
Und damit vergleiche man, dass Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in einem Briefe über einen von ihm gegründeten «Undogmatischen Verband» die deutsche Sektion hinstellt als eine Organisation, die von einem Papst gelenkt und in einzelnen Zweigen wie von Bischöfen dogmatisch behandelt werde. Man vergleiche damit, welche von der meinigen abweichenden Meinungen innerhalb der deutschen Sektion z.B. anlässlich unsrer vorigen General-Versammlung zum Ausdruck gekommen sind.
Wer das alles wirklich mit Bewertung der Tatsachen in Erwägung zieht, der wird vielleicht begreifen, wenn ich mir das Folgende - aufrichtig und ehrlich - zu sagen erlaube: Für mich gibt es schon seit Jahren keinen andern Grund, mein Amt als Generalsekretär der Deutschen Sektion nicht niederzulegen als die Tatsache des Vertrauens, das mir eine große Anzahl von Mitgliedern entgegenbringt, und die mir die eiserne Pflicht auferlegt, den Posten nicht zu verlassen, auf dem eine Arbeit begonnen worden ist, die ich nicht verlassen darf. Denn dieses Amt des Generalsekretärs der Deutschen Sektion ist durch das Verhalten Mrs. Besants und mancher ihrer Helfer nichts andres als eine Quelle von Bitternis. Nur um nicht der Sentimentalität geziehen zu werden, sage ich nicht Martyrium. Für mich würde ich das alles tragen, vielleicht sogar ohne ein Wort der Abwehr; für die Mitglieder, die mir ihr Vertrauen geschenkt haben, muss ich sprechen.
Und ich hätte wahrhaftig in dieser Hinsicht recht viel zu sagen. Doch ich gebe mich vorläufig der optimistischen Hoffnung hin, dass das Gesagte zur Bekräftigung meiner Worte schon genügt. Und es wird so vielleicht nicht nötig werden, die Liste der gegebenen Beweise zu vermehren. Nur sagen will ich, dass auf die oben angeführte Darstellung über den wahren Sachverhalt Mrs. Besant mir nichts erwiderte als die ganz selbstverständlichen Worte: «As regards difference of opinion on the Christ question or on any other, such difference is legitimate within the Society. I have many times said, both publicly and privately, that you [and I] and others have an equal right to form and to express our opinions; I think differences of opinion are useful, not harmful, and I have often urged people to read your books.»
Diese wenigen selbstverständlichen Zeilen erhielt ich als Antwort auf eine ausführliche Darstellung der Sache von derselben Mrs. Besant, welche sich in ihrem Briefe an die Mitglieder des General Councils beklagt, dass ich ihre Briefe unbeantwortet lasse. Was aber bedeuten sachlich diese Worte. Da zu allen Anklagen gegen die deutsche Sektion und mich kein andrer Grund vorliegt als die Differenz der Meinungen, so bedeuten diese Zeilen: Man darf jemand, wenn er nicht unbedingt den Lehren folgt, die man selbst haben will, anklagen und [ist] für diese Tat dann gerechtfertigt, wenn man nur sagt: ich finde verschiedene Meinungen nützlich und nicht schädlich.
Wie Mrs. Besant an das General-Council berichtet, das möge der folgende Fall illustrieren: Mrs. Besant schreibt (S. 7): «Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestion to form a German-Swiss National Society—...» Ich bitte nun dieses «ignoring» mit der objektiven Tatsache zu vergleichen, dass ich im März 1912 an Mrs. Besant in dieser Angelegenheit das Folgende geschrieben habe: «In my last letter I tried to describe to you the position of those lodges in Switzerland, that formerly belonged to the German Section, according to the real state of things. In my presentation I have stated that I have no personal desires in this matter; I have only given an expression to the desires and opinions of the said lodges. In consequence of the way in which you, dear Mrs. Besant, received this presentation of mine, and owing to the statements made in the ‹Adyar-bulletin report›, the whole matter has been removed from its ground, so that there will be now the greatest difficulty to set it aright. That which is wanted by the above mentioned Lodges in Switzerland has nothing whatever to do with national feelings. And if one represents the matter as based upon national animosities one is doing the most bitter wrong to our Swiss lodges. The matter is - I have accentuated this in my last letter - that the way in which the section of Geneva was founded, has been felt by our lodges, and could not be felt else, as a wrong done to them, an action through which violence has been done to them, and because they find the spirit of the Geneva foundation untheosophical, these lodges want to form a separate section, or, if for some reason the consent from Adyar should not be given to it, to leave the Theosophical Society In my last letter already I accentuated, that one could easily call such an action from their part untheosophical, but it really ought not be possible to turn things round in such a way, that in the Theosophical Society first something untheosophical is done, and then, when another resists, that he should be called untheosophical. Our Swiss lodges do not feel in any way aggressive, but absolutely in the defensive. What I myself am thinking about the matter is of no concern, only this, that all the lodges formerly belonging to the German Section, have expressed their will to remain united, not excluding Lugano and Neuchâtel but with these together. The national point of view is not the one in question; therefore these united lodges do not want to be separated by national points of view. Therefore I really can but repeat today, what I expressed in my last letter concerning this point.»
Ich frage nun den objektiv Urteilenden, erstens wie diese Tatsache meines ausführlichen Briefes zusammenstimmt mit der andern Tatsache, dass Mrs. Besant auf S. 7 ihres Briefes sagt: «Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestions to form a German-Swiss-National Society».
Ich war auch leider diesmal wieder in der Lage, dasselbe tun zu müssen, was ich tun musste bei dem angeblichen Angriff auf Mrs. Besant gelegentlich unserer Generalversammlung 1911. Ich habe auch damals nichts gesagt als die objektiven Tatsachen erzählt, welche sich zugetragen haben. Mrs. Besant nannte diese Erzählung von Tatsachen, die zur durch sie selbst herbeigeführt wurden, einen Angriff auf ihre Person. Nun, steht dann die Sache nicht so, dass nicht ich irgendetwas gegen Mrs. Besant gesagt habe, sondern dass es genügt, Tatsachen zu erzählen, die durch Mrs. Besant geschehen sind, und Mrs. Besant findet in diesen durch sie selbst herbeigeführten Tatsachen einen scharfen Angriff auf sich.
Ich habe in Wahrheit Mrs. Besant über alles in Betracht Kommende im Falle der Schweizerlogen und über anderes geschrieben; und ich hatte keine Veranlassung, dieselben Dinge nochmals zu schreiben, weil Mrs. Besant zwar formell meine Briefe beantwortet, aber ihre Briefe über die Punkte, auf die es ankommt, nichts enthielten. Es ist ganz leicht, Briefe zu beantworten, wenn diese Briefe das nicht berühren, worauf es ankommt. Ob es in solchem Falle berechtigt ist, von dem Andern zu sagen, er hülle sich in Schweigen, bitte ich die verehrten Kollegen zu beurteilen.
Auf S. 14 ff. des Briefes an die Mitglieder des General Councils teilt Mrs. Besant einen Brief mit, welchen Herr Bernhard Hubo, Mitglied der deutschen Sektion und Vorsitzender eines Hamburger Zweiges, als Antwort auf einen Brief des Herrn Cordes geschrieben hat. Es kann nun der Inhalt dieses aus einer ehrlichen Überzeugung und wohl auch Entrüstung heraus geschriebenen Briefes sehr leicht missverstanden werden, wenn man den Brief des Herrn Cordes nicht kennt, auf welchen der des Herrn Hubo die Antwort ist. Herrn Cordes Brief lautet wörtlich: «Viel geehrter Herr Hubo: Ich hatte Ihnen allerhand Katalogen und Lektionen nach Hohenfelde gesandt, die alle zurückkamen. Durch den «Theosophist fand [ich] aber Ihre gegenwärtige werte Adresse, also sind Sie doch nach München gekommen! Unsere verehrte Präsidentin Frau Besant hat mich zum National Representative für Deutschland für den in Adyar tagenden Internationalen Council ernannt. Ich habe schon an Herrn Westphal geschrieben, dessen Bekanntschaft ich Ihrer Liebenswürdigkeit verdanke. Ich weiß ja von Deutschland nur das, was [ich] bei Ihnen gehört [habe], denn seit 1900 bin [ich] ja nur einmal, und das jene 4 Wochen Juni 1911, in Hamburg gewesen. Frau Besant trug mir auf, mit Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, Ihnen und Leipzig in Verbindung zu treten. Können Sie mir helfen, kurze knappe Notizen für die Öffentlichkeit und so viel wie möglich private und intime Neuigkeiten zu bekommen? In Leipzig kenne [ich] niemanden, wenn ich aber Ihre werte Hilfe- München, Herr Westphal - Hamburg, Herr Koethin - Hannover und Herr Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Göttingen habe, wird die Sache schon gehen. Herr Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden hat mir nämlich gerade sein Buch ‹Diene dem Ewigen› mit folgender Widmung gesandt: ‹Seinem Geistesbruder Cordes in Hingebung, Standhalten und Sanftmut›. So werde ihm heute noch schreiben. Wenn Sie mich mit Privatnachrichten beehren sollten, werde natürlich strengste Diskretion bewahren. Sonst wird eine für die Öffentlichkeit bestimmte Postkarte mit knappen Notizen genügen. Die große Sache ist diese Verbindung mit Deutschland in Gang zu halten und wenn Sie sich erst einmal darauf einlassen, mit mir zu korrespondieren, einmal monatlich wird schon helfen, sind Sie nicht der Mann, es fallen zu lassen. Denn wenn Sie einst Arbeiter im deutschen Felde haben wollen, müssen Sie sich die Mühe nicht verdrießen lassen, Lehrjungen heranzuziehen. In Freundschaft J.H. Cordes.»
Obwohl es mir doch wohl gestattet sein müsste, mir meine Gedanken über jemand zu machen, welcher im Bunde mit Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden «dem Ewigen dient», indem er «so viel wie möglich private und intime Neuigkeiten» bekommen will, um in «Hingebung, Standhalten und Sanftmut» sie zu veröffentlichen, oder, wenn nötig «strengste Diskretion» zu bewahren, verhält sich das Tatsächliche doch so, dass ich mich in Wahrheit um Herrn Cordes nie bekümmert, ihm nie auch nur im Geringsten seine Schritte gehemmt habe. Herr Hubo hat, wie das bei den Gepflogenheiten in unserer Sektion ganz selbstverständlich ist, ganz frei von sich aus und ohne meinen geringsten Einfluss seinen Brief an Herrn Cordes geschrieben. Und ich konnte nur nachträglich sagen, dass ich Herrn Hubos Worte begreiflich fände, da ihm zugemutet worden war, der Vermittler «privater und intimer Neuigkeiten» zu werden.
Was tut Mrs. Besant. Ohne dafür auch nur den entferntesten Grund zu haben, schreibt sie auf S. 19 ihres Briefes an das General Council: «Dr. Steiner evidently regards him - Herrn Cordes - as an enemy, for he was refused, by Fräulein von Sivers, an invitation to the Congress lately held in Munich.» Abgesehen davon, dass damals in München kein «Congress» war, sondern lediglich die Aufführung von vier Mysteriendramen und ein Vortragszyklus von mir, bedarf es wahrlich keiner Feindschaft für einen Herrn, um ihm zu bedeuten, dass man seine Anwesenheit nicht gerade liebe, der dem «Ewigen dient» durch Sammlung «privater und intimer Neuigkeiten» für die Öffentlichkeit oder die Diskretion. Der wahre Grund, warum aus einem ehrlichen Gefühl heraus veranstaltende Mitglieder Herrn Cordes nicht nach München einladen wollten, war, weil sie sein Gebaren nicht vereinbar fanden mit dem Ernst theosophischer Brüderlichkeit, insbesondere dann, wenn solches Gebaren von Brüderlichkeit stets spricht.
Das Einzige, was in dem Briefe, den Mrs. Besant an die Mitglieder des General Council geschrieben hat, überhaupt auch nur den Schein erwecken könnte, als ob irgendwelche Anklage berechtigt wäre, betrifft den Fall Leonhardi, der auf S. 19 f. erwähnt wird. Damit aber gesehen werden kann, dass auch hier nur der Schein waltet, als ob eine Statutenverletzung vorgekommen wäre, soll der Fall hier mitgeteilt werden, obwohl es mir ganz außerordentlich widerstrebt, die Sache zu berühren, aus Gründen, welche aus der Erzählung selbst ersichtlich sein werden. Frau und Frl. Leonardi suchten um die Aufnahme in unsere Leipziger Loge nach. Ich muss nun gestehen, dass ich ein gewisses Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl habe, wenn ich meinen Namen unter ein Aufnahmediplom der Theosophischen Gesellschaft setze. Als mir nun das Aufnahmegesuch der beiden genannten Damen vorgelegt wurde, waren dieser Tatsache einige andere vorangegangen. Ich hatte in den Monaten vorher einige Briefe von einer der Damen erhalten. Diese Briefe waren zum großen Teile reine Hymnen auf mich. Auf der Adresse stand «An den Meister der deutschen Theosophie» und im Briefe waren manche Steigerungen dieser an der Außenadresse befindlichen Bezeichnung meiner Person enthalten. Aus dem Inhalte dieser Briefe bildete ich mir die Überzeugung, die beiden Damen, die ich im Übrigen infolge einer frühern flüchtigen Begegnung nach einem meiner Vorträge in Berlin sehr schätze, hätten sich noch nicht überzeugt, wie wir arbeiten innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft und dass nach meiner Meinung die Hervorhebung einer Person - in diesem Falle der meinigen - gegenüber der objektiven Wahrheit vor allem überwunden werden müsse. Kurz - ich konnte es- nach den Lobeserhebungen auf meine Person - nicht über das Herz bringen, allzu rasch meinen Namen unter die betreffenden Aufnahmediplome zu schreiben. Daraus entstand nun die Legende: Frau Wolfram hätte die Damen abgelehnt, weil sie mit Dr. Vollrath in Verbindung gestanden hätten und mit Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden korrespondierten. Ich ließ sogleich, als ich hörte, dass dies gesagt würde, bei Frau Wolfram, der Vorsitzenden unserer Leipziger Loge, anfragen, ob sich die Sache so verhielte. Denn ich selbst hatte nicht einmal gewusst, dass die Damen mit Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden korrespondierten. Frau Wolfram stellte entschieden in Abrede, etwas dergleichen zu den Damen gesagt zu haben. Ich versichere aber die verehrten Mitglieder des General Council, dass es keinen andern Grund gab, die Aufnahmediplome der beiden Damen nicht zu unterzeichnen als den, der sich mir aus der Haltung der genannten Briefe ergab. Man nenne es Schwäche von mir, doch ich habe einmal die Überzeugung, dass jemand, der mir Briefe mit solchen Lobeserhebungen schreibt, sich noch nicht ganz klar ist über das Wesen der Theosophischen Bewegung und lieber mit der Aufnahme etwas warten sollte, bis er das Persönliche von dem Objektiven richtig unterscheiden könne.
Was Mrs. Besant S. 4 über gewisse Hinzufügungen zu unseren Statuten der Deutschen Sektion sagt, ist aus dem Grunde ganz unzutreffend, weil durch die hinzugefügten Punkte (lebenslängliche Mitglieder, Unterschrift des Vorsitzenden einer Loge bei jemand, der in eine unsrer Logen aufgenommen werden will), in nichts jemals gegen die allgemeinen Statuten der Theosophischen Gesellschaft verstoßen worden ist. Es wurde bei uns niemand abgelehnt nach Hinzufügung dieser Punkte, der es nicht auch geworden wäre vor der Hinzufügung dieser Punkte.
Von nennenswerten Ablehnungen bei uns kommt überhaupt nur das Folgende in Betracht. Ich konnte auf einige von Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden empfohlene Aufnahmen nicht das Diplom ausfertigen, weil mir bekannt war, dass Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden die Aufnahme-Ersucher nicht einmal kennt. Einem Zweige, den unter dem Namen «Freiheitszweig» Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden begründen wollte, konnte ich auf eigene Verantwortung hin die Begründung innerhalb der deutschen Sektion nicht bewilligen, weil Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden seit längerer Zeit in der unbrüderlichsten Weise gegen die deutsche Sektion sich öffentlich verunglimpfend und nachweislich objektiv unwahre Charakteristiken verbreitend verhält. Ich werde, wie ich Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden angezeigt habe, das Gesuch des «Freiheitszweiges» der nächsten Vorstandssitzung vorlegen. Ein Zweig in Leipzig wollte sich begründen. Ich konnte ihn nicht bewilligen als einen Zweig der deutschen Sektion, weil mir Mrs. Besant vorher schon angezeigt hatte, dass dieser selbe Zweig bereits als ein direkt an Adyar angeschlossener begründet worden ist. Es kann aber doch ein Zweig, der schon an Adyar angeschlossen ist, nicht zugleich ein Zweig einer Sektion sein.
Es scheint mir, dass ich die Anklagen, die Mrs. Besant in dem genannten Briefe gegen die deutsche Sektion und gegen mich richtet, genügend vorläufig charakterisiert habe. Ich wollte wenigstens einige Unterlagen den verehrten Mitgliedern des General Council für ihr Urteil geben. Mir wurde schon die Abfassung dieser Seiten schwer genug. Wer schen will, um was es sich handelt, der wird finden, dass von meiner Seite nichts geschehen ist, als dass in allem Frieden die positiven Ergebnisse meiner spirituellen Forschung dargelegt worden sind, und dass sich auf die inneren Gründe meiner Darlegungen hin eine Anzahl von Mitgliedern zu meinen Zuhörern zählen. Nach Vergrößerung dieser Zuhörerzahl sah ich mich plötzlich den Angriffen von Seite Mrs. Besants und einer Anzahl ihrer Helfer gegenüber; unter diesen arbeitet Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in der oben charakterisierten Art. Ich will gar nichts als die Anerkennung der Tatsache, nicht durch Worte, sondern durch Tatsachen, dass die Theosophische Gesellschaft noch eine Stätte sein darf für die Vertretung des als wahr Erkannten und dass sie nicht in Wirklichkeit sich gestalte zu einer Leadbeater-Besant Sekte, die, statt zu bekennen, dass sie doch nur das sein will, von Freiheit der Standpunkte spricht und denjenigen, der diese Sache ernst nimmt, anklagt wegen Dingen, die in Wahrheit gar nicht vorhanden sind. Wer meine Arbeiten verfolgt, kann wissen, dass die Meinung, die man zu verbreiten beliebt: wir trieben eine besondre «christlich-deutsche» Anschauung, nur geeignet ist, den Irrtum zu erwecken, als ob bei uns andre Religionen nicht ebenso objektiv betrachtet würden wie das Christentum.
Meine lieben Kollegen! Ich habe Euch Tatsachen vorgelegt; beurteilet sie. Ich bin optimistisch genug zu glauben, dass Euch die Tatsachen genügen werden. Ich will nicht anklagen; und wenn in diesen Seiten doch eine Anklage enthalten sein sollte, so wären es lediglich die Tatsachen, die da anklagen. Nur das Eine sei betont: Wenn Mrs. Besant, über welche dieses schreiben zu müssen mir bittres Leid verursacht, mich anklagen will, dann solle sie offen gestehen, dass innerhalb der Theosophischen Gesellschaft keine Meinung bestehen dürfe als die ihrige und Mr. Leadbeaters. Denn nichts anderem habe ich mich anzuklagen, als dass ich nicht blindlings Mr. Leadbeater und Mrs. Besant folgen kann und darf. Alles andre ist, objektiv gesehen, nur die Folge dieses meines KardinalVergehens.
In brüderlicher Liebe Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Sekretär der Deutschen Theosophischen Gesellschaft.