The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Dear Attendees!

For many years, I have had the privilege of speaking in other German cities, as well as here in Hamburg, about subjects related to the humanities, the science that is aware of being a true continuation of the scientific way of thinking for the knowledge of the spiritual life of man, which has developed within humanity for three to four centuries. Now it is not out of short-sighted feelings, but, as I believe, precisely out of the knowledge of this spiritual science itself, that the power to recognize the human being in a spiritual way, to recognize that in man which extends beyond birth and death, that the power for this must be sought for humanity from that which one is justified in calling the spiritual idealism of the German people, that idealism which has developed in the most profound and also in the sharpest way in the greatest period of German intellectual life from the end of the eighteenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century, but which continues to have an effect into our own days. And I believe – just as this belief already underlay the reflection that I was allowed to make last year here in this city – I believe that it is well suited to the great facts and developmental impulses that we face in our time when the members of the German people immerse themselves in can bring in the deepest sense of the word knowledge of their own nature, which can then lead to an evaluation of this own nature in relation to the insults and slander that are without precedent - like these world events in the entire history of the development of mankind. I believe that it is more appropriate in the face of these insults and slander to pursue an objective course of thought that is more in keeping with the nature of the German people, to objectively clarify the significance that the German people could assume through their achievements in the overall development of humanity. Above all, attention must be drawn to a prejudice, one might say, if the word were not strongly taken out against the feelings in the present, above all attention must be drawn to a prejudice that repeatedly and repeatedly arises within the circles of our people, the prejudice that the newer intellectual life must, for the very reason that it wants to appear on scientific ground, have an international character from the outset. How often have we heard it said, and how matter-of-factly we accept it: science must be international. Certainly, to a certain limited degree that is absolutely true. But the question is whether it is really one of the fruitful perceptions and feelings that we should keep building on this saying over and over again when we want to express our thoughts about the relationship between individual nations. The sun is certainly international, and so is the moon. But how different are the ideas, the perceptions, the feelings that the various peoples are able to express about the moon and the sun. International is certainly the science; but is the way in which the individual peoples approach science international, and why do some approach it perhaps more superficially, while others delve into it? And is it not especially important for Germans to reflect on a word spoken by one of the greatest Germans, Goethe, when he had completed a great part of his journey to the south and had occupied himself not only with the contemplation of various art treasures, but had also occupied himself with the contemplation of the most diverse natural objects and natural facts, when he said: He would most like to make a journey to India, not to discover anything new, but to contemplate what has been discovered in his own way, that is, to see it again. viewing the most diverse natural objects and natural facts, he said: He would most like to make a journey to India, not to discover something new, but to view what has been discovered in his own way, that is, to see again in the external phenomena that which is alive in his soul.

It is not that which is internationally abstract that acts as a motivating and sustaining element in the forces of nations, but rather that which the individual souls of the individual nations are able to see in the [gap in the transcript]

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to approach the consideration from the point of view of spiritual scientific knowledge. And I firmly believe that the German may approach this observation of his relationship to other nations in this objective way. Spiritual science, as it is meant here, dear honored attendees, is still very young, even if, as we shall see, this spiritual science can develop in a very organic way out of German idealism. But regardless of this, it is all too easy to understand that this spiritual science still finds opponents everywhere today, and that what it has to say – has to say from a consideration that is just as thorough and profound as that [for science] – is still sometimes ridiculed and mocked as something paradoxical, perhaps even insane. But it is precisely such a question, as that about the souls of different peoples, that spiritual science attempts to grasp objectively in a certain sense.

If you look at the human soul in a spiritual scientific sense, it does not appear to you from this point of view as today's conventional soul science or psychology often believes. I would say that everything in the soul is mixed up.

Spiritual science must observe the soul as natural science observes any phenomenon. Just as the natural scientist must seek to recognize the essence of sunlight by observing its manifestation in the world of colors, so the soul researcher must seek the soul essence in its manifestations if he is to strive for an understanding of this essence. Sunlight reveals itself in reddish, greenish and blue-violet color shades. Just as the natural scientist distinguishes the reddish-yellow shade on the one side of the color spectrum of light, so the spiritual scientist distinguishes on the one side of the soul that which can be called the sentient soul. And just as the natural scientist distinguishes the greenish center as a phenomenon in sunlight, so it appears to the spiritual scientist, as it were, in the center of the soul being, that which can be called the intellectual soul; viewed from another side, this intellectual soul can appear as the soul of feeling. And as the other end of the soul rainbow, so to speak, appears that which can be addressed as the consciousness soul.

When one looks at the human soul in this way, from a spiritual science perspective, one comes to the conclusion that in the sentient soul, everything lives that emerges more from the subconscious depths of the soul, that lives out more in sensations, in will impulses, in a semi-unconscious, instinctive way. But at the same time it contains that which is first lived out in an indeterminate way within the soul, that which is the soul's share in the spiritual, in eternal life. The mind soul is that through which man comprehends the surrounding world in such a way that he brings concepts and ideas into everything, that he, so to speak, builds the world for himself like an external structure of natural laws. The consciousness soul contains that which is most closely related to what man recognizes as his position in the physical world, whereby he places himself most in the finite, in the interwoven nature of death.

This is how it is initially with the three – I would say rainbow – shades of the soul. And just as the light, the common light, lives in all colors, lives in the three color shades, so the I, the actual self, the eternal being of the human being that passes through births and deaths, lives in these three soul shades. And just as these three soul nuances are found in the individual human soul, so they show themselves in the different nations. So that in the soul life of nations - I now say explicitly: of nations, not of individuals within nations, not of individuals, but of nations as a whole - the soul of the different nations is expressed in the one national soul, especially the sentient soul, while the other aspects of the soul are more in the background: in the case of the other people, the intellectual soul is more in the background, in the case of a third people, the consciousness soul is more in the background, and in the case of a fourth people, what permeates and imbues the individual soul aspects: the I, the self. And, however paradoxical it may still appear to many today, one understands a part of European humanity only when one knows how these individual shades of soul are distributed among the souls of the individual nations.

Thus, when we consider the Italian national soul, we find that the soul of feeling predominates in this Italian national soul. In the French national soul, what must be called the soul of reason predominates in the most eminent sense. In the British national soul, what must be called the consciousness soul predominates. In the German national soul – and this is not spoken out of some particular feeling, but out of knowledge – what must be called the ego, the self, that which seeks to harmonize and unify the various soul nuances, that which radiates through the various soul nuances, predominates. And all the individual phenomena of life within the individual nations, even the way in which the different nations do not understand each other, all this follows from this knowledge of the national souls. If the German people in particular seems to me to be called upon to gain an understanding of what actually prevails between nations, based on an awareness of the nature of the soul, while the one-sidedness of other nations prevents them from truly gaining an understanding of the nature of each different nation. Can it not be grasped with one's hands – if I may use the image, ladies and gentlemen – that in the Italian national soul, unconscious, instinctive impulses live everywhere? Even when we go to the greatest, whose greatness should certainly not be belittled, we find the life of feeling prevailing everywhere. If you immerse yourself in the works of thinkers such as Giordano Bruno or Dante, you will find that it is the life of feeling that wells up from the unconscious and is given visual form, that which is not first sought after in a thought that justifies it, but which one simply wants to bring up from the soul and, I would say, let it speak.

And if you take the French national soul – not the individual Frenchman – if you take the national soul, then you have to say to yourself – and this is something that, for example, in an external relationship, not out of the knowledge with which we are dealing here, is recognized by many who think objectively, for example in neutral countries, for example, if you look at the French national soul, you will find wit everywhere; you will find what the intellect can crystallize; but you will especially find a certain constructive spirit, that understanding spirit that seeks to build the world in the way that the intellect can build the world.

And there is nothing clearer, dear attendees, than the way in which – I would say – one of the greatest minds, especially in the French world view, shows how reason works in the soul in particular.

The French are now calling one of their greatest philosophers – yes, I don't know, should we say 'fils de montagne'? He was called 'Bergson' until the war, and that's what I call him after the war, but they don't want us to call him that across the border. He is the one who, in the most incredible way, I would say, imagines his French world view into the German people, because, yes, he seems to have believed that when the French advance with cannons and rifles, the Germans will confront them with recitations of Novalis or Goethe or Schiller. And since they didn't do that, since they also have cannons, and bigger cannons than the French have, and have set them against the French, he talks about how all of German culture is mechanized, how everything is just like one big machine. And at a certain hour – you can read about it in foreign newspapers – he entertained his audience at a French academy by showing them how the Germans have degenerated in modern times from the heights they occupied under Goethe, Schiller, under Fichte, under Schelling, under Hegel and Kant and Schopenhauer, how they cling to everything, everything hang on to superficialities, how they are, in a hypocritical way, something like [gap in the transcript], how, in a hypocritical way, especially in the present, they refer again to Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, but how they understand them today in a very mechanical way and unite them with their soul in a very mechanical way. Admittedly, these Germans are unpleasant – but the French will perhaps only realize this when the borders are open again – [the Germans] are unpleasant, because they could prove that they have indeed recently been dealing more intensively with the aforementioned spirits, who drew their world view deeply from their essence, and thus sought to deepen the German essence. But something else could be proven. They could, for example, prove that Henri Bergson copied entire long pages almost word for word from Schelling, Schopenhauer and so on, and that basically his entire philosophy, which is certainly a sign of our time, is largely German plagiarism. That is non-mechanical appropriation!

And, esteemed attendees, if we now look, say, for example, across to the British national soul: just as the Italian national soul bears the main nuance of the sentient soul, and the French national soul bears the intellectual soul, so the British national soul bears the consciousness soul for our present time. The Italian feels, the Frenchman thinks, the Briton asserts himself in the physical world, that is, he seeks to develop his relationship to the physical world in some way. I am not speaking out of some national sentiment, but out of what can be proven down to the details. One might say: How Kant had to strive to deepen this view, which was only directed towards the physical world, in a conceptual sense. Kant's entire striving is, from a certain point of view, a working out of what he has become, for example through Hume, through Locke and other British minds. And it is fitting to take a good look at this aspect of the development of more recent spiritual life. Hume – let us single him out. What did he achieve?

He managed to say: Yes, when we look at the world, we actually find everywhere not the truth, not even cause and effect, no connections, but only that one phenomenon follows on from another. The most superficial of world views!

With regard to everything else, he arrives at what is called skepticism, a doubting of everything. Kant had to work his way out of this. But now, if we look at where this world view – insofar as it is now the expression of the soul of the people – has led, what has it led to? We see a remarkable world view developing in modern times, in the present, which has emerged precisely from the British national spirit, which is supported in this by the American national spirit. We have seen that out of this consciousness soul, which above all wants to assert the I in the world, in the physical world, what is called pragmatism has developed. We cannot speak about this objectively, because a number of Germans have also fallen for it – if I may use the trivial word – because they are philosophers, have fallen for this pragmatism. What is this pragmatism? Well, this pragmatism actually does no more or no less than say: Oh, truth, as it is supposed to develop out of the soul as truth, does not actually exist. What we summarize in individual judgments, in ideas that we then regard as truth, is only thought up by the human mind in order to prove useful out in the world. When you speak of the soul, soul is only a pragmatic concept. We see how there are individual phenomena in human life that fall apart and we cannot hold them together properly if we do not presuppose a unity. We only have it to grasp what is an external phenomenon. The truth must be something, an advantage that can be used in the external physical world. That is pragmatism. One must not believe that this is just a philosophical hair-splitting. It is deeply connected with the national spirit and with what creates out of this national spirit. In the 1880s and 1890s, [Robert Seeley], a professor of history, looked at English history – the relevant work was published in 1883 – and pointed out that it is actually a kind of prejudice – because that is the meaning of the history book – that in the nineteenth century, in Englishness, one has always regarded the struggle of Englishness for freedom and democracy as running through English history. He goes back a little further and tries to look at this English history and finds that what has happened can be summarized under the name “British expansion”; first Great Britain, then Greater Britain. The Italians were just parroting them, talking about “greater Italy.” And then the professor says, “But history is not just there to be learned from, to gain some truth that you now carry with you, so that you know something from history. Rather, history must be shaped, must be introduced into life.” And how is it shaped? It is characterized by the fact that one sees: Britain has expanded more and more over the last few centuries. So one must learn from it how to expand further. – The truth, as one can use it, as one can put it at the service of outer physical life!

I do not believe, esteemed readers, that I am presenting a one-sided view of these things, but rather that people have always been one-sided in their consideration of these matters because they have not been willing to consider the things in their real essence. In this context, it should always be emphasized how we Germans actually fared in the course of the nineteenth century in the spiritual realm with regard to the formation of a world view.

Goethe – I am in a position to speak about this because I have spent the whole of my life, thirty-five years, studying Goethe – Goethe tried to build a world view from the observation of external facts, which considers the relationship of external nature in detail. He tried to find the spirit in the development of beings. But basically, he made very little impression on the time. Then Darwin came along. He approached the task in an English way, truly in an English way, that is, he approached it in such a way that it is not particularly difficult to delve into his train of thought. And he gave everything that can be followed externally in the physical world, that can be seen with the eyes and grasped with the hands. That made an impression. And when it comes to Goethe, the world is still indebted to recognize – even if it is of course more difficult to find one's way into Goethe's theory of evolution – to recognize how much higher Goethe's theory of evolution is than that which arose in the nineteenth century on the basis of Darwinian research.

However, a Frenchman, a French philosopher, yes, I would almost say, of course, one who not so long ago before the war traveled around in Germany, even spoke at a German university about the deep friendship between the French and German mind, a Frenchman, he has tried to highlight the differences in recent weeks between the scientific world view that the German is seeking and that which the Frenchman and the Englishman are seeking. He told the French audience in Paris that if they want to get to know animals, want to have knowledge of animals, want to integrate their concepts of things into their world view, then they go to a menagerie and look at the animals. That's one way, certainly. The Englishman, said this French philosopher to his Parisian audience, the Englishman goes on a journey around the world, sees the animals in the various parts of the world and then describes what he has seen. And the German – he would go neither to the menagerie nor to the different parts of the world, but he would go into his room and delve into his own inner being to bring the essence of the lion, the essence of the hyena, and so on, to the surface from his own inner being. If you want to characterize the three peoples with a certain wit, which is certainly not to be denied the French, and perhaps also want to characterize them according to the proportion of thought and ideas present in their world view, then you can do that. Yes, but there is a catch to this story. The wit that the French professor has made out of his thoroughness is not his own, but Heinrich Heine's.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to a certain extent that German intellectual life has always tried to avoid one-sidedness and to find something that can shine through the whole of the individual shades of the soul. To do this, however, German intellectual life had to penetrate again and again into the innermost part of the human soul. And in order to show – I would like to say – by the facts how the German tried to get to the essence of the world, to the essence of what the world springs from and wells up from, I would like to present three German figures today. Not because, dear attendees, I believe that one could somehow dogmatically accept what these three figures have created as a world view within German idealism, but because I believe that there are indeed three figures that have emerged from the innermost essence of German nationality, the German national soul. I would like to say: Today we can go far beyond regarding a figure that appears in the world history of the spirit in such a way that we accept what he has expressed as individual sentences, as individual ideas, as individual opinions, as if it were a dogma. We can look at people as they have striven, as they stand in their search for a world view. Here we encounter a German figure whom I tried to point out from a different point of view here in this city last winter, and who is much talked about now. First of all, we encounter the figure who was aware that what he had to say about a world view had been created entirely, as it were, through a dialogue with the German national soul itself: Johann Gottlieb Fichte. I would like to give just a few traits of this Johann Gottlieb Fichte, to show that he is indeed a figure that could only have emerged from the wholeness of German intellectual life; for such a figure as Fichte really did arise out of German intellectual life. When we see Fichte in the blue peasant's coat, we can meet him as a seven-year-old boy standing on the bank of a stream, the stream that flows past his father's house, throwing a book into the stream, the Siegfried saga. His father comes along. The father is angry about it because he gave Fichte the Siegfried saga as a present last Christmas. But it turned out that Fichte, who had been a good student until then, became completely absorbed in the Siegfried saga and was now less inclined to study. He only needed to be made aware of his duty, and he would immediately say: “Duty must give way to everything.” And we can find the seven-year-old boy throwing the Siegfried saga, which has kept him from his duty, into the stream. The soul felt and sensed everything in the deepest, most intimate connection with this soul.

On a Sunday, a neighboring landowner came to the simple farming village where Fichte grew up. At that time, Fichte was a nine-year-old boy. The neighboring landowner had come to hear the sermon, but he was too late. The sermon was no longer being heard by the landowner. So they called for nine-year-old Fichte, because they knew how Fichte, even as a nine-year-old boy, knew how to connect what he heard with his soul. He came in his blue farmer's coat and repeated word for word the sermon he had just heard, with such inner fire that it was clear that every word he said had grown together with the innermost part of his soul. It was not just the soul of feeling or the soul of mind or consciousness that was at work, but the soul as a whole. In this sense, Fichte is – I would say – one of the most quintessentially German minds, but one that was also intimately connected with the whole mission, or rather, with the whole essence of German nationality.

I would say that one has to let one's gaze wander far and wide if one wants to characterize this essence of German nationality in just a few words.

Let us look across to Asia, where the Germans' relatives, their Aryan relatives, are to be found. There we find in these Aryan relatives the urge to find the divine and spiritual in the world. But everywhere we find this urge coupled with another: to tone down the self, to dampen it so that it feels extinguished in order to merge into the universe. The other pole has found expression in the German nature, in the German being's search for a world view. Do the Aryan relatives in Asia seek to pour themselves out into the universe and thus find a world picture by muting the ego, as they do in India, for example? The German, on the other hand, seeks to find within this ego that which pours the divine into this ego by elevating and strengthening, ensoulings and spiritualizing this ego within himself. So that it is not by being subdued, but by being elevated, by the elevated striving of the ego, that this ego is led up into that which, as the divine-spiritual, pulsates through, permeates and interweaves the world.

And so Fichte again confronted the human ego, the human self, with his whole being, in order to discover in the self the forces that give a world view. I would say that he does this not only by attempting to express through abstract theories and through all kinds of mere abstract ideas what a world view can constitute, but rather that it is his entire being, the totality of this being, through which he presents himself, whether to his students or to his people in general.

Someone who listened to him once said: When Fichte speaks publicly or even to his students, his speech rolls like a thunderstorm that breaks into individual fires. His imagination is not lush, but energetic; his images are not magnificent, but strong and powerful. And he reigns in the realm of ideas, so that it becomes apparent that he not only dwells in this invisible world of ideas, but can rule in it. But in this way of speaking, there was something in Fichte by which he tried to let his whole soul overwhelm his listeners. Therefore, a friend who knew him well could say: He sought not only to educate good people, but to educate great people. And he did not just seek to tell his listeners something, but he sought to make a living whole out of what he and his listeners together were.

Those people who prefer to just listen passively and accept what does not demand any thought of their own while listening would not have been particularly fond of Fichte, the quintessentially German mind. For example, he repeatedly did the following with his audience. He said: “Think about the wall!” And so the audience thought about the wall, tried to think about the wall. Of course they managed it quite well. — “So,” he said, “now try to think of the one who thinks the wall!” — Then you could see how many were stunned, how many were quite strangely affected. But by such an imposition, Fichte tried to reject the human being to that which wells up and overflows within himself. For he could not say like Cartesius: “I think, therefore I am,” but he regarded this I in its perpetual liveliness, in its perpetual arising. And only such an I did he allow, which continually generates itself, which has the power to arise anew in each moment, in each following moment. The will, the will prevailing in the I, became for him the fundamental power of the I. And in that the I grasps itself in the highest sense in its fundamental powers, it grasps the highest divine power, which weaves and undulates into the I.

For Descartes, the world view was such that he did not even admit souls in animals, but rather, to him, they were mechanisms, machines - the whole world a mechanism. Of course, Fichte also saw how the mechanical is present in the external physical world; but for him, this mechanical was not dismissed when it was observed. Rather, one could only find one's way into this mechanical if one found the divine-spiritual source of things, which, however, could only be found in the will nature of man.

And so for Fichte, the spiritual that permeates and flows through the world became, for Fichte, the moral order of the world - above a mechanical order of the world. The divine-spiritual appeared to him in the effect of duty, which pulsates into the human soul. And the mechanisms, the external products of nature, appeared to him in this way in relation to the whole of creation in his world view, as if the human being, who first and foremost wants to be morally active, makes individual machines for himself, in which he cannot ask to what extent they are moral, but which nevertheless serve the moral, the moral order of the human being. Thus, for Fichte, mechanical nature was only, as he says, the expression of the realization of duty, of the moral order of the world, that it was the sensitized material of duty. For Fichte, the mechanical nature is everywhere the world-moral world order, and everything that is not moral is there so that duty has tools to realize itself in the world. That is the power of the mind that prevailed in Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

Today, you don't have to take Fichte's point of view. You don't have to accept what he expressed as his opinion. But that is not the point at issue. The point is what can be gained by allowing oneself to be inspired, as it were, by the way that a thinker like Fichte approached the spiritual world and formed one of the worldviews of German idealism on that basis. Strengthening of the soul, but also development of the soul, can be gained by not engaging dogmatically, but humanly, with the kind of striving that appears in Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

Now we turn to his successor, the much-misunderstood Schelling. For him, external nature was not something soulless either. He could not stop at considering external nature only a sensualized material of the moral world order, but for him, external nature was a strengthened spirit. And the spirit was a nature endowed with soul. And in his world view, the two combined to form a whole. And the divine-spiritual that rules the world was for him the great artist who creates by bringing forth the world out of the divine-benevolent, because it is meant to stand as beauty in the face of the invisible spiritual. In this much-misunderstood Schelling, contemplation of spirit and contemplation of nature grow together in an intimate way. But in fact this man was a reflection of his whole personality, who in his old age still stood before his audience with sparkling eyes, from which, as if through the gaze of man, a deep contemplation of nature spoke naturally, a contemplation of nature that glowed with beauty. This man was such that we can say: he only represented the other side of German intellectual life, of the German national soul, so to speak. Fichte, too, could be said to represent something like the consciousness soul of the human being, but this consciousness soul is illuminated by the I. Schelling, too, represents something like the intellectual soul of the human being; but this intellectual soul is illuminated by the I, so that it has an effect on the human mind. Again, it is the exaltation, the strengthening of that which is always in the human soul that Schelling seeks. He goes so far as to make the following statement, which certainly cannot be substantiated: To know nature is to create nature. But this saying is still so fruitful that it should not be accepted as a dogma, but rather be recognized as coming from the soul of a man who wants to plunge with his whole soul into nature and seek the spirit in nature.

The third aspect of German national character is portrayed by the much-misunderstood Hegel. Only he presents this German folk-spirit with the greatest power. For him, that which reigns through the world as the Divine-Spiritual is thought everywhere. Man seeks thought. But man not only imagines thought, he draws thought out of all phenomena, because thought lives in everything. One may, of course, unreservedly acknowledge the one-sidedness. The spiritual-divine appears as a mere logician. The world recognizes Hegel as if it were only thought. Of course, one will never come to a different understanding of the world than to an understanding of the world as thought. But that is not the point; rather, the point is that one should be able to reflect, I would say, to reflect, in order to develop thought in such a fine way as Hegel developed it. And that is how he came to see, in terms of his world view, that we only know the world to the extent that we can recognize it as reasonable in all its aspects. Everything real is reasonable, and everything reasonable is real. You can scoff, but the sneer is cheap. You can even scoff at such passion and write it off, as Bergson does! But the sneer is cheap. That is not the point. The point is that this one-sidedness was bound to emerge from the very depths of German national character, because, by immersing himself in this pure, crystal-clear thought, which emerged through Hegel in the development of the spiritual being of humanity, because man thereby grows together in this pure thought with what, in turn, pulses and weaves through the world as pure thought. What matters is not the thoughts that Hegel produced, but the feeling that he associated with his thought life, this feeling: to know oneself as one with the divine thinking that permeates the world and that is reflected in the individual human soul. Everywhere it is the exaltation, the strengthening, the energizing of the self that is sought, in order to find, through this exaltation, energizing, strengthening of the self, that which can open up in the innermost part of the soul, can reveal itself as the most divine, which in the life of human beings, in the life of all beings, in the life of all nature, reveals itself.

These thoughts were too great, these aspirations were too comprehensive, which emerged from the three – I would say – most powerful world view personalities of the German people, to immediately gain a complete foothold. But they are there. And they should be considered not in so far as they said this or that, but in so far as the German essence can be recognized by the fact that such thoughts and feelings and possibilities of knowledge lay within it. Our intention cannot be to get to know Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, but to get to know the German essence in its revelations, in so far as they express this German essence. That is what matters.

Certainly, this world view of German Idealism, this tripartite world view, as I would call it, has passed its peak, the justified peak of the scientific world view. And so far, no one has been able to combine both, this scientific world view and this world view of German Idealism, in a living way. But they will become one. And it is my conviction that it is precisely through spiritual science that this becoming one can be made possible.

What does the Italian ask today — I mean, insofar as he grows out of his nationality, not as an individual — what does he ask, how does what he creates as a world view relate to religious feelings? What does the Frenchman ask about when he wants to develop a scientific world view? The Englishman asks more about it. But he asks about it in a peculiar way. We can study this with Darwin, but also with many others. This Darwin seeks a world view purely from the facts of the physical world. But he draws no conclusions from it. He allows to exist alongside the world view that is based only on convention, on external origin. And so we find that Darwin does not feel the need to somehow modify his convictions about spiritual matters by creating an external world view about the physical world - although, by immersing himself in German development, this does become a big, all-encompassing question. The German cannot see a mere mental image based on tradition alongside a natural image, because that would seem like a lie to him. And he would rather accept Haeckel's materialism than a British world view, which can place the most pious sentiments next to naturalism without motivation and without seeking a connection.

Therefore, we are witnessing such a tragic phenomenon, one that I would go so far as to call heartbreaking. Ernst Haeckel, who today, out of his German sensibilities, is vigorously turning against Britain, has become completely Germanized, and with stronger words than some others, because basically his entire world view is based on Huxley and Darwin. Anyone who can sense what can live in the human soul from the heights of a world view will see the tragedy in Haeckel's soul, the tragedy that is based purely on the fact that the German - Haeckel - could not, like Darwin, let a spiritual world view exist alongside a purely natural world because he strove for wholeness and did not have the strength, like Fichte, like Schelling, like Hegel, to get into the spirit, and therefore constructed a world view that was directed towards Darwinism, towards the contemplation of external nature.

But one should not think that what is now beginning to assert itself, where spiritual science begins, that what this spiritual science itself has to say, could basically be based on anything other than - I would say - the world view of German idealism. That is, so to speak, the root. And spiritual science will have to be its blossoms and fruits. In spiritual science, we speak of the fact that the human soul can be shaped in a certain way – and those of you who have listened to me here in the past year will know what these various methods there are for slowly freeing the soul, as it were, from the physical, from the bodily, so that it may, as it were, enter the spiritual world outside the body and truly see the spiritual world. We know that we really see the spiritual world when we undergo certain spiritual exercises in the soul. The spiritual researcher cannot conduct external experiments, but he conducts research in a higher, spiritual realm just as the natural scientist does. He brings his soul to the point where this soul can truly free itself from the tools of the body, and also from the thinking apparatus, and can face the spiritual phenomena of the world as a soul. Once these things are considered in a deeper sense, it will be found that what we call meditation and concentration of thought today, through which the soul attains liberation from physical existence, through which it recognizes within itself the eternal powers that pass through birth and death and remain present when man lays aside his physical body. It will be recognized that these exercises had their strongest beginning in the days when Fichte wanted to strengthen the will, Schelling the mind, and Hegel the thought; for it is essentially the strengthening of thinking, feeling, and willing that brings the soul to contemplate the eternal, whereby we also bring the soul to that objectivism by which it recognizes that it carries within itself an eternal essence, which has united with the physical body through birth, and which re-enters the spiritual world for other experiences of existence when the outer, physical body is discarded.

The world view of German idealism has not yet been able to lead to actual spiritual science, just as the root is not yet the flower and the fruit. But if one does not want to use materialism in its most real form to contemplate the spirit, where, for example, one uses external events, which can only exist in the sensual-physical world, to recognize the spirit, when one physical nature to recognize the spirit, but when one wants to recognize the spirit through the spirit, then one will find that one has the best guidance in what Fichte, Schelling, Hegel tried to do.

And when we speak today of the fact that man, completely absorbed in himself, is searching for the foundations of his soul, by having to live what we call meditation, and when we now turn our gaze again to the whole German national spirit, we cannot do so in that dreamy way, like the Asian-minded spirit, but in a lively way. Through the elevation and invigoration of the self, what Fichte, Schelling and Hegel sought has come about: a meditation of the whole German people, a striving for knowledge of the real spirit. And in this striving for knowledge of the real spirit, there really was a release of the soul from the body. And to prove this to you, I would like to read a few words from Schelling, where Schelling says:

“The soul in man is therefore not merely the principle of individuality, but that by which he rises above all selfhood, by which he becomes capable of the sacrifice of self, disinterested love, and, what is the highest, of the contemplation and knowledge of the essence of things.”

This liberation of the soul from the body is the goal of German idealism's world view. This world view is not a one-sided scientific one, it is not something that can be gained through an international science, but it is something by which the soul of man in all its powers, in its totality, makes itself inclined and suited to face the divine-spiritual of the world directly.

The depth of feeling cannot be conceived from this world view. And basically, something always weaves and lives in the deepest striving of the German for a world view of what Jakob Böhme expresses so beautifully:

"When you see the depth

he means the blue depth of the sky

“heaven and the stars and look at the earth,”

says Jakob Böhme

“See your God, and in the same you live and are also. And the same God reigns through you and also reigns you.” “You are created from this God and live in the same. Also, all your knowledge stands in this God, and when you die, you will be buried in this God.”

This is the depth that is inseparable from German thought, and that can be sought within the West on the paths that are indispensable for the further development of humanity, that which the Aryan Indian seeks on paths that can no longer be the paths of the present, that must be abandoned must be abandoned for the sake of the present, what is sought as an experience of the Divine-Spiritual permeating the world in a world picture that does not exclude sensuality, but which also encompasses the spirit and includes sensuality, indeed, which recognizes sensuality itself as a spiritual one.

Such is the world view, dear attendees, such is the world view of German Idealism, sought on new paths of life in the Divine-Spiritual, but not by a damping down of the I, of the self, but by an upward forcing, so that the I and that which, as Divine-Spiritual, pulsates through the world, can become one, that is, can experience each other in each other. And so this striving for a world view in German Idealism actually places itself in the context of the entire more recent historical development, insofar as it is spiritual, and knows: because it is about a world view that has been experienced, that is why the German is so difficult to understand. For one would have to be able to identify with his experience, one would have to seek in his totality that which he seeks as a totality, and which the others can only see as one-sidedness.

And if we now turn our gaze away from Western and Central Europe and look towards Eastern Europe, we find a people living there in large areas who, above all, are characterized by the fact that the soul has not yet emerged at all , neither to the sentient soul nor to the consciousness soul nor to the mind soul, that it also does not grasp what can be experienced in the I, but that it still longs and wants to see, quite like an external being, what pulses through the world as its essence. The Russian people are a very peculiar people. They are a very peculiar people because, unlike the peoples of the West, they do not have within themselves the source from which a world view can arise. The longing to receive a world view from outside lives in this Russian people, but at the same time there is an unwillingness to receive this world view from the West. That is why in modern Russian literature we repeatedly encounter the view that all Western and Central European culture is rotten and dead, and that only from the young Russian spiritual life can arise that world view which can redeem humanity. Again and again it comes to us. I would like to say: It comes to us in such a way that one sees the enormous arrogance that lies in regarding everything Western as something decrepit and wanting to start the world over, but with the awareness that one is starting with something better.

And so we see in Russian minds, for example in Herzen, as in his - one only has to read his writing “From the Other Bank” - as in his, to be sure, a precise knowledge - let us say, for example, of Hegel, also of the other German achievements in relation to an idealistic world view - as he explicitly says: With that, nothing is done. All of this is in the world. What he finds particularly unappealing about Hegel is that he claims that reality is reasonable. He claims that reality is fundamentally unreasonable and foolish; and that the Russian must first come to bring something reasonable to the world. For the other thing that is considered reasonable in Europe, he says, is decrepit and ripe for extinction. “From the other bank” is the title of his book, because, he says, all these minds: Hegel and the rest, have all stood on the other side of the river in a hustle and bustle that must disappear, that only deserves to be viewed from the other bank.

But on the other hand, one must say that at least this Russian national soul understood something at the end of the nineteenth century, understood it while at the same time connecting it with a tremendous arrogance. As it were, the Russian national soul looked out over the vast expanse of Asia and saw that something there was also ripe for destruction and needed to be fertilized by the West. But what was to fertilize was seen as the Russian element. And this is expressed very particularly in a book by Yushakov published in 1885. It is an interesting book, a very interesting book. Let us first consider the positive part, for it is interesting to let the world picture of German idealism take full effect on us. If you take it all in, you can say that through the way in which the German, in this idealism, seeks a world view, he creates in modern times that which Pan-Asianism created in primeval times, which found expression in Asia, but at an earlier stage of human development.

How does the Russian Yushakov see the matter? Well, of course, he first finds a Russian mission, Russianizing all over Asia. Then he says: Well, in Asia one has seen how, over the course of long periods of time, two spiritual forces have confronted each other, so to speak. And the ancient Iranians – he says, Yushakov – saw quite correctly these two opposing spiritual forces as Ahriman and Ormuzd, in the Iranians, Persians, Indians and so on – Ahriman and Ormuzd. In the Iranians, Ormuzd was the predominant influence. Ormuzd worked in such a way that man sought to bring forth from nature everything that could be turned to his benefit. Work with nature could have made man rich, if the earlier Asiatic spirit had not been condemned from the start, by its suppression of the ego, to a kind of dream existence, and not to a certain degree of elevation. But in a way these Iranians, under the leadership of Ormuzd, were happy. Then came the Turanian spirit under the leadership of Ahriman, which devastated everything. Yushakov says that the Russians are destined to restore the balance between Ormuzd and Ahriman in Asia, in the whole of Asia, because the whole of Asia must be flooded and churned up by the way in which order and harmony can be created between Ormuzd and Ahriman from Russian spiritual life. After all, what have the Europeans done in Asia so far? What have they done that must arouse the disgust of the Russians in particular, that must show the Russians how they must be different in everything they accomplish? What have these Europeans done? They have discovered over the centuries that under the stimulus of the Ormuzd force, the Asians produce many, many material goods. They set out to snatch from the Asians what they had acquired under the beneficent influence of Ormuzd – so the Russian says; the Russians must come and join forces with the Asians in Asia, not out of selfishness but out of love, and they must help the Asians to defeat Ahriman. And now he goes on to explain how Russia has the task of liberating the Asians from Ahriman through selfless devotion to and coexistence with the Asian peoples; while the Europeans have so far only taken from them what they had acquired under the beneficent Ormuzd.

And it is quite characteristic of the Russian Yushakov to find in which European nation he can identify the one that has primarily stolen the Ormuzd goods from the Asians, and in which European nation he believes that it must be thoroughly and energetically opposed by the Russians. Yushakov calls the thieves of the Ormuzd culture of Asia the English, namely! I think that this is particularly interesting today, in our time, because we will find a remarkable connection in this alliance between Russianness and Englishness. In 1885, as I said, Yushakov wrote in his book “The Anglo-Russian Conflict”: “Ah, these poor Asian peoples, what they have become through the English!” These English have treated these poor Asian peoples as if these Asian peoples were there for no

“to clothe themselves in English cloth, fight with English weapons, work with English tools, eat out of English vessels, and play with English baubles.”

And further he says:

"England exploits millions of Hindus, but its very existence depends on the obedience of the various peoples inhabiting the rich peninsula; I do not wish anything similar for my fatherland - I can only rejoice that it is sufficiently far removed from this state of affairs, which is as glorious as it is sad.

Now, esteemed attendees, I would like to say that the Russian world view is still in the future, and that this has a truly irrepressible nature alongside, I would say, absolute passivity. This is where all the grotesque contradictions that confront us when we engage with this Russian world view come from. And yet, again and again in the course of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, we are confronted with the fact that what we have been able to characterize, and what we needed to characterize, of the outstanding Russian minds, really by stating the facts - and I have actually only tried to present facts in order to characterize the idealistic world view of the Germans - that this idealistic world view is presented as something decrepit, as something that must be overgrown by that which emanates from Russia. And especially at the end of the nineteenth century, it is not only the legacy of Peter the Great in the political sphere - anyone who takes my writing in hand, “Thoughts During the Time of War,” will see how this conviction lived in the most outstanding Russian minds, that Russianism must expand towards the West.

They soon abandoned the Pan-Asian dream and the European dream arose from the belief that the aging Western and Central European culture would have to experience salvation after the Russians conquered Constantinople, destroyed Austria, destroyed Germany and so on. Only deeply insightful Russians themselves were able to see through what this was actually about. And I cannot refrain from quoting what a reasonable Russian, Solowjow, said about this arrogance of the Russians from his Russian point of view. Solowjow wants to refute such a spirit, the Danilewski, who has so rightly pointed out how Europeanism must be eradicated root and branch and replaced by the Russian. And Solowjow replies. Danilewski has in fact brought to light the saying

“Why does Europe not love us?”

And Solowjow answers.

“Europe,”

says Danilewski,

“is afraid of us as the new and higher type of civilization, which is called upon to replace the decrepitude of the Romance-Germanic civilization.”

“Nevertheless,”

writes Solowjow,

“both the content of Danilevsky's book and his later admissions, as well as those of his like-minded friend,”

Soloviev means Strakhov,

“point to a different answer.”

And now Solowjow gives his answer from what he calls the Russian soul:

“Europe looks at us with hostility,”

says Solowjow,

"and with apprehension, because dark and unclear elemental forces live in the Russian people, because its spiritual and cultural forces are poor and insufficient, but its demands are clearly and sharply defined. The calls for what the Russian people want as a nation resound powerfully out into Europe: that it wants to destroy Turkey and Austria, conquer Germany, conquer Constantinople and, if possible, also India. And when we are asked how we intend to make humanity happy after all the destruction and ruin we have wrought, what spiritual and cultural rejuvenation we will bring to world development, then we either have to remain silent or spout meaningless phrases. And if Danilevsky's bitter confession is true, that Russia is beginning to fall ill, then instead of dealing with the question “Why doesn't Europe love us?” we would have to deal with a different, more important question that is closer to us: “Why and how did we get sick?”

And now Solowjow answers the question of why Russia is sick. And from the answer he gives, I think you can see, dear attendees, that he thinks differently about how to cure this disease than those who are now leading Russia against Europe, who believe that sick Russia should be cured by stamping the corroded culture of Central Europe into the ground. But Solowjow says:

"Physically, Russia is still quite strong, as it showed in the last Russian war.

That was the war in the 1870s.

"So our suffering is a moral one. According to the words of an old writer, we are burdened by the sins hidden in the national character and not conscious of them - and so it is above all necessary to bring these into the light of clear consciousness. As long as we are spiritually bound and paralyzed, all our elementary instincts can only harm us. The essential, indeed the only essential question for true patriotism is not the question of power and vocation, but of Russia's sins.

And Solowjow himself tried to absorb as much as possible of Western European and especially Central European culture into his thinking. And to combine it with what the Russian people have as a result of their Orthodox faith. That is precisely what makes Solowjow great.

But he also became important for another reason. We have seen the revival – I would like to say, already in Central Europe, of the great period of German Idealism, which initially fell into a kind of dream but did not live on any less because of it. We have also seen a revival of intellectual Slavophilism there, which has now become a kind of intellectual Pan-Slavism. They tried to justify, almost with scientific ideological arguments, that the Russian spirit must come over Europe. Solowjow took a look at that, really immersed himself in the works of those who wanted to be completely original by showing the essence of the Russian world view, how it must come over Europe. And what did Solowjow find? Very strangely, he found only Western European ideas everywhere, and not exactly the best ones, those Western European ideas that are derived from the great ideas of the world view of German idealism as minor ideas. These have become interwoven, and from them they have justified their spiritual Slavophilism.

It is a very characteristic phenomenon, very characteristic in that what must happen in reality does happen, that the forces that come from the world-historical mission of the German people must work, that they are needed within the world views of the other nations.

That is what I have tried to put before you today, ladies and gentlemen, that this world view of German idealism, which lives within the German nation and which is destined to bring forth greater and greater things for the whole of humanity from the German nation in the development of the world Germanic people. One need only look at this world view of German idealism objectively, and not, as our enemies are doing, try to justify their actions and hatred of what the Germans have achieved in the intellectual field. Of course, the German could never help but look objectively at how the intellectual achievements of other nations compare with those of the Germans. The German always has that which he calls his Germanness more in mind as a duty, while the other nations really do not understand what the German actually means by his national principle.

Carneri, an important or perhaps even the most important Austrian philosopher of the nineteenth century, Carneri – the wonderful man who, from an ailing body, also tried to grasp world-view ideas on the basis of Darwinism but built pure, noble, ethical thoughts on the basis of this Darwinism, the German deepened this Darwinism – Carneri now also delves into a consideration of the different national souls of the European peoples. And with such a mind, which speaks not out of passion but out of knowledge, one can already see that what spiritual science creates out of its knowledge about the different national souls has already been instinctively recognized.

What has emerged in English pragmatism as a concept of truth is that one should actually only use the truth in order to find one's way in the world. Carneri says, not yet using the word “pragmatism”, which was only coined very recently: the English are certainly very often ahead: they are practical, practical. They can apply their practicality to anything they can think of, create and invent. But they are so practical that their practicality has even led them – Carneri says this, as I said, from a deep insight – to the fact that the insight that they produced the greatest playwright of all time, Shakespeare, had to be taught to them by the Germans. That is absolutely the case. For whoever has to write the history of the recognition of Shakespeare will have to write a chapter of the history of German intellectual life, not English intellectual life. Shakespeare was only recognized from the depths of the idealistic German world view. And Shakespeare is actually homeless in today's England.

We do not need to talk in the way that French philosophers or Englishmen talk about German nature today. We can simply point to that which is. But in pointing to it, we are aware that it is the force that must work, must work when the great world conflict has been decided, which now presents humanity with the greatest task that has ever been set. Ladies and gentlemen, the weapons, the circumstances, will decide what happens next, not the word. But there is also something to be decided that will only be decided slowly and gradually: that is the full penetration of the German spirit into the overall development of humanity. And certainly, it is not for me in this reflection to point out the more detailed cause of the war or the like. But the consciousness that must live in us in this time is certainly connected with what we can call: a sinking into the own essence of the German people and that which must continue to live and work in the German people, and in which we must trust.

What is the external situation like? Yes, actually in a most peculiar way. It is remarkable that this thought is so rarely expressed – not by us, but by our enemies. Do these enemies really need to hate the German character so much? If one may put the question in this way, does the German character take up so much of the earth's surface? The figures also answer this question: the Entente Powers possess 68 million square kilometers of the earth; the Central European Powers, on the other hand, possess 6 million square kilometers! 68 million square kilometers against 6 million square kilometers. The Central European powers have 150 million inhabitants; the Entente powers 777 million! One should also reflect on this outside the borders of Central Europe, and consider what it means in the face of this fact that 777 million people are standing against 150 million people and do not want to defeat them in open battle, but want to starve them out by surrounding them. That is the better part of valor! But to draw attention to such things so readily - it is understandable that one does not love that, and that one can love in contrast the suspicions and slanders of what the Germans have not only achieved intellectually, but are, because what has been achieved can show it to anyone who wants to see it.

Admittedly, it is easier to become discouraged when considering the German character as a Frenchman, for example, who finds – and has also told his Parisians – that a Frenchman, the same Frenchman, incidentally, who first spoke of the deep friendship between the German character and the Frenchman, who was the first to speak of the deep friendship between the German and the French character here in Germany when he traveled around: “He says that you can see from some phenomena of the German language, for example, how the Germans cannot have the nobler side of the human ideal in their world view because they do not have words for it. For example, the Germans have no word for 'generosity'; so they don't have this beautiful quality at all. The French, on the other hand, have no word for 'gloating', which the Germans often use: 'Schadenfreude haben'. So the Germans have gloating in their world view, the French have generosity!

One day, esteemed attendees, it will be recognized that there is much to whitewash and dream away, because one cannot place oneself in relation to this Central European intellectual culture today, that if one places oneself as one should place oneself, one could still appear to some extent as a person justified before himself. If you want to characterize the Germans from abroad today, you need something other than objectivity and truth. Another Frenchman, Ernest Renan, did indeed once manage –- even during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 –- to say: when he became acquainted with German literature and German intellectual life in the time of Herder and Goethe, it was as if he had entered a temple. And what he had known before seemed to him to be no more than worn scraps of paper compared to the inner gold value, compared to what German intellectual life has produced as a world view at the time of its highest idealism. But the same Frenchman, he now decides, his Frenchmen at the same time to establish such a relationship in Europe that it corresponds to the value of the German essence that he himself has acknowledged? No, says Ernest Renan, who says that what the rest of European humanity has achieved in comparison to German intellectual life is like elementary mathematics in comparison to the differential calculus. He says:

"This is a solemn hour. In France, there are two schools of thought. The first judges thus: “Let us put an end to this hateful trade as quickly as possible; let us give up everything, Alsace, Lorraine; let us sign the peace; but then, hatred to the death, preparations without rest, alliance with whomever it suits, unlimited concessions to all Russian pretensions; a single goal, a single driving force for life: extermination against the Germanic race.

This trend has triumphed in France. Nothing else can be said, except that this trend has triumphed in France. But if one has an idea of what one actually wants to destroy, if one swears destruction on the Germanic race - one actually means only the German people - then one must not admit it to oneself. And these individual nations must not admit it to themselves at all. They dare not even think about what might live in the German national character as the soul of this national character, out of which, for example, the high point of the German world view of idealism arose. They dare not admit it to themselves. Therefore, they have to whitewash it with something else. And with what? For example, Russia has to whitewash it with a mission - of course with the mission of rejuvenating Europe. One of their newer poets once characterized the French, his own French, by pointing out how the cockerel that crows in the morning when the sun rises becomes aware that there is a connection between his crowing and the rising of the sun. He imagines: if I don't crow, the sun cannot rise.

Of course, dear attendees, the tragedy of the present French people should not be in the slightest diminished by this; because it is not about the misled people at all. For those who have in fact led this “led people astray”, who can already be compared to the crowing cock, who believe that if they do not crow the sun will not rise - for there are leading French minds who hold this view: that nothing can happen in the world unless they crow to it – for this, Frenchness needs a new fantasy image from time to time. And it is from such a fantasy image that those who, in such a desolate way, especially in Paris, such as Bergson or Boutroux, want to so disparage the German essence in what is its soul.

The English – yes, these English, one does not want to do them wrong. Do the Russians need a new mission, the French a new fantasy image of their own greatness in the world – they have always needed that, and they have only ever forgotten that they had to be pushed back so that the others would also have some space – yes, what do the English need? One would not want to be harsh; one would want to be fair to the enemy. But when you hear the enlightened minds over there saying that the English only went to war because they, with their fine sense of morality, could not reconcile the fact that the unfortunate Belgian people had been invaded – because they are enthusiastic about the fact that small nations can live out freedom and independence – when you look at how strangely these Englishmen have taken on the freedom of these small nations, yes, and then hear how the enlightened minds over there keep declaiming: “For freedom” and against “unfreedom” England had to go to war, because the Germans, they are completely imbued with the saying - an outstanding English politician said that recently — the Germans are completely imbued with the saying: “might is right”; he forgot, the poor — clever man, I mean to say — that this saying was first made by Thomas Hobbes, the Englishman, yes, even advocated as an entire philosophy, that this saying is deeply anchored in the whole world view of English naturalism. Yes, if one wants to be objective, dear attendees, one cannot say otherwise: the English need a new lie to conceal the truth and justify themselves to the world. There is simply no other way than to say that this must be the verdict of history, at least with regard to the behavior of the speaking people during the war.

The Italians – they need something to whitewash what is really there. They are the people of the sentient soul. Before the war, before the world war, an outstanding Italian politician confessed to me – because one did not need to be naive before the world war, believing that when the world war came, Italy would be on the side of the medium-sized powers, right? – an outstanding Italian politician confessed to me at the time: When the world war comes, Italy will have to take part. Yes, but why? “It simply has to take part,” he said, “because the Italian people are lazy, they are depraved. If they are allowed to continue living like this for much longer,” he said, “they will become completely depraved. They need to feel something properly again” - that's where we have the sentient soul - “they need to have a feeling, a sensation.” I am not saying that this is the only cause of war. The Russian needs a new mission, since the Pan-Asian one has been extinguished; the Englishman needs a new lie; the Frenchman needs a new fantasy; the Italian needs a new sensation in – yes, in the form of a new saint, because it must first be possible to grasp it with the sentient soul: holy egoism was invented in Italy, holy egoism. In the name of holy egoism, we have been told over and over again, Italy went to war. A new saint, a new saint who is fully worthy of his great representative d'Annunzio. D'Annunzio, the priest of holy egoism – a sensation, as if made for the inner pages of the sentimental soul character!

I do not think we need to fall back on the mistakes of our enemies when we think about what is at the heart of the German people and their tendency towards a particular world view. We only need to look at what we have found to be great, significant and effective in this German people, in the folklore of Central Europe. In this respect, the Germans of Austria and the Germans of Germany are one and the same. Today they feel completely at one. The concept of Mitteleuropa must not only become a reality in an economic sense, but also in a spiritual sense. This can be said in particular by someone who, like me, lived in Austria for thirty years.

And when we look, esteemed attendees, at what appears to us as the innermost – I may say – spiritual essence, as the spiritual essence of German nationality, we must say: this essence is not directly something that can only be grasped in terms of concepts and ideas. It is something that is experienced at the center, at the core of the German soul. The German soul must remain, which can only flourish if the German soul can carry it alive from the present into the future. History will be able to show this, the actual course of the history of the Germans and Germanness, of all humanity on earth, that there is something in this German nation that has only just taken root and put forth leaves, and that carries within itself the strength to become blossoms and fruit.

But we Germans can doubt the arrogance of other peoples without being unjust to other peoples. Especially in the present difficult times, but also in the great and promising times to come, we can realize how we can feel German precisely when we also permeate ourselves with its highest development, with its spiritual life, how we can then believe: Yes, this spiritual life shows itself to us in its roots and in its leaves in such a way that we can have the deepest faith and trust in the blossoms and fruits to be borne. And so, precisely from this point of view, by keeping in mind the numbers 777 million people against 150 million people, 68 million square kilometers against 6 million square kilometers, we should never allow ourselves to be distracted from the fact that our German past presents itself to us in such a way that it guarantees our German future by its own strength, precisely by its spiritual strength, and we should never never allow ourselves to be dissuaded from the fact that our German past presents itself to us as being guaranteed by its own strength, and especially by its intellectual strength, for our German future, to which we want to fully embrace not only out of mere instinct and feeling, but also out of bright insight.

Morning Session:

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, opens the meeting at 9 a.m. Mr. Wilhelm Goyert, Cologne, Mr. Wilh. Salewski, Düsseldorf, Miss Maria Hachez, Stuttgart, Mr. Fritz and Mrs. Ilse Wittenstein, Barmen, Miss Toni Förster, Cologne, Mr. Andreas Grunelius, Freiburg, Miss Erika Linke, Stuttgart, Mrs. Marie Wundt, Düsseldorf, propose the following motion for the agenda:

Agenda

Some members and delegates of the Anthroposophical Society are convinced that the path taken so far offers no possibility of reaching an understanding and overcoming the crisis. The discussion on the first evening showed that there is no general point of view from which a discussion could be fruitful. Even in the leadership, there was a difference of opinion. Mr. Leinhas pointed out that the expected overall report should provide “an orientation”. Mr. Kolisko, on the other hand, understood his report as something that should enable a general discussion, a description of local conditions, and was astonished that the discussion was getting out of hand. It is not possible for the delegates' meeting to continue on this basis.

First of all, the assembly should be presented with the issues on which we all agree and towards which we are all striving: the anthroposophical ideal. The lady from Dresden and Pastor Rittelmeyer tried to do this. This was not taken up by the leadership and did not find fertile ground among the assembled. The call was not designed to create such a situation.

Even if some points are rejected, an attempt could still be made to present the appeal as providing direction for the discussion. But it would have to be read backwards, so to speak. Then the following points would emerge, which could lead to clarification in an organically determined way:

1. Setting out the anthroposophical ideal.
2. Explanation of the basis for communication from person to person in the sense of the Anthroposophical Society. This would lead to
3. A new relationship with Dr. Steiner.
4. Attitude towards the opposition.
5. Statement on the existing institutions, etc.

We believe that this approach is more likely to lead to a general understanding and we request that the leadership of the Assembly of Delegates read this as “agenda” for the meeting.

The motion is put forward for discussion.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Dr. Kolisko was justified in saying that the meeting did not produce what he had expected after his lecture. The main reason for this, however, is that many friends were not sufficiently aware of the catastrophic situation in society, due to the way the call was formulated and the lecture itself. In the youth movement there was close contact with the Stuttgart office, and in these circles people were informed about the situation. Yesterday afternoon, for example, we had a really fruitful meeting in the Hochschulbund, where we were able to speak positively. The Stuttgart headquarters no longer had any lively connection with the branches. — Out of a sense of routine, the Stuttgart headquarters developed an outward-looking approach that led to unsuccessful events in many places. The anthroposophical impulses were brought to the outside world in such a way that they were met with resistance everywhere. These matters were handled in such a bureaucratic way, as in the military. We have made many enemies as a result, and have certainly not gained any connections with the outside world. On the other hand, in Stuttgart people rightly miss all kinds of branch life. This life has declined more and more, a kind of slumber has set in in many cases, or the evenings have been kept simple in the traditional way. The branches themselves are to blame for this. If in recent years someone who, through studying Dr. Steiner's works, had formed a certain idea of what the Anthroposophical Society should be like, joined such a branch, they often experienced a severe shock that made them want to leave again, or at least stay away from the evenings. It was recognized that the Anthroposophical Society had fallen behind what Dr. Steiner had given, especially in the development of humanity. The golden rule from the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” has been ignored: “When you make a step forward in the knowledge of secret truths, then make three steps forward at the same time in the perfection of your character for the better."

But in many cases, ordinary social morality has been lacking in the branches; the new members were not even introduced to the old members, they had to sit there like strangers. We would have to take it seriously, to strive for the development of the inner human being in an anthroposophical sense, then we would also find the connection with people on the outside. The outside world would have to say, we like the people who represent Anthroposophy.

Above all, however, we here on both sides must now say to each other: Oh well, enmity, quarrels or resentment, that does not exist, we must stand together. If the call and the introductory lecture have already been carried out in such a way that contact with the assembled has not been established, we delegates must try to criticize in all love and show the people of Stuttgart: This is how you can reconnect with us. It is true that the Stuttgart members are in absolute isolation; of course it is a splendid isolation (laughter and strong applause), but they cannot get out of it on their own. And when one knows how hard they have worked in Stuttgart in recent weeks to get out of this catastrophic situation, one must wholeheartedly say: We want to help these people to get out of this isolation. It will work if they express themselves in such a way that they are carried by the consciousness of striving for an anthroposophical humanity.

Mr. Alfred Reebstein, Karlsruhe, wishes to speak from the same feeling as the previous speaker. He asks for a judgment to be made on the issues at hand. Dr. Steiner had to say at the congress: I have often spoken, but people have not listened. Many would better see the seriousness and terrible implications if it were announced what Dr. Steiner said about these things in the two lectures here.

Mr. Alfred Überhahm, Breslau: We need guidelines for the Society to work on. Dr. Steiner gave two four-line sayings as a cosmic cultic act. This has not been put into practice. The speaker proposes that these words may be spoken in the branches.

Mr. Leinhas hands over the chair to Dr. Palmer.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart: One can only agree with what Dr. Büchenbacher said. The participants were not satisfied with yesterday's general discussion. We are already obliged not only to criticize, but to take action ourselves and make things better.

Mr. Leinhas suggests dropping the motions because there will be opportunities to speak on the individual topics during the discussion. He asks to tie in with Dr. Kolisko's presentation because everyone is concerned. He reminds us of the importance of our cause. He then asks not to hold back with criticism. He says that the Central Executive Committee is being made out to be a bogeyman, a laughing stock. Criticism should be directed at this. It need not be unfruitful if everyone is filled with a holy zeal for the cause. It should be added what should have been done and how it can continue.

Mr. Albert Steffen, Dornach: It is not my intention to be critical here, because I am convinced that this self-destruction is of no use at all. We have known about these things for a long time and should now start to speak more positively. I believe that, above all, it should be said that anthroposophy as such should give our society its configuration, that is, that which Dr. Steiner gives us out of the spiritual should be translated into the real. First of all, it should be said that this anthroposophy has freedom as its basis. It demands of each individual that he seek the impulses for his moral action in his own I. It demands, then, an ethical individualism. “Act so that you are sufficient unto yourself, that you have love for the idea, then it will be possible for the whole to be in harmony!”

The first fundamental requirement of our society is that the individual is a personality and, as such, says “Yes” to himself; as such, has confidence in himself. If he searches within himself, finds creativity and applies this creativity, then the whole of our society will also become more consolidated. — A multitude of creative personalities is necessary first.

It was said at the beginning that our society suffers from the fact that there are so many individualities that do not go together. But if these individualities think, feel and act in accordance with freedom, a whole will come about. We need original people among us, but they must not be mere originals, village or town originals, two-part originals, or a kind of domestic fool. The only way to prevent them from becoming such is for them to absorb anthroposophy as a whole.

Yesterday, a lady said in a very heartfelt way that anthroposophy is a human being. It is a human being and it is the greatest human being. It is a spiritual-soul entity, and we have to absorb this within us so that we do not become loners as personalities. But we can only do this by making the attempt to truly penetrate into the spiritual and soul life, into the supersensible. And in my opinion, the only way to do this is through the exercises, mainly the exercises found in the book 'How to Know Higher Worlds'. This practice, in order to truly penetrate into the spiritual and soul, is the second basic condition of our society. Without it, inner consolidation is not possible at all, and even less so an external one. Above all, this must be demanded of the leading personalities among us.

For example, you all know that Goethe and Schiller were actually natures that were opposed to each other. They were unsympathetic to each other during a certain period of their lives. And the moment when they actually became friends occurred at that meeting of naturalists where Schiller began to talk to Goethe about the primal plant, where Schiller thus began to comprehend the spiritual soul life of the plant. At that moment, Goethe became his friend, and from that point on, the process began that would lead to the tremendous epoch. What Goethe found in the soul and spirit of the primal plant can be found much more easily through the exercises that Dr. Steiner has given us about the plant world. Just imagine if such exercises were carried out in one of our institutes: it would inevitably lead to the people working there becoming friends, to them becoming creative, to what they bring to light radiating out from them into the whole of culture. Nothing radiates from our universities, our lecture halls and laboratories, for example, because the spiritual and soul life is not grasped there among the professors, the lecturers and the students. In those organizations, the connection is found by having an exam ahead of you, that is, through a certain fear. That cannot be the case with us. The only motivation for us can be to seek to penetrate into the spiritual-soul, into the supersensible, as it is presented, for example, in the introductions to Goethe's scientific writings. Dr. Steiner has given such exercises for physicists, for chemists, for physicians, for sociologists, but also for human beings as such. One imagines that in our branches, too, people would really think in a lively way, which is the first exercise; this branch life would flare up again. It cannot flare up in any other way than precisely in this way. At the moment when a person who really brings something from the supersensible world speaks to us, we are a society that has a real life again. You will experience the proof when Dr. Steiner speaks himself. Then all these disputes will disappear and we will feel united among ourselves again. But for that to happen, everyone, especially every leader, would have to become a true disciple of Dr. Steiner in this respect. Or consider, for example, how and why eurythmy has flourished. But only because Dr. Steiner grasped the word as such in such a spiritually appropriate way. That is how one lives eurythmy. That is how it brings this impulse of beauty into our culture. Or think of the Waldorf School, which is to be taken quite positively. What distinguishes the Waldorf School from other schools? That the teachers there have worked something of the spiritual and soul within themselves; that a Waldorf school spirit could arise from this. All of this is very much appreciated.

When I traveled here from Dornach, I was actually very much looking forward to Stuttgart because I knew that I would find important people here. I knew that I would be enriched as a human being and as a poet through them. I was certain that I would find an important philologist here, an important historian, an important scholar of mythology, etc. And I took a notebook with me to take something home. I wanted to enrich myself. By chance, I picked up a notebook that was old, that contained a small diary that I kept before the war, four weeks before the war, when I myself worked on the construction, in which I recorded my great love for the construction, my enthusiasm for carving. I wrote a sentence: It is evening, I am very tired, can hardly move my hand. Then I look at the building again and I feel refreshed. Or I describe how I looked at the building and then went out into the quiet night and felt the stars in a completely new way. This building was a living organism for me. It was what anthroposophy should be for us, namely a spiritual-soul human being to an even greater extent. It was a being. Dr. Steiner once said to me: The building wants to hear something new, it wants lectures in which truly creative people speak. All of us in Dornach felt this building as a being, and we felt its burning down as the loss of a being.

Here, esteemed attendees, I have once again come from Stuttgart _ without actually wanting to _ to one that also seems important to me because it is important not only for Germany but for the whole world. I have the feeling that one should look further, beyond Germany, one should note that the anthroposophical cause has become an international one. We receive letters from Russia. Eminent people come from there to Dornach and tell us what is happening in Moscow, how they are working there, how they are trying to make an impact there. We receive letters from England, from Australia. An Anthroposophical Society has even been formed in New Zealand, which is joining the Dornach Society. All this is tremendously important. Therefore, the German Society, on which so much depends, must now be positive. The consolidation of the Society as a whole depends first and foremost on Germany. If we do not become a strong Society in Germany, the reconstruction of the Goetheanum is endangered; because it makes no sense to have a building if you have no Society.

It has been said that this building will not be so beautiful. Dr. Steiner will carry out this building; it will be a work of his hands and we will love it even if it is not so beautiful. I do not believe that at all. It will be different; in my opinion it will be more fortified against the outside world. It will not be made of wood but of concrete. It will have a stone armor. It will perhaps be more reminiscent of something that could be seen in the catacombs, spiritually and soulfully. It will be a castle. And I would like to end what I have said by asking you to carry this image within you. I believe that if you have this image of this armored structure, then you will also arm yourself. You will become strong. You will be able to repel the enemies. Then, what Dr. Steiner once said, will not matter at all, no matter what these enemies are, we will be armored. And if these enemies come against us with cannons, as Dr. Steiner said, we can be indifferent —- if we only have spirit in us and with it the right to exist! The gods will not abandon us.

Mr. Leinhas resumes the chair: Mr. Steffen has shown that it is possible to speak to the point.

Mrs. Gertrud Müller-Thalwitzer, Königsberg, speaks about the work in eastern Germany and suggests that branches that are close to each other geographically organize themselves together, for example, Danzig and Königsberg. One could also expect something from annual “regional conferences” of individual parts of Germany, since the individual regions of Germany are quite different. Dr. Steiner's cycles, especially the older ones, are often no longer available; making it easier to borrow for branch work would be a welcome task. Then something should be created to secure the material situation of the branches or branch offices; this is particularly important in view of the subversive work of opponents, which could cost some people their livelihoods today simply because they are anthroposophists. It would therefore also be a task to promote a spirit of helpfulness among the members.

She suggested setting up a “main relief fund” for members of the Society in need.

Rudolf Steiner: I do not really want to intervene positively, because I am convinced that in these days what is to happen must arise from the midst of the Anthroposophical Society itself and that, as far as I am concerned, it can only be a matter of a few suggestions, which I could also put forward later. What has prompted me to intervene in the discussion at this particular moment is this: perhaps I can draw attention to some points that would help to make the discussion fruitful. From various comments made in the discussion, it has become clear that our friends are not sufficiently informed about the reason why we have actually come together this time. This could be heard in the discussions, but also in the way that it necessarily had to be spoken. Therefore, I would like to save the positive things I have to say until later, by basing the two lectures I will give on this topic. Tomorrow I will speak about the conditions for community building in an anthroposophical society, and will thus deal in particular with the suggestions that Dr. Rittelmeyer and others have made. The second lecture will also be based on a topic that will arise from further discussion. But I would like to point out that our current meeting can only be fruitful if, on the basis of the realization of imperfections – which are admitted, of course – we move on to a positive development. Therefore, I would also like to suggest, in particular for the discussion of the papers in the next few hours and evenings, to mention some negative aspects, but ones that are intended to lead to something positive.

What has made the work in the Anthroposophical Society so difficult since 1918 has, I believe, been aptly brought out in the discussion, and many a word spoken by Dr. Büchenbacher, for example, could find a profound echo. I would like to take up some of the words that have already been spoken, for example the word that I also use frequently: the isolation caused by the Stuttgart system.

In 1918, under the circumstances you are aware of, the “Federation for the Tripartite Division of the Social Organism” was founded. At its founding, it could well be seen as something that had to be formed out of the intentions of the Anthroposophical Society, in line with the conditions of the time. But initially, within the overall framework of the Anthroposophical Society, work for this Threefolding League was carried out with — if I may put it this way — the apparatus, with the bureaucratic apparatus that has been set up here in Stuttgart for the Threefolding League. After all, what else could one do? But then the following happened: I came here one day and found out that a circular had been sent out a few weeks earlier, in which an appeal had been included to found the “Coming Day”. What had happened back then was a tact error, a tremendous tact error, which had to contribute to what was described earlier: One received a shock when one entered the Anthroposophical Society in 1918/19. And I simply had to point out: the two things must not be confused with each other! For what were the young members to think when they were still dealing with our idealistic things and then received the call to found the “Day to Come”? I therefore had to refuse in the strongest possible terms that such things should happen. I asked the leadership of the “Federation for Threefolding” how this had come about, and they explained to me at the time that it had happened because they only wanted to use one envelope for both. But otherwise they are not so careful about it! For in these hard times of foreign currency, I was recently given an envelope with the comment that something like that should be taken badly: an envelope with which someone received a credit note for 21 marks and which was stamped with 150 marks. It goes without saying that such thoughtlessness would not flourish on a healthy social foundation. I also made further inquiries about these matters to the leaders of the federation and learned that they knew nothing about the whole matter. So I was faced with a democracy that literally led to confusion and could not help myself but to lash out, so to speak, and say: I'm not going to take any more of this! This led to a kind of regeneration of the Federation for Threefolding - according to the personalities, but not in spirit - because what was done then was undertaken out of the same spirit.

I mention this because it shows how the things that were done here out of the intentions of the Anthroposophical Society went awry. That is why I expected that after Dr. Kolisko's lecture someone would stand up and say: We would like to hear from those who are involved in the Stuttgart system, so that they can tell us what they have to say about it! Then further discussion would have been possible. — As things have been since 1918, I was forced to work with the Stuttgart organization — because I could not ignore it once it was there. And the Stuttgart organization isolated itself more and more. But what was the result? Since I could not disavow the Stuttgart system, the result was that I was also isolated. Therefore, in the fall of 1922, I had to talk to Mr. Uehli on December 10th and discuss with the members of the central Committee how things could be different, and that if I came back to Stuttgart, the prominent leaders of the movement would talk to me about how things could be different; otherwise I would be forced to address the members of the Society directly, bypassing the organization, to make things different. — We have been asked to speak “fresh from the liver”, so I will start with that.

The isolation was almost systematic. In September 1921, a congress took place, during which a kind of assembly of the Anthroposophical Society also took place. A central board was formed there; it initially published the content of what had been discussed at the time in a 'newsletter'. From then on, the members could, in a sense, ask: Where is the central board? Because the last newsletter came out at New Year 1923, and until then the central board had never let the members receive anything of what I myself had said. So I was deprived of the opportunity to contact the Society myself. So I was isolated in the best sense of the word. I would like to ask the question – I know the answer, but here at the delegates' meeting this question must be asked: What did the Central Board do between the two bulletins of 1921 and 1923?

I am mentioning these things now because they must become the subject of the special debate. The points of the special debate have been announced; but it can only be fruitful if these things are actually answered. Because it will be possible to see from this how things have gone in the past and how they will not be able to go in the future. We must draw conclusions from what has happened in the past for our work in the future.

I would now like to point out something else that can lead us to a broader horizon. The tasks that the Anthroposophical Society has received have become ever greater. It was the duty of the leadership to grow with these tasks. To do this, it was necessary to take a keen interest in the tasks. Therefore, I would like to sketch out very briefly, because this must be incorporated into the specialist debate, that above all, from everything it does in the present, such a society as the Anthroposophical Society incurs the strictest obligations for the future. The opponents are attacking it simply because the Anthroposophical Society exists. It is not possible to do everything at once, but a start must be made. In Stuttgart things were so that we were constantly making programs and then no longer took care of them. One example is the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life). Without the will to carry it out — and this will is what matters — nothing can come to fruition in the Anthroposophical Society. We have founded the Waldorf School and educate students using the forces that arise from anthroposophy, with a pedagogy and didactics given by anthroposophy. The benefits of this can be felt even by the youngest pupils at the Waldorf School. But long before the Stuttgart system came into being, I repeatedly had to emphasize something that seemed painful to me. I had to say: When we have trained someone in this or that field, they then have to enter the world, which we are negating. Thus much of what we do is condemned to sterility from the outset. It goes without saying that someone who has been trained in our midst according to our principles comes into what used to be called “the outside world”, where he encounters conditions in which he cannot apply any of what he has achieved in our midst. Hence the great concern arises: How do we shape the future of those who receive their strength from our midst? I have pointed out this idea again and again because the most ideal tasks have found little favor. I now have a letter from those who are so young that they cannot yet be part of society, which you can summarize as a kind of conclusion.

Explanation

A number of students in the final years at the Waldorf School would like to bring the following to the attention of the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society:

At Easter 1924, the first class of the Waldorf School will graduate. In our current middle school system, this graduation is linked to the matriculation examination. However, the growing opposition directed against the anthroposophical movement and, to an equally sharp degree, against the Waldorf School, makes the exam extremely difficult for the school leaver. Furthermore, it contradicts the essence of Waldorf school education if such momentary examinations are to decide the nature of the emerging human being.

However, only this Matura examination gives us access to today's higher education system. From everything we hear about today's universities, it is clear that they no longer teach the kind of science that engages the whole person in a living way; it is only abstract, unfounded knowledge that is increasingly being put at the service of economic interests. The present situation proves that these institutions are no longer able to produce the spiritual leaders that the German people and all of humanity need in the present day.

That is why, especially today, there is a need for such universities, which fully help to develop the abilities slumbering in people and do not serve the subject of study and mere vocational training in an external way. The aims of Waldorf education must also apply to the colleges if the seeds sown in the Waldorf school are to continue to develop freely.

Waldorf students see only one way out of this situation: a free college system must be aimed for. In a free university, the anthroposophical spirit must continue what was begun with Waldorf school education. We Waldorf students hope that the anthroposophical movement will continue what has emerged from it in the Waldorf school and will meet the need for a free university. We hope that this idea will find the loving understanding and powerful support that is needed so that the forces that can be brought to bear through the Waldorf school can later also have a powerful effect and be brought to bear where they are needed.

This is where the concern of those who see what we see in the youngest, in the boys and girls who are close to our movement, speaks. This raises the question: What is the possible leadership of an Anthroposophical Society's view of the most important questions for the future? What are their thoughts on this? Of course, things cannot be done overnight. But how are things being thought about now that there has been no real thought since the program of the School of Spiritual Science was set out? So the question is to be discussed further: How does one think in the Anthroposophical Society, so to work in the future that the future is really thought about?

This failure to think about the future is very strongly expressed. We have had a series of congresses that went very well in themselves. At these congresses, outstanding work has been done by the intelligentsia within the Anthroposophical Society. But if you looked beyond the immediate horizon to consider the impact of such a congress, you would realize that, yes, what was presented was very beautiful, but the Anthroposophists are so out of touch with reality that it would never occur to us to approach them. This is something that actually had to be experienced in connection with every congress. I would like to express this in the sentence: Much has been contributed, especially by the leading personalities, through the fanaticism and narrow-mindedness that prevailed there, to repelling people whose cooperation we would very much need!

This simply followed from certain things that were unavoidable. It was not an inclination to deal with the world. And one must deal with the world if one wants its cooperation, not its opposition. This then became very clear in the real consequences. I only ask you to bear in mind that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find Waldorf school teachers. Why? Because encapsulation has become systematic. And now that the number of those who found their way into the Anthroposophical Society in its better times and these personalities have come into the relevant posts, it is no longer possible for new people to find their way in. Particularly when one comes across such systems as existed in the “Bund für Dreigliederung”, then it is obvious that personalities who could become good co-workers if they got to know anthroposophy in a human way, initially feel simply repelled, not by anthroposophy but by the treatment they receive.

These relationships must be addressed in the specialist debate, because this is where the tasks for the future lie. In many cases, the tasks lie in changing the whole tone that prevails in society. The tasks lie in the fact that it is not a matter of saying: the people of Stuttgart have no time. — Friends will not demand that hours be spent with each one; but what happens in the minutes is what matters and what has so often led to the echo from outside: Yes, when you do come to Stuttgart, it takes your breath away! And when you leave again, it takes your breath away! I am putting this in somewhat radical terms, but we were asked to speak freely about what needs to be said.

These are the things that need to be discussed by the outgoing or incoming board of directors, things that must not be kept secret. For if you ask: How did the branches fall asleep? – you will receive the answer that the board did not even send out any messages during the two years. I do not want to criticize, it is only meant terminologically. But by also discussing these things in their light on the part of the Stuttgart members, what must arise can arise and what the Society can carry forward. All that is needed for this is the will to do so. The will of the members must be able to come together with the will of the leadership in the right way. If this is not the case, then it must at least be made clear why this is not the case; then it will become clear how to remedy the situation.

So it is not a matter of our talking about very general things, but of finding fruitful ideas for the continuation of the Anthroposophical Society from the knowledge of the deficiencies. I would ask that the treatment of the individual questions be put under this point of view; then the discussion will be fruitful, even if only five minutes are spoken by each one.

In my two lectures, I would like to speak about the affairs of anthroposophical life as they arise for me from the circumstances.

Afternoon Session:

Mr. Leinhas announces that the plan is to discuss the relevant points in the afternoon and suggests that further suggestions be made in line with Dr. Steiner's suggestions.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart, wants to say a few words about the antecedents in connection with what Dr. Steiner said. Looking back, it is clear that many people in Stuttgart, especially those who were originally involved in anthroposophical work in Stuttgart, suffered terribly under what was called the Stuttgart system. As the reasons for this have been explained here, many people from outside the city were brought in to become co-workers in order to advance the enterprises. But as a result, one became dependent on what one had called up. Those called here were now also recruited to work in anthroposophical life so that they could help to bear the responsibility. But it was a time when one could not find any interest in the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. It may have been because one was not able to keep this interest alive in general. The speaker then pointed out that he felt compelled to step back because he saw no way to continue to cultivate the anthroposophical in the way it had been at the center of things in Stuttgart for fifteen years. As the Society's tasks grew, so did its justifications. Errors were certainly made in the integration of the enterprises into the Society, and in particular there was a lack of accountability of the anthroposophical leadership to these foundations. The speaker pointed out how he felt condemned to inactivity, especially in the most important matters, because he no longer found an ear for what might have been said out of the old connection with the Society.

Mr. Ernst Uehli, Stuttgart, described how he was called to Stuttgart in 1919 as editor of the newspaper, and how he was then entrusted with the leadership of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Federation for Threefolding) because its leadership had become bureaucratic. He admits that he did not succeed in leading the association out of the quagmire it had got into. When he then took on the additional responsibilities of editing the “Drei” and working on the central committee, the burden became too heavy for him. He took on tasks that were beyond him. Now he wants to try to pull himself out of his isolation. He has therefore resigned from the Central Board in order to stop doing what he cannot do and start doing what he can do. He is aware of his failings in dealing with people, but will now seek to place his work as a free human being within the development of society.

Rector Moritz Bartsch of Breslau then spoke out what the branches had failed to do. The autonomy of the branches, of which Dr. Steiner spoke, had been given too little attention. In the east, people were less affected by the Stuttgart bureaucracy. The independence of the personalities and the branches is based on the spirit of the “Philosophy of Freedom”. In the inner development there is always the danger of subjectivism. Sometimes it is like in the village church, when the one who is meant is pleased that someone else has received something.

Mr. Andreas Körner, Nuremberg: There is too much talk about the reorganization of the Anthroposophical Society and too little about the principles. It seems that little has been incorporated. There is a lack of interest in the individual in the other person. We know the board from lectures and books, but the board must also know the members. Dr. Steiner once said that he thinks of every Waldorf school child every day; something similar should happen with us.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: It is not important that the Central Board apologizes, but that the concrete circumstances that led to the Stuttgart system are described, as Dr. Steiner indicated. The lack of clarification is particularly evident in the matter of religious renewal.

Mr. Uehli had been involved in all the theologian courses and in the founding of the Movement for Religious Renewal. But he was completely unaware that he had to educate the Society about the Movement for Religious Renewal. Immediately upon Mr. Uehli's return from Dornach, the Executive Council would have had to deliberate, and the news would have had to go out immediately instead of in January, and the membership would have had to be informed everywhere. It was just a very general phenomenon that there was no awareness that one had to do something for the Anthroposophical Society. It was similar at the time of the threefold social order movement. There was a time when it was as if the watchword was that it was now threefolding that counted and no longer anthroposophy. We must try to understand the psychological reasons for Mr. Uehlis's breakdown under the burden of work and Dr. Unger's inactivity. Another thing symptomatic of the “Stuttgart system” is the extent to which all sides have sinned through letters sent from Stuttgart, etc. We must be specific about such things that have happened. We will only make progress if we confront the negative and do the positive.

The chairman, Mr. Emil Leinhas, announces that the reports prepared by the conveners of the meeting are now to be presented.

This is met with general disagreement. A point of order ensues in which speakers explain that they do not want to hear the presentations now, because that would take up time and many of the friends would have to leave again without perhaps getting a chance to speak; the general discussion must continue.

Mr. Ernst Lehrs, Jena, explains that the human and anthroposophical aspects should be mentioned before the individual topics. Dr. Rittelmeyer is the most suitable person for this.

Mr. Wilhelm Rath, Berlin, and Mr. Walter Mayen, Breslau, agree.

Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Stuttgart, says that it is necessary to provide an overall picture, but he does not want to do it himself.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stutigart, points out the necessity of the presentations about the individual institutions, because the difficulties have arisen precisely from their justification.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart, asks the assembly to listen to the presentations. If they are not listened to, all the effort of preparation will be in vain, including the effort that Dr. Steiner has put into those who, after much painful self-knowledge, have undertaken to examine the methods here. The lectures will show in detail where the mistakes were made, and only on the basis of this insight can things improve. He is convinced that no one in the room, with the exception of Dr. Steiner, who is not likely to take the floor on this, is able to give an overall lecture.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner points out that we have to consider the practicalities, otherwise we will not get anywhere. Debates on the rules of procedure will not get us anywhere. Therefore, he is now also making a motion on the rules of procedure, namely:

Mr. Leinhas may ask the Nine Committee who wants to give the general presentation. If someone comes forward, that is good. If not, that is also a manifestation. In any case, only individual lectures emerged during the preparation, and Dr. Stein honestly stated the situation.

Since no one volunteers, Dr. Unger finally offers to give the overall lecture. The chairman notes that the assembly does not want this lecture by Dr. Unger.

The meeting is now willing to hear the individual presentations.

The planned presentation on threefolding will therefore follow.

Dr. Carl Unger, Stuttgart: The movement for the threefolding of the social organism is at the root of the difficulties that have arisen. This movement was directed entirely towards the outside world. Its failure has done the Anthroposophical Society the greatest harm and disrupted its work. The aim of these lectures is to determine the relationship of the Anthroposophical Society as a society to the institutions that have taken root in its midst since 1919. It can be pointed out that Anthroposophy has always carried the spiritual impulses to become effective in practical life. This has found expression in the draft of the principles, which Dr. Steiner wrote. Reference may also be made to Dr. Steiner's essays in “Lucifer Gnosis”, which appeared in 1905 on the social question. Mr. Molt, whose name is associated with the threefolding movement, was advised by the speaker around 1908 to study these essays, which had been largely ignored. In his Vienna cycle in 1914, Dr. Steiner pointed to the social question as a cancer in contemporary life, and the autumn lectures of 1918 in Dornach provided such a strong impulse that after the collapse of the German situation in Stuttgart, an attempt was made to intervene in the chaos from an anthroposophical point of view. This later led to a delegation from Stuttgart seeking advice and support from Dr. Steiner. This is not intended as a historical account, but it should be noted that this movement was undertaken out of anthroposophical enthusiasm. The rapid uptake of the Stuttgart initiative by anthroposophical friends points to the accumulated anthroposophical energy that was released. The initial success was due to the tireless efforts of Dr. Steiner. When the Kernpunkte appeared, the anthroposophical background could also be clearly recognized in this work. And here it was often tried to bring this to bear. The movement suddenly collapsed, but left behind a tremendous opposition that now pounced on anthroposophy and Dr. Steiner. Now the anthroposophical aspect should have been clearly distinguished, for which the appeal of the Cultural Council could have been a prelude. But the work of the Anthroposophical Society had been largely destroyed. The branches were taken over by the threefold social order. The agitation in public had led to a certain superficiality, which now clung to the anthroposophical lecture system.

The threefolding movement left many things behind. First of all, in a good sense, the Waldorf school, which was founded by Mr. Molt out of a social impulse, and then the “Kommenden Tag” (The Day to Come), which does excellent work within the limits it has set itself. But the various scientific institutes, the clinical-therapeutic institute, the journals and the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life”, whose relationship to the Anthroposophical Society is to be reported on by special reports, are also connected with this. For the Society itself, it is now a matter of working out the social impulse within itself. There it can contribute to the development of the whole human being. The social demand contains something that is connected with the transformation of the whole human being. The representation of the social must not be neglected externally either. The lectures that Dr. Steiner gave at the Vienna Congress are an example of how this can be done. The question of the social must not be absent from the consolidation of society if it is to take place in the right sense.

The chairman, Mr. Leinhas, now opens the discussion:

Mr. Emil Molt, Stuttgart, points out that in many respects it is important for him to start over. Much harm has been done by forgetting one's duties to society as a result of being absorbed in everyday life and in one's profession. He talks about the reasons for the paralysis of his will, but in order to fulfill his responsibility, he declares himself willing to participate in the reconstruction and asks to be helped in doing so.

Mr. Karl Herdener, Schnaitheim, talks about what weighs on a proletarian. He says that he has tried from the beginning to work together with the middle classes and tells how he came to the movement. Here he had heard that there was a working group of proletarians, which he could not understand. In Heidenheim, people worked together freely. There is always talk of community building and humanity, in almost slogan-like form. The entrepreneurial point of view was reported on threefolding. The proletarian needs the other side. The anthroposophist knows this best of all. He then talks about the school and the task of helping the children when they leave school. When he talks about love being the idea of the class struggle in the trade unions, he is always met with the argument that the shareholders of L'Avenir are capitalists. He mentions the newspaper article about the prison rules at the Waldorf-Astoria. Something must be done from the point of view of anthroposophy that takes the proletarian's point of view into account, otherwise he will no longer be able to stand up for anthroposophy in the same way when he returns. There have been too many doctors and no proletarians. He hopes to leave here having done positive work.

Mr. Adolf Arenson, Stuttgart, on the matter at hand: There are many proletarians in the Stuttgart branch, and if Mr. Benzinger has founded a special branch, he should be free to do so. Besides, a special evening has now been set up for all members.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: In the work of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” (Threefolding League), one did not know how to speak to the proletariat in such a way that it felt that a fully human being was behind it. One did not speak from the basis of anthroposophy. The industrialists were annoyed. Later, agitators were sent out without sufficient loving work and preparation of the speakers, so that anthroposophy was discredited by some speakers. This was the reason why mistakes were made in the representation of the threefold order in Upper Silesia, despite all the enthusiasm, which then led to the unleashing of national antagonism. The association's working material was handled in such a way that even an uncorrected lecture by Dr. Steiner found its way into the editorial office of Hammer (!) magazine. Dr. Steiner's lecture to the workers of the Daimler factory was sent out indiscriminately, without regard for the fact that it was given in a special situation. With an anthroposophical attitude, such treatment of Dr. Steiner's lectures would have been impossible. The call for a cultural council has been dropped, although the important question of a free university was linked to it. Since the “Bund für Dreigliederung” no longer exists, nothing positive can be said in this debate, but it can be shown from these cases how all this would not have been possible with a proper anthroposophical attitude and how anthroposophy must now be represented to the outside world.

Rector Moritz Bartsch of Breslau does not believe that mistakes were made in Upper Silesia.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko of Stuttgart offers further explanations.

Dr. Herbert Hahn of Stuttgart: One must speak the language of the proletariat when speaking to proletarians. When Dr. Steiner gave a lecture in the Waldorf-Astoria factory, the anthroposophical aspect was as alive as the proletarian needs it to be. The other speakers did not have that, and when the backlash occurred, the way they spoke had a negative effect on the anthroposophical cause.

Dr. Hans Büchenbacher, Stuttgart: Dr. Unger spoke of how the threefold social order movement arose out of the basic impulses of spiritual science. It is not necessary to say any more about this, but one should speak about whether the threefold social order movement was carried out in an anthroposophical way. If one is truly an anthroposophist, one comes to a deeper understanding of human nature and of the currents of the times. This was not present in the work of threefolding. During the fight for the plebiscite in Upper Silesia, many anthroposophical speakers in Germany also presented the threefold social order as the peaceful and only healthy solution to the question. As a result, accusations of treason arose in the press due to this position. Our speakers were able to deal with these defamatory accusations in meetings everywhere. They could always point out that if it came to a vote, the threefolders would naturally vote for Germany and that Dr. Steiner had also made this clear. A rather proud declaration was issued from Stuttgart, but it did not touch on this point at all. They had to make up for it later, but they had to be told that this position had only been adopted later because of the attacks, and so the odium of treason remained with us after all. This is a concrete example of how the threefold social order was represented to the outside world in such a way that the understanding of the human being that anthroposophy can provide was very much lacking.

Mr. Fred Geuter, Stuttgart: The so-called “Stuttgart System” has its origin in the fact that it was not understood to avoid precisely that which we criticized in all our speeches and lectures - the thinking methods and will impulses of the “West”. Among other things, the Federation was given the task of working for “honest diplomacy”. Anyone who is able to follow the development of this institution has to realize the opposite. What needs to be done first is to realize in our hearts the impulses we receive, so that we also act as we speak. Otherwise, soul tensions and conflicts arise that cause dissatisfaction, crises and only unnecessary opposition.

Mr. Johannes Thielemann, Meissen, speaks of ahrimanic effects in the etheric body of society that must be overcome.

Mr. Max Benzinger, Stuttgart, rejects Mr. Herdener's accusation. He founded a branch because he wanted to see whether you had to be a doctor or something similar to lead a branch, or whether a proletarian could do it too. Besides, he wanted to continue what had been started in the threefolding period with the proletarians. The speaker criticizes the often wrong behavior of anthroposophists towards the proletarians. For example, against servants. There is an abyss between action and words. He describes some experiences from the threefolding movement, of which he was a member of the committee. The proletarians understood Dr. Steiner, but not those who otherwise spoke about it, whose actions did not match their words. He reported from Champignystraße that an employee was told, in the matter of weekly salary payments, that he was indeed descending to the level of the workers. The worker is sensitive because he feels whether the person also does what he says. He himself was decried as a rabble-rouser.

Mr. Wilhelm Conrad, Cologne, proposes that all the lectures be heard in succession.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner: I think we really should take care to achieve a fruitful outcome. It may indeed be the case, although this has not been emphasized enough, that the fate of the Society depends on these three days. If we do not come to a conclusion during these three days, there is nothing left for me to do but appeal to each individual member of the Society to carry this out. So, if a reorganization of the Society is to take place, it must happen in these three days. We are in an Anthroposophical Society, where everything is connected. You will be best able to form an opinion and also to talk about the threefold order when you have heard everything. Everything is interrelated. Therefore, it is most practical if you let the presentations run and get the full picture, then a fruitful discussion can arise, while each speaker is tempted to talk about every detail, which leads to infertility. Mr. Conrad's proposal is that we go through the reports as quickly as possible so that we know what has happened in Stuttgart as a whole. Then everything can be fruitfully discussed.

The Conrad proposal is approved.

Mr. Emil Leinhas, Stuttgart, takes up the series of lectures with a report on the “Kommenden Tag”. He describes the emergence of the joint-stock company as an attempt to form a germinal point of associative economic life by uniting banking, industry and agriculture with economic and intellectual endeavors. The realization of the idea on a large scale failed due to the lack of understanding it was met with from influential circles in economic life. In the spring of 1922, in order to avoid lapsing into dishonesty, a “program limitation” had to be proclaimed. Within the framework of the program possible under the present circumstances, the “Coming Day” fulfills its tasks and proves to be an economically viable undertaking. Mr. Leinhas does not conceal the teething troubles that the company, which was founded in a rather difficult time, had to go through. He also points out the difficulties that have arisen in human cooperation, but which are increasingly being overcome as the company's economic tasks are successfully worked out and not mixed up with the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. Mr. Leinhas asks the members of the Anthroposophical Society to be aware of their tasks with regard to the “Coming Day” and its individual enterprises, in particular the publishing house and the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, and to support them energetically by taking a lively interest in them and their products. The attitude of the members of the Anthroposophical Society towards all the enterprises that have emerged from the Anthroposophical Society should increasingly be one of asking: What can I do for these enterprises, how can I take an interest in them? Not: How can I interfere in the affairs of those who are responsible for managing these enterprises. In general, the principle of “What can I do?” should be increasingly applied in our Society. Not “What should others do?”

Evening Session:

Fräulein Dr. Caroline von Heydebrand, Stuttgart: A talk about the Free Waldorf School and its relationship to the Anthroposophical Society

The Free Waldorf School was founded by Mr. Emil Molt out of an insight into the social necessities of our time, for which the ideas of the threefold social organism could open our eyes. All people, regardless of their social background, should be able to enjoy an education that meets the requirements of true human knowledge. Thus, the Waldorf School became the first comprehensive school in Germany (1919). In it, only spiritual and pedagogical aspects should be decisive for teaching and education. Therefore, the Waldorf School was established as an independent school that wanted to feel responsible only to the spiritual life. Its founder, Mr. Molt, could only find the basis for his educational ideas in anthroposophy, because the works of Dr. Rudolf Steiner provide a knowledge of the human being from which appropriate educational impulses can grow. They present a story of the development of the soul of humanity that could lead to an understanding of the necessity of a genuinely contemporary art of education for the present and the near future.

Mr. Molt asked Dr. Rudolf Steiner to take over the pedagogical direction of the Waldorf School. Dr. Rudolf Steiner accepted his request. The teachers of the Waldorf School feel the responsibility that arises from the fact that the founder and leader of the anthroposophical movement is the pedagogical director of the school. They receive the rich abundance of spiritual scientific-educational knowledge in lectures and individual advice with a deep sense of responsibility to the anthroposophical movement, indeed to all of humanity. The heart of Waldorf school education is the series of lectures on education by Dr. Rudolf Steiner, which convey anthroposophical knowledge of the human being. From this anthroposophical understanding of the human being, he developed a methodology and didactics as an art of education. Convincing hearts of men without prejudice, this art of education stands in the world, working as a work of art, as once the Goetheanum and as eurythmy. Thus, from its very foundations, anthroposophy has given birth to a school and education movement that could become a global movement by its very nature. Unfortunately, the idea of a “World School Association” has not yet been realized, apart from a few tentative attempts. It is recognized in many circles beyond Central Europe that the Waldorf School is not the school of a sectarian world view, but that it has a general educational significance. Waldorf education has attracted the attention of many non-anthroposophical circles. Dr. Rudolf Steiner gave lectures on education to Swiss teachers in Basel, and at Christmas 1921/22 he gave a course for teachers at the Goetheanum that appeared to be a processing of Albert Steffen and has already been translated into Swedish. During the Oxford Conference in August 1922 on the subject of “Spiritual Values in Education and Social Life”, Dr. Steiner gave twelve lectures on education and teaching to a large number of English teachers. In the Nordic countries, Waldorf education is being studied particularly actively. Many guests visit the school, including representatives of foreign governments. For example, a professor from Japan recently spent several days at the school, showing great interest. In early January, seventeen English teachers visited the school and were truly enthusiastic about their stay. Thus, the significant fact that the anthroposophical movement has brought a pedagogy into the world as an art that is not dependent on a world view but is universally human should be vividly present in the consciousness of every member of the Anthroposophical Society. Therefore, Waldorf education should not be perceived as something that satisfies the narrow needs or educational aspirations of a few parents, children and teachers, but as something that fulfills its task only when it grasps this task in terms of world history and places itself selflessly, as an artistic and healing element, in the midst of the phenomena of decline in our time. The cultivation of their spiritual life has remained the Germans' most precious possession; within the German spiritual life, educational issues have always come first. The members of the Anthroposophical Society warmly embrace the Waldorf School and its idea as a matter for humanity. It stands as a model school, as a model school, and seeks to realize the idea of free education. As such a model school, it must be the concern of the entire Anthroposophical Society. It needs the active support, loving understanding and warm interest of every single member in every respect. As a wonderful gift from the spiritual worlds, entrusted to human hearts and hands, we members of the Anthroposophical Society feel about this art of education and this school, which, under the loving guidance of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, is the only model school to cultivate anthroposophical educational ideals in a comprehensive way for the benefit of humanity. It needs a strong Anthroposophical Society that can protect, support and strengthen the good that has been entrusted to us all!

Dr. Otto Palmer, Stuttgart: Presentation on the Clinical Therapeutic Institute “The Day to Come”

At the beginning of my presentation to this assembly of delegates on the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, I would like to ask two questions, which I will try to answer myself during my presentation and which, if a discussion follows my presentation, I would ask you to help me answer.

The first question is: What does medicine, inaugurated by spiritual scientific research, promise not only to the Anthroposophical Society but also to all of humanity?

Secondly: What must the Anthroposophical Society do to gain recognition and importance for the treatment and healing methods based on spiritual scientific research in the Clinical-Therapeutic Institute?

We can only answer these questions correctly if we ourselves are completely clear about what we have been given in every respect by Dr. Steiner's spiritual science. This may seem paradoxical, but I believe that many members of the Anthroposophical Society are not clear about the importance of the spiritual heritage handed down to us. If we were clear about it, how could there be such appalling lukewarmness and indifference, which has basically led to the crisis we are currently facing.

Over time, we have become accustomed to to take the spiritual nourishment offered to us in such abundance for granted, and instead of being shaken to the core of our souls and developing the forces within us, which in turn should work with elemental force outwards and make themselves felt with a certain enthusiasm, we lay on the pillow of rest and did not even think of making use of what we had received as it should be.

In 1908, Dr. Steiner gave us a spiritual-scientific understanding of the human being for the first time in the Prague Course, which deals with “Occult Physiology”. In a whole series of lectures that followed this Prague Course, he incorporated additional comments about the nature of the human being in this direction. In other lectures, he described the karmic connections that arise from previous lives and manifest as illnesses in this one.

In 1917, in his “Puzzles of the Soul”, he gave us the physiology of the threefold human being.

In 1920/21, he introduced doctors and medical students to spiritual pathology and therapy in longer courses – and last October, he finally supplemented these courses with lectures he gave at the Medical Week here in Stuttgart. One fruit of the lectures in 1920/21 was the founding of the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, and a wealth of tasks arose for those who were appointed as staff to the Clinical Therapeutic Institute. Above all, however, we doctors were given the task of creating a movement among two to three thousand doctors on the basis of what we had been given in the courses.

To get a true picture of the tremendous achievements that have been inaugurated in the medical field through Dr. Steiner's work since 1908, one need only take a look at state-licensed conventional medicine and its helplessness, especially in the field of therapy. All the great things that have been discovered by it should not only be fully recognized, but it should be emphasized that we do not want to oppose it in terms of scientific research methods. We must be clear about one thing only: that all medical research on pathology is based on the development of pathological anatomy, that is, a knowledge of those changes that have occurred in organs during a person's lifetime as a result of disease processes and that can now be observed as such on the dissection table. To a certain extent, research in this field can be considered complete and it can be assumed that not much new will be revealed with the examination methods currently in use. Nevertheless, the motto of the Freiburg anatomist Aschoff at the naturalists' congress was: “Give us corpses!” As if corpses could give us information about the living! Or rather, about the disease processes that take place in the living organism!

With the exception of a few specific remedies, such as mercury, quinine and salicylic acid, the therapy is to be regarded as an experimental therapy. There is certainly no real rationale for most of the diseases. Why are there so many quacks, why so many lay doctors alongside conventional medicine? Surely only because people do not find what they are looking for in conventional medicine in many cases.

If we compare our time with a distant epoch, say from the fourth to the fifth century BC to the fifteenth century AD, where our scientific research begins, we can see that at that time people still had an idea of the influence of a spiritual world and of therapy based on certain intuitions and atavistic clairvoyance.

It is interesting that this period ends with the murder of Paracelsus, and that barely a century later, Rembrandt's famous painting “The Anatomy Lesson” came to symbolize, as it were, the dawning of the scientific era in which we are still immersed.

Dr. Steiner's achievement lies in having transformed Du Bois-Reymond's “Ignorabimus” (“we will not know”) into a “Cognoscimus” (we know). We can know if we have become able to see through the training of our soul organs, and even if we have not yet become able to see ourselves, it is still possible for us, with goodwill, to reflect on and grasp intellectually the spiritual scientific research results that Dr. Steiner gives us. For us physicians as students of Dr. Steiner, it is no longer a matter of including only the physical body in our research, but of taking into account the higher aspects of the human being in our research.

The threefold nature of the human being – the nervous-sensory system, the rhythmic system and the metabolic-limb system – is to be made the basis of a new physiology. In the case of disease processes, natural processes outside the body must be taken into account and placed in parallel. Cosmic-planetary influences on the one hand, telluric influences on the other, must be taken into account.

The human being, which until then seemed so simple to us, becomes the most complicated organism, which can only be understood and correctly assessed in the contexts just mentioned. Furthermore, we find a series of processes in the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms that also take place in some way in the human being. It would be going too far to go into these processes further in the context of a short presentation, but it should be said that these processes provide clues as to which remedies, originating from any of these kingdoms, must be applied in a meaningful and rational way in certain disease processes. It will be the task of the physicians of the Institute to explain the methods of our work and therapy in a vade mecum and to make this vade mecum the basis of a publicity campaign among physicians. We will only gain enthusiasm for our work if we see our service to humanity and our work in the laboratory as a form of worship in the most beautiful sense of the word.

It should be emphasized that our healing method should become more and more individualized. It is well worth making suffering humanity aware of this healing method and making every effort to establish it in the world.

And this brings me to the second question: “What can the Anthroposophical Society do to ensure that the treatment and healing methods based on spiritual scientific research knowledge and represented in our Clinical Therapeutic Institute receive the recognition and spread in the world that they deserve?”

If the conditions are fulfilled, that the Clinical Therapeutic Institute, for its part, does everything to fulfill the tasks that have been set for it, that is, to make a vade mecum a movement among two to three thousand doctors, then it would be most important for the Anthroposophical Society to support the Clinical Therapeutic Institute in this task, each member in his or her own way. The individual branches should request speakers from the Institute to give informative lectures in the branches. The members should tactfully draw their family doctors' attention to our writings and remedies. I say tactfully, as there is no definition for this; it has to be felt.

I could imagine that doctors could be repelled by tactlessly conducted propaganda. Furthermore, it would have to be ensured that our remedies are available in pharmacies, or that pharmacies are informed where they can obtain our remedies. This must also be done in a tactful manner, because pharmacists are a priori hostile to all such remedies that they are not involved in producing, and which they should only sell as a merchant sells his goods.

Members may recommend the remedies to relatives and acquaintances on the basis of successful healing, but preferably not by bypassing the treating physician. It would also be very effective to recommend our products to the board members of health insurance funds or other influential people within the health insurance system, pointing out that our influenza medicine, Infludoron, for example, can greatly shorten the illness and that the health insurance fund could save a lot of sick pay in this way. If young physicians interested in spiritual scientific research are at a loss to find a topic for their doctoral dissertation, we are happy to suggest a whole range of dissertation topics that arise from Dr. Steiner's medical courses.

The eurythmy therapy we practise, which has yielded good results in numerous cases, still requires further training and should be passed on to those who wish to apply eurythmy therapy in practice under medical supervision.

Above all, however, it is important that each individual member and branch be awakened to the consciousness that our healing method is born out of spiritual-scientific knowledge of the human being, and that we become more and more aware that the “theosophy” is not a gray theory, but that it proves in its effects to be extremely practical and beneficial for humanity in all medical measures. The remedies alone do not help us if the spiritual reality of their origin has not become clear and certain to everyone. Only then can they stand up for them and propagate them in the right way.

Dr. Rudolf Maier, Stuttgart: Lecture on the Scientific Research Institute “Der Kommende Tag”

The aims of the Scientific Research Institute are determined by what is already expressed in the first sentence of the draft of the principles of an Anthroposophical Society: “For a satisfying and healthy way of life, human beings need to know and cultivate their own supersensible being and the supersensible being of the extra-human world.” Applied to the work of our research institute, this simply means that without knowledge of the supersensible, present-day natural science cannot achieve fruitful progress or a true grasp of its goals. Our research institute has therefore set itself the task of ensuring the introduction and application of anthroposophical knowledge in natural science. We seek to fulfill our task by first taking measures that are likely to arouse interest in genuine and true research into nature in the widest circles, and secondly by showing, through practical examples of the application of anthroposophical knowledge in experimental research and observation of nature, how far research into nature can go beyond what has been achieved so far. Examples of this are the treatise by Mrs. Lily Kolisko on “Spleen Function and Platelet Question” and the recently published treatise by Dr. Rudolf Maier on “The Villard Experiment, an Experimental Investigation”. Mrs. Kolisko's essay shows how an anthroposophical insight sheds light on previous research into long-known facts of observation, explaining so much of what has remained mysterious about the known facts of observation, and how this insight leads to new discoveries in the biological field (blood picture, new platelet type: regulators). Dr. Maier's paper shows how the methodology of physical research as set out in anthroposophy makes it possible to uncover major errors in previous research, and how it is thus possible to learn to experiment without bias in order to grasp the facts as they really are. Dr. Maier's essay is an example of how anthroposophy makes life practical by showing that what it contains about physical research can be applied in practice and has been shown to be correct.

We are aware that our endeavors are met with many prejudices on the part of most scientists today, especially the influential ones. However, we believe that the power of the observed facts we have researched must and will ultimately break all resistance. The anthroposophical members can help us a great deal in fulfilling our task. Even if we are met with more general interest, we feel that this is beneficial to our work, but in particular, the anthroposophical members can help us a great deal by drawing attention to our publications among their acquaintances and by ensuring that these publications also become known to wider circles. We trust that scientists who are less involved with the local scientific establishments will more readily recognize our most essential aim than others, and that they too will be furthered by our publications for anthroposophy itself, namely by the systematic work that undermines the prejudice that anthroposophy is not scientific. The Scientific Research Institute has been given tasks by Dr. Steiner, including personal advice on how to carry them out. The solution of these tasks is the focus of our efforts. In the future, we will devote even more of our energy to them than we have in the past.

Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Stuttgart: Lecture on Anthroposophy and Science

The scientific movement has to work on overcoming two barriers, one inward and the other outward. So far, this scientific movement has not been able to assert itself in the right way in either direction. Just as the educational movement and eurythmy have succeeded in expressing the universal human element in such a way that large circles are won over to it with a certain matter-of-factness, so too the scientific movement, if it is to succeed, must be conceived for the wide circle of people who today long for a renewal of science.

But now it must be said that it has not been possible to make oneself understood among today's scientists. We have not found the language to use with them that would have given our endeavors a natural recognition. This will only be possible if, on the one hand, a practical phenomenology emerges, that is, experimental investigations that speak for themselves, and, on the other hand, comprehensive overviews of the execution of our fruitful ideas are presented to the world, which must gain recognition by themselves. Above all, the most modern form of science must be dealt with much more, and we must adhere to the basic attitude of spiritual science: that the validity of today's natural science in the fields accessible to it is unreservedly recognized and at the same time it is shown how spiritual science provides the continuation of natural scientific ideas everywhere. Then no unfruitful polemics will arise, but we shall succeed in creating, also in the field of science, an intermediate layer of people who, without belonging to the Anthroposophical Society, recognize the results of our research as something important and significant.

Internally, however, it is necessary to develop the science to such an extent that it is completely imbued with the anthroposophical spirit. It must not get stuck in the subject-specific. Much harm has been done by carrying into the branches what has not been fully reworked, what is specialized in nature. In many cases, anthroposophy has been reduced to physics, chemistry, etc., instead of founding anthroposophical physics and chemistry, etc. In the past, good anthroposophical work had been done in the branches and groups. At that time, the scientific aspect was still not sufficiently included. Today it should be possible for the individual friends who work in the various scientific fields with the help of anthroposophy to completely transform the results into anthroposophy and thus return them to the work in the Anthroposophical Society. We have seen from the way in which Dr. Steiner has dealt with the most difficult problems of the individual sciences in anthroposophical lectures over the years, and how he still deals with them today, for example, in his Dornach lectures, that in this form, scientific work is no longer perceived and effective as a specialized scientific work, but as something that is generally meaningful for humanity. If this reworking of science does not happen, then, on the contrary, anthroposophical work will be destroyed. Only when our scientists work towards overcoming the subject-specific in their inner work and towards speaking about science in a truly anthroposophical way, can the gulf be overcome that Dr. Steiner spoke of at the time of the Congress of Vienna and at The Hague, the gulf that exists between the scientific movement and Anthroposophy in the narrower sense. Then the scientists can give back to the mother of anthroposophy what they owe to her.

For its part, the Anthroposophical Society has a wide range of tasks in relation to the scientific movement. The achievements in the field of science must come to be known and appreciated by the entire membership. There should be real enthusiasm, for example, for something like our friend Dr. v. Baravalle's book on “The Pedagogy of Mathematics and Physics”. They should know it, know what it means for pedagogy and science, etc. The new leadership will make it their task to ensure that the membership is truly aware of all the achievements within our movement. Because if there is no awareness in our society of what is being worked on in our research institutes, what our scientists are working on in general, what has been achieved, how is it supposed to be known outside? Correct knowledge will also prevent these scientific endeavors from being presented and represented to the outside world in an incomprehensible way.

The task at hand is for our scientific staff to direct their research with the greatest energy towards the enormous range of problems and suggestions that Dr. Steiner has provided over the past few years. Each of these problems, when properly investigated, leads to significant results that are of general human interest in terms of knowledge and practical effectiveness. There are countless tasks here that must now finally be tackled vigorously.

It has often been said that an artistic element must enter into science. Take, for example, the doctrine of the threefold nature of the human organism. One cannot approach it without an artistic-scientific view of the human being. When one experiences, for example, the constant struggle that takes place in the human being between the sense-nervous system, which is senile, dying, mineralized, and carries the germs of death, and the metabolic system, which is youthful, surviving, and resists this, and how the rhythmic system brings about a harmonious balance, then this can only be done by grasping the concepts artistically and imaginatively. As a physician or teacher, one then experiences the human being as nature's most powerful work of art. We must come to the point where we, as scientists, as physicists, as chemists, as physicians, can ultimately speak in concrete terms of the spiritual beings that are behind the external phenomena. Then, when we immerse ourselves in such a scientific-artistic element, we also find the bridge to truly religious feeling everywhere. If we succeed in leading science to the center of anthroposophy, if we talk about it in our anthroposophical branches and carry such a kind of science to the outside world, that we speak from an attitude as it has been characterized here, so that we do not repel what today longs for a renewal of science through anthroposophy, then the scientific movement will not be a foreign body within society, either internally or externally, but will fit harmoniously into the framework of our movement.

Dr. Herbert Hahn, Stuttgart: Lecture on The Relationship of the Anthroposophical Society to the Movement for Religious Renewal.

In September 1922, a movement came into being that wanted to receive the counsel of spiritual science and took responsibility for the effects of this counsel from the very beginning. This movement is dedicated to the work of religious renewal. It experiences as its essential task to carry the Christ impulse, which is progressing in time, in pure forms to many souls. But if it wants to fulfill this task properly, if it wants to serve the moral recovery of religious forces, then it can claim an anthroposophical understanding in the deepest sense.

What it encountered at the beginning of its development, however, was an insufficiently deep and warm understanding. It was often met with a false understanding or a lack of will to understand on the part of individuals who were striving for anthroposophy but did not fully live up to anthroposophical responsibility. In particular, the working groups of the Anthroposophical Society failed to recognize the significance of the religious revival movement in a way that would have allowed them to establish a clear and confident relationship with that movement in an independent manner.

In a Dornach lecture, Dr. Steiner had to use words that already referred to an existing emergency, which carried the necessary clarification. But since the method of philological nitpicking was applied in many cases to the words spoken by Dr. Steiner, which were neglected by the leading figures of the Anthroposophical Society, instead of penetrating to their own root-fresh realization, a state of emergency remained in many circles.

However, an interesting examination of the nature of the religious renewal movement can show that anthroposophists can have a warm understanding for the task of this movement because anthroposophy in Rudolf Steiner's life's work made a religious renewal that was called for by the times possible in all essential points. The religious renewal was able to draw on the content of anthroposophy. Anthroposophy was able to play a creative role in the forms that the religious renewal movement wanted to adopt from its own research. Only through anthroposophical spiritual work could the religious renewal movement be brought forth in its present form.

This can be seen in detail. While the dispute over the meaning of the word continued to grow in Protestant theology, and while the view of the letter as handed down became increasingly rigid in Catholic theology, anthroposophy led to a new understanding of the gospel. What would a religious renewal movement be without these references to the gospel? It would be condemned to complete sterility. But when a number of younger, mainly Protestant theologians approached Dr. Steiner seeking advice on religious renewal, one of the most beautiful proofs of the fruitfulness of anthroposophy in the religious sphere was the fact that the founder of spiritual science had already accumulated treasures of new gospel knowledge in comprehensive lecture cycles. Cycles about the individual gospels and the relationship of the gospels to each other. While theology became barren in relation to the gospel experience, anthroposophy brought forth a new spring of gospel life. This could inspire confidence in drawing from anthroposophy, confidence in invoking anthroposophy as a creator.

But how could trust in religious new creation be cultivated if not all perception of religious life pushed towards a true grasp of the Christ-being, finding its center in a true grasp of the Christ-being? At a time when the conception of the personality of Jesus of Nazareth had become a controversial historical problem, Rudolf Steiner proved Christianity as a mystical fact. He uncovered the powers of love for creative, moral deeds in the depths of the soul and, in the transformation of soul forces, in the reciprocal purification of thinking and willing, grasped the transforming Christ impulse in the realm of his own freedom. The Philosophy of Freedom, experienced as a living, breathing book, was and is a preparation for a new Christ-revelation. For only in the realm of freedom can the Christ impulse reveal itself today. Anything that denies freedom or cannot establish it, and yet calls itself Christian, is today abusing the name of Christianity. Dr. Steiner led to the harrowing experience of a convincing revelation of Christianity in the consciousness and in the history of the new awakenings of moral life that the I has fought for. And in his anthroposophical life's work, he showed how human history in the large is enlightened in the preparation and in the archetypal expression of the ego-strengthening sacrificial forces that were offered in the mystery of Golgotha. Here, in a twofold way, the possibility was established for a re-creation of religious cult. It could be raised to the level of the son-experience that is being sought everywhere at the present time, and it could be brought to the consciousness of the individual in forms so imbued with freedom that they alone can be grasped by this consciousness today. Where else in our time could anything have unfolded a productivity in the realm of true cultic forms? Does not all striving in this area result in a pale, impoverished reformism, which, through its weakness, only strengthens the suggestive power of outdated forms? From the supra-historical, omnipresent Christ-experience of Anthroposophy, a movement for religious renewal was able to draw strength and form. Thus it was also allowed to invoke Anthroposophy as a creator.

But all experiences of cultic forms today fail because of a fundamental discrepancy. The modern human being experiences a becoming in the transformation of inner, moral forces. He experiences a destroying and passing away in the transformation of physical earth and world forces. One does not meaningfully fit into the other; the darkness of material death today draws all moral-religious life into its abyss. Cult and pastoral care are no longer possible in the face of this gaping chasm in the consciousness of the most honest people. Anthroposophy, which was called upon to convincingly speak of the sanctifying entry of Christ into the substance of the earth, imbued all earthly processes with morality. It truly raised the chemical experimental table to the altar. In this way, however, it was able to create the foundations anew so that the world-significant, soul-renewing change experienced on the altar of cultic connections would be grasped by real devotional forces in the heart. Thus she could and may be invoked as a creator, in order to prove herself as a bridge-builder across the rift in the consciousness of the times and of the individual.

We experience anthroposophy as the creative mother of the religious renewal movement in four essential ways. Those who recognize this understand that anthroposophy itself contains a primary source of religious life. It does not need to look for it outside of its own being. But because it experiences the coming together of the rings of freedom and the sacrifices of freedom in the effect of grace in all religious experience, it also honors and loves the forces of freedom and grace imparted by its daughter movement. It assigns the Anthroposophical Society the inner duty of watchfully supporting those who want to bring religious renewal into the world. She gives it the strength to lovingly receive those who, through religious renewal, have matured to enter into Anthroposophy.

The religious renewal movement is walking the path of its own spiritual responsibility. It works out of anthroposophical strength. But it does not work for anthroposophy when it conveys the fruits of anthroposophy to a world hungry for a new Christ-healing.

The Anthroposophical Society can become one of the instruments of the anthroposophical movement, which in turn is walking a path of the highest and most comprehensive responsibility of its own. It may only bear its name if it embodies the whole human being. Religious humanism is an important revelation of the nature of the whole human being. Anthroposophy, which created the religious renewal movement, seeks to awaken the primal gifts of religious power in anthroposophical life through constant new creation for the sake of the truth of its name. Herein lie the roots of a natural and good relationship between the Anthroposophical Society and the religious renewal movement.

Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, Stuttgart: Presentation on the “Association for Anthroposophical School of Spiritual Science Work”

The School of Spiritual Science Association, which I will report on first, is also one of the institutions that was founded after that year 1918, which was so significant for our movement. What is the significance of this year? This was the question that kept coming to my mind, even when it was my responsibility to reflect on the Hochschulbund in preparation for this conference. In this year, the significance of which for our movement Dr. Steiner has repeatedly pointed out recently, the independent will of the members of our movement for the affairs of external social work was first awakened. But this expression of will was still half instinctive. It was not yet possible to realize one's own intuitions in the sense of the “Philosophy of Freedom.” Therefore, Dr. Steiner was repeatedly asked for advice. In the course of time, Dr. Steiner showed ever more clearly and distinctly how his goal could only be to have free people around him. He gave advice to those who were still unfree, so that they could increasingly come to realize ideas that had been grasped by themselves. Thus, since 1918, the task that the Society gradually faced has been the same as that which it faces today: to guide and lead itself. But this is the task of human beings in the age of the consciousness soul. Thus, since 1918, the task of the Society and the task of the times have grown together. And the crisis that our Society is going through today is a reflection of the great crisis of the times, which has been brought about by the conflict between two ages. The old age of the Greco-Latin cultural epoch has not yet faded away. Long ago, the Starry Scripture in the heavens proclaimed the new spirit of the age. But it has not yet been able to fight its way into the world. The spirit of intellectuality of a bygone epoch still prevails, and the spirit of the new spiritual age is still fighting for its entry. And that must be so. For the age of the consciousness soul cannot be completely victorious through the writing in the heavens, through the will of the gods, but only when the will of man makes itself a fellow-fighter of the will of the gods, because men, in their freedom, grasp what only they can realize as their very own decision.

Look at France. There an offshoot of the Latin-Roman current of peoples and times is fighting. It is a dying nation, physically dying out and tearing itself apart by mixing its blood with that of the lower-standing black races. It is a nation that, as if abandoned by the guidance of spiritual beings that otherwise guide nations, carries out actions that are carried out in absentmindedness. But this acting in the absence of the spirit is only expressed more strongly because it makes use of more powerful means. But it is a symptom of the times. The same thing is happening in all fields. A spirit of the age whose epoch has expired still clutches people and, while it itself becomes aware of it, leads people into spiritless actions. It is time for people to awaken their own spirit, because the spirit of the spiritual age will only be able to guide the awakened.

This great world-historical event also played a role in our movement. Let me show you this with a personal example. I joined the movement in 1913. I was one of those who pushed towards anthroposophy because they could not bear the university. There I ran out of breath. There was no spiritual air for living. Everything was dead. And the great minds seemed to belong to the past and were rotting in libraries. But I was looking for life for my science, which I loved. What did I care about the Anthroposophical Society? Not it, but my science was close to my heart. I felt that science and philosophy had reached a point beyond which they could not advance by themselves. Then I found anthroposophy. I was determined to get to know it thoroughly. That's why I came to Munich. An older member received me. I said: “I have come to build a bridge between anthroposophy and science.” “That has already happened,” said the member, ‘you are too late.’ So I had come for the sake of science. But now I wanted to see the mystery plays. ‘Only members are allowed to see them,’ I was told. I was not a member and did not want to become one. I turned to Dr. Steiner. Yes, that was correct – the Mystery Dramas were only open to members. But he suggested that I could become a member for the day of the performance and resign the next day. I agreed. So I was at the performance. Afterwards Dr. Steiner came up to me and asked: “Well, Mr. Stein, how did you enjoy yourself?” I said: “I am no longer an idiot like yesterday — and I am no longer resigning from the society either.” So I became a member of the society. It is symptomatic. The one who had come to build a bridge between science and anthroposophy had been won over by the Mystery Dramas. As I said, this was symptomatic. For it was the same with the others who came after me. Dr. Roman Boos and we, who belonged to that generation that could not stand it at the universities, wanted to carry anthroposophy into the lecture halls. This was to be done by means of an appeal that was sent out to German students in the fall of 1920. Dr. Steiner had, of course, spoken to students in the auditorium of the Technical University in Stuttgart about “Spiritual Science, Natural Science and Technology” in response to a request from students. In July 1920, following this lecture, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Werner Rosenthal sent drafts of an appeal to friends in Breslau, Freiburg i. Br., Hamburg, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Leipzig, Munich and Tübingen. Many other versions were received. Finally, we in Stuttgart processed all the suggestions into the appeal that was then sent out. This appeal was very strongly worded. Since none of the so-called leading personalities really followed it up with action, it brought us a great deal of opposition but no positive gain. Above all, the university lecturers were turned into opponents. It was a mistake to believe that anthroposophy had to be brought into the lecture halls. Science should be fertilized by anthroposophy. What was needed was not polemics but the further development of science. But it was too early for that. We were unable to renew science at that time. And the young people? Did they want science spruced up with anthroposophy? No. They wanted anthroposophy. But we did not recognize that at the time. I myself had come to the Mystery Dramas, not to Anthroposophy. But this went unnoticed. The gap grew ever wider between those who wanted to carry Anthroposophy into the lecture halls and the youngest generation, who sought Anthroposophy itself. It is only now that it has become clear to me that we ourselves did not want anything other than Anthroposophy. That is why I believe that we, the somewhat older generation, the “lecturers” of the university courses - and whatever all the events are called - will now really find ourselves with the youth. Because something was living in me, too, although I did not recognize it. That was the tragedy, that was our fault, that we had inaugurated a movement that then petered out. Dr. Steiner held scientific courses in the expectation that those who had requested them would process what was given. Only now is it happening. Dr. Hermann von Baravalle is working on optics, on thermodynamics; others are working on other things. All kinds of working groups have formed. Linguists, educators and architecture students have come together. Mr. Lehrs will speak to you about the future of our youth. I only wanted to draw your attention to the historical moment, to the storm of contemporary history that also burst into our movement in 1918. Let us consciously experience this storm so that it becomes a roar that awakens the tongues of fire that speak the language that everyone, young and old, understands.

End 11 p.m..

Dear Attendees!

Once again, as in my previous attendances during this fateful time, it seems appropriate to me to begin with a consideration that is related to the development of German intellectual life, and then tomorrow to come to a subject that more strictly belongs to spiritual science.

And if today's reflection is to be linked to the development of German thought, then I would like to emphasize, first and foremost, that this reflection should not fall into the trap of establishing an external connection between all kinds of intellectual changes and the fateful historical facts of our time, a trap into which so many reflections today fall. At a time when the fate of nations is decided by the force of arms, the word cannot possibly intervene, meaningfully intervene, for example, in that which is to be decided by the force of arms. But this is the age in which self-reflection - including national self-reflection - seems to be entirely appropriate.

Now, when it is said, from the point of view of science, including spiritual science, that certain developmental forces of such a spiritual science are rooted in popular forces, as is to happen today, one will immediately encounter, dear attendees, all kinds of objections, objections that are extremely reasonable because they are so self-evident, from a certain point of view, that they seem extraordinarily plausible precisely because of their self-evidence to those who do not want to rise to certain higher points of view. In such a consideration, one will repeatedly encounter the objection that science as such, and everything that somehow wants to claim that it is so, is said to be “international,” and that one is not entitled to claim any rootedness in popular culture.

This objection can be appropriately countered only by means of a comparison. “International”, dear attendees, is also the moon, for example. It is the same for everyone; but what different things the various peoples have to say about the moon! Of course someone may object: Yes, that is in the realm of poetry. Yes, of course; but anyone who delves a little deeper into the spiritual life of humanity will notice that – even if the observations and insights relating to the external, actual things are all the same in the science of the moon – that which comes from the innermost drives of the human soul, on the basis of what man can recognize, that this is different for each individual people, and that each people penetrates more or less deeply into the secrets of existence, depending on their different dispositions and drives. And the overall progress of humanity does not depend on what is the same everywhere, but on what is incorporated from the driving forces of the overall development of humanity, which are peculiar to the innermost individual nature of each people.

From this point of view, it should be pointed out today how German nationality is intimately connected with the endeavour not only to found an external science of the senses, but also to penetrate deeply into the spiritual secrets of existence – how the very search for a way to arrive at the spiritual secrets of existence is peculiar to much of what can be called German nationality.

And there is another reason, esteemed attendees, for such a consideration here, because it is my conviction – not arising from a narrow-minded, parochial sentiment, but from what I believe is the appropriate consideration of the German essence that what has been advocated here for years as spiritual science is strongly rooted in the general spiritual life of the German people, that all the seeds of a genuine spiritual science are present in the spiritual development of the German people.

Dear attendees, I will take as my starting point three personalities about whom I had the honor of speaking here in this city a few months ago, when I tried to sketch out the world view of German idealism. Even at the risk of repeating certain details, I will take as my starting point the three great figures who appear within the development of thought and spirit of the German people and who create a world view that provides the foundation, the background, one might say, for what was then artistically and poetically achieved by Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Lessing and so on within German intellectual life, as a flowering of the newer intellectual life in general, which can only be compared with the tremendous flowering of human intellectual life in ancient Greece: Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were the starting point once again.

Fichte stands before us – and I already remarked this in the lecture a few months ago – as he has something like the feeling that he has given his people everything that he has to give as the best, in terms of a world view and insights into the nature of his people, and that he has gained this through a dialogue with the German national spirit itself. Carried inwardly by the consciousness that the most German essence speaks out of his soul, Johann Gottlieb Fichte is.

It is also he who, not only in one of the most difficult times of German intellectual development, found tones that were highly suited to inspiring the entire nation to rise up from oppression, but he was also [the one] who, in the way he wants to receive a world view for his knowledge, so clearly shows that he seeks this world view from the qualities of the human soul, from the powers of the human soul, which are essentially German qualities of spiritual life, German powers. He emphasized that. And that is certainly the truth with regard to Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

And what is it that is so distinctly German about Johann Gottlieb Fichte's endeavors? It consists in the fact that, out of his Germanness, as he himself calls it, Johann Gottlieb Fichte was led to seek in a living way to deepen and at the same time strengthen his own soul-being, his own ego, and was convinced from the living inner that what permeates the world as divine-spiritual, illuminates and warms, can flow into this I, if it experiences itself in the right way, if it becomes fully aware of itself. So that, in Fichte's view, what speaks outside in all natural phenomena, what speaks in the course of history, but also what speaks behind natural phenomena and behind history as spiritual forces, flows into human will.

The human will that asserts itself in the self is only the innermost, secret expression of the soul for that which permeates and warms all beings in the world, from the most materialistic to the most spiritual. This intimate interconnection of the experiences of the soul with the great mystery of the universe, as far as man can fathom it, that is the very German in Johann Gottlieb Fichte's striving.

And if you observe Fichte as he presents himself, you can see how this is to be judged, how it is not something invented, something acquired, but how it arises from the most secret depths of his soul as his natural disposition. To substantiate this, a few details from Johann Gottlieb Fichte's life will be given. As I said, even at the risk of repeating details that I have already taken the liberty of mentioning.

For example, we see this Johann Gottlieb as a small, seven-year-old boy in front of his father's house, who was a poor master weaver. We see Johann Gottlieb Fichte, seven years old, standing in front of the small stream that flows past his father's house; and he has thrown a book into this stream. His father comes along and is amazed at what has happened. What had happened? Well, Johann Gottlieb Fichte was a six- to seven-year-old boy and a diligent student. That which is called a sense of duty lived in his soul with the greatest strength; and because he was so diligent, his father gave him a book for the last Christmas: “Gehörnte Siegfried” (Siegfried Horned). The seven-year-old boy, who could already read fluently, was so extremely interested in the book of the “Horned Siegfried” and he was always absorbed in the great figure of the horned Siegfried; so that one could have noticed that he had become a little less diligent at school, and it was held against him. Now, within the life of the will, even in the seven-year-old boy, the soul's duty stirred: he no longer wanted to read on, nor be tempted to read on in the book of horned Siegfried. And to be quite sure, he throws the book into the stream, crying! Such was the nature of the one who, according to his own consciousness, was to create the German worldview for his time!

And again, let us look at nine-year-old Johann Gottlieb Fichte. One Sunday morning, the estate neighbor had come to hear the sermon. But he had arrived too late, and so was unable to hear the sermon. Some of the squire's acquaintances had hit on the expedient of sending for little Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who was so good at listening to sermons that he could repeat them word for word. So they fetched nine-year-old Johann Gottlieb Fichte. After he had appeared awkwardly at first in his blue peasant's coat, he then stood and repeated the sermon, but now not in a way that was only an external adherence to the words, but with the most inner participation, not only in terms of memory, but with the most inner participation, so that one saw: everything that had been spoken lived a very own life in his soul.

These are the small traits that show how intimately entwined Johann Gottlieb Fichte's soul was with what he called duty on the one hand, and on the other hand with what was in him the urge to elevate his own human ego so powerfully that what willfully permeates and warms the world as primal laws could live and reveal itself in him. And how he later aimed to work when he was appointed professor in Jena is told to us by people who heard him speak and who assure us that when he spoke, his words were serious and strict, but at the same time forceful, as if interwoven with the language that spoke the secrets of the world from the nature of things themselves. His language was like the rolling of thunder, and the words discharged themselves – so someone who heard him speak and was friends with him tells us – the words discharged themselves like lightning. His imagination was not lavish – we are told – but it was majestic and grand. And so we are told that he lived in the realm of supersensible ideas, not like one who merely dwells within it, but like one who essentially mastered this realm of ideas.

And it was also peculiar, for example, how he perceived his teaching profession: there was not much of what one is accustomed to from a speaker or teacher. He was in constant inner work. His preparation for any lecture or speech consisted not so much in working out the content as in trying to place himself, with his soul, in that spiritual inwardness that he wanted to infuse not only through the content of the words, but through the way in which he , he strove to work in such a way that it was not so much the content of his words that mattered as the fact that the souls of his listeners were moved by the whole way in which the spiritual was expressed in the flow of his speech. Thus, again, someone who knew him well could say: He strove not only to educate good people, but great souls.

We should like to draw attention to a little-known trait that must be mentioned again and again if we want to bring to life the direct and lively way in which Fichte related to his audience. For example, the deep thinker Steffens told us that in Jena Fichte said to his listeners: “Think the wall!” – The people found that easy, of course: they thought the wall. After he had let them think the wall for a while, he said: So, and now think the one who has just thought the wall! – Some were amazed!

This was an indication of one's own soul, in which that which flows through and warms the world at its deepest core should be ignited. However much he may have amazed people with this, at the same time it is also a testimony to how Fichte actually did not just want to convey spiritual ideas to his listeners with clever words. He wanted to work through words, not just in words. That is why it could happen that this man also sought to actively grasp the historical aspect of the creative national spirit. And in that he wanted to connect vividly, as with the workings of the world in general, he also wanted to connect vividly with that which is part of this world-working and lives close to him as a member of his nationality; he wanted to connect with the essence of the German national spirit. And no one can understand the meaning and the significance of the wonderful words which Johann Gottlieb Fichte addressed to the German people in his 'Discourses to the German Nation' during such a difficult period in the history of the German nation. No one can understand this unless he sees the connection between the way in which Fichte wanted to grasp the world-will in himself in his own ego, and then to carry the power that arose in his soul into action, into events, into the social and other forms of human coexistence, and into the conception of life.

There he stands before us – albeit in our way – this Johann Gottlieb Fichte! And – as I said – it is not out of narrow-minded patriotism, but rather out of actual observation that these things are to be said, which must now be discussed. We need not fall into the error that the enemies of the German spirit are now falling into, who not only accuse this German spirit, but even slander it in the truest sense of the word; we can take an objective point of view within the considerations of the German spirit and will be able, precisely through this objective point of view, to recognize in the right way what the essence of German nationality is.

Fichte wanted to grasp the will of the world in itself. And this will of the world was for him the bearer of what he called the duty of the world, which in turn separates into individual human duties. Thus, that which lives outside becomes for him a living being everywhere. But this also puts him in opposition to everything, as he himself emphasized in his “Discourses to the German Nation.” You can read about this in my essay in my little booklet “Thoughts During the Time of War,” which is now out of print , but will soon be reissued, [how] he, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, seeks the living everywhere and is aware that he is thus in opposition to much of what he calls a dead science. And this dead science, Fichte also finds it among the Western European peoples, among the French and the British. Only, as I said, for the sake of actual characterization, not to impose anything on any people, may that be said; but it must be recognized in which relation the German spirit stands to the other national spirits in this fateful time!

In my earlier essay on the world picture of German Idealism, I pointed out that Descartes, Cartesius, is a typical example of the development of the French world-view at the beginning of the seventeenth century. I pointed out how he characteristically expresses that which lives in his worldview from his nationality, in that not only the mineral and plant world, but even the animal world is nothing more to him than a sum of living — not souled, but only moving — machines! That is the peculiarity of this Western mind, that it can only grasp a dead science at bottom.

In this respect, Fichte, with his living approach in all his works, stands in essential contrast to the path of knowledge and the striving of the West, [where] animals are like machines. This has continued. And not long before Johann Gottlieb Fichte worked in Germany to show life in all the facts and beings of the world from the living grasp of the secrets of the world, a descendant, I might say, of that Descartes - Cartesius - worked in France: de La Mettrie.

And while Cartesius at least conceded to man a special soul from inner experience, from inner experience, de La Mettrie, in an exaggeration of this western dead science, expressed himself in his book “Man a Machine” that even that which stands before us as a human being is itself part of the world in the same way as a mere machine; that we can understand the whole person by regarding him as the result of purely material processes and forces. According to de La Mettrie, everything about a person, including all soul qualities and activities, should be understood in such a way that the person is only recognized as a machine.

Of course, to a certain extent, man is a machine. This is not the essence of spiritual science, that it contradicts what such assertions have right about it; but that it can show other ways - we will talk about this tomorrow - that it can show other [supplementary] ways to this, that it knows other ways that also lead beyond the justified claims of materialism. De La Mettrie is basically, from the French folklore, one of the most significant minds of this view that the whole world of man is only a kind of mechanism. And it is interesting to consider the contrast between the Frenchman de La Mettrie and the German Johann Gottlieb Fichte. For de La Mettrie, everything about man is mechanism; for Fichte, everything is spirit. He received into his soul what he calls the will of the world, and for him, the external material world is only an internalized field for the performance of duties arising from the spirit. Hence that beautiful, that wonderful striving of Fichte to derive everything that appears to man in the world of the senses from the spirit; whereas, in de La Mettrie, everything is imbued with the goal of regarding the external physical as an immediately decisive impulse for the spiritual as well.

De La Mettrie is sometimes quite witty in such matters, for he is just as deeply immersed in his mechanistic worldview as Johann Gottlieb Fichte is in his spiritual worldview. For example, when de La Mettrie says in his book The Machine Stops Here: Can't you see how the body shapes the soul? Take a famous poet, for example, whose soul can be seen to consist of one half rascal and the other half Promethean fire. de La Mettrie was a little clever in not saying which poet he meant, but Voltaire flew into a rage at this remark. When he was told this, de La Mettrie said: Well, okay, I withdraw the one half of the claim – he meant half of Prometheus! – but I maintain the “filou.” He just expressed it in his own way; there's no need to press it. But if you take the individual statements, that man is a machine – and in this he is tireless in showing how the machine-like, the heating-up [gap in the transcript] in man, as it were, how that characterizes the whole man, causes satisfaction – that is where he sometimes becomes quite remarkable. And I don't know, and I don't know with what feelings a passage from 'Man a Machine' will be read in France today! I certainly don't want to quote it as something that a German, for example, needs to share; but I would like to quote it because it is quite characteristic and because – you will see in a moment why I would like to quote it – one could perhaps ask precisely from the point of view of spiritual science: how such a soul – he did deny that this was possible – but how such a soul, more than a hundred years after its death, looks down on the praise that has been exchanged between France and England, when he, de La Mettrie, the Frenchman, in his book “Man a Machine” proves how people's characters are dependent on the way the materialistic affects them, when he says the following:

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 13/1912

At 10:15 a.m., the Secretary General of the German Section, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, opens the tenth ordinary General Assembly with the words:

"It is my duty to begin by welcoming you all most warmly in the name of our Theosophical movement and in the spirit that brings us together. These assemblies always give us the opportunity to see many of our friends gathered in one place at the same time. And what is most important for a true Theosophist is undoubtedly to know that they are united with many friends and like-minded people, that is, with people who, in the spirit of our time, have filled their hearts with inspiring ideas about spiritual matters. That our thoughts and feelings are forces that already have meaning as individual meanings within reality is something that, as Theosophists, we hold dear. But that the confluence of a larger number of such individual forces means something quite different must be admitted by anyone who regards spiritual life in terms of reality. Anyone who thinks that the spread of Theosophy depends solely on how externally, on the physical plane, fellow human beings are convinced by an external propaganda or by words, is only just beginning to understand spiritual life. But anyone who has penetrated the meaning of spiritual knowledge knows that the forces that invisibly rule the world, the forces of good will, which flow together from genuine theosophical hearts, also yield in a supersensible way a stream that flows into the evolution of humanity. Thus we will be increasingly inclined to see an external assembly of Theosophists as a symbol of what takes place between and from the hearts, and cannot be perceived in the external world. This is what expresses the holiness and dignity of the theosophical worldview, but also what entitles this theosophical worldview to intervene in our human evolution in a very unique way as an element that draws its true power from the supersensible.

The fact that we also find some understanding in the world, in addition to the predominant misunderstanding of our view that we encounter, is perhaps attested to by the progress we have made this year. We need only point out that we were able to stage our performances in Munich with increasing interest, that our artistic endeavors, which we express in our mysteries, have been successful in the succession of recent years. In 1909 we were able to organize one performance, in 1910 two and in 1911 even three. This is just one of the symptoms that speak for true progress, not for a mere semblance of it, within our movement.

Another symptom is the fact that our Weltanschhauung has already built itself a home in Stuttgart. Those who have a real understanding of Theosophy do not need to be told what it means that the aspirations of Theosophy can be so circumscribed by spatial boundaries that are themselves born of the theosophical idea. I am not above confessing that I find the whole way in which this Theosophical home within Stuttgart came into being almost more significant than what ultimately emerged, because no reality corresponds to the ideal

has emerged, because no reality corresponds to the ideal

. It is a building that has been created in association with an understanding architect who knew how to give the theosophical ideas an external form. Even more, I consider another to be a touchstone of the theosophical attitude in our circles. The building has been created without the need for propaganda in the outside world. The whole matter remained among Theosophists and even today, after the building is finished, it is still a matter among Theosophists.

Such a confirmation of our Theosophical thought is surely the best welcome that we can receive here today for our souls; and in this sense, that the Theosophical movement may not lose that which is most important is that the Theosophical movement may only work where it encounters this attitude and not where it has to work with the outer advertising drum. In this sense, let our Theosophical thoughts flow through this association.

So, after welcoming you most warmly, we have arrived at the business part of our General Assembly, and I ask you to treat it as such.

First item on the agenda:

Determining the voting ratio of the delegates from the individual branches.

It was necessary to clarify the voting rights of members of the Swiss branches within the German Section.

Dr. Steiner: “I must note here that we are now obliged to allow the Swiss branches to vote in the German Section, to which they still de facto belong. A Swiss Section has been founded. Those Swiss branches that belonged to the German Section refused to join the Swiss Section. So the alternative was either for the Swiss branches to join the German Section or to leave the Society. Yesterday I received a letter from the President of the Theosophical Society stating that these branches had the right to form a new, independent body. Before this is formed, according to all previous practices of the Theosophical Society, the former Swiss members of the German Section must still be counted as part of the German Section. Otherwise they would be left in the lurch if we did not grant them the right to vote within the German Section.

I now have to ask whether delegates have been elected by members who do not belong to any branch.

Mr. Krojanker remarks that the section members do not know about each other. Dr. Steiner replies that it is up to the section members themselves to get to know each other; they have the right to elect delegates according to previous resolutions of the general assembly. He suggested forming a center where all section members can report. This would be a start towards unification. Mr. Krojanker declared himself willing to accept reports from section members so that they could be united in the future and the election of delegates could be arranged.

The voting ratio was then determined. The representatives of the individual branches and the bearers of their votes are as follows:

Second [agenda item]: Reports of the General Secretary, the Secretary, the Treasurer, the Recording Secretary and the Auditors.

Dr. Steiner: “In previous years, I have given a factual report on the work of the German Section at this point. However, in view of the fact that, according to what the Executive Council can foresee, a number of lengthy matters are to be brought before the meeting, I would like to dispense with the usual address at this point. Instead, the business report will be given.”

The report of the secretary, Fräulein von Sivers, on membership trends follows.

Number of members: 2318 compared to 1950 in the previous year
New members: 458
Those who have left or can no longer
be found and have therefore been deleted: 67
Those who have transferred to other sections: 3
Those who have died: 20

Six new branches were founded:

Bochum, Graz, Heidenheim, Linz, Neuchâtel and Tübingen.

Two new centres were formed: Hamburg and New York.

Total number of branches: 53, of centres: 5.

Dr. Steiner: “There is something to be added to this report. It is a matter of commemorating our dear members who have passed away from the physical plane this year.

This year in particular, we have lost a large number of members who have left the physical plane through death. It is fitting that we remember these members in a heartfelt way.

Above all, I would like to remember an old member of the German Section and the Cologne branch, our dear Miss Hippenmeyer, who combined an ever-increasing warmth for our theosophical thoughts with an extraordinary amount of activity for the broadest world interests. Those who knew her better were as drawn to her beautiful, good, theosophical heart as they were to her world interests. Miss Hippenmeyer did not pursue these interests in a philistine way, but undertook extensive journeys that could be called world tours. Considering only the external, purely technical difficulties of these trips for a single traveling lady, and Miss Hippenmeyer was still a frail lady, then this is something to be admired. She was extremely active in our theosophical cause in a very likeable way, and it was painful for all those who had known her to hear that she left the physical plane in Java on one of her great journeys.

Furthermore, I have to mention an extraordinarily active co-worker, who also belonged to the Cologne Lodge, our dear friend Ludwig Lindemann. I still have the impression I had when I saw Ludwig Lindemann for the first time, who vividly presented his tendencies to me. Since then, it has grown day by day, despite the fact that the greatest obstacle for him was present, namely a serious illness. Nevertheless, he had no other thought than to stake his entire existence on the dissemination of theosophical thought. And when he had to go to Italy for the sake of his health, he worked there to cultivate the theosophical idea. He founded the small centers we have in Milan and Palermo. He was able to establish the most intense and heartfelt Theosophical life in these places. Ludwig Lindemann was loved by all who knew him, with the kind of love that can arise from the naturalness of the spiritual connection with a person. Lindemann pursued his great theosophical interests intensely, and I could feel, when I visited him in the last weeks before his death, how a deep, heartfelt, theosophical enthusiasm emerged from his decaying body. So it was a deep satisfaction for me to see how our Milanese friends felt deeply connected to our dear friend Lindemann. When I was in Milan, I was shown the room that had been prepared for Lindemann, where he could have lived if he had been able to come to Italy again. At the time, I was firmly convinced that he could have worked for a few more years if it had been possible for him to come to Italy again; everything was prepared for him there; karma willed it otherwise. But we look back on him as Theosophists look back on someone who has left the scene of his life and work in the physical world in our sense, in that we feel just as faithfully and warmly connected to him as we did when he was still among us on the physical plane.

I have to mention a third personality who left the physical plane perhaps unexpectedly quickly for many; it is our dear section member Dr. Max Asch. In his very eventful life, he had to endure many things that can make it difficult for a person to join a purely spiritual movement. But in the end he found his way to us in such a way that he, the doctor, found the best remedy for his suffering in the study of theosophical reading and thought. He repeatedly assured me that no other faith could arise in the soul of the physician, no other remedy than that which could come spiritually from the theosophical books, that he felt the theosophical teaching flowing like balm into his pain-torn body. He truly cultivated Theosophy in this sense until the hour of his death. And it was a difficult renunciation for me when, after our friend had passed away, his daughter wrote to me asking me to say a few words at his grave, but I was unable to fulfill this wish because that day marked the beginning of my lecture series in Prague, and it was therefore impossible for me to pay this last service to my theosophical friend on the physical plane. You can be assured that the words I should have spoken at his grave were sent to him as thoughts in the world he had entered at that time.

Furthermore, I have to mention a friend from Berlin, a member of our Besant branch, who, after various endeavors, finally found himself in our movement as if in a harbor. It is our dear friend Ernst Pitschner, who has been among us for a long time, afflicted with the seeds of decay, and was united with us in the most intense way in our theosophical work until his death. It was a peculiar karma that after a few weeks his wife followed him into the supersensible worlds.

Furthermore, I have to remember our dear member Christian Dieterle from Stuttgart. He has found his way into theosophical life with difficulty, but with extraordinary ambition, and in the last few months he was a man who thought in the most intense theosophical way.

Then we want to commemorate an older Theosophist who was snatched from the Mühlhausen branch, Josef Keller. It is one of those cases where, even though you have only met a person once in your life, you immediately recognize a deep state of mind and heart in him. Keller was a deeply convinced theosophist, especially in his last months, and all who knew him will keep him in faithful and loving memory.

Furthermore, I have to mention a man who, confined to his bed by a serious illness, was introduced to theosophy through the mediation of a person dear to us, Karl Gesterding.

I must also mention our dear friend Edmund [Reebstein], who was taken from us at a relatively young age after a short illness, and who those who knew him well came to hold in the highest esteem.

I have the same to say about Mrs. Major Göring, who worked with us in our branch for many years.

This time, the list of our deceased is so long that it would take too much time to say everything I would like to say.

I still have to mention our members Erwin Baumberger from Zurich, Georg Stephan from Breslau, Mrs. Fanny Russenberger from St. Gallen, Johannes [Radmann] from Leipzig, Karl Schwarze from Leipzig, Wilhelm Eckle from Karlsruhe, Georg Hamann from Hannover, Wilhelmine Mössner from Stuttgart I, Walter Krug from Cologne, Mrs. Silbermann from Heidelberg, Mrs. [Liendl] from Munich I.

Today, I still consider it my special duty to commemorate the departure from the physical plane of a personality who was well known in all theosophical circles, who was snatched from us by a painful death, who has done a great deal, and whom we remember with love, as we do the others. I am referring to Mrs. Helene von Schewitsch. You know her books, so I do not need to characterize her in more detail. I must emphasize that the circumstances were such that I always complied with her request when she asked me to give a lecture in her circle during my stay in Munich. I would just like to hint that for me this whole life presents itself as something deeply tragic; and I may well say that Mrs. von Schewitsch met me with extraordinary trust and that I am justified in saying: This life had a deep tragedy. I was also granted the opportunity to look into this heart; and please understand that what I call tragic is meant in the sense that most of you would understand it from my lectures.

We fulfill a duty of warmth to express outwardly how we are connected with the dead in our thoughts by rising from our seats.

Report of the Treasurer:

In this report, the treasurer, Mr. Seiler, points out that it is extremely difficult to complete the cash report in time because the branches send in their accounts very late, often only a few days before the general assembly. There was also a great deal of disorder and inaccuracy in filling out the pre-printed forms, so that the treasurer had great difficulties, especially because many reports were not received on time. Cash report for the 1910/11 financial year:

Dr. Steiner: “You have just heard how difficult it is, although it would be desirable, to do the right thing at the right time. But what use is it, even if it is desirable, to close the till on August 31 and send the report to the individual branches 14 days before the general assembly, since we only receive the documents we need from the branches a few days before the general assembly. It seems to me – and this is my personal opinion – that a theosophical fairness should also prevail in the Theosophical Society, which should consist of asking why something is not done when it is not done, and asking why it is not done. It could be said that it is the duty of the General Secretariat to urge the lodges to do so, but what is the use of that if the lodges do not do it anyway. We will lose little if we are not able to swear by the letter.

The Society itself must first gain an insight into the way in which this equity is understood.

I am obliged to read a letter at this point, and I ask you to assess it quite objectively. I am obliged to read the letter because it is expressly requested; however, I would ask you to form an entirely unbiased opinion and to wait to discuss the letter until we reach the third point: proposals from the plenary session. It is in the interest of the meeting to postpone other items, such as the granting of discharge to the entire board, until the third item. Therefore, I ask you to first listen to the reading of this letter. I put to the vote whether you agree to wait with the discussion until the third item.

The vote shows that the meeting agrees.

Thereupon Dr. Steiner read the following letters:

Leipzig, December 8, 1911

To the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society (German Section) Berlin.

Article 11 of the statutes states: The financial year of the Section ends on August 31. Annual accounts prepared by the treasurer and audited by the auditors shall be sent to each branch by the secretary general 14 days before the annual general meeting.

It is clear that the Secretary General has not fulfilled this duty for years. I therefore asked him at a members' meeting of the Leipzig branch on November 5 to ensure that the annual accounts are at least available to the delegates at the General Assembly. He rejected my modest request for trivial reasons. On November 27, I made a similar request at the Leipzig members' meeting, but it was also rejected. For this reason, I unfortunately see no choice but to approach the General Assembly itself with the request to raise the following motion at point 2 of the agenda (report of the General Secretary) for resolution:

Proposal: The Secretary General of the Theosophical Society, Dr. Steiner, is requested:

1) to fulfill the statutes of the German Section in the future with the utmost diligence and to send the annual accounts to each branch 14 days before the General Assembly for review and examination in accordance with S 9 and S 11, and

2) to formally request indemnity for this time due to his breach of duty.

If, contrary to expectations, the General Assembly ignores the constitution and statutes, that is, law and justice, and rejects my 'motion or an analogous amendment to it, I will consider whether I should not call on the supervisory authority, that is, the Royal District Court in Berlin, to help the statutes to their rights and thus have all resolutions of the General Assembly declared unlawful.

The inevitable consequence would be a new General Assembly, which would then have to be convened in accordance with the statutes of $ 11.

Dr. M. Haedicke, a practising physician in Leipzig.

---

Leipzig, December 8, 191[1]; Burgstraße 2 To the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society, Dr. Steiner in Berlin.

Dear Dr. Steiner,

According to the statutes, every member of the Theos[ophical] Society has a consultative (but no decision-making) vote at the General Assembly. Therefore, I ask you, in your capacity as General Secretary and executive officer of the Executive Committee, to read the enclosed letter to the General Assembly at point 2 of the agenda (report of the General Secretary) or to have it read by the secretary. Even in Saxony, there is an end to complacency and sloppiness when it comes to administrative matters. At the same time, I would like to remind you that I spoke here at the meeting in favor of tolerance and also said, among other things, that the Catholic Church is tolerant of lawbreakers and does not expel them. You disputed this. I remained silent because, as a Catholic, you knew or should have known better. And yet you were wrong. The Catholic Church does not excommunicate lawbreakers, that is, murderers and thieves! Of course, anti-modernists and other heretics are excommunicated, because there is no freedom of belief or conscience, only obedience to the Church.

How progressive and freedom-breathing and fraternally conciliatory our Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution appear in contrast: no distinction of faith or race, no “belief in any dogma”.

Dear Doctor! You have signed this constitution with your signature and therefore, as a man of honor, you must either keep the constitution sacredly and faithfully or have this constitution amended or resign from office. Since you have now publicly spoken of “theosophical dogmas” here, I ask you to recant or to draw one of the three conclusions mentioned above. For it is obvious without further ado:

1) that the Theosophical Society has no dogma at all and that such an assertion is therefore a blatant contradiction of § 3 of the Constitution, and

2) that your assertion of a 'theosophical dogma' is a contradictio in adjecto such as 'dark sun' or 'tolerant Jesuit'.

Please explain on this occasion that the Theosophical Society has no dogma and logically can never have one, just as Theosophy is not a spiritual science, but according to Blavatsky “the wisdom of those who are divine”.

With theosophical greetings! Dr. M. Haedicke.

The postponement of the discharge is accepted by the assembly by vote.

Dr. Steiner asks if anyone has anything to say about the cash report.

Pastor Wendt: “Where do the 789 marks 75 pfennigs of congress taxes go? And why was the congress canceled at the last minute when most of them were already on their way to Italy?” Dr. Steiner: “Since I have been interpellated in this way, I have to answer this question. I will do so as best I can. However, I have to go back to the events that led to such congresses.

In 1904, the decision was taken to hold these congresses of the then-founded Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society. At that time, the decision was taken to hold such a congress every year. The way in which these congresses are to be prepared was determined, and how the section leaders of the country in which they were to be held were to participate in the event. It was also decided that each section should send a certain amount of money, I think 50 pfennigs per capita.

Now I come to a point that seems important to me, namely that in Paris – on the occasion of the 1906 congress – not only was the decision taken to hold a congress only every two years, but that another matter was also discussed at the same time. Specifically, they discussed – and I ask you to pay particular attention to this – whether they could evoke bitter feelings by asking our then-living president Olcott to found a European congress. The question arose through Commander Courmes, who was particularly close to Olcott, and it was of great concern to everyone involved at the time that Olcott might feel hurt if a separate body of European sections were established in which Olcott had no say. It was clear to everyone that the Federation was established in this way, that the president had no say in it. It was extremely difficult for us to make such a decision; but it had to be made, and it clearly showed that only the Federation of Sections itself and not the President of the Society had a say in it; and as far as I know, Olcott never felt this decision to be a painful one. This decision meant that the external events were taken over by the section of the country concerned, which was chosen for this congress in each individual case. This year, Genoa was chosen. Our friends have devoted themselves with the greatest intensity to the preparation and organization of this congress. Of course, money was needed for this, and since this money is usually spent eight days before the congress, we have no right to talk about the money that has been dutifully paid over in any sense here.

Certain difficulties arose beforehand, namely cholera. I did not rely on what was reported in the newspapers and so on, but above all trusted in the reports of our friend, Professor Penzig, who repeatedly assured me that it was not possible to speak of an epidemic in Genoa. I was therefore able to determine the number of German participants in Munich with a clear conscience and give it to Professor Penzig.

I was obliged to travel for a few days after the Munich cycle and arrived back in Munich on September 10th to make my preparations for Genoa. There I found a letter from Professor Penzig, in which he expressed his pleasure at being able to welcome so many of our members to Genoa and assured me for the last time that there was no risk of illness or quarantine difficulties. On the evening of September 10, I received a telegram: “Congress is canceled, please notify members.” Now the various addresses had to be found, and that was of course very difficult; we did not find about seven or eight, and I am sorry, Mr. Pastor, that you were among them.

But at the time, it was my responsibility to also find out the reasons why the congress was not taking place. Therefore, on the morning of the following day, after I had received the telegram on Sunday evening, September 10, I sent a telegram saying, “Since the cancellation must be extremely strange, please state the reasons.” In the evening I received the reply, “I have acted on strict orders from the President and the Secretary of the Congress. Please contact them.”

The section as such is of course authorized to cancel the congress, and we had to comply. If I had received a cancellation from London or somewhere else, I would still have traveled to Genoa, but in this case the cancellation was legally binding, even if it was incomprehensible. But I am not talking about justifications, but about facts. This has happened, and you will see from it that we could not possibly have objected to the sending of our congress funds, which have been used, and we cannot object to their use in the slightest."

Report of the auditors:

Mr. Tessmar, as auditor, stated that he and Ms. Motzkus had duly examined the books and found them to be correct, and he again came to speak about the reports not sent in on time by the branches.

Third [agenda item]: Motions from the floor:

Dr. Steiner: “There is a motion in two parts. One motion regarding Dr. Hugo Vollrath. The first part of the motion reads as follows:

Proposal:

The undersigned members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society hereby submit the following proposal to the General Assembly to be held in Berlin on December 10 of this year:

a) The General Assembly resolves to re-examine the events that led to the expulsion of Dr. Hugo Vollrach of Leipzig at the General Assembly of October 26, 1908, and to elect a commission of seven members for this purpose.

b) The selected commission should begin its work no later than six weeks after this year's General Assembly and forward the results of its investigations to the Secretary General of the “German Section”.

c) No members are to be included in the selected commission who, without knowing the exact circumstances, voted for the exclusion at the time.

d) The elected commission shall decide whether the resolution of October 26, 1908 is to be upheld or annulled.

Weißer Hirsch, December 6, 1911, signed H. Ahner, Chairman of the Lodge of the Grail in Dresden. Paul Krojanker, M.d.D.S.

Proposal:

The undersigned members of the German Section of the hereby submit the following proposal to the General Assembly to be held in Berlin on December 10 of this year: a) The General Assembly shall resolve to that led to the exclusion of Dr. Hugo Vollrath in Leipzig from the “Theosophical Society” at the General Assembly on October 26, 1908, and to elect a commission of seven members for this purpose.

b) The elected commission shall begin its work no later than six weeks after this year's General Assembly and shall forward the results of its examinations to the Secretary General of the “German Section”.

©) Only those members who did not vote at the exclusion conference of the board can be elected to the commission.

d) The elected commission has to decide whether the resolution of October 26, 1908 should be upheld or annulled.

signed Curt Richard Müller

[Rudolf Steiner:] “Regarding these proposals, it is necessary to present to the General Assembly a pamphlet that Dr. Hugo Vollrath has written on the same matter.

Some time ago, Dr. Vollrath sent this pamphlet to the members, in which he first printed what I had to say on behalf of the board at the 1908 general assembly on the matter in question, so to speak as the mouthpiece of the board; and to this Dr. Vollrath adds special remarks. The board has now decided – so that it cannot be said that we are keeping anything from the members – to have Dr. Vollrath's remarks read out.

Mr. Selling reads out Dr. Vollrath's statement, which has the following content:

To the board and members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society: At the Seventh General Assembly of the Section, at the request of the Leipzig Lodge, represented by Mrs. Wolfram, the decision was announced that the undersigned had been expelled from the Section.

At the time, I did not attach much importance to this decision, as I recognized the purpose of this event and was not directly prevented from working for the Theosophical Society. Based on the good law of karma, I saw it as a test that informed me about the Section's ethical view of the Theosophical Society and was to prepare me for even more difficult tasks. My close environment knew that I had been sacrificing my honour and reputation, as well as my property and work, in the service of the Masters, the founders of the Theosophical Society, since 1902.

But as it turned out, my expulsion was the source of an incalculable flood of hatred of the worst kind. The harmless friendly relations that I had with many members were immediately and hurtfully broken off, and people believed that they now had a duty to insult me as soon as my name came up. Since Ms. Wolfram has recently stated completely new reasons for my expulsion that were not possible at the time, and since the agitation is increasing, even against my new colleagues, who are also being systematically worked against me, I would certainly now incur a great karmic debt on my work by omission if I remained silent any longer.

According to the protocol, I was excluded because the Leipzig lodge felt its neck was being choked. But now that the throat was free again, they didn't leave me alone to work, and they continued to stir up hatred against my colleagues, worse than before.

I therefore submitted the following motion to the Section Executive Council and the General Secretariat:

1. to drop the motion by Ms. Wolfram regarding my expulsion in a dignified manner,

2. to elect a court of honor to decide and clarify existing misunderstandings and rumors.

My reasoning for point 1 is: Mrs. Wolfram submitted her application shortly before the start of the 7th General Assembly, instead of at least 14 days in advance, contrary to the statutes of the section. The delegates and board members present in Berlin were surprised. They did not have time to examine Mrs. Wolfram's accusations. Especially when such serious decisions are made that shake the very foundations of the Theosophical Society, the members, or at least the chairpersons, should be consulted. Furthermore, in the life of an association, it is incorrect to attack a member without giving him the opportunity to defend himself against the secret attacks. I demand the right to defend myself. By defense I do not mean justification, but an opportunity to present evidence against the attacks, so that the Theosophical Society as such is not karmically burdened by false representations of facts.

My reason for point 2 is: The Court of Honour has to establish a balance between the tensions that arise within the German Section. If this natural authority is ignored, brutality and lawlessness will prevail. But arbitrariness is not freedom! The arrangers of my exclusion have claimed that I absolutely need the German Section, which is why I am trying to get back into it.

Those who are under the spell of this phrase, consider my work after the period of my exclusion as head of the board of directors of the Bund für Gesundes Leben and the board of directors of the German Society for Psychic Research, as editor of good theosophical literature and as editor of “Theosophy” and as editor of four other ethical journals, all of which are in the service of the lofty cultural idea of the Theosophical Society. When Mrs. Annie Besant appointed me as the secretary of the “Bund des Sternes im Osten” (The Starry East), I do not consider it as a personal merit, but as a sign of trust that honest great people have placed in me. These are people who, free from fear, have the courage to renounce realpolitik and remain true to principle, for only in this way are they worthy and suited to hold in their hands the great message of redemption from the White Lodge and to proclaim it to the spirit of the age.

I shall comment only very briefly today on the most serious accusations and slanders. I therefore ask you to read the protocol carefully, as I must assume that you are familiar with it. Dr. Steiner and Fräulein von Sivers had had bad experiences with the Secession of the Theosophical Society, the so-called International Theosophical Fraternity (L.T.V.), as well as with the Theosophical Society of Paul Raatz in Berlin. I had no connection with these associations, neither commercially nor as a collaborator. Dr. Steiner was well aware of this. He knew that I had moved from Wilhelmstraße 120, the headquarters of Paul Raatz's association, to Motzstraße 17 because I did not agree with the principles of the society, which takes an oppositional stance. This happened before I even became his student. I was often with Dr. Steiner three to four times a week. As soon as Dr. Steiner saw me somewhere, he would inquire about my relationship with his antipodes in Leipzig, the representatives of the I.T.V. When I told him, when pressed to take action against these people, that I felt obliged by certain friendly relations to let people work in peace, and that in such important matters I left the course of events to the law of karma, to which Dr. Steiner replied: “I should bear in mind that after all this was about money, about hard cash. We are karma, it cannot work if we do not want it to. It is not acceptable that I sit on the fence.” I told him that I was financially independent and that it was important to me not to sit on the fence, but to work for our cause. However, I allowed myself to be influenced by Dr. Steiner's objections because I believed that without him, working for the Theosophical Society would be very difficult for me. He also knew that it was only at his and Frau Wolfram's instigation, for they were both well informed, that I demanded the return of my capital from the Theosophical Central Bookshop of the I.T.V. in Leipzig, by means of which the bookshop was maintained at that time, and which indirectly led to its collapse, which soon occurred. It was only as a result of this that the lawsuits were possible, for which I was reproached shortly afterwards. In these lawsuits, my opponent was always convicted. My opponent was sentenced to prison five times. I was never punished. Dr. Steiner wrote part of my first court submission with his own hand; only when his opponents accused him of wanting to use me to gain possession of the bookstore did he withdraw from me and suddenly no longer understand me, as he said.

Mrs. Wolfram was always annoyed by my seemingly passive behavior towards the work of the Theosophical Society at the time, and occasionally offered me offices and positions. She wanted to make me chairman of the Leipzig Lodge when Mr. Bresch resigned and before Mr. Jahn took over the position. Since I was returning to Berlin that same evening with Dr. Steiner, I had to give up the negotiations for the position of chairman. I never forced myself on Dr. Steiner to work with him. I constantly emphasized to him that I live and die for the Theosophical Society, that the interests of the Theosophical Society are mine, and that if the Master can find a place for me somewhere, he will find ways and means. My only evening lecture at 17 Motzstraße took place at the request of Miss Sivers, who publicly invited me to do so at an earlier evening lecture.

The idea of starting a bookshop matured in conversation with Dr. Steiner. He complained that Miss von Sivers was wearing herself out with work that was not paying off. She had a lot of book orders to fulfill, while the publisher M. Altmann in Leipzig only gave her a small discount, and she had to add postage, packaging and labor costs to this. I was told something similar by Miss von Slivers herself. Since I was now in a position to intervene here, and since I am not ashamed of any practical work, even of the kind that could lead to the accusation that it is done for the sake of profit, I naturally considered it an act of philanthropy to provide a remedy, and Dr. Steiner promised me to publish his manuscript “Die Geheimwissenschaft” and to give Fräulein von Sivers her translations. At the time, we had considered publishing Schur's La pretresse d'Isis. With great sacrifices, I immediately launched the existing bookshop, the Theosophical Publishing House. Allegedly because of the “incredible red” of a brochure, Fräulein] von Sivers wrote me a rude letter, I still have it in my hands, and both she and Dr. Steiner broke off all relations with me without any discussion, , despite the fact that I personally brought the entire print run of the brochure to Motzstraße 17 for destruction and despite the fact that I promised to fire my managing director A. Strauch immediately if he were to write a brochure again without my exact instructions.

I was Dr. Steiner's student and got to know the exercises of his system thoroughly, both those that I received personally and those that he distributed to others. I was amazed at the handling of these sacred things, but most of all at Steiner's inconsistency. He once told me, verbatim, that the tablecloth between us was completely cut, while he told another student, a young lady who wanted to leave his circle, that he could not sever the connection himself.

Since I believed that I had the trust of Dr. Steiner and Fräulein] von Sivers, and since both were quite sovereign in the section at the time, I created a literary department that would serve to provide good translations by foreign contributors. Anyone who provided their contributions free of charge was to be listed as an honorary member. Two members in the Netherlands and Russia who were personally acquainted with Dr. Steiner were listed as honorary members. If this department proved to be practical, it should become viable, and at the next general assembly I hoped to be able to officially hand over this department to the section as a valuable working group. In the meantime, however, I was expelled, and this work was thwarted because they did not ask what was achieved, but what your actual motives were for doing it. But if you look for motives, it is easy to be deceived into seeing your own thoughts.

The Theosophical Society is not responsible for the private lives and opinions of its members. Dr. Steiner should know that. Anyone who wants to form an objective opinion about Dr. Steiner's polemic regarding the open letter can obtain any copies from me free of charge. Dr. Steiner did not even read the letter properly before trying to generalize some of what he had read. This lack of objectivity would already be enough to discredit a modern scholar as being unscientific. But an occultist has a duty to show much greater objectivity than a modern academic. What I said in the open letter is based in some points on the Secret Doctrine, and anyone can accept what corresponds to their reason and conscience. As is well known, scholarly disputes and blind faith have no place in the Theosophical Society. What I have said about the nervousness of certain circles is my personal experience, which I do not allow Dr. Steiner to reinterpret or generalize. As the saying goes, “battled dogs bark.” Since I have not committed myself to any particular system, but see the revelation of truth in all systems, I have a much freer judgment of the entire Theosophical movement in Germany than Dr. Steiner. Dr. Steiner, through his many speeches in support of my expulsion, has given even the most uninformed observer a truly vivid picture of restlessness and over-excitement. A section that finds its calm and stability in divine law and in the spirit hardly needs to be stirred up by a single member who does not even hold an office, either on the executive committee or in any lodge. One has only to read between the lines of the protocol. The purposeful worker does not let others upset him. When I explained my motives in an open letter regarding the acceptance of a publishing house logo, a relatively unimportant thing, I was accused of all sorts of evil motives. The sharp condemnation of Dr. Steiner, as an occult teacher, is out of place. His words: “Nonsense, grandiose amateurism, drink your own concoction, rolled out tin” are no proof of understanding and tolerance towards the opinions of aspiring members. Anyone who wants to be a soul-carer and claims such a position for himself must show leniency. But tolerance is the basis of all joint work. What would happen if Dr. Steiner were to be judged and his divorce matters made the subject of a general assembly? Dr. Steiner is not to be slighted here in any way, for he has already dramatized his criticism in this case in his 'Rosicrucian Mystery', in which, on page 38, he has the exiled wife of John clearly describe the situation. I have not slighted any member of the German Section, and anyone who claims the opposite can come forward. I have not allowed myself to interfere in the inner life of others. When I spoke to Dr. Franz Hartmann a few weeks ago, he complained that he was very often harassed with letters in which the most severe accusations were made against Dr. Steiner's occult training, which had already sent a number of people to the insane asylum and to their deathbeds. Dr. Hartmann gave me various names. I too have received addresses from people who have lost their physical and mental health as a result of Steiner's training.

Certain manipulations by Steiner's management are in direct violation of commercial law. Is it up to the majority of the section to decide whether this is good or not? As long as such and similar matters, which are of a deeply invasive nature, are still occupying public opinion in Germany, does Dr. Steiner have the right to discredit members and expose them to the ridicule of his section without any defense?

Occultism is the practical science of love and wisdom. Why then does Dr. Steiner alone have the right to polemics and condemnation? He made ample use of this right during the time of his agitation against his colleague in the Theosophical Society, C. W. Leadbeater, in the private sessions of the German members with Fräulein von Sivers during the Paris Congress of 1905. I was surprised at Steiner's devastating polemic; and although I held him in the highest esteem at the time, I could not refrain from pointing out the state of the Theosophical Society in entirely objective terms. However, I was sharply rebuffed by Fräulein von Sivers and Dr. Steiner. After the meeting ended, both assured me that they had no personal animus towards me.

It is untrue, if I am to speak in the terms of Dr. Steiner, that I send my things out into the world as 'Adyar things'. I have always upheld the principle of the Theosophical Society that each member is responsible for what he writes, and not the Society or its official representatives. The success of my work to date confirms the correctness of this principle.

It is untrue when Dr. Steiner claims that my expulsion was the result of a majority vote. Dr. Steiner abstained from voting in the board meeting. The representative of the Dresden Lodge was against it. One could only speak of a majority decision if Mrs. Wolfram's application had been properly submitted to the chairmen of the lodges at least 14 days before the general assembly so that the members could have been informed of its contents. Of course, it is difficult to do this now because the members have already been influenced against me. With this exclusion manipulation, the section has shown that its association morality is even lower than the social-democratic association morality. When one of its members is expelled, the reasons for the expulsion are officially announced so that the person concerned can defend himself. It is common practice at general meetings, as evidenced by the minutes, to spend hours discussing trivial matters, but when it comes to an expulsion, which is not a trivial matter, public opinion is feared.

It is generally incomprehensible how an occultist can believe that spiritual progress can be achieved by majority decision. Anyone who believes this is not only uneducated but also superstitious. Belief in the majority is a delusion.

However, I had great patience with Mrs. Wolfram. As long as I listened to her lectures on Friedrich Nietzsche – she gave me this private lecture twice – I was her good friend. I had to confront her several times when she attacked representatives of the Theosophical worldview in her lodge lectures, and I did so in a considerate manner. She was constantly dealing with some person. She made certain demands, according to which she judged the value of the members. For example, when I did not want to blindly admit that Dr. Steiner was the greatest initiate in Europe and that at the next presidential election, Dr. Steiner must take the place of Mrs. Besant, because Dr. Steiner was a much better speaker, as she wanted to convince various, even older, members at the Munich Congress members at the Munich Congress, and when I did not ask her for advice at every opportunity, when founding the Theosophical Publishing House, this woman's hatred was poured out on my head, a hatred whose energy is all the more admirable because it revealed a great negative power that must ultimately serve the Master's work indirectly. To avoid all slander, I decided to found a lodge in Leipzig myself, as had already been done in Munich, Stuttgart and other cities. However, this only increased Frau Wolfram's hatred. When Dr. Steiner gave a series of lectures in Leipzig in 1908, she banned my colleagues and me from attending, even though the lectures were public. Dr. Steiner later lifted the ban. She informed her members that they would ensure that Dr. Vollrah would not only be removed from the German Section, but also from the Theosophical Society altogether. She used the sanctity of the inner circle (E.S.) to cause one of my co-workers, under the guise of silence, to abandon me shortly after the founding of the Theosophical Publishing House, so that the company would be forced to file for bankruptcy. Dr. Vollrath, she claimed, was insane and now his father would still be able to place him in a decent mental institution. (The witnesses are still alive.) She based this atrocity on the testimony of her teacher, Dr. Steiner. She promised my colleague a position in Dr. Steiner's general secretariat. Another colleague suffered, in her opinion, from dangerous megalomania. This poor man, in his physical organization, could not protect himself against the occult attacks of this woman as I could, and his delicate, sensitive constitution suffered from the most terrible mental depressions for months. These experiences were a terrible chapter in the history of the Theosophical Society for me. Over the past three years, Ms. Wolfram's bullying has spread throughout the section. When I was seen at the Budapest Congress, a real witch hunt began. It was only when I explained to the General Secretary of the Hungarian Section that I would appeal to our esteemed President that I was graciously allowed to attend the congress, even though I had already had the admission ticket for months.

In her report, Mrs. Wolfram says that I cried and screamed. It was certainly enough to make me scream. I cried once, and I am not ashamed of that even today; the others present at the time are still on the physical plane today. It was a moment when the sublimity of humanity and the dignity of womanhood seemed to fade in one of its representatives. The immediate proximity of unsuspected malice triggered a pain in me that I could not hide at the time, although I almost did not know tears! Today, after four years, despite a lot of work, this mental result is still vivid in my mind.

I knew the source from which Mrs. Wolfram took the money for the education of her two children, she had two at the time. This was very embarrassing to her, and she feared my knowledge, which partly explains the bold effort to get rid of me.

The subtle psychic tact of the occultist, who looks deeper into the psychic life of others, does not allow him to completely reveal the psychic life of his opponents before the public, because by doing so he draws the attention of others too much to the unimportant, the person, at the expense of the essential, the principles and the tasks of the Theosophical Society, which, however, are the primary focus of attention and concentrated interest. I have therefore only attempted to give a few brief explanations that may serve to clarify to some extent the deliberately veiled circumstances of my expulsion. However, I cannot yet foresee what the consequences will be, as that depends on the response I receive from the German Section.

It is in my nature as a representative of the Aryan race, after three years of trying to remain silent, to enter the realm of gentleness and peace as an undefeated warrior, not as a learned, diplomatic couch potato by the warm stove. Where should we go in the Theosophical Society to decide by majority vote whether a general secretary can eat old cheese, wear an artist's tie, or send his wife a bill of divorce? The authority of an occult teacher, a master or a theosophist cannot be established by a majority vote! Do we have the right to see only the lowly in our members? Or is it our duty to expect great things from them, since we are not the heralds of greatness, truth, beauty and strength? Are we not working on a civilization based on brotherhood, love and wisdom? Should we not therefore be the first to praise and practise these qualities in ourselves, in our environment, in our circles? Should arbitrariness, majority decisions and realpolitik take the lead in the Theosophical Society, and members who take the side of principle be ridiculed? No, “A limit has tyrants' power! When the oppressed can find no justice anywhere, when the burden becomes unbearable, he reaches up into the heavens with courageous courage and brings down his eternal rights, which hang above, unalienable and unbreakable like the stars themselves.

In order to finally put an end to the terrible and fruitless attacks on my colleagues and my work, I am having this petition to the section printed in large numbers and sent to all members of the section in order to awaken the public conscience in them and to of an arbitration tribunal, where at least the grossest expressions of organizational arbitrariness within the section can be discussed and where the rumors that have been circulated can be examined for their value and which can then make decisions on a just basis!

I have had an excerpt printed from the minutes of the seventh General Assembly, which literally records the entire proceedings and is necessary for an easier understanding of the matter.

Dr. Hugo Vollrath

[Rudolf Steiner:] “Dr. Vollrath wrote to me yesterday”:

Bund des Sternes im Osten. Secretariat for Germany: Dr. Hugo Vollrath, Leipzig, Salomonstr. 18. Date: December 8, 1911.

Dear Doctor!

I have heard that a number of members of the Section will be holding a meeting tomorrow in

in Berlin tomorrow to discuss a motion regarding my exclusion. Wouldn't it be better if efforts were made to ensure that the discussions that will be necessary to form this commission are as brief as possible? I have seen that more dust is being raised than is necessary, and that our opponents see this matter in a completely different light than I would like in view of your position. Because basically you are infinitely closer to me than to those who want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Should it be the order of things that I become a member of the section again, it would naturally be much more pleasant for me to be able to offer you the hand of reconciliation, which comes from a sincere heart, without much annoyance and without causing new ill will. However, should you be completely opposed to this, either because you still harbor the old mistrust towards me, then I am also prepared to take the measures that my mental self-preservation instinct puts into my hands. The holy beings will continue to stand by me.

However, I always consider it more appropriate to go to the root of the problem first in order to save time and effort.

Should the balance in the section be disturbed in any way by my possible re-admission, I would of course be prepared to resign voluntarily. The founding of the Free International Section, German Branch, would then be the natural consequence.

If you consider a meeting with me before the General Assembly advisable, I would be grateful if you would notify me, at the Evangelical] Hospice of St. Michael at the Anhalter Bahnhof.

With theosophical greetings! Yours sincerely, Dr. Hugo Vollrath.

Göttingen, December 8, 1911. Dear Doctor!

This letter is prompted by the fact that Dr. Vollrath has just written to me asking me to sign his application to the Section Assembly to appoint a commission to examine his exclusion from the Section.

In response to this, I am writing to you directly today: I support his application for the appointment of the examination commission for the following reason: I was not present at the 1908 meeting at which Vollrach was excluded. However, from the report and the further communications about it, I have gained the impression that the decision at that time was not taken in a satisfactory manner, even if it seemed appropriate at the time due to the circumstances. At present, both you and Ms. Wolfram herself would wish for this matter to be definitively settled formally, sine ira et studio.

Finally, I would like to mention something that is probably self-evident to you: I strongly disagree with the tone and content of Dr. Vollrath's printed response and the reasons for his request for a re-examination of his case. If his request for this requires my support, I hereby give it, because I am entirely in favor of him receiving impartial justice to the fullest extent. But I ask not to be identified with Dr. Vollrath; and since I am not aware of the actual circumstances myself, I ask that this support of my motion not be used factually either for or against Dr. Vollrach.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

Mr. Michael Bauer wishes to speak:

If he objects to the expression “rolled sheet metal”, then I am convinced that sheet metal is much too good a thing; one could say cardboard lid instead. If you write such things, there is no need to look for a way to ridicule such a person. But there are many other things, so we cannot refrain from dealing with the matter in more detail. Not to mention all the logical contradictions.

What should cause us to look into the matter more closely is not the pamphlet itself, which was written outside the Theosophical Society; the reason why we have to deal with it is a very sad one, namely that, according to this pamphlet, there are people within our Society who share the same attitude. A year ago, one could still say, “I believe that Dr. Hugo Vollrath was justifiably expelled.” Today, one can no longer say that. Today one must say, “I know that Dr. Hugo Vollrath was justifiably expelled.”

Dr. Vollrath speaks of the deliberately veiled circumstances of his expulsion. Those of you who voted at the time are therefore complicit in the deliberately veiled circumstances. It would have been right to expel Dr. Vollrath simply because he sent those notes, and only for that reason.

Today we have heard about individual forces and effects; that is precisely the nature of our development today, that individual people can connect with one another, that is precisely the deepest moment of Christian development. But when one engages in propaganda, one appeals to feelings that do not go hand in hand with free humanity. Those who do this are not working in our interest. Any member who engages in propaganda must be excluded. They say: tolerance must determine us, brotherly love commands us to tolerate such members among us. – If they say that, then they clearly don't know what a society is. Of course we have to tolerate what goes on in the world that we cannot prevent, but we must keep far away from those who cannot work in our spirit.

Dr. Vollrath did not include a statement from the General Assembly in his pamphlet. He said: “A society that excludes anyone loses its cosmopolitan character.” But what does that mean! One could just as easily say: A garden from which a weed is thrown over the fence loses its existence as a garden. A society must reserve the right to expel members, because it is its duty to remove all elements that no longer belong if it wants to continue its work in the right way. From this point of view, we are a society. The tolerance that is always invoked should not only be practiced towards our opponents, but also towards our friends. It is necessary that we clear the air and clear our minds. If we let this continue, if we say, “We have to let these people in, what kind of society will we end up with?”

Of course, many things can be touched, but it does not belong in our society. I once experienced that someone said: We should deal with things in our lodges, such as the cooking box.

But all of this is actually not the most painful thing about the whole thing, when we say that the very foundations of society are under threat, and when we then still have to hear from members: “Maybe he was wrong after all.” The most painful thing for me is a completely different point. Clear your mind of everything you have gained in the way of clarification, elevation and strength through Theosophy, as we received it from Dr. Steiner, and imagine that your library contains only books that you knew before. then please consider for a moment what you have been able to experience over the years in terms of joy, upliftment, the joy of knowledge, and inspiration. If you compare that with the experiences you had before, you will have some idea of what society was like before and what it is like today. I belonged to it. It must be said that something tremendous has happened in these last years, for which I have only one expression of Rama Krishna: “When a saint comes, he can make buried springs flow; a messenger of God can make springs flow where there were none.”

We have experienced this, but we have also experienced that there were people among us who poisoned and defiled these sources. It has become very clear to me that we cannot continue in this way. We cannot simply let society grow without countering the danger that we will have a majority that actually does not belong in society and that can make it impossible for us to work in the right way in this society. Our society is an organism through which our inner life is meant to have an effect on the world. If the inner life is too lazy, too comfortable, so that it can no longer expel disease material, then it must face decay. Today we may still have the opportunity to make the body healthy, and I appeal to you to be energetic today in ensuring that we no longer have such things before us in a future General Assembly, that attacks can be directed against us from within society. The General Assembly must do something here; this is not about the person of Dr. Steiner, it is about society and its organism. Something must be done today that cannot be done later. We have no choice but to proceed radically.

I do not yet have the motion that may arise, and I have no intention of anticipating anything. What I wanted to do was give you an idea of the enormity of this moment. We must not approach this matter with complacency, with sleepiness. It is not a small thing, it is not enough for us to dismiss Mr. Vollrath; it is necessary that we unanimously enter upon a path to heal the organism by excluding from society what does not belong in it.” Mr. Ahner: ”You are looking in one direction and you expect me to give my opinion on what I have just heard. It is always a significant thing when those elements from all parts of our fatherland gather here who are called upon to carry forward the high goals that Theosophy pursues in order to offer something to all of humanity so that it may develop further, in accordance with the wishes of the high masters.

Today, we are dealing with a matter that, in my opinion, should not occur in a Theosophical Society. I do not want to go into the whole story here, as it is before us. I don't want to say a word about what Dr. Vollrath might have done wrong, because it is completely hopeless for me to give a clear picture. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden supports these proposals, in that he actually wants a commission to investigate the facts again. At the time when Mrs. Wolfram's proposal to expel Dr. Vollrath was read, I myself was a member of the board of the German Section. I found no reason why such a zealous and active member should be excluded. I pointed out at the time what Theosophy is. One thing is important, and I refer here to a Bible verse that is true: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

There are hundreds of us here, shouldn't He be here among us? I believe He is, and I hope that He is in all our hearts, that Christ-spirit that says: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you.” And now, as we approach Christmas, this festival of love, where Christ was born, He should also be born in us. Let this birth take place, let us forget everything, let us act fraternally, love for love, heart for heart! I have taken care of the persecuted, I ask you to give me a hand, you have me completely. Let love be done for love."

Mr. Krojanker: (Initially incomprehensible) ”It is not possible, we have to go back to the facts. I must confess that I was very surprised by the reading of the Vollrath brochure, which is called a pamphlet here. This could not have been foreseen by us applicants. I also consider it a wrong decision by the board. If a commission were appointed, it could go into the details; here before the general assembly, that is not conceivable. We should decide to elect a commission; it should only re-examine what actually happened. The General Assembly should only decide whether a commission should be elected. I must emphasize that it is far from my intention as a petitioner to offend the board, but from what I have examined, I must assume that it has not been sufficiently informed. Therefore, a commission should now be elected so that these matters come to light. As for what Mr. Bauer said, I must confess that I found the theosophical part of his speech quite appealing, but we do not need Mr. Bauer to tell us what Theosophy is. He has allowed himself to make a judgment about the reasons that lead us to stand up for Vollrath. I have considered this for a very long time, and I assure you that if these things are not carried out on the basis of the theosophical movement, they will be carried out outside of it. If Mr. Bauer, in his capacity as a teacher, is upset that some sentences are not entirely correct, then I find that absolutely incomprehensible. I also strongly disagree with everything that is printed there. I ask you to accept the proposals, and they should not be mentioned again. I only ask that the facts be examined individually before the commission. But I emphasize that I do not want to identify with Vollrath's printed work at all. Do not forget that in Vollrath we have a person who is not yet mature inwardly, who is full of anger. He let time pass and only wanted to vent his feelings in this pamphlet, as it is called.

Dr. Unger: “Allow me first to address a few things that have just been said. The point is to come to the aid of our friend, Mr. Bauer, in the face of the accusations that have been made against him, and to underline, as it were, what he has stated. It was said: ”We do not want Mr. Bauer to tell us what Theosophy is.” But we were constantly told by Mr. Vollrath and his comrades what Theosophy is supposed to be. Furthermore, it was said that the applicant did not agree with the form in which the brochure was written; nevertheless, the application was made, as he says, in the interest of the Theosophical Society. It is important to me that this be stated. Because if someone morally supports what another person hurls as dirt and filth against the Theosophical Society and supports it with reference to an inadequate form, that is not logic. That is not acceptable. It is double-speak to say, “I don't agree with what is being said, I'm just supporting the motion.” It is claimed that the board members at the time were not informed about what they were deciding on. Either one or the other is true. If you do not agree with the pamphlet, then you cannot accuse the board of not having been informed. The applicants demanded that Dr. Vollrath be given the opportunity to justify himself. We have the justification before us. This is what it looks like, this justification. Smear, defamation, poison and threat, that is the content of this justification. Mr. Bauer said quite correctly: “We see from what lies before us what kind of spirit is behind it.” But if something like this is supported, then the person making the request is aligned with this spirit! That such support could come from our circles is something that must be said: it cannot continue. Mr. Krojanker objects to Mr. Bauer telling us what we should understand by Theosophy; but that does not prevent it from constantly happening from the other side. Mr. Ahner said he did not want to give us a lecture on Christianity. But now he has told us what his Christianity is and talked a lot about love, Christianity, brotherhood, and God knows what. But where is love in this pamphlet? Where is the brotherhood and Christianity? That is the question. Those who overflow with love and then apply this love in such a way that they support such a pamphlet must be told that they may be in the Theosophical Society, but they are not in the Theosophical movement! Someone who speaks with love on their lips but performs such acts has no idea of what we want Theosophy to mean. Anyone who has ever really been involved in our work knows that we have to stick together like glue to be able to share in the spiritual wealth that we have acquired over the past ten years. This work must be respected. There is no point in saying that our only conditions for admission are the three points of our statutes. We do not have to accept everyone who applies to us, in any way. Three years ago, the motion was adopted, with general understanding, to protect our work. This Society of ours should gradually become a body – that is the view of all of us – that should become an expression of what exists as the theosophical spirit. Let the Theosophical Society scatter, the theosophical movement remains. It would be better for the Society to scatter than for a little title to be lost from the spiritual wealth that we have conquered. It should be emphasized even more sharply: What we have gradually acquired as the theosophical movement, which can never be completed, can never be delimited in paragraphs, that really exists. But if we can get such proposals that, according to the statutes of the Society, the theosophical work can be thrown under the bus according to the rules of procedure, then we will just change the statutes.

The tasks are there, whether the Society will be able to fulfill them is decided by this hour. For what is to be formed in Munich in the next few years, for the growth of the theosophical work that we have conquered and that is to gain life in the world, we need a physical body, we need members, but not paragraphs, they will never achieve that. If it has been said today that it was a significant event that we were able to hand over a building to the theosophical life in Stuttgart, then it may be stated here from our own experience what Dr. Steiner said in the consecration speech for this building: “What is needed is trust.” It is not necessary for everyone to contribute their wisdom; a board has been created for this, as an expression of trust. And to beat the board at every opportunity is not on; we will achieve nothing in this way, and we certainly would not have built this Stuttgart building if the members had not generously exercised this trust. Through commissions, as demanded by today's proposals, we would not only have no building, but also no money for it.

As a result of this pamphlet and of what has happened today, the board feels deeply offended in what is the actual point of honor of the board. It must expect the rescue of its honor from today's meeting.

The idea has been mooted that a commission should be formed from this meeting, not one in the sense of the applicants, but one that may elaborate a draft for a new constitution that makes it impossible for anything like what is expressed in these proposals to ever happen again. I am convinced that if the members of the Theosophical Society were also members of the Theosophical Society, any statutes would be right. Since that is not the case, we have to adapt the statutes to the spirit of our movement. The board itself refrains from making such a request because it expects the meeting to restore its honor.

It would perhaps be better to dismiss such attacks by ignoring them. There is certainly something appealing about saying that we do not want to deal with dirt. But here it becomes a duty to call a spade a spade. If we want to have the opportunity to delve into our work, then we must first clear the table, and the sword of wrath must also be used.

It may be that some would rather hear objective theosophical discussions at the present time. But it is important to express one's indignation; it is important to me to emphasize that I am not ashamed of such indignation. I would be ashamed if, as our friend Bauer said, we were so sleepy that we could not be roused to action. It should be made possible to stop people from being kicked between the legs, and to protect the General Secretary and the Executive Board from such filth, in accordance with the statutes. That is why the Executive Board expects you to take action today!"

It was decided to take a break of one and a half hours at Dr. Steiner's suggestion, and to continue the meeting at four o'clock in the afternoon.

At half past three, Dr. Steiner reopened the session by reading a telegram with the following content: “I hereby send the German Section my respectful greetings and best wishes for their General Assembly. Kinell.

This was followed by a speech by Pastor Klein on the significance of Theosophy, based on the words of St. Paul about the “Wisdom of God”.

Dr. Steiner then announced the contents of the list of speakers, which included the following speakers: Mr. Arenson, Mr. Molt, Pastor Klein, Pastor Wendt, Mr. von Rainer, Mr. Schmid, the architect, and Mr. Walther.

Mr. Arenson was the first to be given the floor: “When I first heard about the proposals that had been put forward for this General Assembly, when I was told that the seemingly impossible had become possible, that there were members in our society who offered their hand to could be submitted, who supported, so to speak, what Dr. Vollrath demanded in his pamphlet: namely, to be heard here and to start again with an examination of this case - that's when I first had the thought, the impulse: to move on to the agenda; there is nothing else to do but simply ignore such things. But then, after careful consideration, the result was somewhat different. It is certainly a good thing to do positive work and, when we are confronted with something, to simply move on to the agenda. But we cannot possibly do that in this case. This is an act that must be undertaken with all our energy if we do not want to see ourselves fall victim to the dirt.

Now, if we proceed to the matter itself, one might ask: what is this request for a retrial actually based on? Such a retrial of a case is only justified if new material has been found that is to be examined to determine whether it is suitable to shed new light on the existing evidence. We know that this is not the case; we know that there is no reason to reopen a procedure that was carried out with all due care at the time. I can only say here very briefly that the members of the board who took the decision at the time examined the matter in a way that is no longer possible today. It is complete ignorance of the actual circumstances that simply wants to make us believe that we followed an instantaneous impulse and thereby caused the expulsion of Dr. Vollrath. On the contrary, we were privy to all the details and knew exactly what had happened. We knew every detail and knew it in such a way that if we had presented the whole situation in a few words, anyone else would have been able to make the same decision within a few minutes that was made at the time. So we were privy to what had to lead to the well-known decision. It is difficult to verify this now, because everything we had thoroughly considered at the time has been cast in a completely new light by what has since been made known in writing and word, and therefore can no longer lead to an understanding of the situation at the time.

We can say – and this is certainly not meant ironically, but is the bitter truth: the key to the truth can be found in everything that Dr. Vollrath says, simply by reversing the things he claims. Let us take a specific case to show what is meant by this. Dr. Vollrath says in his pamphlet that Dr. Steiner in Paris at the time took strong action against Leadbeater. The relevant passage reads as follows: “Occultism is the practical science of love and wisdom. Why then does Dr. Steiner alone have the right to polemic and condemnation? He made ample use of this during the time of the agitation against his colleague in the Theosophical Society, C. W. Leadbeater, in the private sessions of the German members with Fräulein von Sivers during the Paris Congress [1906]. I was surprised at Steiner's scathing polemic, and although I held him in the highest esteem at the time, I could not refrain from pointing out the state of the Theosophical Society in a completely objective manner. However, I was sharply rebuffed by Fräulein von Sivers and Dr. Steiner. After the meeting ended, both assured me that they had no personal animosity towards me.

The truth of the matter is as follows: At that time in [1906] Leadbeater was in very difficult circumstances, and Dr. Steiner was the only one who defended him energetically and factually. It should be said in this context, since most of our members in Germany did not even hear about the case, that even our president Annie Besant was a fierce critic of Leadbeater and, with regard to what it was all about, made the statement that it was a “moral insanity”, whereas Dr. Steiner justifiably took the side of Leadbeater and defended him. That Dr. Steiner acted in this way has later earned him many reproaches. What the case of Leadbeater actually was, is not our concern today. The fact stands, however, and can always be substantiated by witnesses, that exactly the opposite is the case of what Dr. Vollrath expresses in his pamphlet. So we can go from sentence to sentence.

Furthermore, when we read what Dr. Vollrath writes: “It was only when I explained to the Secretary General of the Hungarian Section that I would appeal to our esteemed President to intervene that I was graciously allowed to attend the congress, even though I had already had the admission ticket in my hands for months.” It should be noted that those who were present know that Dr. Steiner did not refuse him attendance, but made it possible. But when Dr. Vollrath says that he was not admitted despite having had the admission card in his hands for months, it must be explained that he had obtained this admission card by submitting his diploma from the German Section in Budapest, which had been invalidated by his expulsion, and was subsequently given the admission card.

And so it goes on. It would take us too far to want to rush through everything that is written here in this libel. The only thing that can be said is that in such a way, every sentence contains some hidden malice. Take what you heard earlier. Isn't it the purest irony when Dr. Vollrath says on page 9 of his diatribe: “The subtle psychic tact of the occultist, who looks deeper into the psychic life of others, does not allow him to completely reveal the psychic life of his opponents before the public, for by so doing he draws the attention of others too much to the unimportant, the person, at the expense of the important, the principles and the tasks of the Theosophical Society, to which, however, attention and concentrated interest are primarily directed. I have therefore only attempted to give a few hints that might serve to clarify to some extent the deliberately veiled circumstances of my expulsion. However, I cannot yet foresee what the consequences will be, as that depends on the response I receive from the German Section.

This tells us who the investigator of souls is; someone who is tactful enough not to reveal the inner life of his opponents completely to the public. But this tactful investigator of souls reveals just enough to have an effect in his own way, according to the old principle: “Even if it is not true, something of it will stick.”

I did not offend any member of the German section of honor; anyone who claims the opposite may come forward.

To put this sentence in its proper perspective, I would like to say the following, which I regret to have had to say before: <501> <502> <503> <504> <505> <506> <507> <508> <509> <510> <511> <512> <513> <514> <515> <516> <517> <518> <519> <520> <521> <522> <523> <524> <525> <526> <527> <528> <529> <530> <531> <5 She was mortally embarrassed and feared I was in on it, which partly explains her bold attempt to get rid of me.

My friends, anyone who speaks in such a way is no longer considered a decent person. A person who says something like that, which, it must be said, is not only mean but also threatening, is not worthy of being heard among decent people. But we also stand for something other than just being decent people. What is generally considered a virtue in the world should be something we take for granted, something we don't even have to mention as something special. We have something to advocate that stands high above all that is recognized as an ordinary duty, as ordinary virtue. Therefore, it is also our duty to act in such a way that there is agreement and harmony, and that is why the previous speaker emphasized so energetically that we cannot simply go about our business or accept a vote of confidence as is usually the case. No, our esteemed leader, the entire board of directors has been outrageously offended by what has happened. There is only one thing to be done about this: the General Assembly of today must express itself in some characteristic way so that we may be sure in the future that such things will not take up our precious time again, that such things will not create an atmosphere in our meetings that should not really be present at Theosophical General Meetings.

Take everything into account. Isn't every word spoken, both by Dr. Vollrath himself and by his supporters in support of the motion, full of contradictions? Or is it not a contradiction when it is stated in the letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden that he does not agree with the tone and content of Dr. Vollrath's statements, but that he nevertheless supports his application? Isn't it strange that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden can't agree with either the form or the content - what is actually left? - but still supports the application? “I wasn't at the general assembly,” ‘the content of Dr. Vollrath's submission goes against my gut feeling,’ ‘the form goes against my gut feeling’ – but I support the man: these are contradictions in terms, there is nowhere to find a solid foothold. We are supposed to be hit by a bolt of lightning out of the blue. We do not want to reopen old issues, not something that has been decided and settled long ago and for which there is no reason to deal with it ever again, to subject ourselves to new negotiations. It is not a matter of dealing with something that has long been thoroughly settled, but rather of taking a stand against such currents that express themselves by proceeding in an incredible manner, sometimes even in a completely improper form. I would just like to remind you of the letter that was read to you, in which the submission of the cash report, as provided for in the statutes, is requested. They are threatening legal action and court proceedings; and then these people still claim to be doing all these things in the interest of Theosophy.

And then: Is there not a grotesque contradiction in the fact that the same person who wrote this pamphlet is also the author of the other letter, in which he extends the hand of reconciliation and expresses himself in a way that makes it almost unbelievable that these two documents came from the same person? For us, who have been active on the Executive Council for many years, it has become clear that we cannot continue to work in this way under any circumstances. We have done our duty in our time; we knew that then, we know it now. But today we can do nothing more. Today it is the Theosophical Society, that is, its German Section, that has it in its hands to work now for good or ill. We have just heard from an authorized source what it means for us to have entered this movement, which is manifested in our German section. We have heard words that will certainly have a lasting effect in the hearts of those who are Theosophists by nature, not because they pay their dues, but because they feel in their innermost being what a blessing it is to be able to serve such a movement. And also in the words that described this great and powerful thing, it sounded to us like a powerful reminder that such a good, which is entrusted to us, also imposes a great responsibility on us. The purpose of my speech is to make this responsibility clear to you, so that you can agree that we can only earn such a good if we remain aware at all times of the tremendous responsibility that we have taken upon ourselves. Let us be clear about one thing: it is not the opponents who can destroy our society, the external form of the Theosophical movement; nor Doctor Vollrath, nor those who want to support him. But we ourselves can destroy it if, in a false sentimentality, we fail to firmly reject those who want to shake the foundations of our movement and our beliefs. We want to stand up for our cause with all our might as people who do not believe that they are already Theosophists, but who are earnestly striving to become Theosophists.” Mr. Molt has the floor: “I believe I speak on behalf of everyone present when I express my sincere thanks to Mr. Arenson for his warm address, but at the same time I also make myself the mouthpiece of it by saying: There is no need for an appeal to take the right path in this case. I have the feeling that we are doing the author of the diatribe far too much honor by going into the details of it at all. I have the feeling that, on behalf of the vast majority here, we must refuse to allow our precious time and the beautiful mood with which we came here to be spoiled by such things. It must sound like a cry of outrage and indignation through our ranks that on such a day these things are still brought up; and I must confess that I regret those who have come forward as petitioners in this matter and dared to support such a thing. I believe it is self-evident that we close the debate, and I also believe that no vote of confidence is needed for the board to show that it acted correctly at the time. We only need to let the words from the diatribe sink in to see that Dr. Vollrath is quite rightly excluded. If he had not already been excluded, he would have to be excluded not once, but three times today. In order to shorten the debate and to express our feelings, I have taken the liberty of formulating a motion. I find it beneath our dignity to go into the matter again with even a single word. I have divided the motion into three parts. They read:

1. The tenth General Assembly hereby expressly expresses its outrage and indignation at the diatribe of Dr. Vollrath.

2. It therefore rejects the proposals of Ahner, Krojanker and Müller.

3. It requests these gentlemen, who by submitting their proposals have obviously opposed the spirit of the movement, to draw the conclusion by resigning.

Dr. Steiner: “Since the proposals made are substantive and not procedural, those esteemed friends who are already on the list of speakers will still have the floor.”

The next speaker is Pastor Klein: “Christian love and tolerance have been evoked with moving tones. This touched me as a Christian preacher, and I had to ask myself whether we are not violating a commandment by opposing the whole thing here. But I must also remind Mr. Ahner that he has only painted a one-sided picture of Christ. Christ Jesus was by no means always the “good savior,” and by no means always did words of forbearance and tolerance flow from his mouth. There was a point where this loving, forgiving Christ was adamant, and that was when the cause itself was at issue. The Pharisees were also good people; people who led honorable lives, who fought for their religion with complete honesty, in short, people who were excellent in many respects. But we also know that Christ took a very ruthless approach against these very people, who always raised the question, “What is true Christianity, what is true Judaism?” — in much the same way as we always hear from Dr. Vollrath, “What is Theosophy®?” in the most ruthless way. I only recall the expressions ‘brood of vipers,’ etc. These are strong words. And why was the mild, forgiving Jesus compelled to hurl them against these Pharisees? They believed that he acted out of false, evil powers, that he cast out devils with Beelzebub and so on, and they generally mistrusted his very appearance. That is the crux of the matter. So to those who appeal to our tolerance and leniency and say that we should make peace with Mr. Vollrath, I would like to remind them that those who were once zealous against Jesus, who so thoroughly misunderstood his nature, who so ignominiously rejected his nature, were fought with the sharpest expressions, and that by Jesus of Nazareth himself, in whom the Christ dwelt. We see here in our case, too, that the man who imparts God's wisdom to us is misunderstood and misrecognized in this way. But anyone who, in addition, ascribes such motives to him as has been done here, anyone who misunderstands him so thoroughly and pursues his opposition in such an ugly form, can no longer be in our ranks - for the sake of Christ and our cause. Christ Himself was the one who confronted the Pharisees when they misunderstood and misrepresented Him. We have a clear conscience when we confront these things in the same way. We, who knew nothing about the whole affair until now, could say: appoint a new court in the matter. Mrs. Wolfram should defend herself once more. We could do that if we were a bowling club or a war veterans' association. But we cannot do it because we are a Theosophical Society. Because we form a spiritual community, these things must be handled in a completely different way. If we were to stir these things up again, we would be saying that we have no confidence in our leader or our board of directors. “We weren't there at the time,” we could say, “we want to review the matter again.” But in doing so, we would be saying that we do not trust our teacher to see through Dr. Vollrath. But if he can't, then he's not our teacher, he can't be our leader. But if he does have this ability, then we must not apply the usual standard, the standard of other associations, and say: Here, another investigation is needed, here an honor court must be set up, and so on.

This afternoon, I have already explained what I understand and think about this matter. Therefore, under no circumstances can we allow our leader to be disparaged in this way. After all, an association can proceed in the proposed manner if its chairman has been attacked. But when a man who imparts divine wisdom to us is attacked in this way, then this is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances.

Mr. Bauer said that it is bad that such a procedure has still found defense in our own ranks. There is something else that is bad. And that is what I will say now: I find that despite being expelled from our section, Dr. Vollrath receives tremendous support from the President of our Theosophical Society, in that she honors him with her trust in a very special way and gives him offices, so that his action against us through President Annie Besant still receives special support and strength. We must therefore go to the root of the evil. We must make Adyar aware that we consider any support for Dr. Vollrath, whether directly or indirectly through Adyar headquarters, to be a detriment to the Theosophical work in Germany. We will not tolerate the General Secretary of our section being constantly insulted here, and that such personalities find protection and support there. And that is the crux of the matter. I feel very strongly that we are at an important point in time and we must make it clear to Adyar that we will not tolerate such behavior and that we support the man who has insulted our leader and general secretary.

I ask you to accept the following proposal: After the General Assembly in 1911, after extensive negotiations, once again approved with great unanimity and determination the revocation of Doctor Vollrath's membership pronounced by the Executive Board and the General Assembly in 1908, the General Assembly shall give headquarters in Adyar that from now on any direct or indirect support of Dr. Vollraths, as has occurred recently, must be regarded by the German Section of the Theosophical Society as damaging to its reputation and its work.

Molt: “I move that the debate be closed.”

Ahner: “Since the whole matter has come to this, I would ask that the debate not be interrupted. It would be a disadvantage to the accused if they did not get a chance to speak after being exposed in such a way. This is required by the dictate of justice and consideration for each of the attacked. It is no art to fight someone whom you know cannot defend himself."

Dr. Steiner: ”I have resolved not to intervene in this debate in any way and have therefore refrained from transferring the chairmanship to someone else during the debate. I think it is not important that I transfer the presidency to someone else during this debate, but rather that you agree with the objectivity with which I am trying to conduct the matter. You will therefore also agree that I now say a few words to you.

It is impossible for us to accept a motion to end the debate now. The matter must be discussed, and we have no right to propose or accept a motion to close the debate at this stage, after so many questions have been raised in the course of the debate. There are matters of the utmost importance to us and to our Theosophical Society. What would really do harm here would be to conveniently sweep the matter aside by accepting a motion to close the debate. Although this method of avoiding overly long debates has been used frequently, I ask that you not postpone the debate in this convenient manner today, but consider it your duty to actually bring the matter to a conclusion. With the comments that Pastor Klein has made, so many new aspects have been introduced into the debate, and now we are supposed to accept a motion to end the debate? That is impossible. I do not understand why, in the course of such a debate, when there is still a long list of speakers to come – quite apart from the question of who is the defender and accuser, the accused and the attacker here – they should not be given the fullest opportunity to speak? Since further discussion of these matters is desirable, I would ask you not to put forward the impossible motion to end the debate.

What I have just said also applies to the motion, which I will receive in writing and which I still have to read out.

On behalf of the Hamburg and Bremen branches, the delegates of these branches propose “that, after the discussions that have taken place appear to have sufficiently clarified the situation regarding the motions that have been tabled, the discussion be closed, the motions that have been tabled be rejected, and the executive committee of the section, in particular Dr. Steiner in particular, express its thanks and trust by standing up from their seats; the General Assembly may further authorize the Executive Council to bring similar motions before the Executive Council for final decision in the future, while at the same time preparing appropriate amendments to the statutes that would make similar occurrences impossible in the future.

G. F. Scharlau, J. G. Schröder, Sister Louise Hesselmann, Albert Dibbern, Leinhas.

[Rudolf Steiner:] 'Today it is not a matter of obtaining a vote of confidence, but of bringing the matters of principle at hand to a decision. It is not about the board, not about the person of Dr. Vollraths, not about me, but about matters of principle, and there you cannot express your opinion by rising from your seats. We cannot deal with the matter in such a convenient way today.

The motion to end the debate is rejected.

Thereupon the motions of Molt, Hamburg and Bremen are withdrawn and the debate continues.

Pastor Wendt: “Three years ago, I was the one who proposed that we no longer consider Dr. Vollrath as one of our own for the time being. I said to myself at the time that the young man could improve in three years. He has not done so, on the contrary, he continues to drill. But now it is high time that we got to the bottom of this rabble. I am an old man today; but in the past we often had to drag foxes through our student fraternity. But if the boys wanted to back down from a duel, they were thrown out without mercy. For us, that was a matter of course. But if today our cause is denigrated as it has been here, then I say today too: throw them out. I don't want to sit in hell with such boys, with such vermin, let alone in heaven.

Dr. Steiner: “We want to avoid the expressions ‘boys’ and so on.”

Pastor Wendt: “The fact of the matter is that someone wants to remain in our society even though he is working against it. If we work against the truth, we have made a mistake, we know that. But if we also deny the mistake, then we cannot move forward at all. It is far too sacred, far too serious a matter to bring the Christ-Principle into the world for me to consider it justified to use it in this way in the debate. I also said to the Lord, after I became aware of these things, earlier: Now we are divorced people, now it is over between us. How can you say such things and then threaten to expose us in this way? My dear son, I said, there is something else involved here. I would like to point out that the best way out of this situation – so that we don't have it every year – seems to be to protect ourselves in the future by adopting the following motion: Any member who has violated the spirit of the Theosophical Society, as judged by the General Assembly, shall be expelled. If necessary, I could explain the seriousness of the matter to you in more detail. It is an old matter: if you don't exclude, you don't include. However, under the prevailing circumstances, we have to protect and preserve our work and not carry water on two shoulders. We have to say very clearly: man, you don't belong to us.

Ahner: “It is regrettable that we have to deal with this matter here, and it is not really a matter of considering what happened at that time in this old story. I myself was on the board at the time: when the motion to expel Dr. Vollrath was tabled by Mrs. Wolfram. But I must openly admit that I had not received the slightest information about the matter before. I was simply faced with a very dark story and was indeed highly astonished to hear this motion from Mrs. Wolfram. At the time, I could see nothing more in the matter than personal matters between these two personalities. And for this reason, I said to myself: You cannot exclude someone from the Theosophical Society because of personal misunderstandings. Dr. Vollrath was never given the opportunity to defend himself. He was not invited to the board meeting, he was not given the opportunity to present material to the board members so that they could have gained insight into the matter. Only Ms. Wolfram was heard. “But a man's speech is not a man's speech, it must be heard by both.” That is, I believe, an old German saying that is still valid today among people who love justice.

I must also confess here that I do not intend to speak out personally for Dr. Vollrath or to somehow oppose any member of the board. For me, people mean nothing in this matter. I consider people to be irrelevant in this matter. Only in people in whom the person has the upper hand, in whom the person wants to be everything, can the personal have validity, because, as you know, before God the person has no value. So I say: personally, I consider this matter to be of no consequence. I would drop the motion if my suggestion were accepted. Let the spirit of Christian love prevail and let Dr. Vollrath be a member of the section. Then all will be well. Would he be able to do any harm? No. If that is what you mean, then check the 2000 members of the Society, check their hearts, and start with the principle of social democracy: those who don't toe the line get the boot. Do what you want, but I have to say: today is a decisive day for the Theosophical Society. Annie Besant, if she were here, would certainly speak in favor of peace, and the old doctor Hübbe-Schleiden, who is now eighty years old, also supports the motion. The petition, which was written by Dr. Vollrath, is something I completely negate. We did not write this and do not need to represent it. But I say: do not judge according to the earthly mind, but reach into your heart, think that your intellect is something transient, and that we let go of the personal, which has no standing before God. Let Christ speak in you. The ministers have presented everything quite nicely. But I must confess: There are always passages in the Bible that can be used to prove the opposite of what is said. I understand what is said about the spirit of love in the Bible. I believe the reverends will also have read the chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians that deals with the high song of love; or if they have not read it, then take a look at it.

Arenson: “It is not true that only Ms. Wolfram was mentioned in this matter; it is quite as described in the protocol. We have had the opportunity to thoroughly examine the matter. Mr. Vollrath has had the opportunity to speak. It is not for us to decide whether Mr. Ahner was able to get involved in the matter. If he says that it was not the case, we believe him immediately. But the rest of us have gained a complete insight into the matter and were able to make our decision.

Dr. Steiner: “It should be a custom here to point out the truth even in seemingly insignificant things: Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is not 80, but about 62 years old – Mr. Günther Wagner corrects 65 years. I ask not to consider this pedantry when I emphatically defend his youthfulness.

Mr. von Rainer has the floor: “As the Chairman mentioned, the debate is not to be regarded as a personal one, but as one of principle, and I see this whole debate not as a question to be decided that affects persons but rather the question of whether the constitution of the association can continue to exist in its current form, whether it can continue to exist in our society in the same way as it generally exists in associations. If we consider what has been said today and the way in which proposals have been put forward and justified, we have to say to ourselves: there is something about it that is characteristic of our current association and public life and that is based on a misunderstanding of universal human rights, in that every person in an association or in public life should be granted the right to say anything they want. It is simply an abuse of the word. We have to admit that fine words have been used to support the proposals, but we must also say that they are only words, misused in the way indicated. It is not a matter of the proposal being based on good and fine reasons, but something else, and the proponents and defenders of each of the proposals say that they want nothing to do with this. It is about the content and form of the proposals that have been put forward here. Therefore, we have to say that a statute in the form it is today cannot continue, and so I propose: The tenth General Assembly shall decide that a commission be set up to revise the statutes in line with the views expressed by Mr. Bauer and Mr. Unger, whose members are to be appointed by the board.

If you adopt this proposal, you will support the positive side of what has been discussed here today, and emphasize it. You will show that you have confidence in our leadership. Because we have this, we put it in his hands to write a statute that is right for our society. The board will then also be able to find an expression that our assembly is beginning to understand what is offered to us here as members of the Theosophical Society. It will be a powerful impulse that will be born of us, in which the board will have a powerful stimulus and which at the same time must give it the confidence for its further work. If someone reads something like this pamphlet, then on the other hand he should also have the opportunity to know what is to be thought of the ramblings about Theosophy and its leaders. Then the words that have been spoken will not be in the least able to affect the relationship to our leader in any way. I therefore recommend that this motion be unanimously adopted.

The next speaker is Mr. Walther: “This morning, the supporters of the document that has been presented to us so often have argued that Dr. Vollrath was wrongly expelled. In response to this, I, as a participant in that General Assembly, can state that Dr. Vollrath was allowed to voice his objections at the General Assembly, i.e. publicly before all members, that we all heard his objections and were also allowed to hear the reasons that led to his expulsion, and these reasons were of a very serious nature, because they concerned the life of part of our society, namely the Leipzig branch. When our board said that our Leipzig branch could no longer exist if a member like Dr. Vollrath continued to harass this branch, then we had to come to the aid of this branch, also out of our Christian duty. We had to support this proposal, and we supported it almost unanimously at the time. There may have been a few of us who did not agree with it at the time, but the vast majority certainly did. Today we are faced with an even more weighty matter. Today we have to defend our entire body against the attacks that have been made against our section from another side. It is not about personalities here, it is not about whether this or that person is on the board, or whether this or that person teaches among us, but about what is taught. As members, we have the duty to examine the teachings that are offered to us and then to decide after the examination has been carried out. Speaking for myself, I believe that this decision is not based on personal affection for my teacher, but rather on my innermost realization, in the same way that it was described by our dear member, Pastor Klein, based on an insight that was gained through hard spiritual work. It was not the person of the Führer that led me to him, but the cause. Based on this fact, I feel compelled to speak to you and say: examine the truths that are given to you here, compare them and then decide. And when you have examined the issues with all your intellectual power, you will find where you have to go, then you will decide according to the matter at hand, then you will see that it is important to protect a body of wisdom here, which is to be stolen from us by falling into the hands of the uncalled. The danger of such a possibility has already been pointed out. Therefore, I request that the last proposals, which were communicated here, be put up for discussion, so that a new statute can be worked out, which offers the possibility of protecting this wisdom. Even if we had to work all alone in our theosophical groups, we still want to stand firm, because we have recognized that it is wisdom from divine heights that is in question here, and that we must work towards forging a shell, as it were, for the German Section by drawing up a statute that will no longer allow elements to enter or act within our society that want to breach the building we have built with so much effort. Therefore, I ask you to comment on this proposal, so that we can have the statute of our board of directors, in which we have had and still have confidence, drawn up, so that it will also carry out this work for our benefit.

The next speaker is architect [Schmid]; “In response to the words of the previous speakers, or rather the proposal of Mr. von Rainer, there is only one thing to be added, (at this point Mr. Krojanker interrupts to say that he had earlier requested to speak , to which Dr. Steiner replies that Mr. [Schmid] is already ahead of him on the list of speakers), that it is not said that it is left to the discretion of the board to elect a commission, but that the board may carry out this work itself. It is very important to me that the motion be adopted in this form, because in a way it allows us to express what we want from the whole thing, namely that we consider our board to be fully capable and trustworthy, both in the past and in the future, to work out all such things on its own. In this way, we also point out what has already been suggested this evening, that only the board should process such documents among themselves. In view of Mr. von Rainer's new motion, it will not be important to maintain that. However, I ask that a vote of confidence be expressed – although we have no need of it – that we consider the board sufficient to make these amendments to the statutes itself.

Dr. Vollrath has the floor: “So much has been said back and forth that I still have something to say. Above all, Dr. Vollrath has been accused – and downright bad motives have been attributed to him – of wanting to damage Dr. Steiner's reputation. I feel qualified to say that this is not the case. Dr. Vollrath would not have made this submission in any way if he had not repeatedly heard from members who had come to us from the Leipzig Lodge that Ms. Wolfram claimed in her courses that Dr. Vollrath had stolen intellectual property by compiling lectures by Dr. Steiner and then publishing them. Dr. Vollrath was very upset about this. I told him at the time: It's no use to stir up the whole exclusion affair again. But he said: No, it must be done, I can't let it rest; because, first of all, only translations appear in my journal Theosophy, and secondly, it would never occur to me to interpret Dr. Steiner in any way. All I care about is that the matter be hushed up in some way. As for the state of the matter, and how much of the information he received was true, Dr. Vollrath was not sure.

But even the meeting at that time only knew to a very small extent that Mrs. Wolfram did not have a good motive for her actions against Dr. Vollrath. That she did not have one can be seen from the fact that she received me in a way when I visited her as a result of her invitation that can no longer be described as theosophical. She received me with the words: “Do you already know the latest? Dr. Vollrath has gone mad.” This was very painful for me, who had known Dr. Vollrath for ten years. I believe that if someone is really ill or has a nervous breakdown, you should not talk about it in a Theosophical Society, because as a Theosophist you must know that such things affect people. It may well happen that a person goes mad, not from illness, but from the bad thoughts of others. I am convinced that all those who have a hand in this created a heavy karma for themselves. I would just like to say here that Doctor Vollrath is being accused of improper motives. Consider this: you don't distribute Theosophical writings if you want to harm the Theosophical Society. We have lost many thousands of marks in our work, and we are losing more every day; we have not yet earned anything. But Dr. Vollrath is also differently inclined than the others. He does not want to cling to the coattails of Dr. Steiner; he does not want to be led. I think that's why he could still have been considered a member. Then they could have told him at the time: Leave it alone, don't bring these things into the world. Doctor Vollrath is a strange character who always does the opposite of what the other wants if you don't tell him the truth and say everything openly. But if you had told him, “Leave it alone, it's no use, stop it,” and explained the reasons for it, then he would have been open to reason. I am convinced of it. In a movement as large as ours, no one should expect that all their companions are equal to them, equally intuitive, equally courageous, and so on. But the first step on the path is to be gentle with people of highly dissimilar character and qualities and so on. One sign of regression would be to expect the other person to love what you love and to act as you do. As Mahatma Kuthumi says: “Until you have developed a complete sense of justice, you should show compassion rather than commit the slightest injustice.”

Mr. Krojanker has the floor: “Even in a political association, it is not customary to attack opponents as personally as has been the case here. If there has been regret that a general assembly of the Theosophical Society was forced to deal with such matters and to come to terms with them, then I must certainly shift the blame from the applicants. We left it up to you to simply elect a commission. The details did not need to be discussed here; and despite this discussion, you do not yet need to be informed. In order to be sufficiently informed, such a commission would have to be elected. Why does the board feel personally offended? Because such a commission is to be elected? Just look around the world and consider the matter in comparison to a court outside. Of course, it is taken for granted that a judge passes sentence to the best of his knowledge and belief. But can he be angry if a matter is referred to another court for reconsideration? No, because it may be that the first judge did not see this or that at all. It seems very strange to me that this wish should be attacked in this way. It is not a question of offending Dr. Steiner, it is not a question of offending the Theosophical Society. A distinction must be made between Theosophy and a General Assembly of the Theosophical Society. The General Assembly is there to deal with worldly matters. If you don't want that, then why not just get rid of the General Assembly? If you call a General Assembly, then you assume that there will be negotiations, and the things that have been brought up here are things that are quite possible within the framework of a Theosophical Society. But that's no reason to tear down those who swim against the current, as has happened here. No one has the right to judge how much of a Theosophist I am or am not, no one can judge how I can or cannot benefit the Theosophical Society. Here you have just heard Mrs. Vollrath, and she spoke with infinite care. If you expel the matter from the Society, it will continue to exist as such, and in particular the Vollrach-Wolfram affair should not yet be terminated.

Why have personal hostilities been directed against us? Are our names under the proposal of Dr. Vollrath or under our own? Does it perhaps have something defamatory? Does it violate the essence of the Theosophical Society? No, everything in it can stand and is factually justified. If you do not want to accept our proposal, then the matter will not come before the commission. But the personal attacks should be able to be avoided.

Dr. Steiner: “In a certain respect - and that is why I have to say a few words here - there is a hidden attack on the management of the day in what Mr. Krojanker says, since this is the second time he has criticized the fact that these things are being dealt with so broadly. There is a hidden attack against the management in this, as well as in Mr. Krojanker's statement that the whole brochure did not need to be read out. A proposal was made here that I could not have taken responsibility for submitting to you if the documents had not been created at the same time, which allowed you to make a decision to a certain extent. I would like to ask you whether, with regard to the judgment of this application, some of the facts on which the application was based were not really brought to your attention after all. You had to know why you were supposed to agree to a commission of seven members. Certain documents were needed to reach a decision, and I must confess that from this purely business point of view, which I will maintain for the time being, I do not see how, on the one hand, a decision should be made on the motion that has been tabled, and how, on the other hand, we should not do what can enable individuals to find the right position and the right judgment in relation to the matter. The other would be: we make the proposal, you accept it under all circumstances. I would just like to ask here what the authors of the proposal would say if the proposal had been rejected outright? The authors of the proposal should see it as a great concession on our part that we have spent the whole day dealing with it so that we are familiar with all the documents that can serve to form a correct opinion. We did not drag out the matter for our own pleasure, and it is good that the possibility of speaking two languages in the world is being done away with. For on the one hand it would mean that in the Theosophical Society there is nothing but blind faith, and one knows nothing but to repeat what is said from certain places. But if certain authorities appeal to the members in a corresponding manner to really carry something through to the end, then on the other hand, it is said: Why not cut the debate short and just read us the necessary documents for reaching a decision. This just against the hidden accusations against the management. Meanwhile it has become six o'clock. Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Wolfram are still on the list of speakers. I very much regret that the facilities at the architect's house did not allow for a different schedule. I therefore ask you to now get to work on the items outside and, when everything has been consumed, to gather here again for a get-together. There are two possibilities: one is that we receive the scheduled artistic performances, the other is that we continue the debate we have started today and postpone the social evening until tomorrow. In the latter case, we would be able to continue the interrupted debate at eight o'clock. Otherwise, the debate would have to be continued tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. I ask you, since we are now voting on the time of day for the meeting, to consider yourself the original meeting."

The meeting decided to continue the debate at eight o'clock.

Continuation at eight o'clock in the evening:

Ms. Wolfram wants to state that she never said anything that could have harmed Dr. Vollrath. She had only answered questions truthfully. These answers had been spread by lodge gossip, of which she herself had known nothing. She had only found out about it at the general meeting of the Leipzig lodge. The claim that she had accused Dr. Vollrath of intellectual theft was groundless, since Dr. Vollrath himself was not the author. Furthermore, Ms. Wolfram objects to Mr. Krojanker's threat that the whole matter would be continued outside of the Society if all motions were rejected within the Society, stating that she has long been prepared to face the kind of eventuality that seems to be meant here. Ms. Wolfram also emphasizes that she refused to provide the publisher Wahres Leben with information that had been requested about Dr. Vollrath.

Dr. Vollrath admits the possibility of lodge gossip. She believed what she was told. She also informs Mr. Krojanker, who is not present, that there has been a misunderstanding on his part, as he believed that the brochure should first be submitted to the commission to be elected, not to the General Assembly.

Dr. Steiner: “Please excuse me for intervening in the debate at this point with a few necessary comments. I would like to say what I would like to say at this moment in the form of a few questions. Of course, it is entirely up to Dr. Vollrath whether or not to give the answer.

In what I am very happy to admit is an extremely likeable way, Dr. Vollrath has addressed a number of issues that are important to me in two ways. On the one hand, it gives us some insight into what Dr. Vollrath is actually complaining about, because we couldn't find that in the document. On the other hand, what was said is interesting to me because we can see from it how the proceedings of that commission would be conducted. They would keep bringing up new things and there would be no end to it. So let me ask the question, and I would like Dr. Vollrath to answer me. Dr. Vollrath stated that her husband complains that he has been accused of publishing things that come from my books or my lectures. I would now like to note that I myself have never discussed such things, or at most only ironically. I would have to go back quite a long way in my not only theosophical but also pre-theosophical time if I were to regard as plagiarism everything that has been taken from my ideas by others. I would only seriously object to it if it could lead to error. In this case it has not led to error. Within certain limits, I regard what is produced spiritually as a good that is brought into the world for the purpose of being spread. But it has been said today, and this is not in the brochure, that Dr. Vollrath felt offended by this accusation; why did Mr. Vollrath not include this matter in his brochure, but did include, for example, the matter of Leadbeater, when objectively speaking the opposite is true? It is not the same thing that while old members did indeed speak about Leadbeater as if he had to be thrown out with the heels of one's boots, I defended him at the time. If Mr. Vollrath feels attacked by what Dr. Vollrath has said, why doesn't he write about this, but write something that is not true. It is not the same thing whether a strange picture is created by Dr. Vollrath's brochure, if it is sent to Adyar, when people there hear that I attacked Leadbeater and did not defend him. Now I ask the question: Why does Dr. Vollrath not say what he really has to complain about, but instead says something that is not objectively true?

I would also like to note at this point that it would be rather strange of us to be intimidated and influenced by threats. It would be important, and very important to me, if everything that could be said were said. We do not want to be spared in any direction. We just want to get to the bottom of the truth. That it could be said that something would happen if we did not do the will of the minority, that is, I must admit, a strange way of conducting a debate.

Please, Dr. Vollrath, do not take this in any other way than that I am trying to conduct the matter as objectively as possible. It would be very easy to bring up many more things, but I will refrain from doing so. Of course it is not my opinion that we want to force you to answer in any way. Of course, this does not have to happen immediately.

Mrs. Dr. Vollrath: “I do not know the specific reasons that led Dr. Vollrath to write this. The impetus is that he has been attacked again. That is why he wanted to present the earlier events.

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else have anything to say that could help us to form an opinion on the motions that have been put forward?”

Pastor Klein: “I would like to ask to what extent Dr. Vollrath has recently been harassed and attacked by members, and what the insults that have been inflicted on him are supposed to be?”

Dr. Vollrath: “They only ever spoke about the Leipzig Lodge. Dr. Vollrath says that he became aggressive because a knife was held to his throat. He had to defend himself.

Would it be possible for me to make a request? Is it not possible to hear Dr. Vollrath before a commission or the board so that he can defend himself? Permission should be granted to bring about a debate. If it is possible, I will make this request; that is the only thing I would like to do.

Dr. Steiner: “I note that, following the events that have taken place, I personally have the following to say about them. However, I ask that this be taken as my own personal opinion. I understand the whole matter in such a way that I do not think that being excluded from the Society should be seen as a condemnation in this case. It is not a matter of denying someone the right to be in society; it is a matter of the fact that Dr. Vollrath's views were in conflict with those of the Society. There is nothing dishonorable about that. At the time, I myself asked that the measure be mitigated and that Dr. Vollrath not be excluded, but rather no longer considered a member of the Society. That clearly states what it is about. It only says that we cannot work with him. It was meant in a highly objective way that I made this request to the board at the time. I would like to note that I am naturally inclined to listen to Dr. Vollrach, but that every word would have to be absolutely established. Consider that Dr. Vollrath presented exactly the opposite of what actually happened at the Paris meetings. I would consider a discussion fruitless if every word were not precisely fixed. Furthermore, you yourself, Dr. Vollrath, would have to be present at such a discussion, since you are the applicant. I consider the matter itself to be completely fruitless, but I take the position that it should not be omitted for that reason, because it could bear fruit if this fruitlessness were established.

I would like to make a brief interjection. According to one proposal, only those who did not vote at the time should be elected to the commission. I did not vote.

Of course, I now have to treat Dr. Vollrath's statement as a proposal. The board will have to comment on it. However, this is not possible immediately; it would first have to be discussed.

Pastor Klein: “I request that the motion be rejected, because I consider an agreement to be out of the question after what we have heard from the pamphlet today.”

Dr. Vollrath: “Doctor Steiner is above such things. Doctor Vollrath should just be given the opportunity to make amends.”

Pastor Klein: “Although Doctor Steiner is, of course, above such things, we are not. We must protect our leader.”

Dr. Steiner: “It would be really quite good if we did not put things on a personal level. Here, there is the possibility to separate the person from the matter quite easily. We would have viewed the matter in a completely wrong light if anyone could have the opinion that personal matters had been discussed here. What do we have to do with Mrs. Wolfram and Dr. Vollrath, what do we have to do with Dr. Steiner? They could be three completely random people. Take, for example, the designations, signatures A, B and C. Signature B refers to a lady; it does not matter whether this is Mrs. Wolfram or someone else. Something has been written about this lady. It is not important that it was written by Dr. Vollrath. I am asking you now, quite objectively, without regard to the person, what the person who has a sense of feeling in their body, who takes things as they have come before our ears, what that person thinks about the moral quality of this sentence: “I knew the source from which Mrs. Wolfram took the money for the education of her two children; she had two at the time. She was very embarrassed about this and feared I was aware of it, which partly explains the bold effort to neutralize me.

So the fact is that the motion has been tabled: a person who has written such a sentence is to be reintroduced into society. One can assume that there would be nothing else at all other than this sentence. I now ask you whether it is possible for someone to write this sentence and be within our society. If anyone is of the opinion that there should be someone within our Society who is allowed to write such a sentence about a lady, then there are two possibilities: either there is some truth in it – and then nothing at all should be said about it – or this sentence has been written down, perhaps without thinking. I now ask you: is a Theosophist allowed to write something like that without thinking? Should only love and the like be spoken of? Should we not even ask whether someone who belongs to our society is capable of developing this love if they are able to write this sentence? Is it acceptable for such a sentence to be written in a Theosophical Society? I would consider it a great misfortune if such a sentence were to fall from the sky and rain down here. In our case, it is about the fact that one reads a thing, that it is taken as a discharge of some human manifestation. I ask you to note that the violation of the feeling that is given with this sentence is almost monstrous, so that I do not understand how one can even come from a human point of view to defend such a thing. It is not just that this is written here, but that it is possible to write such a sentence at all. This would also be considered a serious insult in civil society. These are things that come into play as nuances of feeling. Disregard everything else and consider whether it is possible for such a sentence to be written in a brochure that is associated with our society. Today it is not a matter of sitting in judgment on anyone. It is not a matter of these things being said, but rather of realizing that in Theosophy the main thing depends on feeling and sensation. There we do have a standard that we can apply. Therefore, I think it is really necessary that we look at the matter from this objective point of view. It is a fruitless task to want to communicate with someone who speaks a different language. There is no basis for understanding. It is really like speaking German and the answer being given back in Chinese. We could listen to Dr. Vollrath, but nothing would come of it. The law of karma is the law; one must stand up for what one has done. You cannot make such a statement to the world today and apologize for it tomorrow. That is why Dr. Vollrath's letter was read to you.

Please consider this as my personal opinion. I would not have mentioned it if I had not felt that it had not been sufficiently taken into account. Apart from everything else, please consider what has been put into the world here as an objective document; then it is a basis for reaching a decision on Dr. Vollrath's request. This cannot be dealt with immediately. It must first be discussed by the board.

Pastor Klein: “But the general assembly can request that the board does not vote on it.”

Dr. Steiner: “But the board can still hear Dr. Vollrath if it sees fit.” Mr. Tessmar: “I could not speak here as a board member, because I have no mandate to do so. But I would like to give my personal opinion. I have a favorable impression of the way in which Dr. Vollrath has spoken, but I consider a debate with Dr. Vollrath to be completely fruitless. What more should be said on this matter? Mr. Krojanker spoke of instances. In the external world, the Reichsgericht can decide as the last instance in the German Reich; it cannot go any further. But something very similar has happened here. The General Assembly sanctioned the decision of the board as the last resort. So something has been done. Then Mr. Ahner said that he was on the board at the time and had no idea what Dr. Vollrath was accused of. But that is not true. You can't make such a decision if you don't have something to base it on. When Dr. Vollrath says that Dr. Steiner is defending Mazdaznan, and we are all very surprised, and it turns out that Dr. Steiner was talking about Ahura Mazdao, then it all just stops. There are some things that are impossible. If the opposing side does not understand this, it cannot be explained to them in words. If you do not have the feeling that it must then be over, you cannot be helped. What would happen if we said, “Well, here is the brother hand, come, Mr. Vollrath?” Then we would have the same story tomorrow. The applicants do not trust the board. I personally have no trust in Dr. Vollrath. If Mr. Vollrath were to be readmitted, it would be said: “You see, the board was wrong!” Secondly, however, there is still the threat of external judgment. This is such a mean and hidden threat that it is quite impossible to negotiate with this party. It is about the theosophical cause, which is above our feelings. It is about the theosophical life. This morning, during the speeches by Mr. Ahner and Mr. Krojanker, some members applauded. This shows that misfortune has already taken effect. If you own a garden and want to have beautiful strawberries, then you have to throw out the weeds. You have to kill the caterpillars or you won't get any strawberries. It is bad enough that someone like me, who is no parliamentarian, has to speak in this hall where we have already been privileged to hear so many wonderful lectures. I would much rather not have to speak. I would also much rather help Dr. Vollrath. But it is impossible. “Diem perdid”, this day is lost. Some action must be taken to ensure that it does not happen again. What Dr. Steiner has given us, I have let flow into my heart; and when Mr. Krojanker brought forward a matter years ago, I said at the time: It is not the person that is important here, but the matter. So create the possibility that a person like me no longer needs to speak here before you."

Dr. Steiner: “It is now really necessary to get down to business. So consider the motion tabled that the board respond to Dr. Vollrath's motion tomorrow. It's just a matter of a yes or no. But the motion cannot be dealt with at this moment. The board must be able to come to a decision. That's a matter of course. I suggest that you let me ask the board to say either yes or no tomorrow. I can't possibly have a vote on the matter here under the rules of procedure.

Fräulein von Sivers: “We could come to an agreement about this right away. We know that Dr. Vollrath cannot present true facts and often distorts the truth.”

Dr. Steiner: “It is impossible under the rules of procedure for the board to comment now on something that can only be discussed by the entire board.”

A motion is made that the board withdraw for five minutes.

Dr. Steiner: “It would of course be much more clever if that didn't stop us.”

The motion is put to the vote and rejected.

Mr. Ahner: “I would like to correct something. Mr. Tessmar said that the board was fully informed at the time and that I must also have been informed. However, I did not have the opportunity to hear Dr. Vollrath myself at the time, so I cannot vote with a clear conscience. You have to hear both parties. In response to my vote, I was no longer elected to the board.” Pastor Klein proposes that Dr. Vollrath should no longer be heard in the matter.

The proposal is put to the vote and adopted.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to a number of proposals, most of which are highly complex. There are four proposals. First is the Molt proposal, which actually consists of three sub-proposals. The first point is: The tenth General Assembly should express its outrage and indignation.”

Fräulein Stinde: “So much indignation has already been expressed here that it would not be necessary to explicitly repeat it.”

Fräulein Brandt: “There is no need to express one's indignation, since one can only feel sorry for Dr. Vollrath.”

Dr. Steiner: “It will be necessary to say what we have to say more forcefully than by expressing our outrage and indignation. It is necessary that we do things that are less directed against a personality. The diatribe was not read for judgment, but for the purpose of reaching a verdict.”

Mr. Hubo: “I would like to ask Mr. Molt to withdraw this part of the proposal.”

Mr. Molt: “I believe it was enough to state our outrage earlier, and therefore I believe I can withdraw this point.”

Dr. Steiner: “We come to the second point of the Molt proposal, that the meeting reject the proposals by Krojanker, Müller, Ahner.”

Mr. Hubo supports this motion and proposes that a vote be taken immediately.

This motion by Hubo is put to the vote and adopted.

The Molt motion is put to the vote and adopted by the meeting with all but one vote against. The Krojanker, Müller and Ahner motions are rejected.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to the third point of the Molt motion: ”The gentlemen who, by supporting the Krojanker, Müller, Ahner motions, have violated the spirit of the Theosophical movement, would like to draw the consequences of their actions by declaring their resignation from the Society.” Mr. Ahner: “As I understand from this request, it is considered un-Theosophical to have a different opinion from the majority, and to come to the aid of a brother in distress who has done no little for Theosophy and whose activities have received full recognition at headquarters in India. He has been appointed secretary of the Star of the East by Mrs. Besant. If you cite a person's personal opinion as a reason for no longer recognizing him as a brother, that is your prerogative. For me, that is not a reason. I take the Christian position. I do not consider it a disgrace to stand here as Dr. Vollrath's defender. I have already said that it is very convenient to go with the flow. But I will not accept the accusation of not helping the helpless. I do not need a Theosophical Society or a Theosophical meeting to arrive at true knowledge. All spiritual development must come from within. You can cram your brain full of dogmas, but that won't help you see the light. Judge as you will, I see no reason to resign."

Dr. Stein: I am reluctant to intervene in the debate because it is about the decision. I would like to note that today must be seen as an extraordinarily meritorious one. Something has been done, because the most important thing that has happened is that a number of prominent figures have spoken here so that we could hear opposing opinions. Words are also deeds in a sense. Let me now also present my opinion. I see absolutely no reason why this point of the proposal, which has just been read, should be accepted. I do not see that this point achieves anything other than the exact opposite of what the proposer would like to achieve. We have the proof of my belief from the speech of our dear friend Mr. Ahner. You only succeed by such a motion in saying out in the world what has just been said here: In the Theosophical movement, the one who helps a helpless brother is thrown out. — I ask you to examine these words a little. As Theosophists, we must always stand on the ground of truth. The question, then, is whether one has the right to say, “We have come to the aid of a helpless brother.” This sentence contains an accusation in which there is no reality, namely, that the others had mistreated the helpless. But in truth, has anyone done anything to Mr. Vollrath? What happened then? A society of more than 1000 members declared that they no longer considered Dr. Vollrath to be one of them. This is identical to saying that I cannot associate with a certain person in my home. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own theosophy. So in reality nothing has happened, except that it has been established that everyone has the right to say that they cannot work with this or that person. If you then call this person helpless and say that you have stood by him, this is a very serious accusation. At the time, I told Dr. Vollrath: “If you were a member of the Berlin Lodge, the matter would be quite different; it would not be necessary for you to resign.” We would have digested him. Now, when someone comes and says that he stood by this helpless person, it is a serious accusation that does not testify to a very loving disposition. But it is also objectively untrue, it is not a reality. Because nothing happened to Dr. Vollrath. It would be a real overestimation of the Theosophical Society to declare it a corporation in which one must be a member to be a Theosophist. I may also have a reason for not being able to work with someone because he is much too brilliant for me. I find it quite incomprehensible when someone comes and says: “I want to be in a society that doesn't want me at all.” What tyranny would come into the world if everyone could force a society to have them at all costs. If tyranny could go so far that anyone could be in a position to force themselves on a society that doesn't want to work with them, where would we end up? If you agree to this third point, you will achieve nothing more than that words such as “I stood by a helpless person, so I was thrown out of society” would be heard out in the world. I believe that if every member is aware of what has been expressed today, that words are deeds, that is enough. It is not possible to reach an understanding if words are used that are not objectively correct.” Mr. Molt withdraws his proposal. Pastor Wendt's proposal concerns the exclusion of those members who supported the proposals regarding Vollrath.

Dr. Steiner asks that this proposal not be accepted because its content is identical to that of the Molt proposal, which has already been withdrawn.

Pastor Klein (submits a resolution): “I would like to ask you to listen to a few very urgent words from me. I attach the greatest importance to you considering this resolution very seriously. It is not possible for Adyar to award Doctor Vollrath special titles. It is not possible for this to continue. Adyar must be aware of what happened in 1908. It is quite incomprehensible that Doctor Vollrath was appointed Secretary of the Order of the Star of the East. It is either/or! If Dr. Vollrath insults the General Secretary in such a pamphlet and the General Assembly vigorously declares its opposition to this fact, then such an honor is impossible. This is not about Christian brotherhood, but about clarity. Christ said, “I am the truth.” But surely Adyar knows how this has been handled. Adyar headquarters is not acting clearly. And it cannot be that Adyar headquarters continues to operate in the same way as before. I want it to be known in Adyar that we are not willing to tolerate and consider it damaging to our work when Dr. Vollrath is supported by Adyar in this unclear way, to put it mildly. I am well aware of the implications of this step, but I believe that we would only have done half the work today if we did not send a signal to Adyar that the trust placed in Dr. Vollrath there after the events of 1908 were known, has wounded us to the quick; that you can't do everything with the German Section, and that it cannot agree with the awarding of the title to Dr. Vollrath.

Dr. Steiner: “It is necessary, since this point is a very serious matter and I am the General Secretary, that I comment on this matter. For me, this is not in the least about me personally. However, it may indeed be necessary to protect the Society if its living conditions are cut off and the Theosophical teachings can no longer be spread as before. On this point, we can more easily and more definitively than before separate the factual from the personal. The factual is as follows.

At the end of October or the beginning of November, the document from Dr. Vollrath that has been read to you today was published. This document is now available and has been printed in as large a number of copies as possible. It contains a number of things that, if they were true, would be enough to justify the claim that not a single dog would take a piece of bread from us. Imagine that the things written there were true! I would ask you whether there is no blemish on those of whom they are said? No dog would take a piece of bread from those named. At around the same time, an 'Adyar Bulletin' appeared. It listed Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Dr. Hugo Vollrath as representatives of the Star of the East. We, the German Section, are an integral part of the overall society. Is it right to stand up for the president wherever possible, or is it an abnormal state of affairs not to be able to stand up for her? Let us assume that I myself was faced with the question: “Do you stand up for the president?” - Jab. - Will I then be told: “But then you are agreeing with the person who wrote this brochure. Because the President appoints as her representative someone who acts against you? But let us assume that someone would say: “You don't need to do that. You can stand up for the President even though these things are in the brochure, because the President can make a mistake. - But the President was, as was her duty, fully informed about the facts from the very beginning. She was told with the necessary clarity from the outset what had happened. Nevertheless, the President has delivered this vote of no confidence against the General Secretary of the German Section. So either one or the other is in every way fragile. Misses Besant had to know how things stand. The situation is such that Adyar has currently put the General Secretary in the impossible position of having to defend the President. This is an abnormal state of affairs, and I assure you that there can hardly be a more painful alternative for me. It is a very painful matter for me. You know how far I have always gone in defense of the President whenever possible. But there is one thing that must be absolutely decisive, and that is to be absolutely sure of the truth. I have set myself this one task and I may mention it. He who may not know the occult basis but only the history of the occult movement knows how closely connected charlatanry and occultism have always been. It is a fundamental occult experience that there is only a thin cobweb between the two. But there is one thing I can ascribe to myself, this ideal I have set for myself: it is to be tested whether absolute sincerity and honesty in all details can be combined with an occult movement. If everything else we can do here fades away, I want one thing to never fade away: that a Theosophical movement once existed that set itself the motto: It shall be shown that one can truly be an occultist and at the same time a representative of unadorned, absolute truth. Anyone familiar with the history of religious movements will agree with me.

I therefore consider it a serious anomaly – if I may express my personal opinion – when it has become impossible to defend the president due to the short-sightedness of Adyar politics. The most painful thing is that this could have happened in our Theosophical movement. It is a deep pain for me, more painful than anything else, because I must confess that no one loves Miss Besent more than I do. But the pain is wrung from the truth and the truth is what can be called the highest. But, measured against love, it is, as a poet says, cruel. This is something that needed to be said.

Now one could easily say: Then we will just leave the Adyar movement. The Adyar policy is not identical with that of the Theosophical Society. But we cannot take the position that we don't like it or that we are no longer playing along. Rather, it is a matter of knowing positively what we really want to represent in the world. Either what we want is the truth – and then it will prevail – or it is not the truth, and then no one can save us. So I cannot see that resigning would be a necessary consequence for us. If we are always aware of what we want, then we can always say what we want. No matter how many members we are, we know what we want and can express it.

Theosophy stands above any office in the Theosophical Society. So we can say it to the President in Adyar. Our job is to say: This is what we want. And whatever they may think in Adyar, we want to do this, if we make a start with this motion to place ourselves on the ground of a sovereign will. If we use such language, it is only the consequence of what has been said today. So if only a hundredth of the things discussed today are justified, then we may well say: We want that, and no matter how many members of the Society are against it. This does not apply to teachings, but to administrative matters. And if we start not just repeating every word from Adyar, then we have something to say. In a way, it will depend on our understanding of how to speak clearly with Adyar. We will find the continuation then already. It is always only about administrative issues, other things do not belong here.

Theosophy is cosmopolitan, as it spans the globe, but at the same time it is excessively individualistic. There is no point in setting up as many sections as there are national borders. In that case, we could also set up as many sections in Switzerland as there are cantons. These current institutions do not correspond at all to the theosophical spirit. But that is not the whole story. The point is that a painful anomaly has been created, and that we have no choice but to face it. But we must also express this. Therefore, I ask you to comment on this proposal.

Fräulein Stinde: “I would like to support Pastor Klein's proposal. If he hadn't made it, I would have done so.”

Dr. Unger: “I would like to ask whether it would not be worth considering whether this resolution should be drafted a little more carefully. It would be a further suggestion or request that a smaller group be appointed to discuss the way in which this protest is to be expressed, and that this group be given a certain amount of time.”

Pastor Wendt requests that the drafting of the resolution be entrusted to the board.

Dr. Steiner: “I once again request that the matter be carefully considered from the point of view that I have just stated. It is impossible to defend Adyar now if one does not want to distort the truth. This can, of course, also be distorted in the outside world. I also ask you to consider that things that have happened cannot be erased by apologies. So we are faced with the question of whether the resolution should be considered.

A vote is taken.

The assembly approves the adoption of the resolution.

Pastor Wendt's proposal that the board be entrusted with the task of drafting and promoting the resolution was also adopted by the assembly.

Mr. von Rainer:

I would like to propose the appointment of a commission to draft the statutes in line with Mr. Bauer's and Dr. Unger's statements.

A vote is taken on this proposal.

The proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner: “In order to avoid any grounds for this General Assembly being declared invalid, it is necessary that the Assembly grant me indemnity, since according to the statutes, the accounts are to be sent to the individual lodges by the Secretary General fourteen days before the General Assembly, but this has not happened.”

Mr. Arenson: “It is my opinion that such a declaration by the General Assembly would have to be linked to another, namely this one, that the Assembly forbids itself from speaking to our Secretary General in such a tone, quite apart from the fact that one could have inquired as to what reasons led to the delay; that something like this would happen in other expressions.”

Mrs. Wolfram: “I would like to add that Dr. [Haedicke] was fully informed of the difficulties of such matters.”

Dr. Steiner: “I also told Dr. [Haedicke] that if there is any leakage, it is not our fault, but that of the individual lodges. It would therefore be futile to talk to a gentleman who has heard these reasons multiple times and yet continues to raise the issue again and again. So Dr. [Haedicke] writes: As a man of honor, you have signed the constitution with your signature and must therefore either uphold the constitution, change the constitution, or resign from office. Now that you have publicly spoken of “theosophical dogmas.” This is an assertion that does not even appear to be correct.

We will not go into the logic. We see from these things that are possible that one has to accept these impossible, palpable things as an instruction: So please explain when you get the chance that the Theosophical Society has no dogma and logically can never have one, just as Theosophy is not spiritual science, but according to Blavatsky, the wisdom of those who are divine.

So someone comes along and says: There are no theosophical dogmas. But then he claims that I should have to declare that Theosophy is divine wisdom.

So what we have here would be to give indemnity for breach of duty this time.

Mr. Seiler: “I will not go into the fact that the district court is being threatened. I would just like to say that you cannot prosecute the General Secretary. If someone is at fault, then it is me. If anyone has to apologize, it is me. This can only come from the fact that Mr. [Haedicke] is a very young member who does not even know how things are done here. He should know that you can't approach Dr. Steiner with such things and understand that we have to make every effort to keep the General Secretary as free as possible from such things. It seems to me to be a gross impropriety for members' intentions to reach this point, so that Dr. Steiner should publicly apologize. Surely that cannot be demanded of our General Secretary.

Dr. Steiner: “But according to the paragraphs, there is no other way than for you to grant me indemnity, because otherwise Mr. [Haedicke] could declare the General Assembly invalid. I think we have all had enough of this meeting; we would then have to go through the whole thing again. Therefore, it is necessary that we formulate the point as it must be formally formulated. It cannot be that we make an incorrect decision today. It is necessary that you give me indemnity because the statutes have been violated.

Mr. Tessmar: “It is clear that Mr. [Haedicke]'s motion is based on correct facts. It is just not formally correct because the gentleman in question does not know how the cash report is created. You have the wonderful situation here that we auditors can now also justifiably say: No, it's our fault! The fact of the matter is that Dr. Haedicke is actually right in his proposal. Here in the statutes, the words are: “Shall be delivered by the Secretary General.” But he must first have something to deliver. My personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter that much, but that theosophical work is being done.

You, Dr. [Haedicke], are now the one who has done what I have wanted for eight years. You have done something good by this. Because now the statutes will be changed; and that is for the benefit of those who have not understood the theosophical cause and have therefore become clause sniffers. A Lex [Haedicke] will no longer exist.

I would like to make a motion here that the General Assembly grants the Secretary General indemnity.

Mr. Hubo: “Following Mr. Tessmar's motion, I would like to request the addition that this alleged omission be considered unindebted, and that we move on to the agenda regarding all other points of the [Haedicke] motion.

Dr. Steiner: “A motion has been made to grant the Secretary General immunity. Whether or not he is at fault is irrelevant.”

The General Assembly grants the Secretary General immunity by vote.

Dr. Steiner: “There is another proposal, the Arenson proposal: 'The General Assembly should express its disapproval of the tone adopted by Dr. [Haedicke].”

The proposal is adopted.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to the granting of discharge to the board. I would like to explicitly note that it is not at all important to me to resign from the office of a General Secretary at any time, if it should become necessary for the reason that the two offices, the leadership of the Theosophical Society and the office of the General Secretary, would no longer be compatible with each other due to the way in which the Society must be run. This could arise if a certain equity did not prevail between the lines of the theosophical life. Why should that not be possible? You must consider what I am saying now in the light of the fact that I never want to be anything other than a theosophical teacher and that everything must be done by me that must be done in the interest of representing the theosophical truth. Anyone who finds himself in such a position must, of course, say something unpleasant to this or that person. He is obliged to speak the truth. But the truth does not always have to be understood. Since the Theosophical teacher is obliged to tell the unvarnished truth to each individual person, he must naturally have enemies and opponents. It cannot be otherwise. The nature of this antagonism, which is caused by the activities of the theosophical teacher, may under certain circumstances be incompatible with the activities of the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society. If the time should come when a combination of these two offices is no longer conceivable, then it will be necessary to consider another arrangement.

I would also like to note that no one has the right to say that I have said anything against the President of the Theosophical Society today. It has only been said that it is impossible for me to defend the President.

We now come to the granting of discharge to the board in its entirety.

The meeting grants discharge to the entire board.

Dr. Steiner: “We now proceed to the election of the new board, insofar as the board members have not been elected for life. The Board proposes the following members of the Board whose terms have expired for election: Mr. Bauer, Dr. Grosheintz, Mr. Tessmar, Dr. Unger, Ms. Noss, Ms. Wolfram, Ms. Smits. Furthermore, the Board is to be expanded by twelve new members, since one member of the Board must be elected for every 100 members, and the Association has grown by 1180 members since the last election. For this election, the board proposes: Ms. von Bredow, Ms. Völker, Ms. Wandrey, Mr. Del-Monte, Dr. Peipers, Dr. Noll, Countess Kalckreuth, Mr. von Rainer, Count Lerchenfeld, Prof. Gysi, Mr. von Damnitz, Ms. Mücke.

The following are proposed by the assembly: Pastor Klein, Mr. [Walther], Mr. van Leer, Ms. Winkler, Ms. von Eckardtstein.

Mr. Molt on the agenda: “I would like to ask that the proposals of the board be accepted. I believe that would be the best expression of a vote of confidence.

Dr. Steiner: “This motion must be voted on immediately.”

The motion by Molt is adopted.

Fourth item [on the agenda]: Reports by the representatives of the branches: There is a report from the Zurich branch. It is proposed that, due to the late hour, this report be included in the “announcements”.

The proposal is adopted.

Fifth item of business: Miscellaneous:

Dr. Steiner: “I would also like to note that the first general assembly of the Johannesbauverein will take place, if possible on Tuesday. The time will be announced.”

Since no one has anything to add regarding the fifth point, the Secretary General closes the business portion of the General Assembly. The Board's response to Dr. Vollrath's motion will be made the following morning. (The Board has declined to negotiate with Dr. Vollrath for well-founded reasons).