The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 10/1910

After the opening of the eighth General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society by the General Secretary Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the first item on the agenda was the determination of the voting ratio and, in connection with this, the presentation of the delegates of the individual branches.

Fräulein von Sivers read out the number of members of the various branches and then the number of delegates was determined.

The official welcoming address to the assembly by the chairman, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, was followed by the following opening speech, the essential content of which is reproduced here:

"My dear Theosophical friends!

Just as I was able to point out at last year's general assembly that we are entering the seventh year of the existence of our German Section, we can say at the opening of this year's assembly that we have now completed the seventh year of our existence as the German Section. On this occasion, it may be assumed from the outset that the Theosophists have a feeling for what is called the cyclical development of events. Accordingly, our gathering today, after the first seven-year cycle has ended, signifies a special kind of celebration and consecration. On such an occasion, it may perhaps happen that not only what you may take for granted, namely that you are warmly welcomed by the Secretary General, but it is probably appropriate at the end of our seventh year to point out many other things. Truly, such a seven-year cycle, as it has just expired, can teach us many things. It will therefore not be superfluous to take this opportunity to point out some of the lessons that events have taught us.

Those of you who have participated in the Theosophical life in our German Section in various places will have noticed that this life has undergone an evolution and experienced a transformation. Those who can do so, through their long membership, may remember the way we started the Theosophical Society here in Germany seven years ago. Those who have followed different lecture cycles and have drawn comparisons between how we could speak in the last cycles and how we had to speak at the beginning of the movement will notice a big difference. It was necessary to ascend gradually from the contemplation of lower spheres of knowledge to higher ones. Years ago, one had to speak more abstractly and schematically than is the case now. The rudiments of theosophy had to be presented in such a way that everyone could understand them. Now, however, we can also acquire such intimate teachings as those presented to us in Munich or Basel a few months ago. At the beginning of the movement, many members would have still regarded what was said there as wild fantasy. So there must have been a significant change, which everyone is able to notice. This is a thoroughly justified thing; because the theosophical movement would not progress if it could not grow not only in number but also in inner content. This fact must make it clear to us that the Theosophical movement is not something that is based on a dogmatic book or a doctrine that is available only once, but is something that, like an organism, is constantly adding new members. But we can also look back on a certain fertility of the movement. What can be said about this can be seen from certain figures that relate to our working conditions. I have noted the number of members who do direct work, through lectures and so on, and this number has risen to twenty, and that includes only those members who are already expanding their activities to different locations. In addition to this, there is the extensive and important work in the individual lodges. Hardly any of the twenty collaborators was already active through oral lectures seven years ago. This shows that we have achieved something, that the Theosophical movement has been fruitful since its inception. But this has also happened in many other directions. For example, we have been able to expand our activities by setting up the so-called art halls. Mr. Wagner will probably tell us something about this new institution, as far as it concerns Berlin. These events are intended to present art imbued with theosophical ideas to people who are still distant from theosophy. Myths and legends are told, and those who come from the small life of everyday life are given a brief outline of the theosophical teachings in the most popular form, and so on. Without doubt, this kind of laborious, spiritual work can be imitated and further developed. It is very gratifying when ordinary people come in from the street to absorb the basic principles of Theosophy with joy. This is also a proper way of spreading the theosophical work, but it must be done in a thoroughly unpretentious way. If it were done in a pretentious way, it would not be fruitful. But as it is, it is a truly practical institution. The point is that what is to be done in the spirit of the present really does happen.

Finally, it was also possible to realize an intention in which one can really feel the essence of what lies in a seven-year cycle. Seven years ago, I gave a lecture in Berlin about Schur's drama The Children of Lucifer. At that time the idea of a later performance was already in the background of this lecture. Now, in the seventh year of our existence, this idea could be realized in Munich. Thus, after seven years, a movement like the theosophical one returns to its beginning, as it were. Then, under certain circumstances, what had once been conceived as a mere intention can be realized. But it takes patience to allow such intentions to mature. It would have been premature to realize the idea of a performance of the aforementioned drama before now. These are the kinds of things that must pass through our souls when we experience the sacred moment of the completion of a seven-year cycle. These are, of course, only the bright sides of development, from which we can learn that, if they really prove to be bright sides, they should be continued in a calm manner. But much more can be learned from the dark sides. The growth in the number of members of the Society is very easily associated with a misunderstanding of the innermost nerve of the forces that are to play within the movement. The members themselves have the necessary task of ensuring that misunderstandings do not arise too strongly within the Theosophical Society, and that, on the other hand, the spiritual research is exposed to as few misunderstandings as possible in the world. We truly have a sacred spiritual treasure to guard, which can very easily be misunderstood; the symptoms of such misunderstandings are evident everywhere. For example, an article appeared recently in a Berlin morning newspaper that must have seemed extremely boring and banal to the true Theosophist, in which occultism is presented as encompassing areas such as somnambulism, clairvoyance, thought transfer and so on. The writer of this article is indeed a famous man within the journalistic world, but basically he knows as little about occultism as a bookbinder knows about the content of the books he binds. But that man had to speak as one would speak when considering what is today called Theosophy or occultism in public. The task of the Theosophical movement is to appeal, in the first instance, not to ill-informed humanity, but to the better-informed human heart and human reason. But to do that, the theosophist must gradually acquire the right tact. The man who wrote the article said that he had met a nanny in a family who took the children to the zoo every day and occasionally met a lady there who began telling her about the nature and significance of the astral body, and eventually convinced this servant girl completely. I would not dream of believing that this could happen to a member of the Theosophical Society, for Theosophists are gradually acquiring a sense of tact in such matters. It is also completely improper to propagandize for Theosophy in this way; anyone who does so will cause the most intense harm to the Theosophical movement. It is a different matter if Theosophy is systematically introduced to people like the housemaid in the sitting room. If a naive person is presented with Theosophical facts in such a fragmentary way, it will only confuse him; it may even do great harm to his soul.

This also leads us to speak in an even more serious way about a point that is already important today, but will become even more so in the future. We will also learn a great deal from this! This point concerns the relationship between those who teach and work within society and those who want to learn. We are in a difficult place here. It can easily happen that precisely through such a movement, what is called blind faith, faith based on mere authority, gets out of hand. It is in this direction that sins take the greatest revenge. Let us take this opportunity to refer to a saying of Lessing. He found that all the people around him sang the highest praises of Klopstock. But when he delved into what people really knew about Klopstock, it turned out that they had hardly read him. In Theosophy, understanding is the only thing that matters. Those who want to understand within this from the very source of spiritual life will probably grasp Lessing's word, somewhat modified: “We want to be praised less, but understood more diligently.” This saying should be deeply engraved in our hearts as a salutary lesson that has emerged in recent years. We have seen how a truly estimable teacher in the theosophical field has received undivided praise; but we have also had to experience how a fierce opposition to her has gradually emerged, admittedly outside the German Section. If one were to examine the matter, one would find that the following applies here: There were many who in the past admired and marveled at the leading personality of the Theosophical Society. If these admirers had more often written in their hearts: We want to understand less than admire, the subsequent opposition would not have asserted itself. It is not outward worship and admiration that we should show to the Teachers, but we should strive for their understanding. Those who are well versed in true occultism know how pernicious uncomprehending admiration can be. They will say to themselves: if someone makes an effort not just to admire and venerate a personality, but to make that personality's cause their own, and to embrace that cause not just for the sake of the personality it represents, but for its own sake, then they are on the right path. Mere personal admiration can easily turn into its opposite. This is where the true reasons for the change of so many attitudes within the Theosophical movement to their opposite are to be found. You would do better to always listen to the words of those who are truly working in the spirit of our movement, then it will also become clear to you that they actually want to be understood rather than admired. But there is an even more serious side to this! Those who begin to hear the teachings of Theosophy from this or that source are not immediately able to understand everything. This understanding does not require clairvoyance, but rather the mere application of sound reason. Only those who have the will to do so, who apply their reason to the matter, will understand. Nothing has been said on my part, no matter how lofty the heights of spiritual science it may come from, that cannot be grasped or at least examined with reason, if it is applied in an all-round and unbiased enough manner. We must realize that not everyone can be a spiritual scientist, but what has been communicated must in all cases be able to be tested in a reasonable way. Admittedly, certain things often make such a test difficult, for example the high truths of the Gospel of Luke; but even here we can see an example of how it can be done. First of all, what has been investigated by the clairvoyant is taken as a mere communication. This information, without any documentary evidence, is then checked against the available documents, in our case the Gospel of Luke, because the writer of this gospel has said the same thing in his own way as is revealed by the direct research. This is only an approximate verification for the time being, but with simpler things it can become more accurate. Thus we will see that over time the testimonies will multiply. The doctrine of reincarnation and karma should be proved in life; for only in this way can we properly introduce it to a larger public. When the reproach is made that what the spiritual researcher says cannot be accepted otherwise than on mere authority, such a principle is quite wrong, and one should not let it arise at all, but rather say to oneself: I will gather up all my reason and test what is communicated with it in life. So, for example, we should go and study what has been said about Zarathustra, what is given to us by spiritual research as broad guidelines, and compare it with what history and life have to say about it. I am quite calm with those who really take the whole of history to verify what has been said. Newly discovered facts can only provide new evidence. Even what was said yesterday as a brief sketch about anthroposophy can only be confirmed by physiology, biology and so on. The more one uses such sciences in the right way, the stronger the evidence will be. Apparent contradictions should be resolved, for they are only contradictions if the investigation is inaccurate. This principle has been particularly adhered to in my forthcoming book, Occult Science.

Nothing is more harmful than when a teacher is shown unfounded admiration. The blind believer does himself harm by not developing; but even more harm does he do to the one in whom he blindly believes, whom he blindly admires. Everything that is shown as blind admiration for the spiritual researcher takes itself out like a drag shoe for the spiritual researcher, whereas the teacher has to fight against it in the most terrible way. There is nothing he has to fight against more than precisely such blind admiration, through which stones are literally thrown in his way. This should be entrusted to you as a secret after the seventh year! Those who want to test you are willing students with whom you can make progress. The others, however, constantly throw obstacles in your way, which you have to defend yourself against.

They can only be overcome if the teacher is absolutely honest. Blind admiration is the most dangerous pitfall in Theosophy. The theosophist must educate himself to be honest and strict with himself. Such things must be considered very seriously. The teachers must, of course, to some extent accept what has been characterized here, for they are able to examine everything that is brought to them. Personal followers will always exist; but they should not affect the teacher at all. He must strengthen himself against them. Blind followers are his tempters and seducers.

This way of thinking must gradually become a guiding principle in the Theosophical Society. We must come to the conviction that we are representing a sacred cause. Only under this principle will we make progress. No one need be deterred from wanting to teach on a larger or smaller scale if such a principle is recognized by them.

This is something we should learn from our great experiences. On the one hand, we should be impartial and unprejudiced people; on the other hand, however, we should exercise the utmost care in absorbing what is given to us. The past seven years have taught us this.

This is not to say, however, that everyone should hold back from teaching until they have verified something themselves. We must always make a strict distinction between what can be grasped through reason alone, and what can only be grasped later through further development. It is bad when we simply accept things on the basis of authority for the sake of convenience. Why do so many mediums become frauds? They are not solely to blame for this, but so are the blind listeners and believers. One thing is indispensable for anyone who studies occult phenomena, namely, a constantly deepening inwardness of one's own self. The more blind faith, which arises only from convenience, is hurled at a medium, for example, the more likely it is that the medium will become a fraud. It cannot be emphasized enough

strongly enough emphasize how important it is in this field to set the right path as an ideal."

With this the chairman concluded his opening speech and then gave a short summary of the external work of the past few years, his various visits to lodges, his various travels, especially to Austria. On this occasion, he mentioned a beautiful experience that is particularly symptomatic of the character of the theosophical movement. He recalled a public lecture in Prague, where members of both the Czech and German nationalities were present and sat together in the most wonderful harmony. At the end, an old gentleman told the lecturer that what Theosophy had achieved here would otherwise have been impossible in Prague. But Theosophy was able to unite those who were otherwise hostile to each other so harmoniously on that beautiful evening.

The journey then continued via Vienna to Klagenfurt. In Vienna, too, the work proceeded in the most peaceful manner. And that was in the days when the Italian and German students were fighting, with shots being fired; it was also the time when the fierce disputes between Germans and Czechs were taking place. From this it can be seen that Theosophy has a mission, namely to bring harmony, peace and unity to people. Through Theosophy, such a thing can be achieved.

Then reference was made to the remarkable fact that seven lecture cycles have taken place in the past year: In Rome, Düsseldorf, Kristiania, Budapest, Kassel, Munich and Basel. Furthermore, those members who have repeatedly worked in a wide variety of places were gratefully remembered; but the many others, whose names cannot all be mentioned, may accept as thanks the success that their work has had within the Theosophical Society, and draw from it inspiration for further hard work. The chairman also emphasized the Budapest Congress as an important external event and mentioned that at this congress he was awarded the Grand Subba Row Medal by the Adyar headquarters for the book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, which was available in English translation. This is a sign that there can also be harmony between the various teachers of Theosophy when independence prevails. Besant and Steiner are apparently getting along quite well, even though they are going different ways. It was necessary to unite the old stream of the Theosophical movement with a new current, to bring in new life blood from a certain direction. Nothing fruitful will come from empty talk of harmony. Those who are there as teachers are working together on the one great work, each in his own way.

The founding of a “Philosophical-Theosophical Publishing House” was also mentioned, which is under the direction of Miss Mücke and in which an outline of anthroposophy is also to appear from time to time.

In a very solemn manner, the Secretary General then named those of our dear members who had left the physical plane during the year, and in each case gave a brief description of the deceased's relationship to Theosophy, especially the three ladies from Stuttgart who had passed away, Mrs. Lina Schwarz, Mrs. Cohen and Mrs. Aldinger.

“Even in such a case,” the chairman continued, “we can place ourselves in the soul of the deceased, in particular, to understand the importance of what Theosophy can offer us. We do not want to try to console the bereaved of our dear friends who have passed away with banal phrases, but we want to point out that although we are only at the beginning of our movement, the overall karma of it must gradually come to that which should be achieved in the individual karma. Theosophists must ultimately feel obliged to actively support each other in certain cases. In this way the popular phrase of general philanthropy is replaced by a true understanding of individual real love for one's neighbor. If philanthropy does not address individual cases and become active there, it remains a mere phrase. Such thoughts must arise in us when we see from time to time this or that of our dear members leave the physical plan."

After these words of the Chairman, Mr. Bedrnicek from Prague took the floor on behalf of the Prague Section to express his warmest thanks to the Secretary General for his efforts on behalf of the Prague Lodge before the General Assembly.

Mr. Günther Wagner, on behalf of the Besant branch, proposed that the reading of the minutes of the last General Assembly be dispensed with, since anyone could have sufficiently informed themselves about their content in the printed “Mitteilungen”. The motion that the minutes of the last General Assembly not be read was unanimously approved, and the minutes were declared approved.

A report on membership trends is given by Miss von Sivers, according to the most recent lists:

The current number of branches is 44, compared to 37 in the previous year, and one center. Seven newly established branches can be named: the Wroclaw branch, the Cusanus branch in Koblenz, the Essen branch; the Paulus branch in Mulhouse; the Novalis branch in Strasbourg; the Dante branch in Dresden; the Goethe branch in Munich.

Mr. Seiler presents the cash report with the annual accounts and balance sheet:
According to this, the total income was 5817.69 marks
and the total expenditure was 5499.53 marks
. This leaves a surplus of 318.16 marks
, to which bank deposits of 2020.45 marks
338 Marks, which results in total assets of 2676.61 Marks.

Following on from this, Mr. Ahner from Dresden proposed that a more detailed cash report be published in the “Mitteilungen” in the future, so that outsiders could also gain a more precise insight into income and expenditure.

Mr. Werner proposed that this motion be rejected outright.

Mr. Elkan proposed closing the debate, which was accepted.

The previous motion to publish a more detailed cash report in the “Mitteilungen” was rejected by an overwhelming majority. The report of the cash auditors, Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Motzkus, was then read out. Mr. Tessmar explained that the cash books had been checked in three ways: firstly, in terms of external cleanliness and clarity; secondly, in terms of the arithmetic; and thirdly, in terms of the accuracy of the individual entries. The result of this was that the two auditors were able to report that the cash management was entirely proper. The financial statements also match the accounting records, and the positive cash balance is also factual.

Now the proposals from the plenary session were discussed. No written proposals had been submitted to the chairman.

Pastor Wendt asks for the floor and proposes that the “announcements” occasionally sent to members should no longer be sent in an open cross-band, but in a sealed envelope.

Ms. von Sivers replies that this would cause a huge increase in postage costs. It would be better for individual members to ensure that, through their own carelessness, information does not fall into the wrong hands.

Mr. Ahner suggests sending the various communications as a postal package to the individual board members and having them distribute them.

Mr. Pastor Wendt then withdraws his proposal in favor of this second one.

Mr. van Leer suggests that another type of cruciate ligament might be used.

The chairman now points out that voting is only possible on motions that are compatible with the statutes; however, since the statutes state that the lodges are autonomous, the General Assembly cannot decide what the individual lodges should do. It would have been best, the chairman continues, to have kept the original mode; where everything was sent to the members in sealed envelopes, but the financial aspect made the change necessary due to the rapid growth of the society. “Besides,” he says, “we are not doing anything that should be kept secret, and it is not a big deal if a postman occasionally reads such a message.” Pastor Wendt had based his proposal on such an actual case.

Pastor Wendt proposes to increase membership fees to cover the additional postage costs; but the chairman also replies that the general assembly does not have a quorum to decide on this in accordance with the statutes. This matter was thus settled.

Mr. Oscar Grosheintz proposes to create an address book of all members of the German section, to be sent to the boards of the lodges, if not to all individual members, in order to improve contact among members.

Fräulein von Sivers replies that on a previous occasion it had been decided, for various reasons, to no longer include the names of those entering the “Mitteilungen”.

Mr. Ahner believes that a list of exact addresses would be useful after all, and particularly important for the lodge boards, because it would in every way facilitate communication among the members.

Fräulein von Sivers points out the dangers associated with the creation of such address material, which could then be used for any other purpose. Besides, she says, members could, if they visit a place where there is a Theosophical branch, turn to the local chairman in question.

Dr. Steiner explained that this would be a matter of principle, which, in addition to its advantages, would also have a downside, since there are people who work honestly within the Theosophical Society but who, due to their position or other circumstances, cannot go public with their name as Theosophists.

Such important matters should be left to the well-founded discretion of the leadership of the Section. The Chairman pointed out further problems that would arise from publicly disclosing the addresses of members. He also did not feel called upon to reveal the names of members, as these were sacred to him. After Mr. Ahner had again taken the floor on the same matter, Mr. Kiem finally moved to end the debate, which was accepted.

The previous motion to forward the names and addresses of all members of the German Section to the lodge committees was rejected by a large majority.

No further motions were put forward by the plenary assembly.

The representatives of the branches then reported: Apart from Fräulein von Sivers, who read a report from the Karlsruhe branch on behalf of this lodge, no one wished to speak on this matter.

Mr. Günther Wagner then gave a brief report on the work in the Berlin art room and followed it up with a general consideration of the usefulness of such events within the Theosophical movement. He also encouraged similar attempts to be made elsewhere, as has already happened in Berlin and Munich.

No one requested the floor under the item “Miscellaneous”.

The eighth general assembly of the German Section was declared closed by the chair.

My dear friends!

The very considerations that are to begin with our Berlin branch with this evening could be the occasion for a brief introduction to say a number of things, to tie in once again with something that has been repeatedly mentioned and emphasized in recent weeks and especially in the days of our general assembly. We are now in the eighth year of our German Section, that is, after the conclusion of the seventh year, and it has been pointed out that what one might call the cyclical movement of events and facts in time does not arise from some fantasy theory, but is based entirely on facts of reality, and that only those who apply it to life, in which he is directly involved, understand such a thing in the deeper sense. For each of you, the fact that you have placed yourselves in the Theosophical movement makes it, in a certain sense, your own affair, and so each of you should consider such a cyclic sequence of this matter for yourselves, and, one might say, practically consider it. One can learn a great deal from such a thing. It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the development of the human being in the individual life, the period around the seventh year, when the change of teeth occurs, is important and decisive in a variety of ways. Anyone who has only superficially observed life within our German Section – not to mention the fact that everything that can be said about it appears all the more sharply and intimately when viewed more deeply – can truly say that this first cycle of our theosophical work can be compared quite accurately with the individual development that a child undergoes from birth to the change of teeth, when it gets its second, then permanent teeth. For anyone who really wants to look at the events will not be able to help saying that the overview that could be obtained during the days of our General Assembly has shown that we are dealing with a number of feverish symptoms that our changing teeth have caused in the past few weeks and months. We are even dealing with quite severe fever symptoms, and it cannot be denied that many a tooth that has grown again now that the first milk teeth have fallen out has bitten quite hard, and that this is not yet over. What I am now saying about biting and the various other symptoms has a deep and profound significance. It should be clear to everyone that another seven years lie ahead for the Theosophical movement, and that these seven years are in some respects a growing into what, when it approaches, is called the awkward age. All these things can be shaped in one way or another through a good education in the individual. In the theosophical movement, if we take our cause seriously and worthily, this education must to a large extent be a serious self-education, a taking-into-hand of the individual souls by the participants in the theosophical movement. And it will be necessary in the future to look more closely at many things than has been the case so far. In practice, many things have not been fully taken into account in the past seven years; however, things that are necessary for a fruitful development should definitely be taken into account.

For example, it should be borne in mind that in the theosophical wisdom there are initially the broad guidelines that one must first acquire. So that those who are new and fresh can always acquire these guidelines, and so that they can thoroughly acquire these guidelines for themselves, perhaps in a shorter time than the others who have been through the whole seven-year theosophical life, it will always be ensured that a course is held with these guidelines. If one understands the essence of the assimilation of these guidelines in the true sense of the word, then one will also understand, on the one hand, where the later deepening should lie, after one has assimilated these guidelines, for those who seriously want to work within the Theosophical movement. But one will also find the right relationship to the first guidelines as well as to what is given later. This is something that one should acquire through a corresponding feeling. That which gives the first guidelines is truly a great plan of world wisdom. When you absorb within yourself the configuration, the planned structure of the human being, as given in my Theosophy, it depends on how the individual reader or listener relates to it, whether he absorbs mere abstract knowledge in such a matter, or whether he absorbs warm, meaningful wisdom. The entire book of “Theosophy” contains, if you will, abstract, cold, conceptual knowledge, and it also contains, if you will, the warmest, deepest, most soul-stirring, most vital wisdom. And it is self-education and self-knowledge alone that must lead us to realize that it depends only on the reader whether it is abstract, dry knowledge or whether it is warm, meaningful wisdom that goes deep into the heart, ordering all life, setting life tasks, and offering consolation in the most difficult situations of fate.

Those who are not too lazy can find answers for all of life's situations in such a book. It often happens that someone comes to me with the best of intentions and says, “Oh, tell me what my faults are, I would so much like to get rid of them.” But they do not consider that everyone can always find the answer to this question for themselves in the spiritual scientific literature, and that it is of far greater value to them to find the answer for themselves in the available literature than to have it answered in an external way. Sometimes, instead of asking such a question and wanting a personal answer, it would be much, much better if the person concerned would take Theosophy, read half a page of it, and then imbue the matter with their own genuine thoughts.

It is not too much to go over these guidelines and basic principles of the theosophical worldview again and again, to make them completely your own. Only by doing so will you be able to gain the right relationship to everything that follows. Then you will be able to understand that it was necessary, in a certain sense, to proceed from the guidelines and basic principles to what has been given at the branch evenings over the past few years: it is necessary in order to fully immerse oneself in it. On the other hand, however, it is also true that in the last three years, after the foundations had been laid, I have in fact said nothing new with regard to the deeper truths. As necessary as it was to penetrate everything intensively, these were further elaborations for life, compared to what was said in the basic and guiding principles; they were lights that were to be thrown on the various areas of life. Four lectures have been given in the last few weeks in the House for Architects: 'The Mission of Spiritual Science Once and Now', 'The Mission of Wrath', 'The Mission of Truth', 'The Mission of Devotion'. Anyone who has really studied the book 'Theosophy' could have found that everything that was said there is already contained in it: there are four squares that have now been painted in different colors. It is absolutely necessary to carry out this coloring in every single soul; for it would be the most false and incorrect to think that just because everything is contained in “Theosophy,” one should spend one's whole life with “Theosophy.” But the right attitude in practical life to these further explanations will come to him who has made entirely his own what is said there. He who has made entirely his own what is said in 'Theosophy' may say to himself: 'I have worked for four years to make entirely my own the fundamental principles of Theosophy. And now it is so strange what has happened to me! If I had heard a lecture like the one on 'The Mission of Wrath' four years ago, I would have been able to understand it, of course, but I see that there are different ways of understanding it. This is the case with such things, in which there really is something to it. There is an understanding that someone might have who is perhaps hearing these lectures for the first time but is not aware that “Theosophy” exists. Then there is a second understanding that someone has who has embraced Theosophy, and they might make a strange discovery in the process. He might say to himself: “Four years ago, this would have seemed difficult to me; some things would have been foreign to me, it would have seemed to me that some of the terms used as turns of phrase would not have made much sense to me. And now, after I have properly absorbed this matter about the sentient, intellectual, and consciousness soul, and so on, I listen to these four lectures in much the same way as I used to read a novella that spoke quite easily to my soul."

This should only be stated as what a real appropriation of “Theosophy” can and will certainly do if it is worked through in the right way. If someone, after picking up the book and going through the material once or twice, then finds, “These are dry arguments that occur in every science,” then he has never overcome the discomfort of asking himself, “Is it really not up to me to see something else in it than a science? That I cannot see that which can come out of it like sparks from a fire?” This is how we have to look at these things. We must not believe that it is demeaning for us in later years to say to ourselves: I should really learn the guidelines and basic principles correctly, and in fact as they are written. It is tremendously important that we realize that things are not said just so or just so because the writer in question thought of it, but because things are written with an inner necessity in every detail. The present, with its shabby literature, has no concept whatsoever of the great responsibility with which the book is written. It would be a great self-education if, within the theosophical movement, people would gradually get into the habit of feeling something of this responsibility. Believe me, it does matter if in a book like that, written with responsibility to the spiritual worlds, a predicate is placed before the subject or if 'was' is chosen instead of 'is'. Or if in some other way a sentence is formed in this or that way, then there are good reasons for it. And our present-day degenerate literature, which believes that one can write down anything that comes to mind and that it does not matter whether one uses this or that word, has no concept of the very profound responsibility that one must have towards these things. Today everything is written down carelessly, as people think of it. It is important to coin each sentence correctly. And if there is no right word for a concept in the language, then in a book like “Theosophy” you have to use a word in the first half line that approximately gives the right meaning, and then, in order for the concept to come out right, use a corresponding word in the second half line so that the two words balance each other and the matter can take effect on the soul.

A book like “Theosophy” cannot be compared to any book of external literature. For it will be the most beautiful, the highest fruit of the theosophical movement when a feeling awakens in the soul from that self-education. Then one also gets a feeling for the fact that most of what is printed today - with the exception of mere reports of events that are given about social conditions - would actually be best left unprinted because it is not fully developed, because it is not at all ripe to flow from one soul to another.

For that we should get a feeling and a truly dignified and earnest sentiment. It would be bad if the Theosophists were to take in what is given in “Theosophy” with exactly the same attitude as they take in anything else from the outside literature. Perhaps you remember that I developed the system of the arts here a few days ago in a very particular style. Do you think that was a quirk? If you think so, you would be completely mistaken. It is not a matter of just giving this lecture in this form, but rather that what had to be said in the process necessarily resulted in each individual sentence and each turn of phrase quite by itself; and any other way of talking about it could never have said what was said in this lecture. As everywhere, the “how” was of the utmost importance. And if you wrap these things in a different way, they are no longer the same, they are something completely different.

Thus it is always necessary for the serious theosophist to return to the first guidelines and basic principles, and precisely by making these guidelines and basic principles one's own to gain the opportunity to advance further and further. If anyone had taken these basic and fundamental lines in the first four years of our spiritual scientific movement here as they were processed in the four years with us; if anyone had taken them in such a way that three years ago they would have been present in him, would have made the discovery in the following three years that what was further developed was no longer new, but [expansion] according to life practice in all areas. He would have noticed that he absorbs this with complete ease, without difficulty of understanding and without mistaking the necessity for one or the other interpretation. But he would have had another strange feeling after another three years... today, that is. He would have given himself the opportunity to say today: “I have, without realizing it, entered into a completely new life of the soul: Now I know what spiritual life is. Now I know that I was mistaken in imagining that I could attain the spiritual life in any other way than by contemplating the world and thereby awakening the slumbering powers, at least on the first step! Four and three are again an important matter within a seven-year cycle: that is why, in our movement, we worked on the guidelines and outlines in the first four years, and in the last three years we have only inserted into what was set out in the general plan what is more important than the foundation in terms of the real content of life. But to achieve it, it is necessary to have adopted the basic and guiding principles.

And this should be said above all to the dear members of our Berlin branch, which, as one of the oldest branches, can in a sense be a leader. It should be particularly recommended to all those who are involved in the formation of new branches here or there, because these things are not done arbitrarily, but because they are to be exemplary for new branch formations: It is extremely important to keep reminding ourselves that it is not right to offer people what is supposed to be an extension first; rather, anyone who is to come into the spiritual life through the theosophical path must be able to do so simply by appropriating the guidelines in their soul in a thorough, serious and dignified manner.

If seven years ago we had started work with a small or larger group of people who had the deepest yearning for the spiritual world, and these people — whether ten or fifteen hundred — had been driven by some event to feel this yearning at the same time, and if this group had devotedly taken up the guidelines, and for three years into these guidelines what has been given in the last three years as an explanation of the practice of life, then we would now, after most of our dear friends, after having heard something about the foundations of Christianity and the essence of Christ from the reflections that were made in reference to the Gospel of John, after most of them, at least in a brief repetition, the fundamental facts that are linked to the Gospel of Luke, and on the basis of the fact that they have adopted the principles and basic lines of “theosophy”, have now connected everything that has been worked out in this way, what has been mentioned in lectures that touched on the most diverse chapters of life, such as storytelling, illness, moral principles, if all this and if we had now crowned what was there with the fact that we have now included those significant points of view that were said in reference to the Gospels of John and Luke, then we would now be on the verge of approaching the contemplation that points to the Gospel of Mark, and we would finally be able to ascend to the contemplation of the Gospel of Matthew. Then we would begin to have an inkling of what Christ Jesus is. Of course, this cannot be the case in this way, because things in life cannot be so perfect. Since we were not a small group working for seven years under complete exclusion of all disturbing circumstances, it has happened time and again that after absorbing what was said in the lectures about the Christ-being in view of the Gospel of John, one believed that one now knew what the Christ Jesus is. For one could easily believe that because the Christ has been spoken about, one now knows what He is. Then the Gospel of Luke was spoken about, and again someone might think: “Now the speaker has said everything possible, has spoken so much about the Christ in the last three years, following the Gospel of John, has also spoken about the first thirty years, following the Gospel of Luke – now one can get an idea of the thirty-three years of Jesus Christ's activity on earth...” If that were so, then it would not have been necessary to give the world the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

If you want to look above all at the attitude from which the reflections were made in connection with the Gospels of John and Luke, if you want to consider these attitudes, they cannot be characterized other than as having been spoken from a point of view that says something like the following: “That which we call the Christ-Jesus-Being is, as far as can be grasped by human understanding at all in our present time, is so great, so all-embracing, so mighty that no consideration of it can proceed from saying in any one-sided way who the Christ-Jesus was and what significance His Essence has for each individual human spirit and for each individual soul; that would have seemed in our considerations like an irreverence toward the greatest world problem that exists. Respect and reverence are the words that describe the attitude from which our reflections have been given. Respect and reverence, which could be expressed in the sentiment: Do not place too high a value on human understanding when you are confronted with the greatest problem. Try never to place too high a value on anything that a spiritual science, no matter how great, can give you, even if it reaches the highest regions, when it is a matter of confronting life's greatest problem. And do not believe that a single human word would suffice to say anything other than what characterizes this great and formidable problem from one side.

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 11/1910

At around 10:45 a.m., the General Assembly is opened by the Secretary General of the German Section, Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The first item on the agenda was to determine the voting rights of the delegates from the individual branches.

The second item on the agenda was the reading of the minutes of the previous year's general assembly. It was proposed that the reading be dispensed with because the minutes were included in detail in the “Mitteilungen”. The proposal was accepted. This was followed by the report of the secretary, Fräulein von Sivers, on the state of the membership movement over the last year.

The number of members in 1950 was around 1500, compared to 1500 the previous year; 522 new members joined, compared to 415 the previous year; 63 left or could no longer be found and were therefore deleted, 1 transferred to another section, 8 passed away.

Three new branches were established: Görlitz, Vienna and Klagenfurt. Two new centers were formed: Göttingen and Wyrow. The total number of branches is 47, and the number of centers is 3. The treasurer, Mr. Seiler, will now present the financial report.

According to the report, total income was 7546 marks
The total expenditure was 6255.61 marks
There remains a surplus of 1290.39 marks
To this, bank balance 2020.45 marks
Furniture inventory 565 marks
Results in total assets of 3875.84 marks

After the report of the auditors, Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Motzkus, the treasurer is discharged.

Report of the Secretary General [Rudolf Steiner]:

"I will try to keep the report of the Secretary General as short as possible this year, because we need the time for other things; quite a number of our dear Theosophical friends have kindly agreed to delight us with lectures during this General Assembly.

My first duty is to give you, who have gathered here either to see each other again or to meet the newcomers, a warm , and to greet you in particular on behalf of the Berlin branch of Besant, which always finds it a special pleasure to be able to welcome not only the various Theosophical friends of the German Section, but also friends from out of town.

It has often been emphasized on other occasions that such a gathering has a completely different value for us Theosophists than a gathering of perhaps any other association. Other associations find, when they come together, like-minded people who agree with them on this or that goal of their external or internal life, on this or that question, in terms of their occupation, profession, perhaps also on some ideal in life or the like. Theosophists also come together to find like-minded people, and in their like-minded people, above all, to find bearers of their shared ideals. However, it may be said that a major difference between such a theosophical gathering and the gatherings of all other associations is this.

When we look at the theosophical movement and consider what it is primarily about, we see the innermost being and striving of the human soul and not a single activity in life, not a particular ideal, not something limited in space and time, but that which arises directly from the perception that those gathered here feel and think together about that which is most precious to them in life. That is what unites us. And to sense this in the soul of another, to see it realized in friendly fellowship, that is what each of us welcomes. In this way, other members of the association come together, knowing that they will find this or that in common with those they meet; this is how theosophists come together, knowing that they may find the innermost feelings and thoughts in themselves in others as well. This is what should permeate our gathering like a magical breeze; and it is out of the consciousness that such a spiritual and meaningful bond unites us that I warmly welcome you. We are not only together as representatives of the Theosophical movement; we are not only together in some external business sense, we are together in terms of being Theosophists; and the feeling and living of Theosophical ideas together is the soul of our being together. It is from this soul of our Theosophical togetherness that I would like to speak as I address these opening greetings to you.

During the past year, our German Section has once again made significant progress in our theosophical work. And when we ask ourselves the question whether we may look back on this piece in such a way that we can really call it progress – and not only ask our feelings, but ask: Do the facts speak for the fact that our life is a progressive one – then we must see above all how everywhere within our theosophical branches an inner life is beginning to stir more and more. Today, at the ninth General Assembly, after the conclusion of our eighth theosophical year of our German Section, we can say that the inner life within the German Section has been realized in a broader way.

The German Section consists of individual branches, and these show a lively inner life. When one looks into this life, one can only characterize in very general terms how this life has formed. And one may say that one cannot characterize it more deeply than by saying that it has become an intense one. In some branches, the inner life has even grown out of itself, as in the Berlin Besant branch and in some others, particularly the Munich and Stuttgart branches. There we, like the members of a branch of Theosophists, also cultivate Theosophical enterprises, which are not, so to speak, fanned in a rash way by the Theosophical Society itself, but which flourish from the Theosophical inner life of the branches. These are the various events that go beyond lodge life, in the so-called art and music rooms, where popular Theosophy is also partly practiced. It shows how, as everywhere, theosophical life can be kindled if we only try to speak to humanity in the right way. It would be going too far if I were to name all the members who have rendered outstanding services in a way that cannot be appreciated highly enough by us. In particular, I would like to express the wish that these activities, which take place in art and music rooms, continue and expand as much as possible. This is the best way for us to make a certain impression on our time, if we are able to have an effect on the outside world.

The next step is, of course, the development of theosophical life within the branches; and here I would have to speak for hours if I wanted to characterize how the most intensive work is done within the individual branches, in that gradually organizing this inner work in the form of courses, as is already the case in Berlin, Stuttgart, Munich, Cologne and other places, so that individual members take it upon themselves to convey theosophical truths to new members in courses. Such courses have been set up, and it is certainly permissible to express the wish that, on the one hand, this institute of courses held by members be expanded as much as possible. On the other hand, however, it may well be said that these courses should also be attended as much as possible so that members who are still new and have not yet familiarized themselves with the elementary content of Theosophy can do so. It will only be possible to make significant progress if such courses are set up for those members who have only been with us for a short time. Progress can only be made if the opportunity to learn about the wisdom of Theosophy is given again and again.

But if the content given to us from the source of the theosophical wisdom is to flow to the members again and again, then the younger members must ensure that they always catch up on what was given earlier, otherwise it would not be possible to continue in the appropriate way; and the older members would have to do without something new altogether. Perhaps I may parenthetically interject that one should not take this catching up too lightly. And the greater the reverence for the Theosophical truths, the greater is the possibility of a Theosophical movement penetrating within our culture.

The life of this Theosophical movement can also be seen further afield. I say expressly, the life: a living organism is not only alive when it draws more and more new life into itself, so to speak, but only when there is a lively exchange between the individual limbs, when the juices are exchanged between the individual limbs of the organism. And it is precisely in this respect that we can say that this has been most beautifully realized, that a kind of such material movement takes place among the individual limbs. Again and again, members from a wide variety of branches, not only from branches in Germany but also from abroad, come forward to carry out this exchange, so that with these Theosophical courses, which have become established, mutual inspiration and the mutual exchange of perceptions and feelings are generated in the most beautiful way. It is gratifying that every year we have a number of courses in front of Theosophical members abroad. I would like to mention the course in Stockholm, where a number of members of our German Section were present; and it can be said that the life that unfolded between the Stockholm friends and our members was a very lively one.

Then, above all, we experienced something in the course in Vienna that may be called the outward growth of our Theosophical movement. With this course, a lively and hopefully ever-expanding theosophical life has begun in Vienna, and, as it continues, has deepened the foundations of Theosophy that have been given for years by our friends there. This has also been demonstrated externally by the establishment of the Vienna branch. This adds a link to our work that will also carry Theosophy in an easterly direction. Following the Theosophical Branch in Vienna, a similar branch was also founded in Klagenfurt. And when we consider that the Czech Section was also founded at our suggestion, we can see a gratifying outward growth of the Theosophical Movement. It would again be going too far if all that was done by our dear friends to bring this life to the East were to be characterized in detail. Therefore, only the highly gratifying fact was pointed out in general that we are developing significant beginnings in the East with the Czech Section, the Vienna branch and the Klagenfurt Lodge. The Vienna cycle showed that with the Theosophical movement, with all the imponderables, with all the indefinable things that took place, that it shows something that can be called a fine, intimate progress in human cultural striving, in the mood of feeling that is brought to bear on today's cultural activity. It is characteristic of our time how modern man feels about all cultural activity. When he feels confronted by any kind of cultural activity, the modern man asks himself: Do I understand it, or don't I understand it? If he doesn't understand it, he rejects it. This was particularly characteristic of Basel, where a feature article was written on the occasion of a Theosophical lecture, which began with the words: “What is most striking about Theosophy is its incomprehensibility.” That is the right way to describe the imponderable mood that modern man brings to a cultural activity. This is particularly evident when the word is applied to another area. Imagine someone writing a feature article about mathematics that began in the same way. He would only be characterizing his personal relationship to mathematics. Nowadays, such a relationship is taken for granted, and people think they have said something with it; but they have not said anything at all. Because if someone has not studied mathematics, he simply knows nothing about it and cannot pass judgment on it. Thus the feature writer reveals nothing more than his own attitude towards Theosophy. It would be right to stop writing about it after such a sentence. In the past, if people did not understand something, it meant that they were bored; but that is not a judgment on what was presented. But this modern sentiment is gradually changing, and today one may dare to bring difficult things within the Theosophical movement for discussion. The Vienna course was indeed a particularly difficult one, and if only people who had given such a judgment, as we have just characterized it, had been present at that time, then the Vienna course would certainly have remained barren. But it did become fruitful; and we were able to go home at that time with the beautiful feeling that even from the unspeakable things beautiful flowers grew towards us.

This became apparent later at the Hamburg course. It is always difficult to discuss things that, so to speak, require a certain nuance of feeling for the understanding of everything that is given from the source of Theosophy. In principle, all this is certainly understandable to the scrutinizing reason and logic. But it would certainly take us a long time, and we would have to organize long courses if all these things were to be verified with logic. And in a way it is certainly not to be dismissed when healthy feeling develops in relation to what is offered. There are souls that are more mature than they realize, that bring something from the subconscious that they themselves are unaware of. And then those things that are highest are easiest to test by logic, and those that relate to practical personal life are most difficult. It is much more difficult to find convincing evidence when someone is looking for a connection between an obvious passion and an illness. This can be examined through logic. But it is a long way from what can be established through spiritual research to the convincing logical judgment. Then the subconscious reception comes into play, which manifests itself in the healthy sense of truth. This senses the truth, which could admittedly be proved, but can also be accepted even before the proof. Such a reception must be particularly presupposed in such courses. This will be able to happen more and more, and has just happened particularly in the courses mentioned. And one is taught how really another nuance of feeling and another spiritual nuance - as they did not previously exist in the physical world - now show up.

If we were allowed to point out a kind of new attempt within our theosophical movement, then perhaps I may also speak to you in this brief way about some of the progress we have made in our inner work this year. This leads us to Kristiania, where it was possible to speak about the processes in the life of the earth. There the spirits of the people could be called the souls of the people; it was possible to speak about racial development and its course. This course could only be built on the characterized prerequisites. This also provided the opportunity to present something inward to our members in an outward way.

This also happened in Munich, where we were allowed to dare something like first attempts, which was a direct transfer of esoteric things into exoteric artistic ways.

But then, as a consequence, we were also allowed to make the attempt to look at the writings that are available to us through the prehistoric wisdom of humanity in a broader light. This happened in the courses that made very special demands on the listeners. This was allowed to happen in the Munich and Bern courses.

It has been said of the Bern course that things were discussed there that only have their value in the moment in which they are spoken. This is, of course, intentional and justified. One could experience in these two courses, the Munich and the Bern, that there was something in them that cannot be reproduced in writing. In this, we have indeed made a certain amount of progress.

I have already spoken much more than I had intended, so I ask you to take this as a report of the inner activity and movement of our cause, and to kindly excuse me from thanking all of our members who have participated in this inner work. That these thanks are heartfelt by all of us can be taken for granted.

After the expiration of our seven-year period, we also have other things to report, which we Theosophists always characterize differently than the outside world. We have just in this past year to report that some of our oldest members, some of whom were particularly committed to the Theosophical cause, have left the physical plane. And when we remember these dear theosophical members, we think of them in the same way and with the same love that we regarded them as belonging to us while they were among us in the physical world. We want to say that for us Theosophists there is something that is considered a duty in the outer, non-theosophical world, but which must be a special consecration and a special permeation with the content of the nuances of feeling and thought acquired in the theosophical life for us Theosophists. This is the forwarding of love, the forwarding of our best feelings beyond the physical plane, to those who have left this physical plane. We should endeavor to develop such feelings, strengthened by the theosophical sentiment, for the departed. We should make ourselves capable of sending such feelings into the other worlds through our theosophical progress, so that we may constantly feel the love, truth, and good that has come to us in the case of such members as an ever-present quality, and so that these members themselves may constantly feel present so that we speak of them as those who continue to walk among us, and whose walk becomes more and more sacred to us for the reason that what they can send us from that world must be more valuable to them than what they could give us on the physical plane. In this active way we remember those of our dear members who left the physical plane in the past year.

In particular, we remember an elderly member who has been with us since the Section was founded. We feel a special closeness to her because the brother of this member, who is here as our dear friend Mr. Wagner, is close to us in turn.

Miss Amalie Wagner of Hamburg, who is well known to many of us, left the physical plane during the course of this year, and we will always look to what she tried to do for Theosophical life. Many of those Theosophists who were close to our dear Amalie Wagner have, in their innermost hearts, come to appreciate the work of Amalie Wagner in an extraordinary way and have an unlimited love for this friend. And that was only the beautiful reflection of the beautiful theosophical striving in the soul of Amalie Wagner. And in reverence and sacred consecration, we commemorate an important moment in the life of Amalie Wagner. That was the moment when her sister, who was a member of our movement with her in Hamburg, preceded her in death. At that time I was able to experience the beautiful, loving understanding with which Amalie Wagner's soul approached the event that took place when her sister passed away. I was able to receive Amalie Wagner's look up to her sister, so to speak, held in a genuine theosophical sentiment. How Amalie Wagner looked up to the higher worlds to form an idea of how a person lives on in these higher worlds, was much talked about in the dear, lonely living room of Amalie Wagner. And now we look after her in thought, as she in turn now receives from above what is coming to her and from below, from the physical plane, the feelings of love and devotion that we have for her from here. We can already see two sides to this soul today, how she lives up and down, how a person in the spiritual world lives when there was an impulse in her heart to join what passes through our movement as a soul. And so we look in devotion and love to the soul of this dear Miss Wagner as if she were always present to us.

Another old member has left the physical plane, who is indeed known to few, but these few are those who loved this dear member very much, who, whenever they met with him, felt anew the reverence-inspiring soul of our dear friend Jacques Tschudy in Glarus, who has belonged to our German Section from the very beginning. He has been met by a number of our dear members at the Swiss Theosophical meetings. And if I may use a word in this case that is meant very seriously, I would like to say that the soul of this personality worked in such a way that one could not help but love him. And those who often saw how this man was loved know that those who knew him will continue to send this feeling to him in the spiritual world.

Then there is another exceptionally ambitious member who, in vigorous energy, tried to penetrate into the exoteric and esoteric of Theosophy, and who only in the last few years joined our German Section, has left the physical plan. Our dear friend Minuth from Riga was present at the last Stuttgart cycle; then he reappeared in Hamburg, and by then his outer physical body was already afflicted with the germ that did not allow him to continue living. He was no longer able to attend the full cycle and soon after left the physical plane as well. We will also send him the feelings that we not only had when we decided to become Theosophists, but that we have acquired during our Theosophical life, to the higher worlds.

We have seen another personality depart from the physical plane; the wife of our dear friend Sellin. You all know our dear friend Sellin from earlier theosophical meetings. While he was working in Zurich, his dear wife passed away. Our dear friend understands his wife's passing in the most wonderful way, and anyone who has been privileged to feel what Sellin himself feels towards the dead knows how a true theosophist should feel in a true and beautiful way towards the dead. I would have to use words that would paint the most vivid colors to describe the feelings that surge up to the spiritual world, if I wanted to convey some of the beautiful words that were sent from the soul of our dear friend Sellin here on the physical plane to his beloved wife. But it is better if we merely evoke in ourselves an inkling of what can be expressed in such beautiful words, if we have not heard it ourselves. And those who, like me, have heard such beautiful words as those of our dear friend Sellin, which bear witness to his truly beautiful, real feelings, who have experienced this themselves, have the need not to profane such beautiful words by speaking them. But at this moment I have the need in my soul to awaken in your own heart a presentiment of what beautiful feeling, beautiful inner experience is for those who have physically disappeared in the direction of the spiritual world.

Another personality in Stuttgart has disappeared from those close to her in the physical world; our dear friend [Frentzel] recently lost his wife to the higher plans. When we see how we Theosophists begin to develop a real soul life, we need only think of our dear Mrs. Frentzel, who worked so beautifully on her soul to enter into the Theosophical life. Perhaps only those who were close to her soul, like myself, can appreciate this. And so we may send up what we have learned to our dear friend Mrs. Frentzel.

And so we also remember another friend who left the physical plane through a tragic fate, Mrs. Hedwig von Knebel, whose loving devotion to the Theosophical cause was noticed both when we were in Wiesbaden and by the Wiesbadeners themselves.

But then the image of a Theosophical personality who left the physical plane recently descends upon us with a special power, with a very special vibrancy from the higher worlds, who has devoted herself to the Theosophical cause with an intensity, an understanding and a devotion that truly cannot be described in words, with all she could do - and she could do a lot. I will never forget the moment after a Theosophical meeting when our dear Hilde Stockmeyer approached me for the first time to learn more about some of the things she had learned in Theosophy, which she had absorbed with all her strength. On the other hand, she tried – and she was allowed and able to try a great deal – to combine what she had learned in Theosophy with what external science offers in terms of truth and good. And it can be said that her extensive knowledge was also able to bear fruit externally, in that she passed the final exam shortly before her passing, to the satisfaction of the external world. Hilde Stockmeyer's knowledge can be seen as the first thing she brought us as a beautiful gift of her personal values. What Hilde Stockmeyer, the chairwoman of the Malsch lodge, was to us in the physical realm was due to her abilities and the way she processed these abilities. She was therefore called to work fruitfully, and to what Hilde Stockmeyer acquired through the development of her abilities in this way, she added something else, which, through its emanation, worked on those close to her, which could only reveal itself to us through its effect, how fruitful genuine, true theosophical feeling can become here in human life. This is shown by the way in which father, mother, brothers and sisters and friends accepted her departure to the higher worlds. This is in turn proof of the effectiveness of Theosophy in human souls in this case. It is proof of this in yet another way than was the case with the others mentioned. Personalities were everywhere around the others who had sought Theosophy. In the case of Hilde Stockmeyer, even her parents confessed: 'She brought us Theosophy, she was sent to us. The people who had preceded her on the physical plane, who had given her physical life, confessed what they could feel in response to what came to them from the higher worlds in their own daughter, of which they had to say: 'We could not help this to come into existence on the physical plane, we were the instrument for it. And it is one of the most beautiful feelings that has been expressed within our theosophical movement, that the parents of Hilde Stockmeyer expressed the magnitude of their gratitude and appreciation for the knowledge of their daughter, the knowledge of the daughter who brought theosophy into the home of the parents. And this is the glorious response of Hilde Stockmeyer's parents to their daughter, who has passed into the spiritual world. But we should learn to send up to the higher worlds especially for Hilde Stockmeyer what can only be sensed in such matters. And it is clear to me that I cannot send a better feeling up into the spiritual worlds than if I were to send up the feelings of Hilde Stockmeyer's soul myself now, making myself the tool of her soul for the beautiful things that our dear friend was able to say out of a beautiful feeling while she was still here with us. In two little poems that were entrusted to me and that came from the pen of our dear friend, which originated from her beautiful mind, she still speaks to us from the physical plane. How Hilde Stockmeyer felt about the eternal teachings of Theosophy may resound to us from her own little poems at this moment. Thus spoke Hilde Stockmeyer when she was still alive, and thus may what she herself said continue to resonate for us:

Are we really all alone?
Can one never understand the other?
Can he never look into his heart?
Ease his pain?
I think that when love speaks to love, From the heart with a loyal face, For the sake of love, to ease the torment, With loving words to ease the pain, Then I think it can't be in vain! Are we really all alone? Are there no bridges to every heart? Is there no balm for all pain?
When we sink eye to eye,
Not thinking of ourselves at all,
There is no need for words,
True understanding speaks without sound!
Even to the most hardened of hearts
There is a way.
If you walk courageously on a shaky path
With the one thought of being a helper
You will soon no longer be alone!

Let us try, after she has left, to develop such feelings in our hearts that we can send after her, feelings that are worthy of her own beautiful feelings. And let us learn to feel as she herself felt and as she expressed it in the other little poem:

I would be a pure source of blessing,
That always flows and never must dry up,
A heart full of courage I would call my own,
That never desponds and never trembles in pain,
And I would pour love through the worlds;
That all living things should rejoice with joy.
And so, giving, I would quietly sink into the universe, like a melody that fades away softly.

She spoke in life, and she died for the physical plane. It goes without saying that we should endeavor to send her something equally valuable as she, sensing her own death, spoke in her last words, the last little poem. Those who knew Hilde Stockmeyer as I did know that the death of this dear soul was:

And so I would give up and quietly sink away,
Like a melody that fades away softly.

The assembly honored the memory of the aforementioned persons by standing up from their seats.

Third item: Motions from the floor:

The first motion to be read is the motion of van Leer, Düsseldorf.

Proposal van Leer: The proponent refers to the appointment of members of the board who hold their office for life. This proposal has been made and adopted in order to bring continuity to the theosophical work of the section. It provides a safeguard against any tendentious efforts that would seek to break with the acquired property by bringing in new members. The idea should be further developed through this proposal, so that in the future two people cannot arbitrarily introduce as many members as they like into the society; rather, the signature of the lodge's chairman should also be required for each person wishing to join a lodge, in order to prevent the destruction of what has been built up over the years by tendentious influx.

Dr. Steiner notes that at yesterday's board meeting, the board decided to propose to the General Assembly that the admission certificate of new members should not only bear the signatures of two sponsors, but also the signature of the chairman of the relevant branch, and that in future the admission certificate for section members must be countersigned by the chairman of the German section. In this way, the situation that gave rise to the motion would be appropriately prevented.

Pastor Wendt says that if two thousand new people join the society, the old members could simply found a new society.

Dr. Steiner replies that this case should be prevented, that a society should not be forced to found itself anew.

Mrs. von Sonklar notes that every member has the right to propose new members, and that these two thousand people could also be converted.

Dr. Steiner: “The point is to ensure that the other case cannot occur, that two thousand new members who could be converted are not admitted. They would, of course, be accepted with the greatest satisfaction. It cannot be assumed that the newly admitted members will have the slightest objection. The motion can have no other effect than to deprive two thousand new members of the opportunity to destroy the Theosophical work done so far.

At the request of Mr. Tessmar, the debate is closed and the vote taken. The motion is carried.

The second motion was proposed by Horst von Henning in Weimar, in which the proposal is made to erect the central building of the German Theosophists in Weimar, as planned for Munich.

In response to this motion, Dr. Steiner said: “A motion that is framed in the form in which it is introduced cannot be a motion, it can only be an appeal, and can only be addressed to the meeting as such. It is not, in fact, an undertaking of the Theosophical Society, but a theosophical matter that is being undertaken officially by a number of theosophists in private. As you know, a number of our Theosophical friends have decided to build a house of their own for events like the ones we had in Munich last year and the year before. I just want to say that the intention is to build such a house as a kind of central building in Munich. And hopefully everyone who is able to will contribute their mite, from ten pfennigs to a million. That will hopefully be one consequence of the Munich works. Another consequence lies in the appeal.

I have made you familiar with the content of this appeal. It cannot be treated as a proposal because it does not concern the German Section. The German Section is not a legal entity, and only those who donate the money will build this central building.

The second point is the factual one. First of all, the appeal does not take into account the fact that we had intended from the very beginning to regard this as a purely internal matter for the Theosophists, which is why only those artists who are Theosophists were appointed. So what is emphasized in the motion is out of the question: that a city like Weimar has a large number of theatrical talent or excellent painters. What matters is to organize the matter in the city where most of the artists are Theosophists. Then, of course, choosing any other place than Munich would immediately contradict everything associated with the development of this idea. I would like to emphasize that it does not matter whether I am against it or not, but one must always take the real circumstances into account. In principle, something can be right, but in reality it is only right if one also takes the historical circumstances into account.

Someone in the meeting asks why Berlin was not considered. Dr. Steiner replies: “For the same reason that Berlin was not chosen when we wanted to host the congress of the European sections. The reason is that such a thing requires such a colossal amount of work from the members that those who are not involved have no idea at all. But the members in Berlin are busy with the affairs of the German Section all year round, and practical circumstances have simply shown that the Berlin members would collapse if they had to do this work as well. Something like this could only be done in Berlin if the members were released from the leadership of the German Section. But because this leadership will best remain in Berlin, it is natural that another city has been considered for this matter. I am certainly very sympathetic to Henning's proposal, but when you consider the real circumstances, you have to say that it just isn't possible. But there is also an inner reason for this, which corresponds to an occult law; and that is that those places that have already had a heyday are not actually fruitful for later epochs. The appeal specifically chose Weimar because the heyday of German intellectual life had already developed there. In Weimar, archival work can only develop in the present. Societies are being founded there to commemorate and elaborate on what has already existed. That would already speak against Weimar, the greatness that emanates from Weimar would resist our plan, and we would not be able to get up."

Fräulein Stinde adds: “The address to which the funds for the construction can be sent is: To the care of Miss Marie von Sivers and Miss Sophie Stinde, Deutsche Bank, Munich.”

The third motion, from Frau von Sonklar, Berlin, concerns the regular publication of the “Mitteilungen” four times a year and the expansion of the same.

Fräulein von Sivers notes that a regular, quarterly publication of the “Mitteilungen” was never decided, but that they should only appear when sufficient material had been received from the branches. The “Mitteilungen” should only deal with the internal affairs of the German Section. Incidentally, it could generally be observed that the less one reports about it, the more work is done. For those members who are unable to attend the courses, there is now a wealth of study material available in the form of the duplicated lecture cycles.

Mr. Scharlau expresses financial concerns about publishing the “Mitteilungen” four times. In response, Ms. von Sonklar proposes turning the “Mitteilungen” into a magazine in order to cover the costs through subscriptions.

Mr. Tessmar objects to Ms. Sonklar's proposal and suggests that the “Mitteilungen” continue to be published as needed as before. This proposal is accepted by the assembly.

After a short debate, Mr. Walther proposes that Ms. Sonklar's proposal to expand the “Mitteilungen” be rejected. Ms. Sonklar's proposal is rejected by vote.

There are no further proposals.

Dr. Steiner proposes an emergency motion by the Executive Board to postpone the General Assembly until the end of the year.

After a long and lively debate, Mr. Arenson proposes that November be considered for the next year's General Assembly for the time being. This proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner then read out a welcome telegram from the Italian Section and also announced that the Congress of the European Sections of the Theosophical Society would take place in Genoa from September 18, 1911.

Fourth item: reports from the various branches. Two reports have been submitted; in view of the late hour, it is decided not to read them out and to publish the reports in the next “Mitteilungen”.

There is no material for the fifth item, Miscellaneous. Dr. Steiner then closes the business part and announces that the theosophical part of the General Assembly will begin at 5 p.m.

The sixth congress of the Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) was supposed to have taken place in Genoa from September 17 to 21, 1911, under the motto “From Buddha to Christ”. The contrast between Annie Besant's and Rudolf Steiner's Christ teachings was to be discussed openly there. Even Krishnamurti was expected at the congress in Genoa, accompanied by Annie Besant.

However, the congress was canceled shortly before it began. See also the descriptions by Rudolf Steiner at the tenth general assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in December 1911 on the following pages 454f. in the present volume.

In an article in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft” (Communications for the Members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society) no. 14/1912, Rudolf Steiner describes the rejection as follows: “I say that after the refusal, I contacted the General Secretary of the Italian Section [Otto Penzig] ¹ to find out the reasons for the refusal. He replied to me in a telegram: “You have acted on strict orders from President Mrs. Besant and Secretary Mr. Wallace; please contact them.” This is the strict, objective fact. Mrs. Besant is now spreading the following: I supposedly misrepresented the whole thing, because she never canceled the congress, but only announced in Genoa that she would not be coming. As a result, the opinion is forming in wide circles of the Theosophical Society that I said something incorrect at our general assembly, while I did not say anything about my view of the matter at all, but only communicated to my members the clear wording of the official telegram from the responsible general secretary. I never said that Mrs. Besant had canceled the Congress, but only that she could not have canceled it because she had no right to do so."

Otto Penzig's telegram, dated September 11, 1911, has been preserved (archive location 97/IV). It reads: “I have acted on strict orders from President Besavit [Besant] and Wallace, Secretary of the Federation. Please contact them officially = Penzig +.”

Penzig seems to have overstated Annie Besant's previous refusal to attend the congress in this telegram, according to his own account. However, see also his account of this in his letter of November 23, 1912 to Rudolf Steiner, which was reproduced in “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft” No. 15/1913, p. 5. From this it seems more likely that Annie Besant said afterwards that she would never have dared to cancel the congress, but only her participation. In her confirmation telegram, however, in response to Penzig's question as to whether her cancellation also meant the suspension of the congress, she wrote “abandoning congress”, which means something like “abandoning the congress”. Whether Annie Besant meant her participation in the congress or the congress as a whole must remain open.

See also Rudolf Steiner's letter to the members of the Theosophical Society of January 15, 1913, in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft” No. 15/1913 (this letter as well as the above quote from the message no. 14/1912 are printed in the Rudolf Steiner Complete Edition in “Writings on the History of the Anthroposophical Movement and Society 1902-1925”, GA37).

• 1. General Secretary of the Italian Section [Otto Penzig]: added by the editor.

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).

Address by Rudolf Steiner at the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, Berlin, December 15, 1911 (morning)

Foreword by Marie Steiner to the private reproduction published by her in 1947 and entitled “A Future Impulse Given by Rudolf Steiner and What Came of It Initially”:

In view of the gravity of the times and the little that remains of our lives, it seems an urgent duty to salvage what can still be saved from Dr. Steiner's impulses and words. This includes some of the things he only spoke about in intimate circles in serious conversation at certain turning points in events about the further tasks and work goals of the movement he inaugurated. Transcripts are available, but not complete and comprehensive. Even if they contain gaps and perhaps some finer nuances are not captured in them, one can still well feel how varied the language is, corresponding to the assigned task, in each case vividly contoured and firm, or dissolving, letting a light shine through the language, which still has to be half-veiled because words are not enough. It covers it like a soft shroud, but through which the impulses can work that point to the future. He repeatedly placed in our souls the guiding forces for later action, seeds of the future that could unfold after surviving the sleep of the soul; all too often they were buried by the hustle and bustle of everyday life or swept away by the whirlwind of events. Among the souls that had been blessed with such seeds of the future, there were certainly some from which they would one day arise to new life and struggle; but there were also some that would be like the stony ground of the gospel parable, offering no nourishment to them at first. Not only nature, but also souls are subject to organic laws. Some of the spiritual influences that fall on them harden or corrupt them, while others prove to be full of germinating power and transform themselves into new forms of existence. The passage through death and the submergence into chaos, with its whirling, churning forces, guarantees the later resurrection of the spiritual impact through metamorphoses to higher levels of existence. In microcosm as in macrocosm, in earthly as in planetary existence, the law of transformation to new forms of existence prevails. By following this path and, depending on race and nationality, picturing and explaining it, religions have always climbed higher levels of knowledge, spanning the globe and, in keeping with the times, shining a light into the hidden depths. When a certain high point of this development had been reached and at the same time the danger of philosophical abstraction had arisen, when the old images and signs were no longer sufficient to capture the newly pulsating life, the Christian impact occurred, bringing the great turning point. But when it emerged from the darkness of the catacombs into the outer world, the danger of its consolidation into dogmas also began, and the driving living forces sought new paths. They found them in the secret societies that did not want to bow to the authority of the princes of the church and the decisions of the councils; now they were persecuted as heretics themselves. Their content, veiled from the outside world, was expressed in signs and symbols. They gave art a new slant, which first appeared in Gothic architecture; organic growth of the plant - to which stones were added. The new life also flowed into the names; these contained what the soul was to absorb as guiding forces in order to develop healthily before it achieved independence. But the education of humanity to independence, into which the newly awakened ego power had to pour, first demanded the passage through abstract intellectualism, which separated the souls from their spiritual source for a time, so that, passing through the cold of isolation, grasping the higher ego, they would be able to find themselves in the spirit. Knowledge of nature, divorced from spirit, no longer gives the soul the power to rise up. In order for this to be experienced and recognized, spirits had to break worlds. We now stand in the midst of shattered worlds; a new search for the solution to the riddle of fate has begun. Rudolf Steiner's life's work can provide answers to this searching and questioning. He mastered the scope of today's exact science; he can also reveal to us the spirit that is hidden behind it and was once shrouded in the old names. Through him we are able to divine the impelling forces that lie behind the names. Lifelines had been handed to us for the inevitably approaching shipwreck, but we were not mature enough to grasp and use them. The souls were not awake enough, were still caught up in the old ideas. The attempts made in social terms met with the strongest resistance from the outside world. We can be seized by a tremendous pain when we see how little we were able to make the teaching fruitful and be suitable instruments for the fire spirit of the helper sent in times of need. Standing on the ruins of shattered worlds, we must now try to bring the preserved and insufficiently fiery word to consciousness through the remaining traces of writing; by individual work, raising it to the human ego. Rudolf Steiner tried to lead us to freedom not only through the paths of philosophy and science, but also through education within the esoteric life, which would gradually transform the old relationship of dependency on the teacher into the impulse of freedom and responsibility before the spirit. Souls that feel anchored in the spirit must be tested. Such a self-sought test always precipitates karma; what would still prefer to remain hidden from itself must also come to light. Such tests often caused the failure of experiments by spiritual powers, brought about for profound cosmic reasons, which aimed to raise human development to a higher level. This was the case with the French Revolution, and also before the world wars of our century.

Rudolf Steiner first spoke of such future tasks to a very small circle of his students and tried to direct their souls to the significance of those distant tasks that must arise from human will freed from selfishness. He repeated these words before a larger circle at the General Assembly on December 15, 1911. This did not take place during the proceedings of the General Assembly itself; he declared that it was happening outside of its program. He began this address in a particularly solemn and impressive manner. This is perhaps the reason why the first part of the address is only noted down and not reproduced in his words. He emphasized that the content of this lecture was completely independent of everything that had been given before. It was, so to speak, a direct communication from the spiritual world. It is like a call that is brought to humanity, and then they wait to see what echo comes back to them. As a rule, such a call is made three times. If the call goes unheard the third time, it is taken back to the spiritual world for a long time. This call has already been made to humanity once, but unfortunately it found no echo. This is the second time. These are purely spiritual matters. With each unsuccessful time, the conditions and circumstances become more difficult. Continuing with what is preserved as a set of keywords in the postscript, he said:

My dear friends!

It is my duty at this moment to carry an intention from the inner circle of those who already know about it out into your wider circle. And before that happens, let me say a few words in advance. It should be emphasized, however, that what is said now has no connection with what has preceded in this General Assembly, or what otherwise somehow relates to the previous negotiations - which does not preclude, if there is a tendency to do so, to take it into account in later negotiations.

If we look around the world today, we will have to say: The present world is actually full of ideals. And if we ask ourselves, “Is the representation of these ideals on the part of those who believe in them and place themselves at the service of these ideals sincere and honest?” we will have to answer “Yes, that is the case!” in very many cases. It is the case precisely with that faith and devotion of which individuals are capable. If we now ask: “How much is usually demanded when such a representation of ideals is brought into being by someone or something, be it an individual or a society?” then, based on our observations of life, we will have to answer: “In most cases, everything is demanded, so to speak; but above all, it is demanded that the ideal that has been set up receive absolute, unconditional recognition.” And it is almost always the case that the very basis for the creation of such an ideal is the demand for the most absolute assent. And usually the failure of such assent is expressed in some disparaging criticism of the non-assenter.

These words are intended to characterize how the principle of the integration of people has emerged in a completely natural way in the course of human development, and no doubt is to be cast on the justification of such a principle at this moment. But here an opportunity is to be presented to you to add something to all that has been striven for in the world within the framework of the organization of people, societies, associations and so on, something that actually cannot be expressed in words, since what can be said can never be decisive for the correctness of such a thing. According to what a person is able to think, he can, at the moment when he expresses what he has thought, be forced by the very act of expression to fall into contradiction with reality. At this very moment, many things must be said that do not agree with much of what is valid in the world. So it must be said: It is possible that the confession of a thing can no longer be true when this confession is uttered. I would like to give a simple example from which you can see that there may be a danger of simply becoming untrue by uttering a thing. And I would like the simple, straightforward example I give to be understood in accordance with the Rosicrucian principles since the 13th century.

Let us assume that someone expresses their state of the immediate present by saying, “I am silent.” This is something that absolutely cannot be true, that they are not speaking the truth. But then, my dear friends, I ask you to realize that there is the possibility of negating this thing itself by literally confessing it. For from what is expressed here by the simple example of “I am silent”, you can conclude that it is applicable to countless things in the world and can happen again and again.

But what follows from such a fact? It follows that when people want to join together in any way to represent this or that, they are in an extraordinarily difficult position, that people cannot join together with the most precious thing they have, except when the reasons why they join together are such that they do not belong to the world of the senses but to the supersensible world. And when we understand what we have been able to assimilate over time from all that has been brought forth from modern occultism, we will realize that it is an absolute necessity for the near future to advocate certain things of this occultism, to carry them before the world. Therefore, in contrast to all the principles of societies and all the organizations that have been possible up to now, an attempt must be made with something completely new, with something that is born entirely out of the spirit of the occultism that is so often spoken of in our circle. But this can only be done by turning our attention for a change to something positive, something that already exists in the world as a reality and can be cultivated as such. But in our sense, realities are only those things that primarily belong to the supersensible world. For the whole sensual world presents itself to us as an image of the supersensible world. Therefore, an attempt will be made that is such as it must be made from the supersensible world: the attempt not to found a community of people, but to endow it.

I have emphasized the difference between founding and establishing on another occasion; it was many years ago. It was not understood at the time and since then hardly anyone has thought about this difference. Therefore, those spiritual powers that are represented by the symbol of the Rose Cross have so far ignored the fact that this difference has been carried out into the world.

But recently, and this time in an energetic way, an attempt must be made to see if it is possible to achieve success even with a community that is not founded but established. If this success is not achieved, well, then it has failed again for a while. Therefore, it shall be proclaimed to you at this moment that among those people who will find each other in the appropriate way, a way of working is to be founded that, through the manner of the foundation, has as its direct starting point the individuality that we have been designating as Christian Rosenkreutz since ancient times in the West. What can be said about this foundation today remains preliminary. For what has been founded so far relates only to one part of this foundation, which is to enter the world in a comprehensive sense when the opportunities arise. What has been founded so far relates to one department, to one branch of this foundation, namely to the artistic representation of Rosicrucian occultism.

The first point I have to communicate to you is that under the direct patronage of that individuality, whom we refer to by the name he gave to the outer world during his two incarnations, that under the patronage of this individuality, a working method is to be brought into being as a foundation. This method will initially be characterized by the fact that for some time, for the time being, it will bear the provisional name: “Society for Theosophical Art and Art”. This name is not the final one; a definitive name will take its place when the first preparations for launching this foundation into the world can be made in an appropriate manner. However, that which is to comprise the “theosophical art” is still completely in its infancy, because it is only now that the preparations for it are being made that could lead to an understanding of what is meant by it. But what can be grasped by the concept of the theosophical art has already begun in many ways through our attempts at the performances in Munich, and above all has made a significant start through the attempt at our site in Stuttgart and a further significant start in relation to the understanding of such a thing precisely through the establishment of the Johannes-Bauverein. All this is something that has been started. In this respect there is something that, having been tried out to a certain extent, may be sanctioned.

It is a matter of awakening a purely spiritual task within the working group, a task that will be exhausted in a spiritual way of working and in what results from such a spiritual way of working. And it is a matter of no one being able to become a member of this working group from any other point of view than solely through the fact that he has any will to use his powers for the positive side of the matter. You may say: I am speaking in many words that may not be fully understood. That must be the case with something like what it is about here, because the matter must be grasped in its direct life.

Now, what has already been achieved within this foundation is actually the fact that, according to purely occult principles, an initially very small, tiny circle has been created, which should see its obligation as being to contribute to what this is all about. This tiny group is initially designed to make a start on this foundation, in order to, in a sense, separate what our spiritual movement is from myself and give it its own, self-established existence, a self-established existence!

So that initially this small group comes before you with the sanction that it has received its task as such, by virtue of its own recognition of our spiritual current, and that it sees in a certain sense the principle of the sovereignty of spiritual striving, the principle of federalism and the independence of all spiritual striving as an absolute necessity for the spiritual future, and to carry it into humanity in the way he considers appropriate. Therefore, within the foundation itself, I will only be considered the interpreter, first of all, of the principles that, as such, only exist in the spiritual world, and of what is to be said in this way about the intentions that underlie the matter.

In contrast, a curator is initially appointed for the external care of this foundation. And since the offices that will be created first are associated with nothing more than duties, no honors, no dignities, it is impossible that any rivalries or other misunderstandings can arise immediately with the correct understanding of the matter. It will therefore be a matter of the foundation itself initially recognizing Fräulein von Sivers as curator. This recognition is no

different from that which is interpreted from within the foundation itself; there are no appointments, only interpretations: Fräulein von Sivers is interpreted as curator of the foundation. And it will be her task in the near future to do whatever can be done in the spirit of this foundation to recruit a corresponding circle of members for it - not in an external sense, but only in such a way that she will attract to herself those who have the sincere will to participate in this way of working.

In a broader sense, a number of side branches will be created within this one branch of our foundation. And individual personalities who have proven themselves within our spiritual movement will be appointed as leading personalities of these side branches, insofar as they already exist. This too is an interpretation for the time being, in the sense that the office of leadership of such an individual side branch is transferred to a personality. It is interpreted that there will be an archdeacon for each of these individual sub-branches. We will have a sub-branch for general art. It has been publicly announced that Fräulein von Eckardtstein has been appointed archdeacon for general art in a small circle – and this was done in express recognition of what this personality has done for this general theosophical art over the last few years. Furthermore, it was provisionally announced that the curator Fräulein von Sivers would be archdeacon for literature. It was also announced that our friend Dr. Felix Peipers would be archdeacon for architectural art; our friend Mr. Adolf Arenson would be archdeacon for musical art; and our friend Mr. Hermann Linde would be archdeacon for painting.

The work in question is essentially inward-looking, and for the first time what is to be presented to the world is work done in absolute freedom, particularly by these individual personalities. It will be necessary for those who belong to this way of working to come together in a certain way; this coming together will have to take place in a very different way than has been the case so far with any kind of organization. And we will need a supervisor of this union. To supervise this union, the position of conservator is created, which is initially given to Miss Sophie Stinde. The way in which the union is to take place will be linked to this union itself. All this still requires work in the near future; it will still have to be done. But in order for the type of union, in other words the principle of the organization, to take place, to be able to enter the world, we necessarily have a seal curator. Miss Sprengel has been appointed as the seal curator, while Dr. Carl Unger will be the secretary.

This is, for the time being, the small, tiny circle involved. Do not regard it as something that immodestly wants to step into the world and say, “There I am,” but regard it as something that wants to be nothing more than a germ around which the matter itself can organize itself. It will initially organize itself in such a way that by the coming Epiphany a number of members of this community will have been identified; that is, by then a number of members will have received the message that they are initially being asked to get their connection ready. So that for the very beginning the greatest possible freedom in this respect is to be secured by the fact that the will to become a member can come from no one other than the person concerned who wants to become a member. And the fact that he is a member is brought about by the fact that he is first recognized as such a member. This only applies to the very near future, only for the time until the next Epiphany, January 6, 1912.

So in this matter we have something before us that, through its very nature, betrays itself as something that flows out of the spiritual world. It will continue to present itself as flowing out of the spiritual world in that membership will always be based solely on the representation and recognition of spiritual interests and on the exclusion of everything, absolutely everything personal.

There is a deviation here from older occult principles, which is made in this proclamation, and this deviation consists precisely in the fact of this proclamation. Therefore, no use will be made of that claim, which might exist with a person if he were to say, by referring this to the present: “I am silent.” The matter is indeed proclaimed; and in full awareness that it is proclaimed, this should happen. But the moment someone shows that they do not understand today's proclamation in any way, it goes without saying that it cannot be suggested to them in any way to belong to such a way of working - I am not saying to a society or the like. Because there can be nothing other than the absolutely free will to belong to such a circle, to such a way of working. But you will see that if such a thing should come about - if, that is, our time, with its peculiarities, should allow such a thing to come about - then work can really be done in the sense of recognizing the spiritual principle; the principle that not only all nature and all history, but also all human activity entering the world, is based on the spiritual, supersensible world. And you will see that it will be impossible for any decent person to belong to such a community if he does not agree with this community as such. If you think that what has been said is rather strange, then please accept it as having been said with full

is that everything that belongs to the laws, to the eternal laws of existence, is observed. And it is also part of the eternal laws of existence that the principles of becoming are taken into account. My dear friends, you can sin against the spirit of what is supposed to happen here if you now go out into the

go out into the outside world and say, “This or that has been established.” Not only has nothing been established at all, but the fact is that it will not be possible to give a definition of what is to be done at any given hour, because everything is supposed to be in a state of continuous becoming. And what is actually to happen as a result of what has been said today cannot be described now, no definition or description can be given now, and anything that would be said about it would be untrue at this moment. For what is to happen is based not on words, but on people, and not even on people, but on what these people will do. It will be in a living river, a living becoming. And so today, too, nothing more is established as a principle than the one principle that consists of: recognition of the spiritual world as the fundamental reality.

All further principles are to be created in the process of development. Just as a tree in the next moment is no longer what it was before, but has begun to grow anew, so this matter is to be like a living tree. Never should that which this matter is to become be in any way compromised by that which it is. If someone were to define what has been designated as a beginning, as this or that reason, this or that thing out there in the world, then he would immediately succumb to the same untruth that lies in the expression “I am silent” when it refers to the state in which he is and uses the words “I am silent”. So anyone who uses these or those words in any way to characterize the matter is saying something that is not right in all circumstances. So first of all it is only important - because everything will be in the process of becoming - that the personalities who want something like this come together. It is only important that those personalities who want something like this come together. Then the matter will continue! From all that has been said, you can see that the matter will then continue. It will differ in its deepest principle from that of the Theosophical Society. For not a single one of the characteristics that have been expressed today can apply to the Theosophical Society.

I had to speak about this matter for the simple reason that those things which are organically connected with this foundation have already come before the public of our Theosophical Society, and because through this foundation – in the sense of intentions which truly do not lie in the physical world and which truly have nothing to do with Ahriman - an ideal-spiritual counterweight must be created against everything that is connected with a foundation in the outer world. Only in this respect can a relationship be seen with what is already there, so that this branch of our foundation, the branch for theosophical art, should achieve something that is a counterweight to what is linked to Ahriman on the physical plane.

It is hoped that an excellent example will be set by the existence of this branch of our foundation - and the other branch will serve in a corresponding way - because what is to figure as art within the theosophical movement, if we use that expression today, must actually flow into our culture from spiritual worlds. It must be the case that spiritual life is the basis of everything we do. It will be impossible to confuse this spiritual movement with any movements that come from the outside world and also call themselves a “theosophical movement” and want to participate. It is essential that the spiritual is the basis of everything we do. This was indeed attempted at the festival in Munich, in the building of the Lodge in Stuttgart – within the limits of what is possible under present conditions – but everywhere it was attempted in such a way that the spiritual moment was the determining factor. That is the conditio sine qua non, the condition without which nothing should happen (gap in the transcripts).

Those who have already gained some insight into what is at stake will understand me in this regard. These words are said less because of the content than because of the guidelines that were to be given.

Postscript by Marie Steiner to the reproduction she edited:

When no further nominations were announced after the end of the year and the next Epiphany, a member of the audience asked Rudolf Steiner when this would happen. He replied: “The fact that this has not happened would also be an answer.

The year 1912/13 was overburdened by the disputes with Annie Besant, her proclamation of the new Messiah and her “Star of the East” now also active in Germany.

The followers of the Western spiritual movement inaugurated by Rudolf Steiner demanded that the president make a precise statement in the disputes that were taking place, in accordance with the agreements reached in Munich and Budapest, instead of her evasion, her hiding and acting behind her back. This demand was taken up by the “Bund”, which was founded around 1912 with members from many countries, and in 1913 the Anthroposophical Society was founded after the expulsion of the German section by the president of the Theosophical Society.

Meanwhile, the nomination of the intimate circle had led to further work in some areas: in the Johannesbau Association, in the completion of the Stuttgart Society House, and in the so-called Art and People's Rooms in Munich and Berlin, an initiative started by Miss Sophie Stinde. The most outstanding spiritual publication was the Soul Calendar, the result of a collaboration between Dr. Steiner and Fräulein von Eckardtstein; the wonderfully transparent nuances of the language here really do allow spirit and soul to flow into each other and become one with nature. Many other things sought a quiet unfolding into the future. But the world war came, and with it the associated upheavals, which deeply affected the external circumstances of life and the mutual relationships of the members belonging to the most diverse nations in Dornach.

They tried to overcome the surging of the blood as best they could, but every now and then there were shocks and derailments.

The most exciting crisis for Dornach was that of the summer of 1915. Dr. Gösch, a typical pathologist and representative of psychoanalysis, came to the fore. He persuaded himself that the Seal-keeper had opened his eyes to promises that Dr. Steiner made and did not keep. He set this out in a brochure using psychoanalytical methods. At the same time, he wrote a letter to Dr. Steiner in which he developed his theories on the basis of the “revelations” made to him by the Keeper of the Seal. The Keeper of the Seal could not have understood the task assigned to her by this name other than in a very personal sense. She felt that she was the inspirer of the spiritual teaching given by Dr. Steiner to humanity. Since she had also played the role of Theodora in Rudolf Steiner's mystery dramas in Munich, she drew from this the conclusion that the marriage vows given to her were symbolically given and that she had been waiting for their fulfillment for “seven years”. Her many accusatory letters, revolving around this point, gave Dr. Gösch the opportunity to compile a psychoanalytical treatise in the Freudian sense to elucidate her case. He himself had been given Freudian treatment for a long time due to his morbid nervous condition, which had deeply infected his being. His open letter of accusation has now given rise to numerous, strictly and precisely conducted negotiations within the Society, through which the membership should gain clarity about this case. Transcripts of these are available and also provided the basis for the book published as a special edition of the journal “Anthroposophie” in Stuttgart: “Anthroposophie und Psychoanalyse”.

We shall mention here only what relates to the case of Sprengel – alias Proserpina – alias Theodora – alias Siegelbewahrer (Keeper of the Seals), and which in her case took on such a mystically personal form as megalomania. Of course, even before the war she had already shown symptoms of self-arrogance. This unfortunate megalomania put paid to the possibility of further nominations to the circle of eight personalities. One stone had been lost through egoistic arrogance and a descent into mysticism.

The Keeper of the Seal broke the seal in the most ordinary human sense. The necessity of involving women as active collaborators in the cultural tasks of the future is undeniable and will have to be achieved despite the failure of these efforts in individual cases. This is what happened to us with the Keeper of the Seal.

Dr. Steiner expressed himself about this case in a speech during the so-called crisis of 1915 in the following way:

The circle of nominees, as an inner esoteric matter, was shattered; outside the world war raged; in Dornach, despite the external circumstances, the practical work continued no less intensively. With the conscription of so many artists and helpers, the burden of the work fell heavily on the women. Only a few men had been able to stay behind, including Hermann Linde. But the women stood their ground. From early morning, the hammering and chiseling could be heard in the construction of the precious wood, which grew out of the concrete substructure, up to the vaulting domes. The organically moving forms grew out of the outer and inner walls, warmed and undulated by the human hand that furrowed them. In the interior, the columns rose with their bases and capitals, their architraves, at the end of which the two domes joined together, thus separating and connecting the symbolism of the soul's experience from that of the cosmos at the same time.

The painters and their helpers were grouped around Hermann Linde. Dr. Steiner had designed the motifs for the painting of the domes, and we have these images in the reproductions by Alinari. With diligence and zeal, new grounding possibilities were tried out, through which the effect of the plant colors could unfold into radiant luminosity; a group of helpers eagerly ground the plants from which the new colors for the dome painting were to be created. The programs designed for the weekly eurythmy performances provided an opportunity to develop personal imagination and to train in the templates designed by Dr. Steiner for this purpose.

In Germany, the field of work assigned to the circle-bursting seal keeper had very soon found a more than adequate replacement in the person of Miss Bertha Meyer. During the months we spent in Germany during the war, she was often able to come from Bremen to Berlin to perfect her knowledge of the art of jewelry, in which she had a technical command, through the advice of Dr. Steiner. The extensive gem collection of a member who had returned from the Orient provided a happy opportunity for new inspiration. Stones were selected from it whose luminosity and inner substance were to be particularly emphasized by a setting corresponding to their nature and material. It was a strange experience to let your hand glide through their abundance and to feel the penetration of their powers into your own etheric body through the cool trickling of the stones. This grasp into the coolness of the stone kingdom and the almost exciting glow of the metal melting in the fire, especially of gold, brought the elementary nature of the forces of nature forcefully to consciousness.

The seals sketched by Dr. Steiner for the mystery plays provided the basis for the spiritual study of this predestined keeper of the seals, who left us so many exemplary works of art. Death snatched her from us at the moment when a place for her work, a 'Kleinodienschule', could have been established in Dornach. The formative forces of eurythmy, which is carried and moved by the etheric impulses, and of the musical art that seeks new paths in connection with it, also tested themselves through these seals. They now wanted to go beyond the inner experience of major and minor, beyond the fifth, to catch a glimpse of the original forces in the tone to which they owe their existence, thus feeling their way towards the lost word.

The new architectural style created by Dr. Steiner, which had absorbed the movement of the plant kingdom and did not close itself off from the outside world but opened itself wide to it, had to remain true to this principle in the treatment of his glass windows as well. A flood of colors had to stream into the room; their basic tone, differentiated according to the rainbow but each kept uniform, brought the floating and weaving of the intersecting light colors into the room. The delicacy of the nuances was intensified by the different densities of the glass that resulted from the grinding and etching of the motifs into the glass material; their spiritual content related to the path of initiation of the human being into the future. While the motifs of the large and small dome traced the macrocosmic and microcosmic path of human development to its self-fulfillment.

The art of black and white in a newly defined line by Dr. Steiner developed alongside that of penetrating into the world of creative colors. And all these artistic possibilities, arising from the most diverse elements, came to life in the art of the spoken word, of speech formation, which allowed the original forces of the lost “word” to be sensed and grasped to a certain extent. Through the little that has been achieved in this way, through rigorous work, something of what Dr. Steiner had described as the task of the spiritual movement he had inaugurated could be realized: to allow the forgotten spiritual current surrounding Goethe and Schiller to flow again into culture in a new and living way.

We have lived in the abundance of the impulses we have received. He himself was snatched from us by death in 1925. With death, he had to pay for the immeasurable wealth of his gifts. We have been invigorated and sustained by his inspiring spiritual power. Through suffering and trial, through stupefaction and moral obscurity, we must now seek the paths to inner freedom and independence, for which he wanted to awaken an understanding in us. May we be granted to find it.

Report by Carl Unger in the “Communications for the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar headquarters), published by Mathilde Scholl,” No. 13/1912.

The speech given by Baron von Wallen on December 14, following the general assembly of the German section and about his “experiences on lecture tours in Scandinavia and England”, met with a mood among the assembled friends that, under the effect of the events at this general assembly, was pushing for a term. If the general assembly itself was an indication that the spiritual movement, which was inaugurated ten years ago by Dr. Steiner in the Theosophical Society, the only framework available at the time, is facing difficulties, then Baron von Walleen pointed out the obstacles faced by foreign friends who want to unite to work in the spirit of this spiritual movement.

Following this speech, Dr. Steiner gave a presentation of a number of facts from the history of the German Section that offered an explanation for the difficulties that this spiritual movement had to face in and outside of Germany.

At the discussion on these matters scheduled for the following day (December 15), Baron von Walleen was able to convey the will of the foreign friends to find a form through which it would be possible to cultivate spiritual work in the sense of Rosicrucian spiritual science, unimpeded by all opposing influences. This was to be achieved by founding an independent federation that encompasses all true friends of this work inside and outside of Germany. At the same time, he asked Dr. Steiner whether he would be willing to take on the teaching role in such a federation and whether members could be admitted to events within the German movement to which only members of the Theosophical Society have been admitted since then. Both questions could be answered in the affirmative if the federation were to be established in a positive way, and the subsequent discussion resulted in the unanimous decision to appoint a provisional working committee to establish the federation, in which all foreign friends present and the members of the board of the German section should participate. The undersigned was elected chairman of this provisional committee.

The committee meeting scheduled for the following day (December 16) went as follows: the chairman presented the points of view set out below, which were to be regarded as an expression of the mood of the preceding negotiations, with the request that each participant in the meeting should express their opinion on these points of view individually. Should a larger number of the participants be able to agree on these aspects, then the Federation is to be regarded as founded by them, naturally with unanimity. There was the nominal agreement of all but one participant, who wanted to wait and see.¹

Thus the Federation was founded in that hour with the following principles: The Federation, which is to receive its name in due course, has set itself the task of uniting all those who wish to cultivate Rosicrucian spiritual science. This is to be achieved through an organization based on trust and responsibility, initially without written statutes, but in the closest possible approximation of what is called the hierarchical order in the spiritual sense. The distribution of responsibility is conceived in such a way that the founding committee feels responsible to the spiritual current that the alliance wants to serve. Those of the committee members who have agreed to take responsibility for a larger area of work bear this responsibility to the committee. It is the responsibility of these “guarantors” to form working groups for which they bear the responsibility; on the other hand, they have complete freedom for the groups they have taken on. The individual guarantors can, of course, transfer or distribute their responsibilities to other individuals, appoint representatives, collaborators, and so on, at their own discretion, in order to enable the work to be carried out in line with the spiritual current of the association.

The founders of the Alliance have the confidence that the spiritual current they wish to serve has taken such strong root in many hearts that the Alliance may prove to be a suitable framework for this spiritual current. All are welcome who wish to join them in the spirit of this current; they may contact one of the guarantors listed below to complete their affiliation.

This account of the origin of the League is given in order to avoid misunderstandings from the outset. The League has nothing to do with the Theosophical Society, neither in form nor in content; its members may or may not belong to the Theosophical Society; it does not in any way endanger the existence of the German Section of the Theosophical Society; it is not founded in opposition to anything, but in a thoroughly positive way for the cultivation of a very specific spiritual current, Rosicrucian spiritual science, and it seeks a form that corresponds to the content of this spiritual current.

The whole foundation with its provisional form is to be understood as an attempt to gather those who can agree with the principles of the covenant. For this purpose, a central office has been created where the results of this attempt are to be collected. It was agreed that at the events in Munich next summer, where a larger number of friends will be gathered, it will be examined to what extent a permanent organization can be created.

Guarantors within the German-speaking area:
Basel, Dr. Grosheintz.
Berlin, Fräulein von Sivers, Frau von Bredow, Herr Kiem, Fräulein Mücke, Herr Tessmar, Herr Seiler.
Kassel, Dr. Noll.
Cologne, Fräulein Scholl, Frau Noss.
Düsseldorf (Haus Meer), Mrs. Smits.
Elberfeld, Mr. von Damnitz.
Hamburg, Mrs. Wandrey, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Hubo.
Klagenfurt, Mr. Ritter von Rainer.
Leipzig, Mrs. Wolfram. Munich, Miss Stinde, Countess Kalckreuth, Mr. Graf Lerchenfeld, Dr. Peipers.
Nuremberg, Mr. Bauer.
Stuttgart, Miss Völker, Mr. Arenson, Mr. del Monte, Dr. Unger.
Zurich, Professor Gysi.

Central Office:
For the non-German countries:
Baron von Walleen, Stuttgart, Landhausstraße 63 II. For the German-speaking area:
Miss M. von Sivers, Berlin, Motzstraße 17.

• 1. He has since given his consent.

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (Theosophischen Gesellschaft), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 1/1913

At 10:15 a.m., Dr. Rudolf Steiner opens the meeting with the following words:

"In place of the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section, which, as you will hear, I am logically no longer able to hold in view of the events that have occurred, I hereby open the meeting of the Theosophical friends who are present.

I ask you to consider the words that, logically, I can no longer open the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society of the German Section here, in view of the facts that have occurred. What has happened will be the subject of the proceedings; what I have to say to you before anything else is what was not bound to any external organization in previous years either, but to our heartfelt theosophical empathy. And it is out of this heartfelt theosophical empathy that I greet you on this, our day of assembly. It is to be hoped that this warm and beautiful bond that has united us for so many years will also unite us this time, insofar as we have an understanding of what we wanted. And from the feeling of this unity, let me express in a few words only the warmest greeting, in a few words, because we will still have a lot to do today and the following negotiations should begin as soon as possible.

What I would like is that at least perhaps in a single act not a few dark rays shine in that could shine in later; that is, in view of the difficulties of our negotiations, we remember right at the beginning this time those who, since we last gathered here, when our dear Theosophical friends left the physical plan.

I need not, of course, particularly emphasize today, after years of talking about the feelings and emotions in such cases, that for the truly sensitive Theosophist, a person's transition from one plan to another is just a change of form of existence, and that, since we feel connected by ties that are not bound to one plan, these ties to our dear Theosophical friends will remain the same even if they are obliged to exchange one plan for another. Thus those who have passed away from us will have loving friends in us, and we will have loving friends in them, as we turn our thoughts wherever we can to those who were so often allowed to go there when they were still working with us on the physical plane.

First and foremost, I have to mention a member who worked with us theosophically for many years in such a way that her kind and loving heart brought her intimate friends everywhere. Those who have had the opportunity to be touched by Mia Holm's beautiful poetic talent are particularly aware of how significant it was to have this personality in our midst, and how we have every reason to remember this personality forever and ever, as far as we feel connected to her. There are many among us who loved Mia Holm dearly, who also had a deep love for her poetic talent, for her entire lovable personality.

Secondly, I would like to mention not only a long-standing member of our Theosophical work, but also, so to speak, the oldest Theosophist we ever had, our dear Mrs. Bontemps in Leipzig. She belonged to our way of thinking and feeling so completely with all her heart that when we spoke to her, even the most ordinary things that came from her lips felt imbued with Theosophical sentiment and warmth. And those who got to know Mrs. Bontemps well appreciate her good heart, her in so many ways great and comprehensive character, her so easily the hearts of people justifiably winning theosophical attitude. It was deeply satisfying to me that I could still say many a word to her in the last days when she was still on the physical plane, when she could no longer leave her sickbed. And just as many of the words I was able to speak to her in her healthier days will remain unforgettable to me, so too will the conversations I was able to have with her at her last sickbed.

I have to mention the young lady [Clara Brandt], who ended her life on the physical plane this summer in a regrettable accident. I emphasize explicitly, because misunderstandings have spread in many ways, that Miss [Brandt] died a very natural death, caused by a state of weakness that led to the misfortune of her unfortunate fall; it was nothing more than a very natural death. We remember how she was devoted to the Theosophical cause for many years, in spite of many difficulties, and how this Theosophical cause made her what she wanted to be.

I have many loyal and dear friends to remember, both those I have recently gained and those who have been with us for many years. If I were to say everything that is on my mind here, it would be a very long speech, and one that is only of value if we all start our thoughts about our departed friends from a loving attitude.

Thus I have to commemorate a long-standing member, Mr. Leo Ellrich from the Leipzig Lodge.

Thus I have to commemorate a particularly painful death, because we are not only painfully affected in this case by the fact that the deceased has left the physical plane, but has also left behind the deeply grieving husband, who is our dear member. When we consider the beautiful way in which Dr. [Roesel], who belonged to the Bielefeld Lodge, found her way into the Theosophical movement, how she strove to enter it, when we remember that, then we most certainly empathize with our dear friend Dr. [Roesel], who is such a loyal and much-loved member.

I have to remember two friends from Basel who were held in high regard and loved in their immediate circle, the two members Gottlieb [Hiltboldt] and Wilhelm Vockroth. They were loyal, dear, self-sacrificing, Theosophical co-workers.

Furthermore, I have to remember the man who passed away not only because of the physical suffering of his painful existence, our friend Hugo [Boltze] in Eisenach. Most of our friends know Hugo [Boltze]; he really had a lot to suffer, and we were devoted to him in loyalty and love and will remain so. After seven years of very painful illness, this disease had to lead to death. We stand before him in such a way that we will surely send him our best and most loving thoughts.

We also have to remember a dear friend, Mr. Hans Schellbach, who, after seeking healing in a southern Theosophical colony, could not be saved in the physical life. Suffice it to say that he remained true to his Theosophical beliefs until his last breath, as he had always demonstrated them in life. That they were a healing medicine for him, that he was so attached to Theosophy that it was the strength that could sustain him in the happiest as well as in the most painful moments of life.

I must also mention a friend whose death was, in a certain respect, extraordinarily tragic, who was a close friend of a man who was close to the theosophical circle, Mr. Georg Bauernfeind. It would not be appropriate here to speak about the details of our friend's life. It should only be said that Theosophy can lead us to understand every kind of seeking, every kind of spiritual experience, and that we will also understand this man's final path to death.

Furthermore, I have to mention a man who had a great deal of theosophy in his mind, but whom few got to know, Mr. Meakin, who left the physical plane last October after working with us more and more intensely and intensively for a long time.

Miss [Bloecker], Mrs. Major Herbst, Mrs. Marty, I also have to mention them. Even if they have been less prominent in our movement, we are no less called upon to feel united with them beyond the grave. We know, my dear Theosophical friends, how indissoluble our bond remains with those who have left the physical plane through death, and we know that they have entered another sphere of life. So let this moment of union be the starting point for you to feel connected to these friends of ours in the sense just expressed, and that you will continue to feel connected to these friends in the future. Let us express these loving thoughts and feelings that we send to our deceased friends by rising from our seats.

Dr. Steiner: “My dear Theosophical friends! First of all, a request has been received that I have to answer as a request regarding the agenda. The request is:

Is the resolution of the board of December 8, 1912, to expel the members of the 'Order of the Star of the East' from the German Section of the Theosophical Society, considered to have been carried out without the General Assembly having voted on it and agreed to it?

Hermann Ahner

I would just like to add a few words to this request. I would like to say that the decision to exclude the members of the “Star of the East” without further ado was never taken by the board in this version, but that the members of the “Star of the East” were asked to resign, otherwise the board would be forced to exclude them. But now a request had been received from a member of the “Star of the East” asking whether such a member would still be allowed to remain in the meeting in that case, and whether I would like this member to address a few kind words to the General Assembly. I replied that I actually had enough of interfering in the affairs of the General Assembly in any way, and that the General Assembly would have to decide on this. During my absence, the board felt compelled to ask the delegates themselves whether they wished members of the “Star of the East” to attend today's general assembly. The delegates responded almost without exception that they did not wish members of the “Star of the East” to be present. After this announcement by the delegates, I was no longer authorized to open the General Assembly to the members of the 'Star of the East'. And whatever distortions have been made in the world, those who want to check will see that I have never acted otherwise than as a representative, as the executive organ of the German Section. As Secretary General, I never wanted to follow my own will, but always that of the Section.

Furthermore, however, it must be said that, after long consideration of the matter, because the matter can no longer be otherwise, I am no longer in a position to hold the eleventh general assembly of the German section at all, but only to hold a meeting in its place with our friends, because logically a German section no longer exists. According to the board's decision of yesterday, it is no longer possible to hold this meeting in the way that previous general meetings have been held. But this means that the possibility of contesting today's meeting no longer applies. I will treat this meeting afterwards as an original meeting. Therefore, it should be considered whether there is any reason at all to decide at this meeting whether or not to implement the Executive Board's decision to expel the members of the Star of the East.

The Theosophical Society, German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society who are members of the “Star of the East.

The undersigned are obliged to inform you that the Executive Board, which met in an extraordinary session on December 8, 1912, has passed the resolution set out below. This decision has not been taken because of any existing differences of opinion or divergent points of view, which may of course be represented in the Theosophical Society, but solely because the way in which the leadership of the “Star of the East” has related to the German Section appears to the Section to be quite incompatible with the first paragraph of the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. If it were to be said that the German Section excludes certain opinions and points of view, then this must be dismissed from the outset as incorrect.

The above-mentioned resolution reads: “The Executive Board of the German Section of the Theosophical Society regards membership of the Order of the Star of the East as incompatible with membership of the Theosophical Society and requests members of the Star of the East to resign from the Theosophical Society.

The board of the German Section will be forced to expel members who do not comply with this request from the German Section.

On behalf of the board of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.
The Secretary General. The Secretary.

[Dr. Steiner:] “The delegates have already agreed to this decision, but if Mr. Ahner wants to talk about it, he is of course free to do so.”

Mr. Ahner: “I can find no reason why the members of the ‘Star of the East’ should be excluded. The Theosophical Society, the all-embracing society, has a place for everyone. Therefore, I do not like to exclude such people who want to bring in a higher life and encourage a higher life. I do not know why Star members are excluded. I don't know to what extent the board has the right to do so. I would like to know whether this board decision is legally valid at all. I myself am not a star member, but I regret not understanding and I don't understand why this should happen, why disharmony should arise. I do not want the exclusion from my point of view, you can of course think differently about it. It is repugnant to me, decidedly unsympathetic, when we see our brothers in all people and then exclude them in a loveless way. I have nothing more to say about it, it was nothing more than a question to which an answer has already been given. I have nothing more to say about it."

Dr. Steiner: “Do you want a vote on this?” Mr. Ahner: “Yes, if possible.”

Dr. Steiner: “Since a vote is to take place, I ask the delegates to stand up who are in favor of excluding the Star members.”

A vote is taken. With the exception of Mr. Ahner, the delegates are in favor of the exclusion.

Dr. Steiner: “This is undoubtedly the majority, although the votes have not yet been counted. However, as a precaution, I would like the entire assembly to vote on it as well. Vote.” - With the exception of five, everyone is in favor of the exclusion.

Dr. Steiner: “Since I see myself only as an executive body, I am not able to reverse the decision of the board and to let the members of the ‘Star of the East’ call now.

My dear Theosophical friends! With a certain pain, which many of you who have worked with me over the years may feel, I begin this argument. I myself must remember that moment when we, a small number of friends, came here to this city a number of years ago to establish the German Section of the Theosophical Society. We came at that time to establish this Section because we had before us the ideal and the intention of working within the Theosophical Society for that which we regard as the high goods of human development. We entered into this movement at that time with the sole intention of working faithfully in the field indicated. A committee was elected at the first constituent General Assembly.

Not all those who were elected at the time are still on the committee; nor are all of them still on the physical plane.

The first difficulty that arose for us, after I had been preceded by a number of difficulties, was this, which originated from a man who has now once again begun the difficulties within the German Section within the Theosophical Society. After Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden, who was one of the veterans, so to speak, of the Theosophical movement, had been willingly elected to the executive council, he began writing letter after letter within a few weeks, and there was really no end to them. In the letters, which partly preceded the founding of the Section and partly followed it, there were some, for example, that contained the content: one should limit the power of the President of the Theosophical Society, the Adyar Presidium, and instead of that, set up a kind of Areopagus of members, who stand at the head of autonomous national societies, so that in no way could there be interference from a Presidium. At the time, Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden wanted a completely republican structure for the Theosophical Society. Another proposal was to exclude women from the Theosophical movement, a movement in which reason and judgment should prevail, because women were considered to have less reason and judgment than men because they had less mental ability. At the time, I raised the slight objection of whether the dead Mrs. Blavatsky, who founded the movement, should also be excluded, but I did not receive any clarification on the matter. Before the Genoa Congress, Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden suggested that he, I and a few other members, among whom not the astral element of women but the mental element of men should be represented, should negotiate before the said congress on what would be beneficial for the Society, because he was familiar with the intentions that Mrs. Blavatsky and Mrs. Besant had originally had. But then followed the request that only men of sound mind, who alone had a mental aptitude, should participate in that conference. I have not had the opportunity to ask how the writer of the letter could legitimately have mentioned the two women in the first part of the letter, since in the last part of the letter, on the same page, he gave the cited judgment.

After this mention of a later fact, I continue from the announcement that difficulties arose for us right at the beginning of the founding of the section, and that then Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden resigned from the board after a few weeks without being pushed to do so. Those of our friends who are in a position to know about this will know how I have accommodated Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in all things in the ten years since then. I believe I may touch on these matters here, because today the objective should combine with the personal in an objective manner. I believe there are members among you who know how, out of full love, justified goodwill and justified humanity, those of our friends who need something take up – I may say so, take up – that which is called time, which is not elastic and cannot be stretched. By presenting this claim as something absolutely justified, the fact cannot be denied that enormous amounts of time have been used in the direct contact between people. From person to person, most of our time was spent in our work. And the question may arise as to whether, within this practice of Theosophical love within our society, it was possible to insist that our precious time should be sacrificed to people who only came as troublemakers. That was the reason for the various measures that have been taken. Out of these convictions, out of real insight, we have allowed the restrictions to be put in place, for no other reason than because we wanted to work in true human love, and because we did not want to just make love-dripping speeches and therefore did not want to have our time taken away by insincere disruption.

The person who was most aware that we couldn't possibly make progress if anyone could come in and disturb us was Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Because I can say quite objectively that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is one of the people who often took up the most of my time. Never would this word have crossed my lips if necessity had not forced me to utter it. It is necessary for the mask to fall away from much that is dripping with love, but carries something quite different in its heart.

No person who wishes to work peacefully with us should be excluded from our German section because of their views, their point of view, or their attitude. It goes without saying that each lodge has the right to set its own conditions. No other resolution has been adopted other than that the name of the lodge board should appear on the admission form, in addition to the names of the two guarantors, so that the general secretary is informed whether the lodge board agrees. In this case, anyone could still become a member of the section. There can be no question of an amendment to the statutes. It can therefore be said that in the practices of admitting members, this decision has not had any practical effect. All those who were rejected later would have been rejected earlier.

Before I get to what needs to be said today, a little history needs to be presented here. It is one of many things that happened that difficulties arose for all those who worked with Misses Besant. Everyone has experienced these difficulties and has expressed them numerous times, privately and publicly. One should only want to assess these things correctly. Once, and I can still show the exact place where it happened, I said to Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden that it was really quite difficult to work with Mrs. Besant. That was before 1906, before she became president. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden told me that it was so because, first of all, she was a woman and, secondly, she had no mental education.

Then there were a series of events that followed, which were only known to the German Section to the extent that they had to be dutifully announced. Then came the unpleasant Leadbeater affair. From a circular you know that I strictly and energetically rejected Leadbeater's method because, if it became general, it would have to bring about the downfall of the entire Theosophical movement. At that time Mrs. Besant had a different opinion of Leadbeater; she sent a detailed letter to a number of members in which she stated that what Leadbeater had done could only have been done by someone who was insane on this point. That was in June 1906. I would not mention this letter if it had not since been printed in the main journals. So the publication would not happen through me. I will not speak of how I tried at the time to bring clarity to the matter, I will only mention how from 1906 to 1907 Mrs. Besant had come to the point of vigorously advocating this man whom she had called mentally ill the year before. I will not emphasize all the other things, only that when Mr. Leadbeater was to be invited to rejoin the Theosophical Society in 1909, I refused to vote for this entry. I wanted to abstain. Mrs. Besant wrote back to me that she could see from my letter that I was not against it, so she would use my vote for re-entry. I now had to demand by telegram, since there was no time for a letter, that my written instructions to abstain from voting be followed. I would just like to emphasize that Mrs. Besant later reported that it had been unanimously decided by the general secretaries to invite Leadbeater to rejoin the Theosophical Society.

As things turned out, there was no choice but to work positively and to keep ourselves free from Mrs. Besant's influence. Whether or not we succeeded in this, I leave entirely to your judgment. There was no other choice but to work positively in such a way that we made progress and paid attention to nothing but our work, until we were energetically disturbed in this work without anything having happened that would have justified this external disturbance.

One day, Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden, who had always sought my help, came and declared that he was the representative of the Star of the East Society in Germany. Among other things, he explained: Since there appeared to be a contradiction between what Mrs. Besant teaches and what Dr. Steiner teaches, I should in future formulate my teachings in such a way that my listeners could not construct any contradictions. It was even said that I should avoid the word “Christ,” because it could only lead to misunderstandings. The motivation for this was that Mrs. Besant needed this word for Bodhisattva because in Europe the word Bodhisattva was not understood. So for Bodhisattva, Mrs. Besant needs the word “Christ,” so I should therefore avoid the word Christ. These things have happened, they can be documented. Not only was I expected to listen to the distorting representations of what I had to say, but I was also expected to let them dictate the words I should use to describe my teaching. That was the inner tolerance of the representative of the Star of the East in Germany.

(I would like to insert a comment for the print here, which I make for the reason that there are still people who seek the reasons for what happened in something other than the fact that my friends and I could not sense of truth, a certain way of talking about things, listening without admitting that this way is the opposite of all theosophical sentiment and should not occur within the theosophical movement. Thus it could happen that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote me the following words in a letter dated July 4, 1911, in which he tried to justify the “Star in the East” movement: “It is inconceivable to me that a 14- to 15-year-old boy can survive the kind of testing that Krishnamurti is going through now. Mrs. Besant parades him before the world as the coming adept. Since the cultural world does not associate this with anything, Mrs. Besant says, in short, to the ecclesiastical listeners: “The coming Christ, as the type of the divine adept.” But anyone who has read the 30 past lives of Krishnamurti, which she and Leadbeater published in The Theosophist, knows that she does not mean Jesus with that. I am of the opinion that a feeling for truth and truthfulness, as expressed here, has nothing to do with Theosophy. Unfortunately, I have to share such things because otherwise people might doubt how deeply rooted everything was that came from the German Section.)

After all that had happened, which you could read about in the recently published “Mitteilungen”, our Basel friends asked me after the last Munich negotiations whether members of the “Star of the East” should be admitted to the upcoming Basel cycle. I replied by telegram that, as members of the Theosophical Society, they could not, of course, be excluded. The Basel friends then asked, really out of their sense of truth, that the members of the “Star of the East” not participate in their events, because it would have made them feel constrained in their natural sense of truth. It takes only one tongue that can speak to express love and human brotherhood on the lips; and if one has such a tongue, one can write brochures that drip with love on the first pages and then be called Jesuitical by someone who has never had anything to do with a Jesuit. Love requires true hearts, and I was able to see in Basel that it was true hearts that said to each other: We can no longer meet or work with people who behave like that. We would never have objected to the Star of the East as such.

But this “Star of the East” consists of personalities, and these personalities must be known. The Basel cycle was announced and began. After it had begun, friends came from Holland who said: A telegram has arrived in Holland reporting that the Basel cycle has been suppressed. They investigated and discovered that the telegram had been sent by a member of the “Star of the East”. This member later explained that he had done so out of goodwill, in the best of intentions, because such terrible things were being said about Dr. Steiner in Belgium and Holland that he wanted to prevent even more such talk. That is the practice of the Star of the East. There are numerous examples of this.

At the time when there was no talk of excluding members of the Star of the East from our events, when none of this was even considered, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden circulated a written piece of propaganda for an “Undogmatic Association”. This writing is full of accusations that are completely unfounded. We were not just dealing with a member of the “Star of the East,” but with a man who fought us at every turn and wanted nothing more than to fight us. If we were still required to summon the people who would turn the rope around our necks.

There is another claim made by Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden, among many others, namely that there is not a single member of our German Section who does not copy Dr. Rudolf Steiner word for word and repeat what I have said. But it went too far when the truly loyal work of our co-workers was characterized in this way. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden could say what he liked about me, I would remain unchanged towards him. But to present our co-workers as automatons who do nothing but repeat what I have said is an outrageous insult to our co-workers. And now judge for yourselves whether we are the intolerant ones. One of the personalities of the Stern des Ostens who attacked us most fiercely was staying in our Berlin lodge until the November days, and there was no thought of harming a hair on her head. It was only when we saw ourselves hindered in our positive work by the members of the Stern des Ostens from all sides that we decided to take defensive measures.

There are also other things to be considered; I do not need to elaborate on them, they are set out in the “Communications”. If truth is to prevail, then it must prevail above all on the physical plane. If it can happen that the president makes a decision in 1909 about a matter of which she claims in 1912 to know nothing about all these things, then one cannot imagine a more grotesque untruth. I also had to experience that there was an official in the Society who really dared to say about Mrs. Besant: She must have forgotten her letter of 1909. That it is possible for such a thing to be said must first happen so that one can believe it within the Theosophical Society.

You see what has remained the same. You see what has changed. What has remained the same? The steady progress of our positive Theosophical work, as we once began it in the German Section. What has changed? In the early years, Mrs. Besant was a joyful supporter of our positive work. But there came a time when she sensed that it was uncomfortable for her to have people saying something different from what she herself said. But it was not right to take action against these people. And when we decided in 1909 to appoint members of the board for life, Mrs. Besant was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of this decision. And it was only a few weeks ago that she seriously considered whether she herself could be elected president for life. In Budapest, where I spoke to Mrs. Besant, she expressed her enthusiastic support for the election of lifelong board members.

What has changed is that until the year he fell away, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “In all matters concerning the Theosophical movement, it is understood that your judgment comes into consideration first.” That was a few weeks before he turned against me as a representative of the “Star of the East”. You see, I prefer to tell you facts rather than characterize; but I think that those who want to be taught can be sufficiently taught by these facts.

Now the following happened. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden had sent out all over the country his communications violently attacking the German Section in the name of the “Undogmatic Federation.” We ignored this, but when he came and wanted to found a so-called “Branch of Freedom,” as he called it, I wrote in October 1912 that I did not feel called upon to issue a diploma for this branch, but would submit the matter to the Executive Council. I explicitly wrote that I could not issue the diploma because his way of thinking did not correspond with the work of the German Section. And I went on to say that this was not about some other outlook or some other opinion, but that this was about something that violated the first sentence of our statutes, that violated all fraternity. It goes against all fraternity to present people as the automatons of one individual without any semblance of reason. That is why I could not bring myself to put my name on the diploma. They could have said whatever they wanted about me, but I could not let those people, who I know have put all their energy into this, be treated like the automatons of one individual. Judge where love lives by considering such facts; what weighs more, these facts or the love-filled words of the one who speaks with love-filled words about our work, which is the opposite of what is objectively true because he has not understood it or does not want to understand it.

I had to decline a second lodge in Leipzig for the following reason. Before I was informed of this lodge, Mrs. Besant indicated to me that it was already independently connected to Adyar. I therefore had to refuse to issue a diploma for this lodge and add that I would await a board decision on the matter, even if the positive reason for the refusal was not clearly stated. This lodge was founded with hostile intent from the outset.

Then things happened that you can see for yourselves when the “Mitteilungen” are published, which a member of the board has already been commissioned to do. It should only be mentioned that an extraordinary board meeting was convened by the board itself on December 8, 1912, which, after all that had happened, led to the regrettable but obvious decision, which is known to you all, to send a telegram to Adyar for the General Council, which met in the last days of December. The wording of the telegram is also known to you from the “Mitteilungen”. It demands the resignation of the president.

I have left a lot out today, but hopefully you have not left it out in your memory, what is already in the last few issues of the “Mitteilungen”. I may well say that after all this, it is a strong piece of work that in Adyar, so to speak, without being able to examine the justification of our measures in any way, they proceeded solely and exclusively from the assumption that we were expelling people who were entitled to belong to the German Section. We will have to speak about the cancellation of the German Section later. Before I discuss this matter, I would like to mention the following. The thing that people started shouting about was that we are excluding the members of the Star of the East. The members of the 'Star of the East' have the option of belonging to the Theosophical Society without belonging to the German Section. We did nothing but defend ourselves against people who behaved hostilely towards us. But in doing so, we did not prevent anyone from being a member of the Theosophical Society. Perhaps some of you also know from me that I took the position that although a section cannot make itself the slave of those who disturb the peace, I would never resist and would have nothing against a second section forming; because how can it be justified that a large number of people should become slaves to those who want to come in just to disrupt our work. We have not expelled anyone from the Theosophical Society because we cannot do that as the German Section; we could not expel anyone from the Theosophical Society. But consider, if we are now expelled from the Theosophical Society, is there any possibility for us to be within the Theosophical Society? I direct this question to all those who have talked so much about love and brotherhood. What will those people who have talked so much about the restriction of freedom with regard to the members of the “Star of the East” say when the General Council expels the entire German Section? I do not need to ask about our members. In view of what I have said, I now have to read a letter dated January 14, 1913, a letter from the President, which came into my hands yesterday, a few hours before our board meeting. I will add a few explanatory words afterwards. Perhaps you will understand afterwards why I am hesitant in my address.

President's Office, Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Madras, January 14, 1913. Dear Dr. Steiner!

The enclosed is self-explanatory.

After the General Council of the Theosophical Society considered the entire attitude of the German Section towards the Theosophical Society and its constitution, as demonstrated in your letter and mine, as well as in the correspondence regarding the German-Swiss and the telegram from your board, he asked me to withdraw the charter of the German Section and instead give a charter to those German lodges that are willing to work within the constitution of the Theosophical Society. Before I give in to this demand, I would like to ask you, in view of the seriousness of the situation, whether you would like to provide any explanation regarding the following matters, which, if a satisfactory explanation is not provided, would be the reasons for the withdrawal of the charter.

a) Your refusal in your letter of October 15, 1912 to give the lodge in Göttingen the charter requested by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and six other members of the German Section, on the grounds that because Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden represents Theosophy in a way that is contrary to the views (intentions) of the German Section and even hostile to them, and that the proposed lodge includes members who follow such a working method.

b) Your refusal in another letter of October 15, 1912, to issue a foundation charter to a lodge in Leipzig, at the request of Mr. Carl Schumann, for the (second) reason that that the persons who signed the request worked in a manner contrary to the views (intentions) of the German Section, since the working method was such that the German Section could not allow its members.

c) The decision to exclude members of the Order of the Star in the East who were members of the German Section from the Section's meetings, to which all other members have the right to attend as members, thus depriving them of their rights as members of the Theosophical Society.

d) The silence of the General Secretary in the face of letters from the President, who informed him of requests under Statute 31 and asked for the statutes of the Section.

I will await your reply to this, or, if there is no reply, I will wait another fortnight after the return of the mail from Germany before I carry out the advice of the General Council, which has been given to me as President of the Council. I deeply regret that you have forced the General Council upon us by taking a position that puts the German Section in opposition to the Constitution of the Theosophical Society and endangers the freedom of every member of the Theosophical Society. I dare to express the hope that even at this late hour the German Section, through you, will take back its steps, submit to the constitution under which it was founded, and continue its work within the Society.

If not, we can still wish them well in the path they have chosen and trust that their future as a separate society will prove their usefulness to the world.

Sincerely yours, Annie Besant President Theosophical Society

to Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

President's Office Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Madras, S., Jan. 14, 1913

Dear Dr. Steiner,

Enclosed explains itself.

The General Council of the Theosophical Society, having considered the whole attitude of the German Section to the Theosophical Society and its Constitution, as shown in your letters and mine, the correspondence on the Swiss-German Lodges, and the telegram from your Executive, has asked me to cancel the charter of the German Section, and to issue in place thereof a charter to the German Lodges, willing to work within the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Before complying with this request, I beg to ask you - in view of the gravity of the situation - if you wish to offer any explanation on the following matters, which will, in default of a satisfactory explanation, form the grounds of the cancelment of the Charter:

1. Your refusal, in your letter of Oct. 15th 1912, to issue a Charter for a Lodge in Göttingen, asked for by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and six other members of the German Section, the ground of refusal being that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, represents Theosophy in a way opposed and even hostile to the views (Intentionen) of the German Section, and that the proposed Lodge included members who followed such a method of work.

2. Your refusal, in another letter of October 15th, 1912, to issue a Charter for a Lodge in Leipzig, on the application of Herr Carl Schumann, on the (second) ground that the persons signing the application worked in a way opposed to the views (Intentionen) of the German Section, the method of work being one which the German Section could not permit to its members.

3. The resolution excluding members of the ‹Order of the Star in the East›, who were Fellows of the German Section, from the meetings of the Section to which all other fellows had the right of entry as Fellows thus illegitimately depriving them of their Status as Fellows of the Theosophical Society.

4. The silence of the General Secretary in the face of letters from the President, informing him of applications under Rule 31, and asking for the Rules of the Section.

I will await your answer to this, or, failing an answer, I will wait for a fortnight after the return mail from Germany, before carrying out the advice of the General Council, conveyed to me as President in Council; I deeply regret that you have forced the General Council to give this advice by an attitude which sets the German Section against the Constitution of the Theosophical Society, and imperils the liberty of every Fellow of the Theosophical Society; and I venture to express the hope that, even at this late hour, the German Section will, through you, retrace its steps, submit to the Constitution under which it was founded, and continue to work within the Society.

If not, we can still wish it all good in the path it selects, and trust that its future, as a separate society, may prove its usefulness to the world.

Sincerely Yours, Annie Besant,
President Theosophical Society

to Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German Section,
Theosophical Society

The words are also read out in English: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to shake himself sufficiently clear of that fatal influence to allow liberty of opinion within his Section.”

[Rudolf Steiner:] “According to the report of the French General Secretary, Mrs. Besant spoke these words.

You will understand that I want nothing more to do with a personality who is capable of making such assertions, which are purely invented and fly in the face of all real facts, in an official speech to the society she represents.

(Stormy applause from the assembly.)

Anyone who wants to stand on the ground of truth may, if they want to damage their cause in such a way before the world through such an accusation, may consider this as a factual attack. I may ask you whether the assembly also sees this attack as an attack on its own cause.

Before this incident, one was allowed to look at a passage in the January issue of 'Theosophist' with very special eyes. There is the following nice piece. There is a part of a letter from me to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. In the first sentences one reads:

"It is impossible to attach to the German Section the Branch, for the Charter of which you applied on the 14th September last. This cannot, at least, be done on my own responsibility, but would have to be submitted to our next General Convention. The reason for this is the manner in which you have for some time chosen to represent the Theosophical cause; this is felt by the German Section to be directly opposed to their intention, and even hostile to them. Above all things I myself cannot put my name under the charter of such a Branch which includes members who follow this kind of work.

But the later sentences, where the reasons for this are given in my letter, are suppressed. This is simply an objective untruth, achieved by an incomplete quotation.

But now, immediately after I was mentioned, the following passage appears in the January number of 'Theosophist':

"The Theosophical Society is facing an organized attack, engineered by the most dangerous enemy that liberty of thought and speech has ever had – the Jesuits. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky long ago warned us that this conflict would come, and now it is upon us. They work in different lands in different disguises, but aim steadily at one thing — the destruction or the distortion of Theosophy. In America, they started a secret organization called the Universal Brotherhood (not openly identical with Mrs. Tingley's Universal Brotherhood), and within this the 'Besant Union', and cleverly induced Theosophists to think that they were working in my interests. Their chief tool has now joined the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, they are working to secure the predominance of Christianity in the Theosophical Society, thus distorting it into a Christianising sect, and making certain its rejection in the East. They use their old weapons - misrepresentation, slander, false charges, all levelled against the leaders of the movement they seek to destroy; and all means are good ad majorem Dei gloriam. The ‹Black General›, as their Head is called, has agents everywhere. Attacks are circulated in many countries, in many tongues; money is poured out like water; one day's post brings attacks from Rome, from Stockholm, from Hong Kong. It is very interesting to watch, and one recalls the words of warning that ‹the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.› The old record bids men rejoice because it is so; of such combats the Bhagavad-Gita says that they are the open door to heaven. Therefore the word goes out to all faithful members: 'Quit you like men: be strong.'

That is to say:

"The Theosophical Society is facing an organized attack, which has been set in motion by the most dangerous enemy that freedom of thought and speech has ever had - the Jesuits. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky warned us long ago that this fight would come, and now it is here. They work in different countries under different guises, but their aim is invariably the same – the destruction or distortion of Theosophy. In America they formed a secret organization called the Universal Brotherhood (not openly showing itself as identical with Mrs. Tingley's Universal Brotherhood), and within it the 'Besant Club', and cleverly caused Theosophists to believe that they were working on my behalf. Their main tool has now joined the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany they are working to secure the supremacy of Christianity in the Theosophical Society by distorting it into a Christianizing sect, and thereby certainly provoking its rejection in the East. They use their old weapons - misrepresentation, slander, false accusations, all against the leaders of the movement, whom they seek to destroy; and all means are justified ad majorem Dei gloriam. The 'Black General', as their leader is called, has representatives everywhere. Attacks are being spread in many countries, in many languages; money is being poured out like water; one day's mail brings attacks from Rome, from Stockholm, from Hong Kong. This is very interesting to observe, and one recalls the words of warning: 'The devil has descended with great wrath because he knows he has but a short time'. The ancient scriptures urge people to rejoice because it is so; the Bhagavad Gita says that such struggles are the open door to heaven. Therefore, the word goes out to all loyal members: 'Hold yourselves like men! Be strong!'

This passage comes immediately after a matter that relates to the German Section. But just imagine if someone had said something about it the day before yesterday – before the president's letter arrived – even though the Belgian general secretary had already drawn his objectively completely untrue conclusions from such things. Then Mrs. Besant could still have said: Yes, you are not affected at all, so why are you speaking up? This passage is separated from the previous one by three asterisks. This is how a thing is written, and they speak of theosophical politics, a word that should not be used within our movement. But there is something else to be added; because even if we are not supposed to be affected by it, the matter itself is still not true! Where, in our theosophical movement, is there any influence of the Jesuits? Everything is taken out of thin air.

It is true that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has repeatedly toyed with the Jesuit accusation, and it is true that Mrs. Besant has officially expressed it. It would be hard to make a more untrue accusation, one that is likely to play a role in Germany and other areas if people want to cast suspicion on us.

Because that is the case, and because here, the factual is really linked to the personal, I am now asking you for something. I cannot share everything that could show you how this accusation is plucked out of thin air, how untrue and foolish it is. I ask you if you would be willing to hear a brief sketch, a brief excerpt from my life, over the next few days? I cannot otherwise prove to you how foolish and untrue Mrs. Besant's accusation is. But I do not want to impose this account on you either, so I ask you to tell me if you would be willing to listen to my memoirs, which I will summarize as briefly as possible, at a more appropriate time in the next few days?"

(The assembly accepts the offer.)

[Rudolf Steiner:] “Mrs. Besant is well aware that some of the accusations will stick. And now – I am making a point – because no expression is sufficient to characterize what has happened. It is indeed unheard of that I should have to resort to describing my life's journey. I hope that the lecture will be rewritten so that it can then be published as a brochure. People go so far as to specify the location. I only learned from a publication by Paungarten, 'Werdende Wissenschaft' (nascent science), which refutes unjust and untrue accusations, that I am supposed to have enjoyed this Jesuit education in a place in Moravia, the name of which is completely unknown to me and which I have already forgotten. Boitzenburg or something like that. I declare to you that I have never known this place or even heard it mentioned.

I therefore declare that I no longer want to have anything to do with Mrs. Besant, after she has added this piece to all the other objective untruths. I have placed the matter in the hands of the board, and I will only let this fact reach Mrs. Besant as a last resort, that I no longer want to have anything to do with someone who is so concerned with the truth.

In doing so, I am actually trying to motivate you that we are, so to speak, hovering between heaven and – I don't want to say – heaven and hell. I now ask Miss von Sivers to read out the board's decision.

Fräulein von Sivers: “At its meeting yesterday, the board decided to send the following letter in response to the president's letter to her, should it be approved by the general assembly.”

Berlin, February 2, 1913.
To the President of the Theosophical Society,
Mrs. Annie Besant.
Adyar, Madras.

The personalities present at the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, having taken note of the letter of January 14, 1913, from the President of the Theosophical Society, Mrs. Besant, to the Secretary General of the German Section, Dr. Steiner, stating that the General Council has demanded that Mrs. Besant revoke the German Section's diploma and that Mrs. Besant will comply with this demand if the German Section does not submit to the constitution, declare:

Never has the German Section, its executive committee or its general secretary violated the constitution of the Theosophical Society in any way. The decision of the General Council, which was made before even the published documents could be examined, must be recorded as an outrageous violation of the spirit and constitution of the Theosophical Society. Even the most primitive sense of truth and justice must be outraged by the way the German Section and its executive committee were treated for the well-founded accusations they had to make against the behavior of the president. To suspect the person of the General Secretary, who is uncomfortable with her, Mrs. Besant will stop at nothing: the climax of such a clever denigration, however, is reached with the claim, brought forward before the General Assembly, that Dr. Steiner was educated by the Jesuits. This claim is arbitrarily invented and almost senseless in the face of the facts, with the resulting insinuations.

The German Section has nothing to revoke and nothing to take back. It therefore has no choice but to regard the alternative presented to it by Mrs. Besant as an act of expulsion, which has only been carried out because the German Section has taken it upon itself to stand up for the truth and truthfulness of the Theosophical Society.

The German Section and its members would never leave the Theosophical Society of their own accord. And so, forcibly expelled, they will continue their work undeterred and will be ready to work with the Theosophical Society again as soon as truthfulness, reason, seriousness and dignity have replaced the current conditions.

Berlin, February 2nd, 1913.
To the President of the Theosophical Society,
Mrs Annie Besant.
Adyar, Madras.

Those who assembled to the 11th Convention of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, having been made acquainted with the letter of the President Theosophical Society, Mrs Besant, to the General Secretary of the German Section, Dr. R. Steiner, bearing the date of January 11th 1913, wherein it is said: That the General Council has asked Mrs Besant to cancel the charter of the German Section, and that Mrs Besant will comply with this request ‹unless the German Section shall submit to the Constitution» declare that: The German Section, its Executive Committee or its General Secretary have never in any way violated the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. The resolution of the General Council, which was taken even before the published documents could be examined, must be characterized as an unpardonable offence both to the spirit and the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Even the most primitive sense of truth and justice must be indignant at the treatment given to the well-substantiated accusations that the German Section and its Executive Committee were forced to direct against the attitude of the President. In order to cast suspicion upon the personality of the General Secretary who is inconvenient to her, no means are too base for her to stoop to: but the culminating point of such malicious defamation is reached in the freely invented and in face of the facts simply absurd affirmation brought by her to the General Convention of the Theosophical Society that ‹Dr. Steiner has been educated by the Jesuits› and other subsequent insinuations.

Nothing exists which the German Section has to repudiate or retract. And it therefore has no Option but to consider the alternative put to it by Mrs Besant as an act of expulsion, accomplished only because the German Section has undertaken to stand for truth and veracity within the Theosophical Society. The German Section and its members would never have left the Theosophical Society on their own initiative. Being thus expelled by force they will continue their work unswervingly and will be ready to work again with the Theosophical Society as soon as veracity, reason, seriousness and dignity take the place of the present conditions.

Dr. Steiner: “My dear friends! I would never have wanted to become sentimental, even at this moment, but I may well tell you that I myself feel with a heavy heart about this departure from the Theosophical Society, that it will not be easy for us, because we can only regard it as being expelled. In Mrs. Besant's letter, the Executive Board regards the exclusion of the German Section from the Theosophical Society as a fait accompli. Therefore, we are no longer the German Section and, logically, we no longer have to hold the General Assembly of the German Section.

I believe and hope that the members of the German Section, that all those who know what is at stake have a sense of what this exclusion means. That they can appreciate what we are seeking and want. Now we are excluded and can only declare that we will work together with the Theosophical Society again at any time when it is in good order. But we respect and honor the Theosophical Society, and it is truly not our intention to leave it voluntarily. Now we can do no other than consider ourselves excluded, after the letter from the president contains the sentence: “If not, we can still wish it all good in the path it selects, and trust that its future, as a separate Society, may prove its usefulness to the world.” “If not, we can still wish it all good in the path it selects, and trust that its future, as a separate Society, may prove its usefulness to the world.” Therefore, it was logical that the board finally felt compelled to take this step. After that, we can no longer regard the German Section of the Theosophical Society as existing today, and we have no choice but to grant the Executive Council immunity for this decision.

(Vote. All but two votes agree with the decision.)

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone have anything to say about this?”

Mr. Weidlich: (The first few words are unintelligible.) “... unjustified. You should also ask the other side. Couldn't this have been avoided?”

Mr. Ahner: “I would have liked to have said a few words before the decision was made. Isn't that customary?”

Dr. Steiner: “This is a decision of the board. “But please, speak now."

Mr. Ahner: ”I cannot hold it against Dr. Steiner that he became forceful. But I ask whether all of this was necessary. If this happens in the Theosophical Society, what should one expect in other places! I would like to say something else about the members of the “Star of the East”. There is no one present from the Star of the East. This is unlawful without any doubt. Someone can come forward and explain that it is necessary to hear the members of the “Star of the East” as well.

Mr. Weidlich: “I would like to make a further comment regarding the translation of a letter from Mrs. Besant in the ‘Mitteilungen.’ I consider this to be a mistranslation. Mrs. Besant does not write that she does not know the matter, but that she does not know right from wrong. There is a big difference, there is no doubt about it.

Dr. Steiner: “It is indeed true that we cannot be a part of this Theosophical Society with our beliefs. Anyone who looks at the sentence in question will find that the translation has been done as carefully as possible. But that is not the point. The English text is there, and anyone can consider it. The things that have been proven as facts, up to the last Jesuit accusation, are so numerous that the individual does not matter at all. It is strange that things are not said where they belong. If the gentleman in question had addressed these things to Adyar, they would be in the right place in this case.

If we were still at the eleventh general assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, it could have been argued whether the delegates did well to exclude star members. But after what we have just heard, we can only be grateful to the delegates that we do not hear a lot of love-driven words again, and then something completely wrong is said. Perhaps it is a matter of good taste not to listen to everything that some people say. But if someone finds that unpleasant, I ask the meeting again whether a free assembly has to listen to those it does not want to hear, whether it has to be tyrannized by two people, whether it does not have the right to defend itself, not to let the opinions of two people be imposed on it.

(Approval.)

Mr. Fidus: “I would like to emphasize that I do not fully agree with this negotiation. At the moment when we became a free assembly, the exclusion of star members should not have taken place. They must be able to defend themselves. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden should have been notified so that they could defend themselves. We must emphasize... (very difficult to understand, but long-lasting, causing unrest and final calls from the assembly)... we cannot know where the truth is, nobody can understand the truth. There is no truth for us, only truthfulness. What is truth... (unintelligible)... not satisfied... “

Mr. Tessmar: “We are all satisfied except for three, and they can leave...

Dr. Steiner: ‘Unfortunately, I have to call Mr. Tessmar to order because of the expression ’leave‘. But I must protest against words like: ’Nobody can understand the truth‘. But then the words ’truth‘ and ’truthfulness' are always used. There is no question of whether one can recognize the 'truth' or not when, for example, one quotes untruthfully. Everyone needs to put my books on one side and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's outrageous quotations on the other. I have to say that here too there is a tendency to play with words.

Fräulein Prellwitz: “We are grateful to Dr. Steiner for all we have heard. What we wished and hoped for was that what has happened might happen with not so much friction. It is impossible to unite if we sit here and want to fight each other. Any activity that can be avoided, we should avoid here. Because there are demonic powers against which there is only one thing to do: be as passive as possible, be as loving as possible. Because this being blown apart has to do with demons. We should not have started this. But now it has happened. We are a primeval gathering, now we must also carry out a full, clean divorce, make a pure beginning with as much loving sense as possible and as simply as possible. You must not make hostile faces now, you must work lovingly and faithfully for the sake of the great truth."

Dr. Steiner: ”I am in complete agreement with you. I would just like to tell you about the thing you are asking us to start at the present moment, we started that eleven years ago and have been as passive as possible during all that time. Therefore, I must ask you to address what you said as an admonishment to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mrs. Besant."

Miss Prellwitz: “We don't seem to be aware of that... It all happened so fast and we didn't understand. But you also have to be patient. We felt like we were facing something we didn't understand. These are all difficulties.

Dr. Steiner: “If you were to check, you would see how patiently and with how much forbearance the proceedings have been conducted, and that this patience and forbearance have nevertheless led to Mrs. Besant making the accusations she has against the Jesuits.

I am completely convinced of your good intentions, but your opinion arises from your inadequate examination of the facts. I know that you just haven't examined the matter enough; if you had, you would have already seen what patience has been exercised and what happens when you adopt a false passivity.

Anyone who talks about a translation error at this point is not considering the issue at hand, but only wants to [sophistically] ignore the main issues. Nothing can be said about such things.

One can truly believe that someone who decides with a heavy heart to act in this way does not decide for small reasons. It is distressing that so little goodwill is assumed by those who otherwise drip with love and then hide behind translation errors that do not even exist. You see, I left the things as they were, I did not publish them, in order to prevent Mrs. Besant from shouting untruths into the world. And what does she do? She shouts the untruth of the Jesuit accusations to the whole world. So please look for where there was passivity and where there was activity.

Fräulein Hübbe-Schleiden: “I have witnessed all these events for eleven years and I know that Dr. Steiner has done everything humanly possible. I would just like to express my thanks here for all the selfless sacrifices and for all the love that he has shown my father and me during these eleven years. That is what I would like to say to the assembly.

Dr. Steiner: “You know, dear Miss Hübbe-Schleiden, that what happened was done with good intentions. But it was important for the assembly that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's foster daughter speak these words, and that the assembly sympathize from the bottom of its heart with what moves Miss Hübbe-Schleiden. One speaks such words only when one must.

Mr. Fidus: “I see in this great manifestation not fanatical one-sidedness, but the gradual strengthening of theosophical life in Germany. I don't know where right and wrong lies, whether mistakes have been made on one side or the other. I don't want to settle scores. I just want to say that I am glad that the German movement feels impelled to make itself independent. In this sense, I welcome the founding of the 'Anthroposophical Society'. Those who work theosophically will always benefit Theosophy. The German movement must no longer allow itself to be led by the East. The main thing is that the spiritual life in a country becomes so strong that it does not have to turn to a central office again and again."

Dr. Steiner: “Everything is being used against us. It is already beginning in Europe, based on the objective untruths of Mrs. Besant. The Belgian General Secretary has already made a good start, because he speaks of a ‘Pangermanist’ movement. Theosophy is not a German movement; it is a completely universal human movement to which everyone can belong, regardless of race. We are dealing with the fact that we are forced to replace a caricature of Theosophy with a true Theosophy. It would be exploited if what Mr. Fidus just said with good intentions were to go unchallenged. What we want is as universally human as truth; and the spirit of the universally human knows no distinction of race, religion, people or nation that would lead to separation in the highest. Everyone in the world who strives for the theosophical ideal belongs to us, and rightly so. I had to say these words here so that well-intentioned words would not be used to attack us again.

Fräulein von Sivers: “I wanted to say this too. It is not about East and West, it is about awakening a sense of truth and truthfulness. We did not use this word in our mouths as long as it was possible to work without having stones thrown in our way. If we now have to use this word, it has been forced on us.

I would like to move on to two other points. One: the passivity that one is supposed to have; the other: that there is no pure, objective truth, that no one can decide where the truth is. I believe that there are facts on the physical plane, and if one cannot distinguish between them here, one is hopelessly lost when one enters the occult world. I would like to give just a few examples. First of all, passivity. For years, untrue things have been written about us. For years we have had to experience that the most untrue things about us have been hurled into the world in theosophical magazines, in letters and so on. We have remained unthinkably silent for a long time and aroused passionate opposition by remaining passive. This has led to serious accusations. Up until the days of Munich, the facts that had occurred were kept secret. Just one example: in 1909, Mr. Leadbeater was again asked to join the Theosophical Society. Dr. Steiner's objectivity earned him the enmity of Leadbeater's enemies in England. The fact that he was able to remain so fraternal despite their rejection of the subject provoked resentment. Then came the request for Leadbeater's readmission. You have already heard how Mrs. Besant wrote back that she would use Dr. Steiner's vote for Leadbeater's readmission. Dr. Steiner had to send a telegram asking for abstention to be recorded, as he had indicated. Then a telegram came back: 'You are the only General Secretary who acts like this.' That was not true either; the Scandinavian General Secretary had also abstained. But in 1911, a biographical sketch of Leadbeater appeared in 'Theosophist', in which it was reported: 'All the General Secretaries without exception have asked Mr. Leadbeater to rejoin the Theosophical Society'. That was in 1911. But now we learn that Mr. Mead makes it a serious reproach to Dr. Steiner that he voted for Leadbeater. I ask Mr. Fidus: Do they not know what is true here? Is there no way to distinguish the truth here? One person who knew about this has since died, his vote has fallen into the grave, and we count on our passive silence.

Another case: It is repeatedly claimed that Mrs. Besant forgot a letter. At first it was claimed that she did not receive the letter at all. We heard Mr. Schrader in Munich say that the president could not possibly have received the letter about the Vollrath affair, otherwise she would have been mentally deficient. He left this out of his later account of the Munich days, which is full of inaccuracies, but such a distorted report is taken as the basis for our point of view and used against us. It is causing great outrage.

I believe that it is useless to cite more examples, but I ask again: Do they distinguish between truth and lies here or not?

Mr. Fidus: “They should.”

Pastor Klein: “There is an expression that a lady used earlier that I cannot let go unchallenged, because I would consider it downright dangerous if one were to follow the practice recommended therein, namely, that one cannot be passive enough towards demons. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that one cannot be sufficiently on one's guard against demons and cannot be sufficiently vigilant, and in the fight against them, the best defense is still the blow, the offensive attack. Did Christ perhaps practice passivity against the demons? I recall one of his most significant words: “I have cast out the strong armed one from the house! I will not even talk about his behavior towards the other demons – but it should be noted that he took action against them with a strikingly impulsive, relentless, ruthless harshness: these were 'untruthfulness' and 'hypocrisy', as they were particularly encountered by him on the part of the Pharisee sect. Think of the famous scene of the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem, after which he carried out the terrible general reckoning with the Pharisees, who, with their untruthfulness, distorted his teaching and, with their hypocrisy, presented themselves as so pious and behaved so hypocritically, while their attitudes and their deeds loudly testified against it. Against them, Christ Jesus hurls the sharpest and most abrupt expressions: 'You hypocrites', 'you fools', 'you brood of vipers', 'you whitewashed graves' Outside full of flowers, inside full of mold and decay, you blind guides, who are blind themselves and want to lead others. He knew that sincerity and honesty are the nerve of all morality; that where they are not, but untruthfulness and hypocrisy prevail, something dissolving, corrosive, and vitriolic is present that destroys every community.

We have not summoned such demons, they have approached us with the intention of destroying our work! To be passive in the face of this would be irresponsible. What we have had to hear today about the dishonesty practised by the Adyar leadership and the members of 'Star of the East' defies belief; and can you imagine greater hypocrisy than on the first page of a writing such as 'Message of Peace', one continually recommends peace unctuously as a theosophical virtue to one's opponent, while at the end one openly calls him a Jesuit?

Against such a procedure, behind which stand the two most dangerous demons of untruthfulness and hypocrisy, let us apply the 'Passivity of Christ', namely clear, conscious, energetic, ruthless resistance, defense, which in this case is self-defense.

Mr. Fidus: “I would just like to say two words. We cannot know the truth here, but we can only practice truthfulness. I know how to distinguish what has been said here. I just think that these apparent contradictions could turn out to be misunderstandings. If the board had been a little more willing to understand...

(Call to order)

Dr. Steiner: “You must not insult the board here. I cannot understand how anyone can use the words truth and truthfulness in the face of such blatant untruths; that must be taken as an insult. You can't just say anything that comes into your head. Please continue.”

Mr. Fidus: “... I want to respond to the reproach and the accusations... I don't want to sugarcoat everything, but there are individual things that can be taken...”

(The speaker becomes completely incomprehensible in his longer remarks.) (Shout: Enough!)

Dr. Steiner: “It is impossible for you to continue speaking in this way, objectively impossible. Consider just a little that there are also people who need their time. It is not acceptable to keep bringing up things that have really been refuted objectively, and we really need our time today.

Fräulein von Sivers: “I would just like to say that we are challenged by the fact that Dr. Steiner remained silent for so long. Mrs. Besant even accused us of withholding letters. It has been spread everywhere that we withhold letters. Mrs. Besant has appealed to every section to disseminate all her letters as much as possible. We maintained passivity for as long as possible. But since she challenged us, we printed the letters.

Dr. Steiner: “I must confess that it is quite uncomfortable not to be able to discuss things. During the time of the Leadbeater affair, Mrs. Besant sent a letter to a number of members, that letter contained the words that Leadbeater could only do such things if he was insane on one point. This was in June 1906. This letter has been partially printed. At the end of this letter, after the print, are the words:

'I have erred grievously in my judgment and insight, and must bear the karma of it. I dare not believe that the White Lodge could leave unheeded such evil thoughts and acts in the Temple, which is only open to those of pure heart. “If the day of my downfall should come, I ask those who love me not to shrink from condemning my error, not to sugarcoat it or say , but rather that they ease my heavy karma as I try to ease the karma of my friend and brother by upholding the unshakable purity of the ideal and by declaring that the fall of a man leaves their faith in the Masters of Purity and Compassion unshaken.

We should not confuse what comes from the Masters of Wisdom with what we weak humans do. The Masters know how to guide us so that they direct everything for the best of human development.

A person can fall, and his fall is also directed for the benefit of his development. Leadbeater fell, Judge fell, I will probably fall too. But I will not make Leadbeater's karma more difficult by calling black white and white black. And I urge all those who love me, when I fall, not to fail to call black black and white white.

These are the words of Mrs. Besant herself. I quote them because they are in the public press. I would not have quoted from Mrs. Besant's letter. I am convinced that those who do so now, those who call black black and white white, love Mrs. Besant more than those who now flatter them. Listen to the words of Mrs. Besant spoken in a good moment! That is something I might also be allowed to recall when people keep saying: “The people in Adyar were quite nice people, if you weren't such rabbits, everything would be fine.”

Mr. von Rainer: “If I take the floor here now, I feel compelled at this moment to emphasize the way in which we are going through this important transition today. If one is to speak about what Theosophy should be and should not be, then only one side of this important moment has been considered. The second side is that the Theosophical movement, if it is led correctly, has the mission to tear humanity away from what has led to a comfortable behavior today. This must not be overlooked. And we ourselves, a relatively small number, have the task of seeing with open eyes how things are today. On the one hand, people no longer want to believe that there is a truth, and yet they demand that everything that is presented should be heard and that we should accept it all. Love for one's neighbor and brother can be summoned up in the broadest sense, even if one also has the courage to say at the given moment: This is no longer something I can support.

When someone like me has come to this movement because they felt that something was missing, they feel in the deepest and broadest sense what it means to learn to appreciate the truth and to affirm it when it is recognized. That attacks can be made and met with approval in this way proves that something has died in the face of what has been shown to be the truth. All this shows us how necessary it is to truly call upon what must be called upon in our hearts if we truly want to feel connected to the ideal of humanity. And if we want to lend expression to this, if we want to feel what it means to be united with the ideal of humanity in this hour and in this sense, then we have to vent our feelings in the form of being outraged by what has happened and rejecting this other side from the bottom of our souls. That will be the first step. What else can we do if we cannot believe in the truth? We would have to smash everything inside us if we did not feel it our duty to reject what comes from the other side in such an outrageous way. And we must commit ourselves to the truth in a much deeper sense. It is not easy, but we can find it if we want. There is only one way to go.

I would like to invite you, in this sense, to express from our deepest feelings, perhaps by rising from our seats, our outrage at how our positive work is being suspected, how precisely by bringing in the accusation of Jesuitism, we are giving our Theosophical cause a character that cannot be conceived as worse by the public. In Germany and also here in Austria, no one should be able to say that those who can express such suspicions have any understanding of what Theosophy is supposed to achieve. I would like to repeat the request to accept this expression of our outrage.

(The assembly rises from its seats.

Mr. Tessmar: “What was on my mind earlier has been said by the previous speaker in a much more beautiful way than I could have said it. However, I would like to say: I am one of those people who feel it in their hearts. Last year, Mr. Bauer spoke of being asleep. I am not asleep, but I am one who is outraged. I have already been called to order today, I regret this call to order, but I have to say that I cannot take anything back, even if Dr. Steiner had to call me to order again.

(Call to order)

Whenever tolerance is mentioned, we listen as long as we can. But there are limits. When a crowd of people express their feelings, and very few want to tyrannize the assembly, it does not work. They feel what moves me, what burns in my heart, - I am in favor of striking when it is necessary. - We did not come here to listen to two or three gentlemen who bore us and waste our time. I would ask the meeting to declare vigorously that it wants to put an end to this."

Fräulein Riege: “I heard that Mr. Fidus, when he was cut off, spoke of a letter that he had to share. There was even talk of suppressing a message. It will be good to hear that.”

Fräulein Prellwitz: “Yesterday, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden sent us a letter from Mrs. Besant. In this insert, she answers for the first time in relation to Vollrath whether she lied or not in this affair.

Dr. Steiner: “Not to bore you, I made no mention of this insert. Mrs. Besant did write a letter in which she, as is her habit, distracts from the main issue and draws attention to a secondary matter. I didn't think, though, that there are people who would fall for this confused, this sophisticated letter. I must confess, Miss Prellwitz, that with your fine literary sensibilities, I don't understand how you can ignore the final sentence of this letter.

(The sentence is read out.)

‹As to the pamphlet, I had supposed that it contained something important, as Dr. Steiner was evidently very angry about it, saying that if its statements were true “a dog would not take food from us”. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a rehash of the original quarrels, stated in his letter to me, the language seems a little strong.

As for the pamphlet, I felt that it must contain something very important, since Dr. Steiner was obviously very annoyed about it, and says that if the statements it contained were true, 'not even a dog would take another piece of bread from us. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was only a rehash of the original disputes, as he explains in his letter to me, then the language seems a little strong.

[Rudolf Steiner:] “I have the letter that Dr. Vollrath wrote to Mrs. Besant in 1908. If she can write the above sentence about it, it only means that she is covering the old objective untruths with new objective untruths.

Wherever you look, you are confronted by bundles of untruths. Do you remember the last general assembly? Was it possible to speak of annoyance there? I am not annoyed with Mrs. Besant either. I have compassion for her, a lot of compassion; but that's why I can't call black white and white black. I therefore ask you to see how the letter here distracts completely from the main issue. In 1909 she writes: 'After I have heard all the details', and then later in 1912 she says she cannot distinguish right from wrong in it. I know that she heard right and wrong. Because I reported to her exactly. Who is able to write in May 1912: 'I don't know right and wrong', while in 1909 I tried hard to explain the matter to her, to officially educate her about everything, and then comes with accusations of the other, does not need to be considered. This is insult and nothing but insults.

Pastor Klein: “I move that the debate be closed. There should be no further debate on the expulsion of the members of the ‘Star of the East.’

(The motion is carried, and there is a long break in the proceedings.

(After a long break, the meeting is reopened at six o'clock.

Fräulein von Sivers reads out the English text of the statement to be sent to Adyar by the German Section to the General Council in response to Miss Besant's last letter.

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone wish to speak on this?

As this is not the case, I ask those who are in favor of sending this statement to the General Council to please rise from their seats.

(Everyone rises from their seats.

Dr. Steiner: “This documents that the members of the German Section who are gathered here consider themselves excluded from the Theosophical Society.

The German Section as it existed since its founding has hereby ceased to exist, and all functions of the German Section have ceased. And now it will become clear who wants to belong to us and who does not want to belong. We are now in a freer position, even if it fills us with pain.

I now ask our friends from outside the country who do not belong to the German Section to gather here with me tomorrow afternoon for a short meeting.

The next thing we have to discuss, because we have to give an account to our friends, is that we have to give a friendly report on the membership movement.

Mr. Ahner: “I am astonished that there are people here who do not belong to the German Section; I thought this meeting was only for members of the German Section.

Dr. Steiner: “You obviously have never attended a general meeting outside of the German Section, otherwise you would know that all general meetings, in whatever section they may be held, are open to all members of the Theosophical Society. This has always been the case.

Mr. Ahner: ”I beg your pardon.

Ms. von Sivers: “The number of members is 2489 compared to 2318 last year; 330 have newly joined, 132 have left or can no longer be found and have therefore been deleted, 6 have transferred to other sections, 14 have died, and 7 are in doubt. 3 new branches have been established: Augsburg, Erfurt, Hamburg II. The number of branches is 54, the number of centers is 4, and 1 center is dubious.

Mr. Seiler: “The cash report is as follows”:

Income:
Cash balance 1910/11 1446.68 marks
Foundation deeds 30,
Entry fees 1700, contributions 7781.37
Voluntary contributions 37.10
Interest 322.20
Income 11,317.35
Expenses 11,291.46
Cash balance on
August 31, 1912 25.89

Expenses:
Bureau expenses and fees 3030.70
Rent account (halls for general meeting, audiences) 1410.
Account of communications 1076.30
Postage, telegrams etc. 484.30
Expenses of various kinds 376.15
Business expenses, wages, etc. 1541.89
Adyar headquarters 1576.24
Section congress dues —,—
Printed matter 27,—
Transfer to bank account 1768.88
Expenses 11291.46 Marks

Balance of assets
Cash balance as of August 31, 1912: 25.89 marks
Balance at the bank: 3789.33
Movables: 457.65
Total assets as of August 31, 1912: 4272.87 marks

Mr. Tessmar, as auditor, reports that he and Ms. Motzkus have duly examined the books and found them to be in order.

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone wish to speak about these reports? Since this is not the case, I ask that our friends be granted discharge.

(The discharge is granted.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to the third point, the discussion of pending matters. Does anyone wish to speak on this? Since this is not the case, we come to the fourth point, proposals from the floor.

The first proposal is as follows:

To the Executive and the members of the
German Section of the

After the undersigned had become aware that the name of the Besant Lodge, originally founded in Berlin, had been abolished and that the same association had been given a different name, they decided to found a new lodge with several like-minded people to uphold the spirit of the principles originally prevailing in the Theosophical Society and represented by Mrs. Besant. The request to join the German Section was rejected by the Section's General Secretary, Dr. Steiner, on the grounds that the members of this new lodge belonged to the Order of the Star in the East, which he described as a “sect.” This was a purely personal opinion, which cannot possibly be decisive in such an important theosophical matter, because one could just as easily

right one could just as well make the same assertion about the “Anthroposophical Society.” In order to make the founding of the lodge in question possible, we were forced to seek affiliation with Adyar, which was readily granted to us. Nevertheless, this was only a way out for us, driven by necessity, and we cannot quietly accept the insulting, completely unfounded rejection of long-standing and completely blameless members who were always seriously endeavoring to work for the spread of the genuine theosophical spirit, nor the insulting exclusion from a community to which we belonged for so long, for the same meaningless reasons. Where is the principle of tolerance that is always mentioned first in Theosophy? We believe that it should not only respect different religious beliefs, but also allow freedom of thought in every respect, especially when it comes to such a high ethical task as that pursued by the Order of the Star in the East through its preparation for the appearance of a future world judge, as admitted by almost all religions. We believe that the equality of all world views, which is guaranteed to new members when they join the “Society”, must be upheld here if it is not to become an empty phrase and bring down the reputation of the “German Section”. We must therefore protest most strongly against the treatment we have received and ask the esteemed General Assembly for its support, so that we may be granted the right to affiliate our lodge to the German Section.

Berlin, January 6, 1913. The board of the Besant Lodge in Berlin.

[Rudolf Steiner:] “The application is signed: The board of the Besant Lodge in Berlin. I do not know the names of the board members of this branch. The second application reads:”

Proposal to the General Assembly of the
German Section (National Society) of the
Theosophical Society in Berlin in February 1913.

The undersigned propose that the General Assembly resolve:

1. The van Leer proposal adopted by the Ninth General Assembly on October 30, 1910 (Mitteilungen, Cologne, XI, page 8), according to which, in addition to the signatures of two guarantors for the admission of a new member, the third signature of the chairman of the relevant section branch is also required, is hereby repealed. 2. Furthermore, it is determined that the requirement of prior participation in a preparatory course for the admission of a member to the Society, which has been in use to date, shall no longer be applied. In the future, as in the other branches of the Society, acceptance of the purposes of the Society shall suffice for admission as a member of the German Section, without regard to the beliefs or other views of the applicant.

3. The amendment to $ 8 of the Section Statutes adopted by the Seventh General Assembly on October 26, 1908 (Mitteilungen, Cologne, VIII, page 7), according to which every member of the Executive Board who had been in office for seven years has become the non-removable holder of that office for life, is hereby repealed. From now on, the board shall be re-elected every three years at the general assembly.

Oberloschwitz - Weißer Hirsch, Jan. 7, 1913.
Hermann Ahner
Chairman of the Lodge of the Grail in Dresden,
currently Mitt. Schreiberhau i. Rsgb., Jan. 9, 13.

Hugo Höppener-Fidus, Dresden, January 11, 1913.
Rudolf Schaefer,
member of the Lodge zum Gral.

Reasons for this proposal:

1. The requirement of a third signature for the admission of a new member is an amendment to §§ 28 and 29 of the general statutes of the society. A section is not authorized to change these; it has even been explicitly stated in § 37 that the statutes of a section or national society must not contradict the statutes of the overall society ('not conflict'). In § 28, the signature of two members as guarantors is required for the admission of a new member. In § 29, the issuing of the membership diploma is then prescribed without further request. This intention is particularly strongly expressed by the word 'shall' used in the paragraph, instead of 'will', in accordance with the general rules of English legal practice.

2. and 3.: The measures to be derogated by this have the express purpose of establishing certain teachings in the Section in such a way that they, like the creed of a religious community, are required of the members of the Section. This purpose has been expressly emphasized as the motive for the introduction of these measures; this is authentically reported in the “Mitteilungen, Cologne, VIIL,

pages 6-7 and XI, page 8. These measures have always proven effective for this purpose, as world history teaches us. But it is precisely the purpose of the Theosophical Society to overcome the necessity for such measures and to make its members so spiritually independent that they can accept the esoteric truths and represent them rationally without such organizational protection. Such measures also contradict the main purpose of the Society: to form a core for the brotherhood of humanity without distinction of faith.

[Rudolf Steiner:] “The proposal is signed: Ahner, Oberloschwitz; Hugo Höppner-Fidus; Rudolph Schäfer.

I must point out that if this is correct, that every person who comes forward should be accepted without scrutiny, I would never have accepted the office of General Secretary, but would have suggested that a signature machine be purchased for the purpose. These proposals are also irrelevant, and the proposers must be referred to the fact that they now have to turn to the instance that is now being created, to those people who are willing to meet the unjustified demands of Adyar. Therefore, these proposals are to be addressed to the upcoming German section of the Society.

The next item we have to discuss is a proposal from Dr. Bachem, Frankfurt am Main. I am obliged to bring this matter before this forum because it is a purely human one.

(Letter from Dr. Bachem)

To the Theosophical Society, German Section;
for the attention of the Secretary General,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Berlin.

I hereby submit the following proposals to the Eleventh General Assembly:

1. The damages suffered by the Rödelheim foundation of [Fräulein] M. Stenzel, the former chairwoman of the “Goethe branch of the Theosophical Society in Frankfurt a.M., are to be compensated

a) by the funds of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

b) through a collection organized by the Secretary General within the Society.

2. The justification for proposal 1 is to be read at the General Assembly.

21.1.1913, Dr. Max Bachem, Frankfurt a.M., Finkenhofstraße 46.

Justification of the motion of Dr. med. Bachem, Frankfurt a.M., for the eleventh General Assembly of the Theosophical Society, German Section.

At the beginning of its founding, Miss M. Stenzel approached various members of the “Goethe branch” to vouch for the liabilities that had arisen. Mr. Roggenberg, deputy telegraph director, deposited 3,000 marks as a guarantee for the rent and committed himself to the rent, so Ms. Jahn and Dr. Bachem endorsed Stenzel's bill of exchange, which was used to pay for the furniture.

When Dr. Bachem was asked, he was told that this favor was a mere formality and that he would never have anything to do with the bills of exchange. He was also told that if Dr. Bachem were to be called upon to honor the bills, he would receive furniture in return.

The guarantees mentioned were taken over because [Fräulein] Stenzel stated that the Rödelheim foundation enjoyed the support and approval of Dr. Steiner. Director Roggenberg has lost 3,300 marks in cash.

In spring 1912, Dr. Bachem received a bill of exchange for almost 4,000 marks; [Fräulein] Stenzel and Frau Jahn, who had also been summoned, did not appear in court; Dr. Bachem agreed to a settlement under which he had to pay the bill of exchange in installments of 200 to 250 marks per month.

When Dr. Bachem tried to obtain furniture in the amount of his payments, he received nothing.

He had to interrupt his practice for a month in October 1912 due to illness, was then no longer able to make the payments, and was summoned to take an oath of disclosure on January 14, 1913, which [Fräulein] Stenzel and Frau Jahn had already taken.

His marital situation was largely destroyed by this affair, and his medical career was also severely hampered as a result.

During his last visit to Frankfurt am Main, Dr. Steiner stated that the injured parties should be compensated in the requested manner. Several letters from Dr. Bachem to Dr. Steiner on this matter remained unanswered; only once did he receive a letter from a lady who told him – allegedly on Dr. Steiner's orders – that Dr. Steiner would write to Dr. Bachem from his trip to Finland.

This appears to have been another case of abuse in the name of Dr. Steiner, as this letter never arrived.

Dr. Bachem's previous cash expenditure amounts to approximately 1950 Marks; he has been sentenced to pay 2792.40 Marks plus costs, and so on, and is expected to be sued this spring for a bill of exchange amounting to 8000 Marks.

January 21, 1913, Dr. Max Bachem, Frankfurt a.M.

[Rudolf Steiner:] “In addition to this letter, a letter arrived on the last day from Director Roggenberg, in which he states that he is very annoyed that Dr. Bachem is making this request and that he certainly does not want my name to be associated with this matter.

As for the matter itself, it must be said that there can be no question of Burg Rödelheim ever having been installed with my consent. It is a purely private matter for Fräulein Stenzel and has nothing to do with the Theosophical Society or with Section matters. Miss Stenzel has explained the matter. But so few of us are connected with this matter that I myself only learned of the completed foundation through the printed matter that Miss Stenzel sent out at the time. I must categorically refuse to have had anything to do with the matter before the explanation. In Frankfurt, I only said that it would be highly desirable, if possible, to compensate our Theosophical friends who have been so badly treated. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?"

Mr. Arenson: “Dear Friends! This case that has just been presented is indeed quite distressing, but I would like to put something else forward. This case is also typical, and we should see from it what conclusions can be drawn from carelessly tossed words, how in all such cases Dr. Steiner's name is dragged into it, and how people can be found everywhere who go along with it in some way. I would now like to ask you to make a decision to the effect that we regret the harm done to our friends, but that the assembly is not in a position to grant any kind of compensation, since the former

German Section is not at all the cause of such compensation. I would like to submit my request as follows: The meeting regrets that this has taken place. But it cannot be held responsible for compensation in any way.

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?”

Mr. Daeglau: “Perhaps it would be good to point out to our Theosophical friends that this example can be a very good lesson. It is often said how necessary it is to bring Theosophy into real life. Here an attempt has been made out of enthusiasm. This example shows that goodwill alone is not enough. Those who want to do something like this must also really know practical life in order to realize the Theosophical teachings in it. Anyone who has had the opportunity, as a businessman or as someone familiar with business, to observe this undertaking from the very beginning must have felt a pang of pain in their heart when they considered the consequences, when they saw what was being prepared. Enthusiasm alone is not enough, and it is not enough to rely on the fact that, as a theosophist, you are dealing with people who understand more about life than the entrepreneur himself. The person who wants to start a business is easily inclined to listen in and interpret the knowledge and opinions of others favorably. He undertakes it without having enough knowledge and makes mistake after mistake. But if the venture fails, he believes that all the cleverer people are also responsible for it. Let us continue to apply Theosophy to practical life, but let us also be practitioners and not just enthusiasts."

Mr. Lippelt: ‘Two members have fallen on hard times. I would like to appeal to the Society in general for help. A collection could be organized.’

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, Mr. Arenson will now read out his formulated request.

Mr. Arenson: ”The present assembly expresses its regret to Dr. Bachem that he has suffered damage in the manner described as a result of the Rödelheim-based company. However, it is not in a position to take any steps in the matter that could lead to the coverage of the debts he has contracted."

Dr. Steiner: ”It is really extremely difficult in such a case. If, on the one hand, Dr. Bachem has suffered damage, the situation is such that one would really like to help, but there is no end in sight to these things. Because it is not possible that if some theosophist decides to establish something here or there, and others let themselves be talked into it, and lose their money in the process, that the Theosophical Society as such can be held liable in any way. In principle, I must admit that it is difficult to understand how Dr. Bachem can sign bills of exchange and be told that this is only a formality and that he would never have anything to do with the bills. It is well-meaning, but really too careless to be told that signing bills of exchange is a mere formality. Of course, if a number of members want to do something about it, that would be very nice, but for us to do it as a whole, that really doesn't seem possible. So I ask those in favor of the Arenson motion to raise their hands.

(The request is accepted.)

Dr. Steiner: “We come to the next point. Reports of the branches. Does anyone wish to speak?”

Mrs. Dr. Grosheintz: “I just want to ask, what about the charter of the individual lodges?”

Dr. Steiner: “The question is settled. It would have been complicated if we had waited for each lodge to be asked to recognize the new General Secretary and to belong to Adyar: it is simpler, the members no longer consider themselves members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society. This is, after all, the truth. It is in the interest of the members to consider themselves as having been expelled from the section. Of course, each lodge can report to the new general secretary of the German section. A new charter (certificate of incorporation) will then be issued by the new Secretary General, who will be appointed, and those who wish to continue to belong to the Theosophical Society Adyar will have to join this new German Section or Adyar directly. In either case, they would no longer have anything to do with our movement, to which I am attached, because we want to work without being subject to the most nonsensical accusations. Those who want to have something to do with us should confess that faithfully, and those who do not want to do that can join the new German Section or Adyar. That is what it will be about in the future. The German Section and all its functions have ceased to exist. I have already explained at the opening of this friendly gathering that it was only with great pain that I and all those who understand the situation have seen what had to happen. It has happened because we considered it our duty to belong to the Theosophical Society, and we had to see with deep pain that this has been made impossible for us.

Our work has produced many things, and hardly a day has gone by recently when we have not been confronted with the obstacles and difficulties that have to be overcome when it comes to bringing a spiritual movement into the world honestly, sincerely and purely.

Let me mention one more purely symptomatic point, not to harp on trifles but to show how it is possible to arrive at a sound and healthy judgment despite constantly hearing such expressions: Everyone strives for the truth, but one cannot always know whether one is on the path of truth. But the one who seriously wants to can know in many cases what is truth and what is not truth. Anyone reading the “Message of Peace” will find that the quotations are all inaccurate. But to say that everyone strives for the truth, in such a case means that one does not want to see things as they really are. And if one does not want to see them, then one cannot understand them either. If the person who has quoted incorrectly says that he has added the word “only” to make the matter clear, then the answer is one that the author of the refutation has given very very cleverly: whether it serves to clarify if one says instead of: “My friend went on the ice and put on warm gloves,” “my friend went on the ice and just put on warm gloves.” (Great hilarity.) Clarifications are of this kind.

It would be desirable to open your eyes and see what it is actually about. For example, an announcement from a bookshop appeared with the words:

Dr. Steiner has already made a start in Germany, but the plutocratic-autocratic direction he represents is not suitable for promoting today's spiritual and social progress in an all-round way because of its one-sidedness. Therefore, a contemporary popular form had to be found that would make it possible for those treasures to be made available to the public in an undogmatic, freely accessible way and without clerical paternalism. These Rosicrucian lesson letters provide a conclusive overall picture of Rosicrucian research and world view. The beginnings of their development are to be found on German soil. They were further elaborated in the etheric atmosphere of California, which was much more favorable for Rosicrucian research.

It is necessary to be attentive, to open your eyes and not always be asleep as a theosophist. It would be advisable to see what has actually been developed in California. But I want to show you that you can draw the right conclusions if you want to by reading a letter to me from someone who is opening his eyes:

'Dear Sir, May I dare to approach you with one or even more than one question? First of all, I must mention that I am here for a short visit and that I live in Salina, Kansas, US. There, some time ago, two friends and I had a book sent to us that had been recommended by the Esoteric Library in Washington, D.C.; the book is called “Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception on Christian Occult Science by Max Heindel. In the preface, we noticed the peculiar way in which Mr. M. H. refers to the name of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, whose teachings are similar in the main lines of his teachings, etc., etc. - In short, the preface prompted me and later my friends to read your book 'Theosophy' and 'Initiation and its Results'. It is a mystery to us how it is that whole sentences in 'Cosmo-Conception' can be compared almost word for word with those contained in your books, and so we thought: 'Did that Mr. Max Heindel borrow the teaching that he is trying to spread in America, but mainly in California, from you?'

This is a letter from someone who looks at the facts and comes to a judgment. I only had to reply to him with the fact that Max Heindel lived among us under a name other than [Grasshoff] and listened to and copied many of my lectures and cycles. And it is indeed the case that in Germany, initially, a certain direction was established, and then, in a rather strange way, Max Heindel found a form that was “in keeping with the times...” (see above). Then the gentleman in question left and put something together from lectures of mine and presented it as something new.

We are learning some rather strange things. On the one hand, our work is presented here as plutocratic, as autocratic and as one-sided, and in the etheric atmosphere of California it is passed on as having matured and changed. Perhaps it will even come to the point that Max Heindel is simply translated into German, and then they will campaign against me with things that are my own. ... Therefore, I ask you to take a closer look at these things.

It was truly a martyrdom to work in the Theosophical Society, and it is also quite difficult to work when the co-workers do not take an interest in what is going on. It is then quite difficult to advance the matter.

It must be emphasized that we were faced with the fact that, for reasons of spiritual cleanliness, we were unable to join a movement, such as the Krishnamurti movement. And one must look at The Star of the East in such a way that a little boy is the head of this 'Star of the East', and if we wanted to have anything to do with this 'Star of the East', we would be sinning against the present spiritual current of our time. The father of the two boys has brought an action against Mrs. Besant to get his sons back. Anyone who is aware of the issues involved and who, out of their sense of truth, has nothing to do with the so-called 'Star of the East', can simply say in such a case: nonsensical demands become impossible demands. For I would like to know the person who, without delusion, has seriously examined the whole Krishnamurti affair and can still be a member of this Star of the East. That one could tolerate this alliance in a society seeking truth is impossible. But it is also impossible, in this case, to speak of tolerance or anything similar.

Even if, on the one hand, it causes us the deepest pain that we can no longer work within a society that has become dear to us, the truth, whatever the world may say, is this: We cannot help but stand on the ground of truth, in the face of which there is no playful skirmishing, no playful concepts. There are no different opinions about the fact that someone uses false quotations, that two letters do not match. Anyone who still speaks of the fact that one cannot decide does not want to stand on the ground of truth.

If we want to make progress, we can only do so on the basis of unvarnished truth, and we will be glad that in the future we will never again be confused with those who spread objective untruths and all kinds of nonsense. We will try to move forward. Those who join us in this way will find the way with us. But those who, even today, still find it easy to tell Adyar instead of the others that things could have been done either way, can only be told to support Adyar. But we only want to stand on the ground that has already been characterized as the ground of truth and truthfulness. There can be no other! And if anyone likes, they can use playful words to tell us that we are to blame for what has happened. In good conscience, we answer with the words that we are allowed to quote: Here we stand, we could not have done otherwise, the spirits of the world, the divine spirits, may help us. And so it may continue.”

My dear Theosophical friends! It is my honest conviction that it is basically a terrible imposition to present what I now have to present to such an assembly. You can be absolutely certain that I, feeling this, only resort to this description because things have recently come to light that make it our duty to refute suspicions and distortions with regard to our cause.

I will endeavor to present what needs to be presented as objectively as possible, and I will endeavor – since I obviously cannot present everything – to influence what I present subjectively only to the extent that the selection of what is to be presented comes into consideration. In doing so, I will be guided by the principle of mentioning what can be thought to somehow influence my entire school of thought. Do not consider the way in which I will try to present it as a form of coquetry, but rather as something that must appear to me in many respects as the natural form.

If someone had wanted to prepare themselves for a completely modern life, for a life in the most modern achievements of the present time, and had wanted to choose the appropriate conditions of existence for their present incarnation, then, it seems to me, they would have had to make the same choice in relation to their present incarnation as Rudolf Steiner made. For he was surrounded from the very beginning by the very latest cultural achievements, was surrounded from the first hour of his physical existence by the railroad and telegraph system.

He was born on February 27, 1861 in Kraljevec, which now belongs to Hungary. He spent only the first year and a half in this place, which is located on the so-called Mur Island, then half a year in a place near Vienna and then a whole number of boyhood years in a place on the border of Lower Austria and Styria, in the middle of those Austro-Styrian conditions of a mountainous region, which can make a certain deeper impression on the mind of a child receptive to such things.

His father was a minor official of the Austrian Southern Railway. The family was, after all, involved in circumstances that, given the state of affairs at the time, cannot be characterized as anything other than a “struggle against the poor pay of such low-level railway officials”. The parents – it must be emphasized, so as not to give rise to any misunderstanding – always showed a willingness to spend their last kreuzer on what was best for their children; but there were not many such last kreuzer available.

What the boy saw, one might say, every hour, were the Styrian-Austrian mountains on one side, often looking in, often shining in such beautiful sunshine, often covered by the most magnificent snowfields. On the other side, to the delight of the mind, there were the vegetation and other natural conditions of such an area, which, situated there at the foot of the Austrian Schneeberg and the Sonnwendstein, are perhaps among the most beautiful spots in Austria. On the one hand, that was what shaped the impressions that came to the boy. The other was that the view could be directed hourly to the most modern cultural conditions and achievements: to the railroad, with the operation of which his father was involved, and to what telegraphy was already able to achieve in modern traffic at that time. One might say that what the boy was confronted with was not at all modern urban conditions. The place where the station was part of, where he grew up, was a very small place and offered only modern impressions insofar as a spinning mill belonged to the place, so that one constantly had a very modern industry in front of one's eyes.

These circumstances must all be mentioned because they actually had a formative and challenging effect on the forces of the boy's soul. They were really not city conditions at all; but the shadow of city conditions came into this remote place. For it was not only – with all the effects that such a thing has – one of the most artistically designed mountain railways in the immediate vicinity, the Semmering Railway, but also close by were the springs from which the water of the Vienna mountain spring water supply was taken at that time. In addition, the entire surrounding area was frequented by people who wanted to spend their summer vacation in this mountainous area, coming from Vienna and other Austrian towns. But one must bear in mind that in the 1860s, such places were not yet as overrun with summer visitors as they were in later times, and that even as a child one entered into certain personal relationships with the people who sought out such summer retreats, so that one gained a kind of intimate relationship with what was going on in the city. Like the shadow of the city, what was revealed there extended into this small town.

What also came into consideration – anyone who has acquired a little psychological insight will see that something like this can come into consideration – were certain impressions, about which one can say nothing other than that they showed the dissolution of long-standing religious relationships in the closest circle of a small town. There was a pastor in the town where the boy grew up. I would just like to mention that I naturally omit all names and the like whose mention could cause any offense or even just hurt, since in such a presentation one often has to deal with people who are still alive or whose descendants are still alive; so that should be avoided, despite the desire to present in the most accurate way. In this place, we are dealing with a pastor who had no influence on our family other than baptizing my siblings; he didn't need to baptize me, since I had already been baptized in Kraljevec. Incidentally, he was considered a rather strange character at the train station where the boy I am talking about grew up, by the residents of the train station and by all those who were present at almost every train from the nearby spinning mill, since the arrival of a train was a big event. And the boy heard the parish priest in question referred to as nothing other than “our Father Nazl”, in a not particularly respectful way.

In contrast, there was a different parish priest in the neighboring village; he often came to our house. This other parish priest was, however, thoroughly disintegrated, firstly with Father Nazl and secondly with all the professional relationships in which he found himself. And if someone, even in the very earliest childhood that Rudolf Steiner had to live through, used the loosest words in front of the boy's ear about everything that was already called “secular” at the time – if someone used the loosest words in the presence of the four- to five-year-old boy about church affairs, it was that pastor, who felt he was a staunch liberal and who was loved in our house because of his self-evident free spirit. At the time, the boy found it extraordinarily funny what he once heard the pastor say. He had been informed of the bishop's visit. In such cases, even in such a small town, great preparations are usually made. But our free-thinking pastor had to be dragged out of bed and was told to get up quickly because the bishop was already in the church. In short, it was a situation that made it impossible for anything to develop other than what perhaps only Austrians know: a certain matter-of-factness about the circumstances of religious tradition, a matter-of-fact indifference. No one cared about it, so to speak, and took a cultural-historical interest in such an original personality as the aforementioned pastor, who was late for the bishop because he actually presented a strange sight. No one knew why he was actually a pastor. Because of everything else that interests a pastor, he never spoke; on the other hand, he often talked about which dumplings he particularly liked and what else he experienced. He sometimes went out about his authorities and told what he had to endure there. But this “pastor” certainly could not have given any guidance to zealotry.

The boy only attended the local school there for a short time. For reasons that need not be described in any detail – it is not necessary to describe anything inaccurately – which simply lay in a personal dispute between the boy's father and the school teacher, the boy was very soon taken out of the village school and then received some lessons from his father in the station office between the times when the trains were running.

Then, when the boy in question was eight or nine years old, his father was transferred to another railway station, which lies on the border between – as they say in Austria – “Cisleithania” and “Transleithania”, between the Austrian and Hungarian lands, but the station was already located in Hungary. But before we can talk about this relocation, something else must be mentioned that was of extraordinary significance and importance for the life of the young Rudolf Steiner.

In a way, the boy was an uncomfortable child for his relatives, if only because he had a certain sense of freedom in his body, and when he noticed that something was being demanded of him that he could not fully agree with, he was keen to evade that demand. For example, he avoided greeting or speaking to people who were among his father's superiors and who were also vacationing in the area. He would then withdraw and pretend not to understand the natural subservience that should be expected. It was only as a peculiarity that he refused to acknowledge this and often retreated to the small waiting room, where he tried to penetrate into strange secrets. These were contained in a picture book that had movable figures, where you pulled strings at the bottom. It told the story of a character who had a certain significance for Austria, and especially for Vienna: the character of the “Staberl.” It had become something similar, albeit with a local flavor, a cross between a Punch and a prankster.

But there was something else that presented itself to the boy. There he sat one day in that waiting room all alone on a bench. In one corner was the stove, on a wall away from the stove was a door; in the corner from which one could see the door and the stove, sat the boy. He was still very, very young at the time. And as he sat there, the door opened; he was naturally to find that a personality, a woman's personality, entered the room, whom he had never seen before, but who looked extremely like a member of the family. The woman's personality entered through the door, walked to the middle of the room, made gestures and also spoke words that can be roughly reproduced in the following way: “Try now and later to do as much as you can for me,” she said to the boy. Then she was present for a while, making gestures that cannot be forgotten by the soul that has seen them. She then went to the stove and disappeared into it. The impression made on the boy by this event was very strong. The boy had no one in his family to whom he could have spoken of such a thing, and that was because he would have had to hear the harshest words about his foolish superstition if he had told anyone about the event.

The following now occurred after this event. The father, who was otherwise a very cheerful man, became quite sad after that day, and the boy could see that the father did not want to say something that he knew. After a few days had passed and another family member had been prepared in the appropriate way, it did come out what had happened. At a place quite far from that train station in terms of the way of thinking of the people involved, a family member very close to the boy had taken his own life at the same hour that the figure had appeared to the little boy in the waiting room. The boy had never seen this family member; he had also never heard much about him, because he was actually somewhat inaccessible to the stories of the environment – this must also be emphasized – they went in at one ear and out at the other, and he actually did not hear much about the things that were spoken. So he did not know much about that personality who had committed suicide. The event made a great impression, for there can be no doubt that it was a visit by the spirit of the suicidal personality, who approached the boy to instruct him to do something for her in the period immediately following her death. Furthermore, the connections between this spiritual event and the physical plane, as just related, became equally apparent in the days that followed.

Now, anyone who experiences something like this in their early childhood and, according to their disposition, has to seek to understand it, knows from such an event onwards – if they experience it consciously – how one lives in the spiritual worlds. And since the penetration of the spiritual worlds is to be discussed only at the most immediately necessary points, it should be mentioned here that from that event onwards, a life in the soul began for the boy, to whom those worlds revealed themselves from which not only the outer trees and the outer mountains speak to the soul of man, but also those worlds that are behind them. And from that time on, the boy lived with the spirits of nature, which can be observed particularly well in such a region, with the creative entities behind things, in the same way that he allowed the external world to affect him.

After the aforementioned transfer of his father to the town on the border of Austria and Hungary, but still in Hungary, the boy went to the local farm school. It was a farm school with an old-fashioned set-up, as they existed at the time, where boys and girls were still together as a matter of course. What could be learned in this rural school did not even have a full impact on the boy in question, despite the fact that it was not particularly much, for the simple reason that the excellent teacher at this rural school – excellent in his way within the limits of what is possible – had a particular fondness for drawing. And since the boy showed an aptitude for drawing quite early on, the teacher simply took him out of the classroom while the other students were being taught how to read and write, and took him to his small room , and the boy had to draw all the time. He was taught to draw quite nicely – as some people said – one of Hungary's most important political figures, Count Széchenyi, relatively quickly.

Of course, there was also a pastor in that village. But the boy did not learn much from the pastor, who came to the rural school every week, in terms of religion. One can only say that it was not of particular interest to him. Not much was said about religious matters in the parental home, and there was no particular interest in them. On the other hand, the pastor once came to school with a small drawing he had made; it was the Copernican world system. He explained it to some boys and girls, from whom he assumed a particular understanding of it, so that the boy, who could learn nothing from the pastor in religion, understood the Copernican world system quite well through him.

The place where all this happened was a very peculiar place because, as it were, important political and cultural circumstances were looking in. It was just the time when the Hungarians began to magyarize and when a lot was happening, especially in such border areas, which resulted in the connection between different nationalities, especially between the Magyar and German nationalities. You still learned an extraordinary amount about significant cultural conditions – without everything being categorized at the time – so that the boy was also familiar with the most modern conditions.

What has now been misunderstood is that the boy, like the other schoolboys in the village, had to serve as altar boys in the village church for a very short time. It was simply said: “So-and-so has to ring the bells today and put on the altar boy clothes and do the altar boy duties.” This was not done for very long, but the boy's father insisted – for very strange reasons – that these altar boy duties should not be extended for too long. The boy was occasionally unable to avoid being late due to certain circumstances, and his father did not want his boy to receive the same blows as the other boys if he was late for ringing the bells. So he managed to have his son removed from this duty.

The circumstances at that time were also quite interesting in other respects. The pastor, who was not particularly devoted to his office, but did not let this be seen, was an extremely enraged Magyar patriot. It seemed wise to him – something that even a boy could see through – to turn against something that was emerging in this place at the time, and which shows how, even as a boy, one could study cultural-historical conditions quite well. A fierce struggle had broken out between the pastor and the Masonic lodge, which was located in the place that was already in Hungary as a border town. Such border towns were popular choices for the lodges. The local Freemasons raised the most incredible accusations against the church, in addition to the justified ones. And if you wanted to become familiar with what could be said against the clerical conditions, even in a justified way, you had plenty of opportunity to do so, even if you had not yet passed a certain youth.

Some things that do not exactly help to instill a special respect for the church in a boy should not actually be printed in a later edition, but they should be mentioned here. It did not exactly help to increase reverence for church traditions that the boy had to see the following. There was a farmer's son in the village who had become a clergyman, something of which the farmers are particularly proud. He had become a Cistercian, which the boy had not witnessed, but he saw what was happening now. At that time, a great celebration had been organized because the whole village was proud that a farmer's son had achieved so much. Five or six years had passed, the clergyman in question had been given a parish and occasionally came to his home town. Then you could see how a cart, pushed by a woman dressed in a peasant's costume and the clergyman, became heavier and heavier. It was a pram, and with each year there was one more child for this pram. From the first visit to this clergyman, one could see a remarkable increase in his family, which seemed more and more peculiar with each new year as an “add-on” to his celibacy. Perhaps it may be noted that in this way no care was taken to ensure that the boy had as much respect as possible for the traditions of the clergy.

It should also be mentioned that at the age of about eight, the boy also found a “Geometry” by Močnik in the library of the aforementioned teacher, which was widely used in the Austrian lands, and now set about studying geometry eagerly and alone, immersing himself in this geometry with great pleasure.

Then circumstances arose that could be characterized as follows: it was taken for granted in the boy's family that he should only receive an education that would enable him to pursue some modern cultural profession – every effort was made to prevent him from becoming anything other than a member of a modern cultural profession – these circumstances led to the boy being sent not to the gymnasium, but to the Realschule. So he did not receive any kind of education that could have prepared him for a spiritual vocation, because he did not attend a gymnasium, but only a Realschule, which at that time in Austria would not have provided him with the qualifications for a spiritual vocation at a later stage. He was quite well prepared for the Realschule by his talent for drawing and his inclination towards geometry.

He only had difficulties with everything related to languages, including German. That boy made the most foolish mistakes in the German language in his schoolwork until he was fourteen or fifteen years old; only the content repeatedly helped him get through the numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes. Because these are symptoms of a certain soul disposition, it may also be mentioned that the boy in question was led to disregard certain grammatical and spelling rules even of his mother tongue by the fact that he lacked a certain connection with what one might call: direct immersion in the very dry physical life. This sometimes came across as grotesque. One example: at the rural school the boy attended before entering secondary school, the children always had to write congratulations on beautiful, colorful paper for New Year and the name days of parents and so on. These were then rolled up and, after the contents had been learned by heart, the teacher put them in a so-called small paper sleeve; these were then handed out to the relatives concerned, reciting the contents, to whom they were addressed. That pastor, who once made an inevitably comical impression on the boy by shouting terribly when the local Masonic lodge was built, and because, to make an effective turn of phrase, the founder of the Masonic lodge was a Jew was - it was inextricably funny - proclaimed from the pulpit that in addition to being bad people, it was also part of being something like a Jew or a Freemason that that pastor had a boy at his parsonage - nothing bad is meant by this -. He also went to our school and wrote his congratulations there. Once, the boy Rudolf Steiner happened to glance at the greeting written by the boy who lived in the parsonage and saw that this boy did not sign his name like the others, but rather: “Your sincerely devoted nephew”. At the time, the boy Rudolf Steiner did not know what a “nephew” was; he did not have much sense of the connection between words and things when the words were rarely pronounced. But he had a remarkable sense of the sound of words, of what can be heard through the sound of words. And so the boy heard from the sound of the word “nephew” that it was something particularly heartfelt when you signed your congratulations to your relatives: “Your sincerely devoted nephew,” and he now also began to sign for his father and mother: “Your sincerely devoted nephew.” It was only through the clarification of the facts that the boy realized what a nephew is. That happened when he was ten years old.

Then the boy went to secondary school in the neighboring town. This secondary school was not so easy to reach. It was out of the question, given the parents' circumstances, that he could have lived in the city. But attending the secondary school was also possible because the city was only an hour's walk from where he lived. If – which was not very often the case – the railroad line was not snowed in during the winter, the boy could take the train to school in the morning. But especially in the times when even the footpath was not particularly pleasant, because it led across fields, the railroad tracks were actually very often snow-covered, and then the boy often had to walk to school in the morning between half past seven and eight o'clock through really knee-deep snow. And in the evening, there was no way to get home other than on foot. When I look back at the boy, who had to make quite an effort to get to and from school, I can't help but say that it is my belief that the good health I enjoy today is perhaps due to those strenuous wades through knee-deep snow and the other efforts associated with attending secondary school. It was thanks to a charitable woman in town who invited the boy to her house during the lunch hour – for the first four years of school – and gave him something to eat, that the boy's need, at least according to the information given, was alleviated. On the other hand, however, it was also an opportunity to see the most modern cultural conditions. For the husband of that woman was employed in the locomotive factory of that town, and one learned there much about the conditions of that industrial town, which were extremely important for the time. So even the most modern industrial conditions cast their shadows over the boy's life.

Now there were several things about school that interested the boy in an extraordinary way. First of all, there was the director of the secondary school, a very remarkable man. He was at the center of the scientific life of the time and devoted all his efforts to establishing a kind of world system based on the concepts and ideas of natural science at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. As a boy, he became acquainted with one of the school's programmatic essays, 'The force of attraction considered as an effect of motion', through his director's endeavors. And the matter started right away with very powerful integrals. The boy's strongest endeavor was now to read into what he could not understand, and again and again he read about it as much as he could grasp. He understood one thing: that the forces of the world and even the force of attraction should be explained by movement. The boy now aspired to know as much mathematics as possible as soon as possible in order to be able to understand these ideas. That was not easy, because you first had to learn a lot of geometry to understand such things.

Now something else came along. At that secondary school was an excellent teacher of physics and mathematics who had written a second program essay that the boy got to see. It was an extremely interesting essay about probability theory and life insurance. And the second impetus that the boy got from it was precisely that he wanted to know how people are insured from the rules of probability theory, and that was very clearly presented in that essay.

Then a third teacher must be mentioned, the teacher of geometry. The boy was lucky enough to have this teacher already in the second year of school and to get from him what later led to descriptive geometry and is connected with geometric drawing, so that on the one hand you had arithmetic and on the other hand freehand drawing. The teacher of geometry was different from the headmaster and different from the one who wrote the essay about life insurance. The way this teacher presented geometry and taught how to use compasses and rulers was extremely practical, and it can be said that, as a result of this teacher's instruction, the boy became quite infatuated with geometry and also with geometric drawing with compasses and rulers. The clear and practical way of teaching geometry was further enhanced by the fact that the teacher demanded that the books were actually only kept as a kind of decoration. He dictated what he gave to the students and drew it on the blackboard himself; they copied it, making their own notebooks in this way, and actually needed to know nothing other than what they had worked out in their notebooks. It was a good way to work independently. In other subjects, on the other hand, there was often a very good guide to help you keep track of everything that was going on.

As luck would have it, in his third year at secondary school the boy had the opportunity to be taught by the teacher of mathematics and physics who had written the essay on probability theory and life insurance. He turned out to be an excellent teacher of mathematics and physics. And when the man who has become of the boy, something shoots through the mind here, thinking of that teacher, it is that he would always like to lay his wreath in front of that excellent teacher of mathematics and physics. Now they really began to devote themselves to mathematics and physics, and so it could happen that it had become possible to get hold of Lübsen's excellent textbooks for self-teaching in mathematics, which were much more widespread then than they are now, relatively soon. With the help of H. B. Lübsen's books, the boy was able to understand relatively quickly what his principal had written about “attraction considered as an effect of motion” and what his teacher had written about probability theory and life insurance. It was a great joy to have gradually driven this understanding.

Now, the boy's life was complicated by the fact that he had no money to have his school books bound. So he learned bookbinding from one of his father's apprentices and was able to bind his own schoolbooks during the holidays. It seems important to me to emphasize this, because it meant something for the development of that boy to get to know such a practical thing as bookbinding at a relatively early age.

But there were other factors at play as well. It was the time of which we are now talking, precisely the time when the old system of customs, feet, pounds and hundredweight was replaced in Austria by the new metric system of measurement and weight, the meter and kilogram system. And the boy experienced the full enthusiasm that took place in all circumstances when people stopped calculating in the previous way with feet and pounds and hundredweights and began to use meters and kilograms in their place. And the most read book, which he always had in his pocket, was the now forgotten one about the new system of weights and measures. And the boy quickly knew how to tell how many kilograms a number of pounds made up and how many meters a number of feet, because the book contained long tables on this.

One personality who played a role in the boy's life must not go unmentioned: a doctor, a very free-thinking doctor, who – perhaps it will not be held against me – had a certain “far-sighted view of life”. As a result, he also had his idiosyncrasies, but in some respects he was an extraordinarily good doctor. But things happened to him, for example: the doctor was already known to the boy from the first railway station where the occult phenomenon took place. At that time, the following had occurred. The pointsman at the station there had a severe toothache. The doctor in question was also a railway doctor and, although he did not live there, had to treat the pointsman. And lo and behold, the good doctor wanted to get things over with quickly and sent a telegram saying that he would come by a certain train. However, he only wanted to get off the train for as long as it stopped, in order to extract the tooth during this time and then continue his journey immediately. The scene was set, the doctor arrived on the appointed train, extracted the switchman's tooth and continued his journey. But after the doctor had left, the switchman came and said: “Now he has just pulled out a healthy tooth, but the sick one doesn't hurt me anymore!”

Then the pointsman had a stomach ache, and the doctor wanted to get rid of him in a similar way. This time, however, the train he was coming in was an express that didn't stop at the station. So he ordered the pointsman to stand on the platform and stick his tongue out at him when the train passed by, and he would then pass on the message from the next station. And so it was: the pointsman had to stand there, sticking out his tongue, while the train passed by, and the doctor then phoned the prescription back from the next station. These were some aspects of this doctor's “broad view of life”. But he was a subtle, extraordinarily humane personality

The boy had long since studied the new system of weights and measures and had read up on integral and differential calculus. But he knew nothing of Goethe and Schiller except for what was in the textbooks – a few poems – and nothing else of German literature, of literature in general. But the boy had retained a strange, natural love for the doctor, and he would walk past the doctor's windows in the city, where the secondary school was, with a sense of true admiration. He could see the doctor behind the window with a green screen in front of his eyes, and he could watch unnoticed as he sat absorbed in front of his books and studied. During a visit that the doctor made to the latter village, he invited the boy to visit him. The boy then went to him, and the doctor now became a loving advisor, providing the boy with the more important works of German literature – sometimes in annotated editions – and always dismissing him with a loving word, also receiving him in the same way when he returned the books. Thus the doctor, of whom I first told you the other side, was a personality who became one of the most respected in the boy's life. Much of the literature and related matters that entered the boy's soul came from that doctor.

Now something peculiar turned out for the boy. He felt the greatest devotion for descriptive geometry through that excellent geometry teacher, and as a result something happened that may be mentioned, which had never happened before in that school or in any other school: that the boy in question received a grade in “Descriptive Geometry and Drawing” from the fourth grade on that was otherwise never given. The highest grade, which was difficult to obtain, was “excellent”; he had received “distinguished.” He really understood much more about all these things than about literature and similar subjects.

But there were also many other sides to the school. For example, throughout a number of classes, the history teacher was a rather boring patron, and it was extremely difficult to listen to him; what he presented was the same as what was in the book, and it was easier to find out by reading it in the book afterwards. The boy had devised a remarkable system that was related to his inclinations at the time. He never had much money, but if he set aside the pennies he received here and there for weeks on end, he could eventually save up something. Now, just at that time, Reclam'sche Universal Library had been founded, and among the first works to appear were, for example, the works of Kant. The first thing the boy bought from the Universal Library was Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He was between the ages of fourteen and fifteen at the time. His professor's history lectures bored him terribly. He didn't have much free time either, as there were many school assignments that had to be completed in the evenings and nights. The only time that could be usefully applied was the hour in which the history teacher lectured so boringly. Now the boy thought about how he could use this time. He was familiar with bookbinding. So he took the history book apart and glued the pages of Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” neatly between the pages of the history book. And while the teacher was telling the class what was in the book, the boy was reading Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” with great attention. And he was attentive because he managed to have thoroughly read Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” by the age of fifteen, and then he was able to move on to working through the other works of Kant. It can truly be said, without boasting, that by the age of sixteen or seventeen the boy had managed to absorb Kant's works, insofar as they were available in the Reclam Universal Library; for in addition to studying during history lessons, there was also the study during the vacation period. He devoted himself eagerly to Kant, and it was indeed a new world that opened up to the boy from a physical point of view as he studied these Kant works.

The time at secondary school was now coming to an end. The boy had a very modern school curriculum behind him. Two things should be emphasized. In the higher classes there was also a very good chemistry teacher who did not speak much, who usually only said the most necessary things. But on a table several meters long, all kinds of apparatus were spread out, and everything was shown. The most complicated experiments were carried out and only the most necessary words were spoken. And when another interesting lesson like that was over, the students would ask: “Doctor” – he preferred to be addressed as “Doctor” rather than “Professor” – “will there be experiments or exams next time?” The answer was usually: “Experiments”, and everyone was happy again. Examinations usually only took place in the last two hours before the certificates were to be issued. But everyone had always paid attention and worked hard in their lessons, and so it came about – because he was also an excellent man – that the students were always able to do something. It may be noted that it was the brother of that now again in Austria known personality, the brother of the Austrian-Tyrolean poet Hermann von Gilm, an important lyricist. It may well be mentioned here as an exception the name of a no longer among us, since only good can be said of him.

The other thing that should be emphasized is that near that place was a castle where a man lived, Count Chambord, who was the pretender to a European throne but was never able to take that throne because of the political situation. He was a great benefactor to the local area, and much was learned of what came from this castle of the crown pretender. Of course, the boy never had the opportunity to meet the count himself; but he was the talk of the town throughout the region. Even though he was a person whose views were shared by few, the shadow of important political events spread throughout the town, which allowed people to learn about them.

Now other things came along. The boy's interest, which had been sparked by Kant, gradually went so far that he also developed an interest in other philosophical things, and he now procured psychological and logical works with his rather limited means. He felt a particular affinity for Lindner's books, which, as far as psychology was concerned, were very good teaching aids, and even before he left secondary school he had become quite familiar with Herbart's philosophy from the threads that were followed. This had caused him some difficulty, however, because his German teacher, who was an excellent man and did a great deal for the school system, did not like the fact that the boy Rudolf Steiner was reading material that tempted him to write such terribly long school essays, sometimes even filling an entire notebook. And after the school-leaving examination, when the students were together with the teachers before graduating, as was the custom, he said to the boy: “Yes, you were my strongest phraseur, I was always afraid when your notebook came.” Once, for example, after using the term “psychological freedom,” he had advised the boy: “You really seem to have a philosophy library at home; I would advise you not to spend much time on it.”

The boy was also particularly interested in a lecture by a professor from the small town about “pessimism.” It should also be mentioned that there were later years in which history was taught excellently at secondary school. And then there was the boy's really thorough immersion in the history of the Thirty Years' War, because he was able to get hold of Rotteck's “World History”, which made a great impression due to the warmth with which the first volumes of this world history are written.

Of what is significant, so to speak, it may be emphasized that the boy only attended religious education out of duty for the first four years. When he was exempt from religious education from the fourth school year onwards due to the school curriculum, he no longer attended. Due to his family's circumstances, he was never taken to confirmation either, so he has not been confirmed to this day. So you are not dealing with a confirmed person. Because in the circles in which the boy grew up, it was a matter of course that you didn't go along with anything like the clerical institutions. On the other hand, it had made a deep impression on him that he was asked a question in physics during his high school graduation exam that was so modern that it was probably asked for the first time in Austrian schools. He had to explain the telephone, which had only just become widespread at the time. There really was a connection with the very latest developments. He had to draw on the board how to make a phone call from one station to another.

Now, after school, a whole range of philosophical longings had been awakened in the boy. The school-leaving examination was over, and his father had himself transferred to a train station near Vienna so that the boy could now attend university. It was during the vacation period that followed the school-leaving examination that a deep longing for the solution of philosophical questions really arose. There was only one way to satisfy this. Over the years, a number of school books had been piled up, and these were now taken to the antiquarian bookseller, where a nice little sum was received for them. This was immediately exchanged for philosophical books. And now the boy read what he had not yet read by Kant, for example his treatise of 1763 on the “Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Sizes into World Wisdom” or Kant's “Dreams of a Spirit Seer, Explained by Dreams of Metaphysics”, where reference is made to Swedenborg. But not only Kant, the whole of literature could be traced through individual representative books by Hegel, Schelling, Fichte and their students, for example Karl Leonhard Reinhold, by Darwin and so on. It came to Traugott Krug, a Kantian, who is no longer particularly esteemed today.

Now the boy was supposed to go to college. Of course, he could only go to a technical college, since he had no prior education for the studies associated with humanistic and ancient intellectual knowledge. He did indeed enrol at the Technical University in Vienna and in the early years he studied chemistry, physics, zoology, botany, biology, mineralogy, geology, mathematics, geometry and pure mechanics. He also attended lectures on German literary history by the lecturer in German literature at the Technical University, Karl Julius Schröer, who was closely connected with the boy's life.

Something very special happened in the first year of his university studies. Through a special chain of circumstances, a remarkable personality entered the boy's life, a personality who had no erudition but who had a comprehensive and profound knowledge and wisdom. Let us call this personality by his real first name, Felix, who lived with his farming family in a remote, lonely mountain village, had a room full of mystical-occult literature, had himself delved deeply into mystical-occult wisdom and who spent most of his time collecting plants. He collected the most diverse plants in the surrounding areas and, as a rare privilege for those who accompanied him on his solitary wanderings, was able to explain the essence of each individual plant and its occult origins. There were immense occult depths to this man. It was significant what could be discussed with him when he traveled to the capital with his bundle on his back, containing a large number of plants that he had collected and dried. There were very important conversations with this man, whom one calls in Austria a Dürrkräutler, one who collects and dries herbs and then carries them to the pharmacies. That was the man's external profession, but his inner one was quite different. It should not go unmentioned that he loved everything in the world and only became bitter – but that is only mentioned from a cultural-historical point of view – when he came to speak of clerical conditions and of what he too had to endure due to clerical conditions; he was not lovingly inclined towards that.

But something else soon followed. My Felix was, as it were, only the forerunner of another personality who used a means to stimulate in the soul of the boy, who was after all in the spiritual world, the regular, systematic things that one must be familiar with in the spiritual world. The personality who was now again as far removed as possible from all clericalism and naturally had nothing whatever to do with it, actually made use of the works of Fichte in order to connect certain considerations with them, from which things arose in which the germs of Occult Science, which the man who had become a youth later wrote, could be sought. And much of what later became “Occult Science” was then discussed in connection with Fichte's sentences. That excellent man was just as unsightly in his outward profession as Felix. He used a book as a point of reference, so to speak, which is little known in the outer world and which was often suppressed in Austria because of its anti-clerical orientation, but through which one can be inspired to follow very special spiritual paths and paths of the spirit. Those peculiar currents that flow through the occult world, which can only be recognized by considering an upward and a downward double current, came to life in the boy's soul at that time. It was at a time when the boy had not yet read the second part of Faust that he was initiated in this way into the occult. There is no need to say more about this point in the occult training of the present youth, for that is how the boy had grown up. For everything that presented itself to him remained in the soul of the youth; he experienced it within himself and continued on his outer path of life.

At first he was inspired by Karl Julius Schröer's lectures on literary history, on “German Literature since Goethe's First Appearance,” and by what Goethe had given, but especially by the “Theory of Colors” and the second part of “Faust,” which he studied as an 18- to 19-year-old youth. At the same time, he studied Herbartian philosophy, especially the “Metaphysics”. The young man, who had already been introduced to a great deal of philosophy, had experienced a strange disappointment, but for certain reasons he appreciated Herbartian philosophy. He had developed a joyful longing to meet one of the most important lecturers on Herbartian philosophy, namely Robert Zimmermann. This was indeed a disappointment, because one's estimation of Herbartian philosophy was greatly diminished when one heard Robert Zimmermann, who was otherwise brilliant but unbearable at the lectern.

On the other hand, there was a stimulus that was very beneficial for the mind, from a man who later also entered into the life of the personality under discussion here, the historian Ottokar Lorenz. The young man had little inclination to attend the lectures at the Technical University with pedantic regularity, although he took part in everything. In the meantime, he had also attended lectures at the university as an auditor by Robert Zimmermann on “Practical Philosophy” and also the lectures on “Psychology” by Franz Brentano, which at the time - but this was less due to the nature of the subject - did not make such a strong impression on the young man as his books did later, and which the man who had become the young man then got to know thoroughly. Ottokar Lorenz made a certain impression with his sense of freedom, because at that time – during the so-called “Austrian liberal era” – he gave very free-thinking lectures. And Ottokar Lorenz was the kind of character who could make an impression on very young people. He really spoke the harshest words in the college, set out as a historian with a lot of evidence about what was to be set out, and was a very honest person who, for example, after he had discussed some “difficult” circumstances, he was able to say: “I had to gloss over a bit; because, gentlemen, if I had said everything that could be said about it, the public prosecutor would be sitting here next time.”

It was the same Ottokar Lorenz, about whom the following anecdote is told – insofar as anecdotes are true: namely, truer than true. A colleague of his who was particularly interested in the ancillary sciences of history had a favorite student whom Lorenz had to examine when he came to do his doctorate. For example, the candidate was able to provide detailed information on the papal documents in which the dot over the i first appeared. And since he knew so much about everything, Ottokar Lorenz could not help but ask: “I would also like to ask the candidate something. Can you tell me when that Pope, in whose documents the dot over the i first appears, was born?” The candidate did not know that. Then he asked him further if he could tell him when that Pope died? He did not know that either. Then he asked what else he knew about this Pope? But the candidate couldn't answer that either. The teacher, whose favorite student the candidate was, said, “But Mr. Candidate, today you are as if a board had been nailed in front of your head!” Lorenz said, “Well, Mr. Colleague, he is your favorite student, who nailed the board in front of his head?” Such things did happen.

Lorenz was the favorite of the student body at the University of Vienna, and he was also rector at the University of Vienna for one year. It was now customary there for someone who had been rector to become pro-rector for the next year. After him, a very black radical was elected rector who was extremely unpopular. The students liked to play all kinds of cat music for him. Now Lorenz was the most vehement opponent of the cleric, who was a representative of canon law. That rector could no longer enter the university at all, because as soon as he prepared to do so, the noise started immediately. Then the vice rector had to come and restore order. As soon as Lorenz appeared, the students cheered for him. But Ottokar Lorenz stood there and said: “Your applause leaves me cold. If you – however differently we two may think – treat my colleagues as you do and cheer me, then I tell you that I, who am not worthy of scholarship to untie my opponent's shoe laces, care nothing for your applause and reject it!” - “Pereat! pereat!” it started, and that was the end of his popularity. Lorenz then went to Jena, and the speaker of this text met him several more times. He is no longer on the physical plane. He was an excellent personality. I can still vividly recall in every detail how he once gave a lecture on the relationship between the activities of Carl August and the rest of German politics. The next year, at the assembly of the Goethe Society, Ottokar Lorenz sat and we talked about this lecture that he had given, and out of his deep honesty came the words: “Yes, as far as that is concerned - when I spoke about Carl August's relationship to German politics, I made a terrible mistake!” So he was always ready to admit his wrongs.

In addition to a number of other personalities who made an impression on the young man at the time, an excellent man should be mentioned who, however, soon died, at whose lectures on the “History of Physics” the young man attended at the Vienna Technical University. It was Edmund Reitlinger, who also worked on the “Life of Kepler” and was able to present the development of physics through the ages in an excellent way.

Significant suggestions came in many respects from Karl Julius Schröer, who not only had an impact through his lectures, but also by setting up “exercises in oral presentation and written presentation”. There the students had to present, and there they learned the proper structure of a speech. In doing so, one could also catch up on some of the things one had not learned earlier in terms of sentence structure; in short, one was thoroughly instructed in oral presentation and written presentation. And I can vividly remember what the young man, who is being talked about here, presented at the time. The first lecture was on the significance of Lessing, especially on Laocoon; the second on Kant, and in particular on the problem of freedom. Then he gave a lecture on Herbart and especially on Herbart's ethics; the fourth lecture, which was given as a trial at the time, was on pessimism. At that time, a fellow student had initiated a discussion of Schopenhauer in this college through “oral lectures and written presentations,” and the young man in question said at the time in the debate: “I appreciate Schopenhauer enormously, but if what is the conclusion of Schopenhauer's view is correct, then I would rather be the wooden post on which my foot is now standing than a living being.” Such was the tenor of his soul; the young man wanted to defend himself against an ardent Schopenhauerian. That he would no longer fight him off now can probably be seen from the fact that he himself published an edition of Schopenhauer in which he tried to do justice to Schopenhauer's views.

Now at that time there was also a student association at the Vienna Technical University, and the young man in question was given the office of treasurer in this student association. But he only dealt with the cash at certain times; he was more concerned with the library. Firstly, because he was interested in philosophy, but also because he longed to become more familiar with intellectual life. This desire had become very strong, but he lacked the means to buy books, because there was little money. So it happened that after some time he became the self-evident librarian of that student association. And when books were needed, he wrote a so-called “pump letter” on behalf of the student association to the author of some work that they would like to have, informing him that the students would be extremely pleased if the author would send his book. And these “pump letters” were usually answered in an extraordinarily kind way by the books coming. In fact, the most important books written in the field of philosophy came into the student association in this way and were read – at least by the person who had written the fundraising letters. This enabled the person concerned not only to familiarize himself with Johannes Volkelt's “Theory of Knowledge” and the works of Richard Falckenberg, but also with the works of Helmholtz and with historical-systematic works. Many sent their books; even Kuno Fischer once donated a volume of his “History of Modern Philosophy.” In this way, the library came to include the complete works of Baron Hellenbach, who sent all his works at once after a collection letter was written to him. This provided ample opportunity to become familiar with philosophical, cultural studies, and literary-historical works. But one could also deepen one's view in other areas to a sufficient extent.

But then, through his personal and increasingly intimate contact with Karl Julius Schröer, who was not only a connoisseur but also a deeply significant commentator on Goethe, the young man began to take an interest in Goethe's ideas and especially in his ideas about the natural sciences. After the most diverse efforts had been made, Schröer succeeded in placing certain essays on the “Theory of Colors” written by the young man in a physics style.

He was then offered the opportunity to collaborate on the great Goethe edition, which was being prepared at the time by Joseph Kürschner as the Kürschner Edition of National Literature. When the first volume of Goethe's Scientific Writings, with Introductions by Rudolf Steiner, appeared, he felt the need to present the foundations of the sources of thought from which the whole view that had been presented here for an understanding of Goethe followed. Therefore, between the publication of the first and second volumes, he wrote The Theory of Knowledge of Goethe's World View.

From before, from the beginning of the 1980s, only a few essays are worth mentioning: one that was published under the title “Auf der Höhe”, one about Hermann Hettner, one about Lessing and one about “Parallels between Shakespeare and Goethe”. Basically, these are all the essays that were written at that time.

Soon Rudolf Steiner became involved in extensive writing by becoming a collaborator on Kürschner's German National Literature and having to take care of the publication of Goethe's scientific writings with the detailed introductions. It should also be emphasized that, just as the student association had been a kind of support for him earlier, the Vienna “Goethe Association” now became one, with Karl Julius Schröer as its second chairman. It was also a further incentive for Rudolf Steiner that Schröer invited him to give a lecture to such an assembly, as the members of the Vienna “Goethe Association” were, after the first Goethe volumes had appeared. And there Rudolf Steiner gave his lecture on “Goethe as the Father of a New Aesthetic”.

At that time, after he had left the School of Spiritual Science, the person whose life circumstances are to be presented here had become an educator. From the age of fourteen, he had to give private lessons, teach other boys, and continue this teaching later in order to make a living. While he was attending the School for Spiritual Science, he had quite a number of pupils. One could say that he was lucky to have quite a number of pupils whom he tutored or educated. This went hand in hand with his joining the Goethe Society.

Then he became a governess in a Viennese house. With regard to this house, it must be said again that something shone in here that radiated from the most modern circumstances. For the master of this house, whose boys were to be educated by Rudolf Steiner, was one of the most respected representatives of the cotton trade between Europe and America, which can lead one most deeply into modern commercial problems. He was a decidedly liberal man. And the two women, two sisters — two families lived together in this house, so to speak — were quite outstanding women who had the deepest understanding, on the one hand, for child education and, on the other hand, for the idealism that was expressed in Rudolf Steiner's “Introduction to Goethe's Scientific Writings” and in “The Theory of Knowledge”. Now it became possible to learn practical psychology, so to speak, by educating a number of boys. Practical psychology also arose from the fact that one was allowed to develop initiative in all matters concerning education, because one could encounter such a deep understanding, especially with the mother of these boys. What Rudolf Steiner undertook was an educational task that he had to carry out over many years. And he spent these years in such a way that, alongside his teaching work, he was also able to devote himself to working on his essay on the introduction to Goethe's scientific works.

Up to this time, Rudolf Steiner had completed a secondary modern school, had spent time at the Vienna University of Technology and was now living as a teacher of boys who had themselves attended secondary modern school, only one of whom had attended grammar school. Because one of them attended grammar school, Rudolf Steiner was now obliged to catch up on grammar school. So it was out of this necessity that, after he had reached the age of twenty, twenty-one, he was able to catch up on the grammar school with the boys, and only that enabled him to gain his doctorate later.

So things turned out in such a way that before the age of twenty Rudolf Steiner had nothing to do with anything other than a secondary modern school, which in Austria never prepares students for the clergy but actually discourages them from entering the ministry. Then he went through a technical college, which also does not qualify for the spiritual profession, because chemistry, physics, zoology, botany, mechanics, what relates to mechanical engineering, geology and so on, was also done, as well as newer geometry, such as the “geometry of the situation”. During my time at university, I also immersed myself in a wide range of philosophical works, and then, as I became more intimate with Schröer, I approached the Goethe editions. And then came what one might call my “professional” life: teaching, which – because I had to develop a psychological eye for the difficult circumstances of the boys, given their abnormalities – could be called “practical psychology”. So this time really did not pass, as other people want to know, at the Jesuit College in Kalksburg – now another place is being mentioned again – but the time passed in the educational work in a Viennese Jewish house, where the person in question certainly had not the slightest instruction to develop a Jesuit activity. For the understanding that the two women developed from the idealism of the time or from the educational maxims for children was not at all suited to come close to Jesuitism.

But there was something that, so to speak, looked in from the world of Jesuitism like a shadow. And that came about like this. Schröer made the acquaintance of the Austrian poet Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, who lived in the house of a Catholic priest, Laurenz Müllner, who later went on to the Faculty of Philosophy. And one need only read the writings of Marie Eugenie delle Grazie to see immediately that Müllner had no intention of bringing her under Jesuit influence. But one also came together with all kinds of university professors. Among them was one who was a scholar in Semitology, the Semitic languages, and who was a profound expert on the Old Testament. He was a very learned gentleman, of whom it was said that he knew “the whole world and three villages about it”. But the conversations I had with him that were significant to me were those that related to Christianity. What this scholar said about Christianity at the time related to the question of the “Conceptio immaculata”, the immaculate conception. I tried to prove to him that there is a complete inconsistency in this dogma, which is not only about the immaculate conception of Mary, but also about that of Mary's mother, Saint Anne; since you would then have to go further and further back. But he was one of those theologians for whom the term “theologian” was not at all onerous, a thoroughly liberal theologian, and he added: “We can't do that now; because then we would gradually arrive at Davidl, and that would be a bad thing.”

In this tone, the conversations in general took place in Professor Müllner's house at the “Jour” of delle Grazie. Müllner was a sarcastic spirit, and the professors were also liberal-minded men. What shone through from the other side actually came only from a man who had something of a Jesuit spirit, who later met a tragic end. He drowned in a shipwreck in the Adriatic. This man was a church historian at the University of Vienna. He spoke little, but what he said was not suitable for favorably representing the other element. Because there was a rumor about him that he no longer went out on the streets at night for fear of the Freemasons. So he could not arouse particular interest in Jesuitism, firstly because he was not a good church historian, and secondly because of such talk. He always disappeared before dusk.

At that time, there was also an opportunity to gain a more thorough insight into Austrian political conditions, and this came about through my being able to edit the “Deutsche Wochenschrift” founded by Heinrich Friedjung. This represented a decidedly liberal point of view with regard to Austrian conditions, which anyone can study by familiarizing themselves with what Friedjung had available. This period also brought Rudolf Steiner into contact with the other political conditions and personalities. Although this editorial work was very brief, it took place at a very important time: after the Battenberger was expelled from Bulgaria and the new Prince of Bulgaria had taken office. This provided the signature for how to get an accurate picture of the cultural-political conditions.

Now a work appeared at that time that is quite significant, even if some may consider it one-sided, namely “Homunculus” by Robert Hamerling. “Homunculus” was particularly significant for the person whose life circumstances are to be described here because Rudolf Steiner had already become acquainted with Hamerling earlier. Although Rudolf Steiner was born in Kraljevec, his family came from Lower Austria, from the so-called “Bandlkramerlandl”, where people can be seen carrying ribbons made there on their backs. That is where the family came from. And as it is, families in such occupational circumstances are scattered everywhere, and the boy never returned to Lower Austria. But in a certain respect he was, after all, from the same “Bandlkramerlandl” (a region in Lower Austria) where Hamerling also came from.

Hamerling was not given much credit. But in his case one could say that he enjoyed, if not a Jesuit, then at least a monastic education. But that is not the case with the person standing here before you. Robert Hamerling was not recognized either, because when he visited his homeland again later and said to the innkeeper there that he was Hamerling, the innkeeper replied: “Well, you... you Hamerling, you mushroom...”

It was taken as an occasion to send Hamerling the 'Epistemology of Goethe's World View'. How Hamerling received it can be seen from the 'Atomism of the Will', where it is used in a most important chapter - the chapter on the nature of mathematical judgments - in a way that seems to me today to be completely original. There was a correspondence, albeit not for very long, with Robert Hamerling, which was important for Rudolf Steiner in a certain respect, because, according to a letter he had written to Hamerling, this fine stylist told him that he wrote an extraordinarily sympathetic, beautiful style and that he had a certain talent for powerfully expressing what he wanted to express. This was extremely important for Rudolf Steiner, because in those years he did not yet have much confidence in himself, but now, with regard to the question of style in presentation, he had more confidence in himself than before thanks to Robert Hamerling. It is necessary to mention that up to the age of thirteen or fourteen the boy could write very little correctly, grammatically and orthographically, and that only the content of his essays helped him to overcome his grammatical and spelling mistakes.

When the Goethe edition was nearing completion and Rudolf Steiner had caught up on humanistic-ancient culture in teaching with his boys, the time came when he could do his doctorate. He had also been able to gain a truly artistic and architectural perspective due to the fact that the great architects of the time were living in Vienna, and he had formed relationships with them through his work at the Vienna University of Applied Arts, where he became personally acquainted with them. It should be mentioned that the Votivkirche, the Rathaus, the Parliament building and others were being built in Vienna at the time. This allowed one to stimulate many connections with art. At that time there were also - and this may also be mentioned - fierce debates with the enraged Wagner fans, because the one who is being talked about here could and only had to struggle through to recognize Richard Wagner, to an acknowledgment that is of course known from other representations.

The acquaintance with a spiritual current, which, although it had begun earlier, was only just emerging in Europe at that time, also continues to play a role in that period. It is the acquaintance with what H. P. Blavatsky spread as the theosophical direction. And the person under discussion here can point out that he was indeed one of the first buyers of A. P. Sinnett's “Esoteric Buddhism” and Mabel Collins' “Light on the Path”. He brought this book, which had just been published, to the bedside of a well-known lady who was very seriously ill at the time, and gave her a great deal of guidance to help her understand the book from her point of view. He also brought it to a man who needed to be prepared by him for the Austrian officer's examination in integral calculus and mathematics. He lived in the family home where the very seriously ill lady was.

At that time, the Viennese representatives of the Theosophical movement also approached me. The person in question developed a very friendly and intimate relationship with everyone who was associated with the recently deceased Franz Hartmann during this time, as well as with other Theosophists. That was in the years 1884 to 1885, when the Theosophical movement was just beginning to become known. At that time it was not possible for the person under discussion here to join this movement, although he knew it very well, because the whole behavior and the whole behavior of the people, the so-called inauthentic - that should used here only as a technical term - was not compatible with what had finally developed in the case of the person described here: a scientific exactitude, accuracy and authenticity anchored in the life of the senses. This is not meant as self-praise, but rather I ascribe it more to what has emerged as a result of the erudition of our time. Whatever else one may object to about this erudition, it cannot be objected that the greatest, sharpest logic could not arise from it.

So it happened that the person in question personally met valuable people within the theosophical circle, such as Rosa Mayreder, who later turned away from the theosophical direction altogether. He also became familiar with the whole movement in an outwardly historical sense, but he could have nothing to do with it and it was only later, when he was led to delve into Goethe's Fairy Tale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily, that he was able to apply in a practical way, so to speak, what he had to say in a theosophical sense. In commenting on this fairy tale, he first applied in practice what had always lived in his soul since the first occult manifestation mentioned. That was in 1888, after he had thoroughly become acquainted with the Theosophical movement, but had not been able to join it externally, although he had met valuable people there.

One particularly strong impression should also be mentioned, an impression at an art exhibition in Vienna, where the works of Böcklin were seen for the first time in 1888 by the man whose life is described here, namely “Pietà”, “In the Play of the Waves”, “Spring Mood” and “Source Nymph”. These were works that gave him an opportunity to engage with ideas about painting in a lasting way, because he naturally wanted to get to the bottom of the matter – in a similar way to Richard Wagner, where the starting point was the debates mentioned – and then to become particularly involved in this area of art, which later found its continuation in Weimar.

Once the person to be described was ready, it was decided that the editorial work for the great Weimar Goethe Edition would be distributed among individual scholars. For those who were then commissioned by Grand Duchess Sophie of Weimar to distribute the individual works, the idea arose to initially assign only Goethe's “Theory of Colors” to him. But later, when Rudolf Steiner came to Weimar to work on the 'Theory of Colors', he was also given the task of working on Goethe's scientific works, particularly because he came into a warm and intimate relationship with Bernhard Suphan, who met such a tragic end. Thus began that Weimar period, during which a scientific and philological activity was developed by the person to be portrayed. The person concerned has never been particularly proud of the actual philological work, however. He could point out many mistakes in this regard and does not want to gloss over some of the blunders he has made.

After Rudolf Steiner had moved into the old Goethe-Schiller Archive – it was still housed in the castle – he had other important experiences. Domestic and foreign scholars came again and again, even from America, so that this Goethe-Schiller Archive became a meeting point for the most diverse scholarship. Furthermore, it was possible to see the emergence of a wonderfully ideal institution; for it was the time when the new Goethe-Schiller Archive was being built on the other side of the Ilm. At the same time, there was a unique opportunity to immerse oneself in old memories that were still linked to the Goethe-Schiller period. And it was also an opportunity to grow together with the most diverse artistic interests, because Weimar really was the meeting point for many artistic interests – Richard Strauss also started there.

After the “Fairytale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily” was interpreted by Rudolf Steiner, intensive work on Goethe came to the fore. But in addition to deepening his knowledge of Goethe, he was also working on the “Philosophy of Freedom” at the time; he had already brought the treatise on “Truth and Science” with him to Weimar. He still went to Vienna a few times, once to give a lecture at the Goetheanum on the 'Fairytale of the Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily'; a second time to give a lecture at a scientific club on the relationship of monism to a more spiritual, more real direction. That was in 1893. The paper can be read in the 'Monatsblättern des Wissenschaftlichen Clubs in Wien'. In this lecture, Rudolf Steiner discussed in detail the relationship between philosophy and science. The lecture then ended with a clear description of his relationship with Ernst Haeckel and highlighted everything Steiner had to say about Haeckel in the negative.

It is now well into the night, so it is not possible to speak about the following in as much detail as the previous. It is not necessary either. But you could, if you were to research much more about what happened up to the Weimar period and explore the circumstances - apart from the fact that things speak for themselves enough - find the clearest evidence everywhere of what is a great perversion of the truth, if that strange accusation has been raised, which has now been repeated by the president of the Theosophical Society on a special occasion, that I was “educated by the Jesuits”. I have just been handed a copy of the magazine Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, which, as is well known, is published by Jesuits. It contains a discussion of a book about Theosophy, which includes a remarkable sentence. A book has been published that is opposed to Theosophy and written by a Jesuit priest. At the end of the review, it says: “The first part deals with the movement in general, its esotericism and false mysticism. The second part goes into detail, refuting the theosophical musings on Christ. [...] The works to which the critic usually refers are by Rudolf Steiner, the (reportedly) apostate priest and current General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, “Christianity as Mystical Fact” and Miss Besant, the President of the Theosophical Society (Headquarters Adyar), “Esoteric Christianity; both books have already been translated into Italian.”

That Rudolf Steiner was an “apostate priest” is even stated in the Jesuit magazine itself, in the “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach”, so that the Jesuits can claim the honor of spreading this claim for themselves. But just as age does not protect against folly, so Jesuitism does not protect anyone from unjustly claiming an objective untruth. And if such a distortion of the facts is even spread by the Jesuits themselves, then one could be of the opinion that this should be all the more reason for Mrs. Besant to be suspicious of it. But Mrs. Besant goes on to explain these things, and they are carried further. I even had to confront these things myself from the podium once when I was in Graz. It is also claimed that I received a Jesuit education in Kalksburg, near Vienna. I never saw Kalksburg Abbey, even though my relatives were only three or four hours away from it. And the other place – Bojkowitz – which is mentioned in the same context, I only learned about by name in the last few days.

All these details, which I consider a kind of imposition to tell you, will probably explain to you how right one is to regret the time wasted in rejecting such foolish accusations. Therefore, no fuss was made about the accusation. But when this accusation is now raised by the President of the Theosophical Society, there is a need to counter that claim with the actual course of my upbringing, to describe how it really happened, namely as a kind of self-education. Everything I have told you about the boy, the youth and the later man Rudolf Steiner can be documented, and the facts will prove in every detail the utter foolishness and nonsense of the assertions that have been made. We need not dwell on their moral evaluation. What has been said and what can be said later are facts that can be verified at any time and can be relied upon. But the question can be raised: by what right and from what sources does Mrs. Besant speak of what she says about my “upbringing”, of which I “was not able to free myself sufficiently”? And by what right and from what sources will her followers perhaps - since they do not care about the objections made here - continue to assert these things? Perhaps some people will even come up with the idea that Mrs. Besant is clairvoyant and has therefore perhaps seen everything that she summarizes in the grandiose words: “He has not been able to free himself sufficiently from his youth education.” It would be better to correct what comes from Mrs. Besant's clairvoyance and to test this clairvoyance precisely on such a factor. There is no other way to counter this “clairvoyance” than to cite the facts. And I had to bore those who want to stand by us at the starting point of our anthroposophical movement with the fact that I presented them with the alternative: either to look at the facts, which can all be proven in detail and which , or to accept the uncharacterizable remarks made by Mrs. Besant at the last Adyar meeting of the Theosophical Society, which were probably inspired by her clairvoyance after the votes of her followers.

Address by Rudolf Steiner before and after the cycle “What significance does the occult development of the human being have for his sheaths and his self?” (GA 145)

My dear Theosophical friends!

We are gathered here for the first time for a cycle after those of our friends who were able to recognize the current state of our Theosophical endeavors joined with the members of the former German Section of the Theosophical Society who – there is no other way to put it – were expelled from our Theosophical Society. It is necessary, my dear friends, at this moment, when I have the honor of welcoming you to this particularly solemn cycle, to add a few words to this warm, theosophically sincere greeting. This is necessary because our friends may often have the opportunity in the near future to speak a word here or there about the true facts of the events that have taken place recently among us and our friends.

We have been able to see from a variety of letters and statements that here and there it has not been felt as natural that we had to choose the mode for our events, for our internal events, not to admit members of the Theosophical Society, insofar as it is administered from Adyar, to these our internal events. It has been shown that this necessary measure has not been perceived as such everywhere, and that in some places it has been thought that we would have done better not to take this measure so strictly in order to maintain peace or the like. Nevertheless, my dear friends, when you really consider everything that has happened, you will be able to, and indeed must, defend to everyone that this measure had to be taken at the appropriate moment. You must only consider that the German Section did not, as one could formally interpret it, leave the Theosophical Society, but in reality was nevertheless expelled, expelled again for a reason that can be formally defined in the very special way that one could even dare to say that the German Section had violated some statutes of the Theosophical Society! For one will say: This German Section has expelled the members of the Star of the East, thus expellers of a particular opinion, from their body. It must be borne in mind that everything had previously been done from the other side, that the German Section could not help but no longer admit to the events of the German Section, not only the members of the Star of the East, but also the personalities who came into consideration within Germany as members of the Star of the East. For the moment the 'Star of the East' made its entry into Germany, it set itself with the declared intention of being hostile to the German Section; in particular, it endeavored to express the system which, among other things, was also expressed in such a - one might say - hidden, peculiar way in the last March 'Theosophist'. The personalities who had adopted the flag of the Star of the East tried to present our work to the world as if it had ever been our intention to exclude any spiritual opinion or point of view from our endeavors.

Thus, a full-scale attack, based solely on objective untruth, was launched against the German Section. And all the measures that were of a milder nature had remained ineffective against this subversive work, which repeatedly and increasingly came to the point of vilifying the entire character of our efforts before the whole world, so that we were forced, for the sake of the possibility of our work, to declare that we could not work with those personalities in Germany who had joined the “Star of the East”. Similar attacks were indeed made by personalities of the “Star of the East” from abroad. The measure that was then taken against the “Star of the East” was nothing more than a defensive measure, and anyone who presents it differently is not telling the truth about it. A necessary defensive measure, provoked by the fact that our work would not only have been disrupted but simply made impossible if we had not resorted to this measure. Our work can truly be characterized by pointing out that there were indeed lodges among us that worked quite differently than we did, but that not a hair on their heads was touched. We “chartered” all the lodges that took a completely different position from the one we ourselves held. But when, with the subversive activities of the Star of the East in mind, lodges were to be founded that were already attacking in their title, not only our work but also the truthfulness and honesty of our Theosophical beliefs, then the defensive measure was necessary for the reason that we would have become untrue people if we had somehow created such lodges.

Thus we were forced to either become untrue deep inside or take this defensive measure against the members of the Star of the East. The tactic can always be presented in a strange light if one first wants to force someone to act and then describes this action as unlawful. It may be said that it has actually happened in few measures in the world that one has behaved in such a way; but that was reserved for the present Theosophical Society to such a high degree.

If you also read the letter that Mrs. Besant wrote to the General Secretary of the Section at that time regarding the impending expulsion of the German Section, you will see this letter as nothing other than a real expulsion. You will have to say to yourself: If the German Section had not seen it that way, then it would have been on false ground.

But then you have to bear in mind that this was preceded by a circular letter from me to the General Secretaries, in which the actual state of affairs was explained in detail. This circular letter contained real documents for the assessment of the situation. It was a distressing experience that apart from the General Secretary of the Scandinavian Section, who has since resigned, there was not a single person in the body of General Secretaries and the General Council who was willing to respond to what I had put forward. Everything that came from the General Secretary was worded in such a way that it was assumed from the outset that all the representations from Adyar were the only authoritative ones that could serve as a basis for assessing the facts. It is a sad fact that resulted from my circular letter at the time. One could say that one might be overcome by a justified sense of pain at the fate of the Theosophical Society when one sees the general deafness of an entire body to the facts that have been openly stated.

And the crowning touch to the whole system was provided by a speech delivered by Mrs. Besant at the representative assembly at Adyar during this convention, in which she showed how completely she lacks any ability to gain a relationship with that necessary sense of duty that one must have to first examine the facts and then make an assertion. Mrs. Besant has, as is well known, made the assertion that my education was conducted by Jesuits. One cannot say anything that would more absurdly and foolishly belie the truth than this claim, which was hurled into the assembly by the leadership of the Theosophical Society at the same time when we had our lecture cycle in Cologne, in the presence of numerous friends, including some from this country, in which we were once again able to affirm how we were trying to stand firmly and truly on the good ground of the old Theosophical Society. My dear Theosophical friends, you should feel the full anomaly of such a fact. Not only that this had happened, but Mrs. Besant had the audacity, the unenviable audacity, to carp an answer to the facts I had presented in the booklet of “Mitteilungen,” where I was first forced to describe the facts, at the end of which she placed the words, these are her last words in this matter.

My dear Theosophical friends, based on our experiences so far, it is possible that there are still people in the Theosophical Society who could add something to this answer. In this answer, one could look for a word that would correspond to objective truth: one would find nothing, because in this answer, almost everything is turned upside down, and in such a way that with an enormous verbiage, this turning of things upside down has been carried out. It is truly wonderful that someone can be found who is capable of turning things upside down in such a way; each sentence includes something that is the opposite of what has taken place.

I did not refer to this document at all at the Berlin General Assembly or the meeting of the Anthroposophical Society, so as not to take up even more of the already heavily taken up time. And I do not want to go into this document today either, which everyone only needs to read to see the spirit in which it was written. I would like to go into just one point, because it cannot be immediately seen from the document itself. At the end there is a sentence that goes something like this: Dr. Steiner says that the pamphlet by Dr. Vollrath – he is referring to the printed pamphlet that was so unpleasantly discussed at the previous general assembly – contains nothing more than certain remarks that Mrs. Besant addressed to me regarding his expulsion. Anyone who can read can see. Here she says that this document from Dr. Vollrath's appeal... was present... indeed she says more, she says: “If that pamphlet contains nothing more than the document that Dr. Vollrath addressed to me, then it must be very harmless.” But the fact that she claims that the pamphlet must be harmless, that the repeated accusations contained in Dr. Vollrath's appeal to Mrs. Besant at the time, because she says that they were harmless. Well, these accusations included, for example, the point that Dr. Vollrath should have turned against me because I greedily enjoyed a large salary and because my exercises were so strongly black magic in nature that numerous people had become ill, some had even died... and that all those exercises were intended only to acquire magical powers and not knowledge and the like. Dr. Vollrath claims that he is willing to prove all these things if Mrs. Besant demands it. That was the document that Vollrath sent to Adyar. ... This letter

was produced by Mrs. Besant, and the above was an integral part of it. Mrs. Besant says about it: “If Dr. Steiner claims that this pamphlet contains only repetitions of that appeal of his, then this pamphlet must be very harmless.” So Mrs. Besant makes the world believe that the accusations that Dr. Steiner had wanted to enrich himself while refusing any salary, and that he had given exercises that were of a black magical nature, that made people ill and even killed them, these accusations, which were indeed made at the time, were called harmless by Mrs. Besant, in order to present the case to the world in her own way. Such are the things that Mrs. Besant has recently been dishing up to her followers in the February issue of “The Theosophist.”

I don't want to add anything else to these things for the moment; after all, the more you add, the less tolerable things become – I just want to ask whether our feelings in Berlin when our friends decided to work towards finally drawing a line under it were justified, whether we can assume, take for granted, that our friends would feel: It is impossible for me to speak to those who continue to call themselves confessors of Misses Besant. It would be a violation of all occult principles to speak to those people who have thrown one out – the expression may be used – who have presented one in such a way as Misses Besant has liked.

I am so reluctant to go into things like the March Theosophist that I don't want to do it. Because what is dipped in sugar-sweet sauce is the most hidden attack that can be imagined.

In principle – as you have seen from the statutes of the Anthroposophical Society – we take the view that anyone can join us. But those who are unable to see the truth of the matter we are dealing with declare in principle, even if [they want to join us], that they actually wanted to leave our organization. And the way the general secretaries have behaved proves that it would be untruthful of us to have taken other measures now than to have drawn a line between what we want and what is being done within this Theosophical Society, not according to the principles, but contrary to all the principles, of the old Theosophical Society.

But I may also say the other side of the matter, my dear Theosophical friends, to the whole affair. And actually it was only necessary so that our friends are not, so to speak, embarrassed when this or that is spoken in the future; it was only necessary to say the words that have just been spoken, as it were, as a background to what I have to say to you further as a kind of greeting. Actually, my dear Theosophical friends, I must admit that I myself, if I may speak to you for a moment – and the friendship you have shown me entitles me to do so to some extent – I myself feel that, in addition to everything that has been bitter and painful, I also feel it as a great liberation, as a liberation from a narrowness that has weighed heavily on me for years in the life of the Theosophical Society since that Congress of European Sections in Munich, where an attempt was made to bring a new note, then still timidly emerging, into the Theosophical Society, not on the basis of some national and one-sided opinion, but on a really broad basis of the present day. There one could hear the judgment: What you have done is not Theosophy, it is something quite different.

A society based on occultism, even if individuals may free themselves from its limits and boundaries to a certain extent, still has forces that work psychically or spiritually, and it was simply not possible within the framework of the Theosophical Society to bring to bear in all its breadth and adaptability for our present cycle of humanity that which is justifiably called occultism. And I hope that if we are granted the opportunity to continue the Anthroposophical Society, our friends will be convinced that our liberation from the Theosophical Society will not lead to a narrowing, but rather to an expansion of our occult endeavors. Much of what was impossible to achieve within the Theosophical Society because of its prejudices, because it was opposed to narrowly defined traditions, can be achieved in the Anthroposophical Society, and those who want to see will see that the breadth of perspective that we need in our present time is to be tried out now, so that what flows down from the spiritual worlds in our time, in the way of spiritual wisdom and spiritual will impulses, can benefit a part of humanity that has an understanding for it. That is why this first cycle, which is being held here before you, my dear Theosophical friends, and which is the first cycle of the established Anthroposophical Society, seems to me to be particularly worthy of celebration.