The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Berlin, April 28, 1907

Dear Friends!

From the letters that I have addressed to the individual members and to the chairmen of the branches, it is known that we will soon be obliged to elect the successor to our dear deceased president-founder. The circumstances of this election in general have also been discussed in these letters. Through these lines, I am now addressing the matter to the dear friends of the board. I would like to emphasize once again that, from a formal point of view, there is no ambiguity at the moment. This ambiguity could only arise later from an imperfection in the statutes, which I will discuss below.

I will first quote the relevant passages of the statutes for the election, in the version in which they have been laid down since April 1905. They read:

§9 The President-Founder H.S. Olcott holds the office of President for life and has the right to nominate his successor. This nomination is subject to confirmation by the Society. The vote shall be cast in the manner prescribed for the election of the President.

§10 Six months before the term of office of the President has expired, the General Council shall, at a meeting convened for that purpose, nominate his successor, and the nomination shall be communicated to the Secretaries-General and the Archivist. Each Secretary-General shall collect the votes according to the rules of his Section, and the Archivist shall collect the votes of the other members of the Society. A majority of two-thirds of the votes cast is required for election. Now I will also put the names of the members of the General Council here:

Ex officio: A.P. Sinnett, Hon. Sir S.Subramania Aiyer, W.A.English, Alexander Fullerton, Upendra Nath Basu, Bertram Keightley, W.G. John, Arvid Knös, C.W. Sanders, W.B. Fricke, Dr. Theodor Pascal, Decio Calvari, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, José M. Masso. In addition, the following assessors: Annie Besant, G.R.S. Mead, Khan Bahadur Kaoroji Khandalwala, Dinshaw Jivaji Edal Behram, Francesca Arundale, Tumachendra Row, Charles Blech.

Now it is clear that these provisions contain regrettable ambiguities, and that if the current election does not produce a positive result in the first ballot, we have no provision at all for this case, unless, as some seem to be doing, we assume that the General Council can make a second nomination. But in any case, nothing of the sort is stated in the above passages. Furthermore, it should be considered that if the statutes are interpreted literally – and we must undoubtedly adhere to such an interpretation – the member can do nothing but either elect the person designated by the president-founder or express on the ballot that he does not want the latter. It would therefore serve no purpose at all to write any other name on the ballot paper. Whether what is supposed to happen here can still be called an election seems at the very least questionable. After all, one can only say “yes” or “no”.

Now, of course, we can do nothing but abide by the statutes in the present case.

In January, the president-founder sent me a circular in which he announced that the Masters had appeared to him at his sickbed and had caused him to appoint Mrs. Besant as his successor. Nothing more was stated in this and similar communications than that the president-founder was nominating Mrs. Besant as his successor. Officially, no consideration could be given to the fact that the president stated that he had received the advice from the masters to do so. For by giving such consideration, we would have conjured up esoteric questions, such as those about the masters and the truth of their appearances at Oilcott's bedside during the handling of a purely administrative matter such as the presidential election. And we have had painful enough experiences to see where that leads. In other sections, they did not do what seemed to me to be the only right thing to do – to simply remain silent about the master apparitions, as esoteric questions in mere business have to be dealt with – but they talked about them. And that has also generated a flood of writings and counter-writings, a regrettable discussion in which things are discussed that can only be discussed in quiet esoteric work and certainly not during a presidential election. Officially, nothing could be considered other than the nomination of Mrs. Besant by the president-founder. Officially, nothing else concerned us, because it was Olcott's business to decide whether he sought the advice of an ordinary mortal or of a master when making the nomination. The members had to consider nothing other than the fact that this nomination had been made, and then they had to decide whether they considered Mrs. Besant to be the appropriate person or not. Of course, this is not to say that unofficially the appearances of the Masters could not have been announced after all, so that the Council, which for Olcott was one, could also have become one for those who believe in the Masters, and who can also believe that the appearances in Adyar were really the Masters. So it was quite clear what I had to do as Secretary-General. First officially announce that it is Olcott's wish that Mrs. Besant be elected. Then, after Olcott's death, carry out the election. And at the same time, unofficially, as a friend, let the confidential information about the Master's appearances reach the members. To initiate the election before Olcott's death would have seemed absurd to me. For if one could have spoken of Olcott's imminent death as an esoteric, it would never have occurred to me to base an administrative act on it. After all, in theory, Olcott could have lived for another ten years. Since the term of office for the new president is only for seven years according to the statutes, we would have had two presidents if Olcott had lived for another ten years, the second of whom would never have been able to take office. Now I must confess that it is completely beyond me how some sections were able to initiate the election while Olcott was still alive.

Now, immediately after the passing of our dear President-Founder, I received an official letter dated February 22 [21] from Vice President Mr. Sinnett, which decreed that the election should take place in the month of May, and that only those ballots sent to the Secretaries-General between the first and the last of May would be valid. This gave me a certain indisputable directive. I had to make the election in May. For Mr. Sinnett is rightly in charge after the President's death. It is therefore also up to him to lead the election.

In the sense of this letter from Mr. Sinnett, the German section will now also be proceeded.

Each member will receive their ballot with the necessary information at the appropriate time.

Had nothing else happened, I would not have needed to write to our dear Theosophical friends about this. After all, everything is actually clear.

But now, as a result of the unusual communications mentioned, extensive discussions have taken place. Outside the German Section, people have spoken out against the authenticity of the Masters' appearances. Even the oldest members of the Theosophical Society have done so. There has been quite a fierce backlash against Mrs. Besant. It was said that Mrs. Besant already had too many offices. She could not have others as well, and so on. Finally, fierce attacks on Mrs. Besant have appeared because of an article she wrote in the February issue of the Theosophical Review. It is, of course, not possible here to reproduce the content of this article in detail, and a brief summary could all too easily be criticized as subjective. I would therefore like to relate what I said about it in the 33rd issue of the magazine “Lucifer-Gnosis” not in my capacity as General Secretary, but as a friend of the members.

The Theosophical Society demands that its members recognize the universal brotherhood of humanity. Anyone who recognizes that the Society has a duty to work towards the realization of such a brotherhood can be a member of the Society. And one should not say that a member can be excluded because of actions that cause offense here and there, provided that he recognizes the above rule of the society. For the Theosophical Society has no moral code, and one finds actions among the greatest minds of humanity that might offend someone, depending on the circumstances of his time and country.

I must confess that that I regarded this essay as a correct, even obvious expression of an occultist attitude, and that I assumed that other Theosophists also think so, until I came across the April issue of the Theosophical Review, in which it is said from many sides and in endless repetition that such an attitude is the height of immorality and must undermine all good morals. And again and again the refrain, spoken or unspoken: Can anyone who preaches such immorality be president of the Society? It is probably not the time to modestly raise the question: Where is the transference of the doctrine of karma into life, which shows us that man is dependent on his karma in his present actions, but that he will depend on his thoughts in the present with regard to his future actions? As Theosophists, should we judge as people do who know nothing about karma, or should we see the actions of our fellow human beings as conditioned by their past lives? Do we still know that thoughts are facts and that those who work for right thoughts in our ranks are laying the very foundation for overcoming what clings to people from the past? What Mrs. Besant has dealt with in this essay is nothing more than an ancient occultist principle, which is expressed in the otherwise certainly disputable novel “Zanoni” ¹ is expressed in the following words: “Our thoughts are the part of us that is angelic, our deeds the part that is earthly.” In quieter times Mrs. Besant's essay would have been taken as much of what the occultist often has to say to popular morality. From all this and much more it will be seen that there has been an antagonism to Mrs. Besant in the Society for some time. This has been known for a long time to those who have had an opportunity of observing certain proceedings. It has now only come to the surface, with Olcott's unexpected nomination of Mrs. Besant for the presidency. It will be strange to many, however, that even old friends of Mrs. Besant have now deserted her or taken sides against her.

Now, as far as possible, I would like to avoid influencing anyone in this case. However, I do feel obliged to say a few things that may be useful in forming one's own opinion.

It has been said that Mrs. Besant acts on the advice of the masters or even on their orders. It is certainly a confusing fact. It has been pointed out by some with all their might that the existence of the Masters is not a dogma for society, that one can be a perfectly good member of society without believing in the Masters. It was further said that one could generally be convinced that there are Masters, but that one could therefore still consider the revelations at Olcott's sickbed to be deceptions or the like. It was further emphasized that if something like the orders given with master authority were issued in a matter that, like an election, must be left entirely to the discretion of each member, it would inevitably lead to psychological tyranny.

These are things which the opponents have put forward. Now we shall set here what she herself says on this main point. Her own words in a document dated Benares, March 24, are:

These sentences clearly express two things. Firstly, that Mrs. Besant wants to do everything she does in the spirit of the Masters, and that she believes in the Society only insofar as the work of the Masters is expressed in it. But secondly, that she considers the revelations of the Masters to be absolutely authoritative.

One can now fully agree with the first point, but not with the second. I can only give the assurance that I myself am not yet allowed to say what I know about the phenomena in Adyar. But the time will certainly come when I shall be able to speak openly to Theosophical friends about the matter.² So the decision will not depend on what I know.

Now I must immediately say openly that I foresee many difficulties that could arise for our work in the German section because of Mrs. Besant, precisely because of the things that, to my regret, are connected with her occult position and with many other things about her. I do not hide the fact that I also have serious concerns. And few realize how difficult it is for me to express such things here.

I would now like to say something that could be useful to some people. One can want to be a servant of the Masters, one can firmly believe that society only makes sense if it does the work of the Masters, and yet one does not need to take the revelations that are now being proclaimed from Adyar as one's guiding principle. It is not correct, as many seem to believe, that these revelations either come from the Masters, according to whom one should act, or that they are illusions. There is, as every true occultist should know, a third possibility. But since, as I said, I cannot speak about the revelations themselves, these hints will have to suffice for the time being. In any case, however, it is the case that one might not agree with Mrs. Besant's particular spiritual direction, but one could still admit that under the present circumstances she is the only possible candidate for the presidency. For it must be borne in mind that the opposition to Mrs. Besant is not based on her personality, but that those who are now turning against her are turning against spiritual life in general. They will certainly not admit this so readily, but it is so nevertheless. There is a current in society which, if it were to prevail, would gradually extinguish spiritual life. As a result, society would perhaps become an association for the comparison of religions, for philosophical considerations, for ethical culture or the like, but would not remain a spiritual brotherhood. One can also take the position that one cannot go along with Mrs. Besant's spiritual direction, but one wants the spirituality of the Society to be preserved, and therefore, under the present circumstances, one must vote for Mrs. Besant, even if it might later lead to conflicts over her spiritual direction. We must accept this fact as conditioned by the circumstances of the Society.

In the near future, I will send each member a ballot paper with information, and thus initiate the election in the appropriate manner.

If you would like to write to me about my remarks, I would be very grateful if you could do so as soon as possible so that it reaches me before the election.

With warm theosophical greetings,

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

• 1.
• Note num. Note text
• 2. No definite statement on this point has been handed down; but cf. the transcript made a little later in September for E. Schuré, pp. p. 347 ff.

Berlin W 30, August 15, 1906
Motzstraße 17

Dear Director,

At last I am able to write you the letter I announced a long time ago. But above all, I ask you – I refer to a few sentences in your last letter – never to assume that I could be hurt by anything. Please strike this word out of our correspondence altogether.¹

And now I will go straight to the point. The concerns you have expressed regarding part of my occult activity are based on erroneous assumptions. And the things you have heard from others are also wrong.

Let us speak openly: in my occult activities I was recently obliged to take up something that, according to certain premises, could be described as moving in the direction of occult Freemasonry. I now ask you to take each of my words and turns of phrase very precisely. I do not use certain turns of phrase to conceal something, but to describe the real facts very precisely.

Now there was a so-called “Memphis and Misraim Order” in Germany that purported to work in the direction indicated. This order described itself as a Masonic organization. And it worked on “degrees”, of which the first three corresponded to the recognized Freemasonry.² My occult aspirations have nothing to do with this “recognized” Freemasonry. They do not want to and cannot interfere with it. Freemasonry has not the slightest reason to concern itself in any way with these efforts.

When I now wanted to start working in the indicated direction, it was incumbent upon me to introduce a ritual for certain processes of the higher planes for those who sought such. This ritual can be no other than the mirror image of what is fact of the higher planes. This ritual is no different from that which occultism has recognized for 2300 years, and which was prepared for European conditions by the Masters of the Rosicrucians. If something in this ritual has been carried over into the three St. John degrees, this only proves that these St. John degrees have taken on something from occultism. My sources are only occultism and the “Masters”.³

Now I had two options. Either to ignore the order mentioned altogether, or to deal with it. The former would only have been possible in a single case: if the order had rejected an understanding. In the other case, it would have been disloyal in the sense of certain historical concessions that occultism must make.

What I have now done, I tell you on the assumption of your complete discretion.

The Grand Master General of that order was a certain Theodor Reuss. What he has otherwise done is not part of the discussion. Whatever it may have been, the fact that he was Grand Master General of that order, which purported to operate in the stated direction, was the only thing that mattered. I had to deal with this fact. For this purpose I had to visit the aforementioned Theodor Reuss, whom I had never seen before and about whom I had never learned anything. It would have been easy for me to find out about these circumstances, of course. But they were absolutely none of my business.

I have now told Mr. Reuß what can be formulated in the following sentences: I want nothing, absolutely nothing, from your order. However, I will work in a direction that the order claims as its own. It now only depends on the order acknowledging, not for me but for itself, that I am doing this in the sense of the degrees that the order claims as its own. I make it a condition that the order does not communicate anything of its rituals to me. No one should ever be able to say: I received something from the order. I want my step to be considered only from the standpoint of occult loyalty. And no one may receive the right to interpret it differently.

Reuß said rather briefly: he could not do that, because this would make him impossible in his order. I now left for the time being. What has happened and will happen, will happen whether with or without the mentioned order. After a few days, Reuß requested further negotiations. He now made no further demands, other than that I recognize, purely in a business-like and practical sense, his right to receive a fee – no different than the usual one – for anyone who goes in the direction that the order considers to be its own. All further negotiations now concerned only formalities. I constituted what had to be constituted, without Mr. Reuß ever being present at anything. Mr. Reuß, for his part, recognized everything I did. But I completely ignored the order in factual terms. In order, as he said, not to violate his order's rules, Reuß gave me diplomas and ritual objects. That is, he brought them to my house. To buy all this from him would have been, even if there had been no other reason against it, the greatest foolishness on my part, because there was nothing in all this stuff that could not be bought for very little money from any antiquarian. The fact that Reuss simply receives the fee for each member that he is legally entitled to is merely a loyal recognition of a right to which he is entitled, regardless of what else is going on with him.

Of course, only a member can know what is going on in the “lodges” that have been constituted.⁴ I myself can only say a few things about it. But this is objectively quite sufficient. Firstly, the name Reuß has never been mentioned in these lodges. Secondly, none of those I initiated can show a diploma that originated with Reuß. Thirdly, nothing ever happened that somehow violated loyalty to Freemasonry. Fourthly, everyone has been informed about the relationship between the matter and Freemasonry. Finally, fifthly, only Theosophists are members of our “lodges”. If former members of the said order wanted to join us, they would have to prove that they not only held the degrees by right of their tax returns and diplomas, but that they had them “within”.

So what I have established has nothing to do with what used to be in Germany and purported to be the “Memphis and Misraim degrees”. And none of this concerns me in the slightest, what is going on around Reuss and his comrades' medals. - There have even been naive people coming to the house, busily telling me what they know about Reuss, or even “warning” me. But in truth, none of this concerns me in the slightest. Not even that people who previously allowed von Reuß to give them “degrees” feel duped and are now angry. I understand this anger; but it is not loyal that I am brought into play at all from this side.⁵

As you can see, Director, everything is in order from my side. I have answered you because you asked me in good faith. Only time will tell what can be done about people who would like to accuse me by saying things they couldn't possibly know.

Today I also have something to say about your exercises... ⁶

Kind regards

yours sincerely

Dr. Rudolf Steiner

Addition to the above letter to A. W. Sellin

The above letter was made available to Marie Steiner by the recipient, A. W. Sellin, after Rudolf Steiner's death. In his accompanying lines of April 9, 1925, he wrote:

... I feel compelled to make available to you two letters from the dear departed, which may in the future acquire significance for the history of the Anthroposophical Society. In any case, they are better off with you than with me.⁷

The first letter, addressed to me on August 15, 1906, deals with the genesis of the “Mystica aeterna” and is the answer to my request addressed to the doctor for this reason.⁸

This request was all the more important for me, who was at that time in the middle of German lodge life, because Reuß was so indiscreet as to publish in No. 1, 5th year of his magazine “Oriflamme” the text of his granting of permission for the founding of a chapter and a grand council of the Adoptive Masonry under the name “Mystica aeterna” ⁹ and to name Dr. Steiner as deputy Grand Master and you as Grand Secretary of this new association.¹⁰

This indiscretion of Reuß, who had sent the mentioned number of his magazine to numerous Masonic lodges, later caused me great trouble in the Masonic Federation, which I was only able to overcome gradually on the basis of the clarification provided by the doctor in the enclosed letter.

• 1. Sellin had asked for clarification in the Misraim matter (see his letter to Marie Steiner dated April 9, 1925). The letter from Sellin mentioned by Rudolf Steiner is not available.
• 2. The three degrees of St. John.
• 3. See “On the History and Content of the First Section of the Esoteric School 1904 to 1914”, GA 264.
• 4. Sellin apparently only became a member later.
• 5. See the letters from Emil Adryänij on page 88.
• 6. See the letters of Emil Adryánij on page 88. 2) This part of the letter is contained in the volume “On the History and the Content of the First Section of the Esoteric School 1904 to 1914”, GA 264.
• 7. The second letter is addressed to a different recipient and applies to other contexts.
• 8. Official name of the working group on the cult of knowledge.
• 9. No written request has been made; it could also have been asked orally.
• 10. Cf. page 87.

Report on Memphis-Misraim Freemasonry

Hamburg, December 12, 1904 ¹

Egyptian Freemasonry

Cagliostro is considered the founder of so-called Egyptian Freemasonry.² According to his own claim, he had been admitted to the Freemasons' Union in London, but this has not been proven.

A certain George Coston is said to have given him the initial idea and the papers to justify the aforementioned doctrine.

Cagliostro tried to establish lodges in The Hague and Russia, but without success. However, he succeeded in establishing his first lodge of the Rite of Egypt in Strasbourg on October 8, 1779. This existed until 1783.

In October 1784, Cagliostro established a mother lodge of his Egyptian Freemasonry in Lyon with 12 members of the local Masonic lodge under the name “La sagesse triomphante” and on July 5, 1785, a similar lodge in Paris.

At that time, Cagliostro's reputation had risen so much that the Masonic convention meeting in Paris did everything they could to get him to teach them, although he only wanted to do so on the condition that the Philalethes would be obliged to sacrifice their entire masonic archive to the flames. After this condition had been fulfilled, he would show the Freemasons how they could be enabled, through actions and facts, as well as through sensory perception, to recognize the science to which true masonry offers the symbols and indicates the way.

On November 21, 1786, Cagliostro was exposed at the Antiquity Lodge in London by the optician Mach, and with that, the collapse of the system, at the top of which he stood as Grand Cophta.

The system was open to both men and women, consisted of a 90-degree ladder of steps, and promised perfection through the physical and moral rebirth of all who believed in it. (See Goethe, Neue Schriften 1792, pp. 243-284)

The Count of Saint Germain was related to Cagliostro and brought his system, probably in a remodeled form, to German courts (Ferdinand of Brunswick, Frederick Augustus of Brunswick, Charles of Hesse, among others). In particular, Carl of Hesse, who took care of Count Saint Germain until his death, was very keen on occult studies, which the count had encouraged. In 1824, a “Declaration of the Zodiacal Stone of the Temple of Dendera” by him was published in Copenhagen.

The Rite of Memphis, or as it called itself, the “Oriental Masonic Order of Memphis”, is said to go back to Ormus or Ormuzd, who was converted to Christianity by St. Mark in 46 AD, and a school of magicians united under him. It is said that it was transplanted to Edinburgh as early as 1150 by Scottish knights and was the forerunner of today's Freemasonry.

In Edinburgh itself, nothing is known of this history, but it is known that a certain Samuel Honisaus Cairo founded the first grand lodge of this doctrine in Paris in 1815, but it only lasted until 1816.

In 1838, a second attempt was made there to introduce this doctrine by founding the Osiris Lodge, but this also failed, because as early as 1843 the order was dissolved by the police.

In 1848 the third attempt was made, and the order was then divided into ninety “degrees of knowledge.” The highest degree (the Sanctuaire) was not to have any influence on the administration and was to be entirely esoteric.

In 1851 the order was forbidden in France, and its administrative headquarters were transferred to London. There it made better progress and established daughter lodges in Geneva, Brussels, New York and Australia. Its 90 degrees were reduced to 30, and in this form it was also introduced to Germany in 1861, but this failed due to the opposition of the masonic authorities of the old Prussian grand lodges.

In other countries, such as England, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Romania, Egypt, the East Indies, Canada, the United States of North America and Australia, its spread succeeded, especially since it had merged with the Rite of Misraim.

The Rite of Misraim or Rite of Egypt was brought from Italy to France by the Jewish merchant Michel Bedarride at the beginning of the 19th century and developed there. The order's legend claims that Misraim, a son of Ham, moved to Egypt, took possession of it and named it after his name (Misraim, i.e. Egypt).

From him, an ancient secret doctrine is said to have spread across all countries and times and to have been used by all schools of philosophy and mystical secret societies, by the most diverse religions and masonic associations, albeit with many changes, namely the doctrine of Isis and Osiris, of nature and the creator.

The system is divided into four series, the first of which is called the symbolic, the second the philosophical, the third the mystical, and the fourth the hermetic-cabbalistic.

There are 17 classes and 90 degrees, but they are unevenly distributed. The holders of the 87th-89th degrees are entrusted with the administration of the first three series, which extends to the 77th degree. The Sovereign Prince of the 78th degree is the head of the fourth series, and the 90th degree is held by the unknown Sovereign Grand Master, the powerful supreme of the order.

The bankruptcy of the founder of the order in France, Bedarride, did not prevent the latter from becoming more widespread, which is attributed to the exemplary organization of the practice of charity in the Masonic literature, in which otherwise only ridicule and scorn is left for the internal arrangements, especially for the acts of homage to be paid to the superiors.

The spread of the now merged “Order of Memphis and Misraim” has already been mentioned elsewhere.

In Hamburg, it has been represented for a few years and is listed in the address book as follows: A. & A. Scottish (33°) and A. & P. Rite of Memphis and Misraim (95°). Chapter “Phoenix to the Truth” No. 3 in the Valley of Hamburg.³ Working lodge every second Thursday of the month. Symb. (St. Joh.) Lodge “Phoenix” in O. Hamburg. Working lodge every first, third and fourth Thursday of the month.

Work and jurisdiction of the Grand Orient and the Sovereign Sanctuary for Germany in Berlin. Friendship Representative for America: Franz Held, Borgfelde, Henriettenallee 18. Inquiries should be addressed to the first secretary M. Lupschewitz, Dillstraße 4 or treasurer A. Paasch, St.G.Steindamm 68/11.

The order is not recognized by the German Grand Lodge, but it is trying to attract individual brothers from local teaching styles, in particular by distributing a journal that is said to contain almost exclusively works by Dr. F. Hartmann. I will try to get hold of this journal. A.W. Sellin

• 1. There is no accompanying letter for this report.
• 2. See lecture Berlin, December 16, 1904.
• 3. “Valley” = term for Masonic authorities.

Hamburg, December 14, 1904

Dear Dr. Steiner,

First of all, I have found out the following about the grand lodge in question:

It was established in Berlin about two years ago under the name “Grand Orient of the Scottish and Accepted 33rd Rite and Sovereign Sanctuary of the Eagle and Pelican Rite 95th of Memphis and Misraim” and has duly notified the existing grand lodges of other schools of their constitution, to which they have not responded.

The following emerges from their official announcement to the masonic bodies of Germany:

The new Grand Orient has been established at the instigation of German freemasons who have been admitted to foreign lodges of this teaching method.

The Sovereign Grand-Master Br. John Yarker, 33°, 90°, 96° has initiated Dr. Franz Hartmann, 33°, 95° (admitted to the Order in the Washington Lodge No. 12, Orient Georgetown, America), Heinrich Klein 33°, 95° (admitted to the association in the Pilgrim's Lodge No. 238 in the Orient of London) and Theodor Reuß 33°, 96° (admitted to the association in the Pilgrim's Lodge No. 238 in London) and the brothers associated with them a charter to constitute a Grand Orient and Sovereign Sanctuary of the Rite for the German Reich.

The supreme spiritual leader and honorary grand master of the same is Br. Dr. Carl Kellner, 33°, 90°, 96° (admitted to the federation in the Humanitas Lodge in Vienna), director of the Kellner-Partington Paper Pulb factories in Hallein, Liverpool, Manchester, etc. and member of the K.K. Industry Council in Vienna.

Reuß can be contacted at the Columbia Bureau, Equitable Palace, Leipzigerstrasse 101/102, Berlin W.

The majority of the 33 or 95 degrees respectively are to be regarded as “stages of knowledge”, which are worked on in writing and require a study of the various religious and philosophical systems. Promotion fees are not taken.

According to a manifesto of the Grand Orient, the high degrees of this type of teaching include¹ secrets, “which have been handed down to the order by oral tradition from the fathers of all true Freemasonry, the wise men of the East, and are only passed on orally."

Of course - the manifesto says - the success of this practical instruction in obtaining this secret depends entirely on the candidate himself.

Those brothers who had found the secret kept it as a precious, self-acquired property, and in order to avoid being misunderstood or even ridiculed by everyday people, they hid it under symbols, just as we still do today.

With the help of these symbols, our high degrees give the brother the opportunity to obtain certain proof of the immortality of man. He needs to be convinced of his survival after death in order to be truly happy in this life. Therefore, the mysteries of all religions and schools of wisdom have also dealt with this question as their highest and most noble task. The Church also does this, but it refers the seeker to the way of grace. However, our order makes it possible for every seeker to unite with the world consciousness, the primal creative power, consciously and deliberately in this life by practical means.

The new Grand Orient publishes a magazine entitled “Oriflamme”, which is published by Max Perl in Berlin. Dr. Franz Hartmann is to supply most of the contributions for it. I only know the “Historical Edition of the Oriflamme” from 1904. This begins with the greeting “Peace, Tolerance, Truth!” and then reproaches the Freemasons for their ignorance regarding the development and true essence of Freemasonry. In particular, Findel is said to be completely unreliable as a Masonic historian; however, the examples given in support of this assertion are few or not at all convincing.

The author rejects the idea that Freemasonry emerged from the old masons' guild and traces its origins back to the Knights Templar. However, there is no protocol evidence for this, since it was strictly forbidden to make any written records of the meetings or of membership of the masonic and rosicrucian bodies that cultivated the tradition of the Knights Templar. The evidence available for this connection with the Templars is only communicated to initiates. The accuracy of this claim is, of course, uncontrollable, and the maintenance of such historical secrecy in our public-seeking time is at least incomprehensible.

Fortunately, the origin of the Scottish 33° Rite, as far as it is traced back to Frederick the Great's documents (Charlestown system), is described as a grand order lie, and it is stated that the system associated with the order of Memphis and Misraim is the legitimate system of Br. ²

But since the new order, in its innermost essence, is thoroughly theosophical in character, I shall pay very special attention to it and even seek direct contact with its leaders.

Should I become convinced that it can serve the Theosophical movement, then the question of how this can best be done can be discussed between us on occasion.³

Enclosed, I am sending you my lodge lecture “Princely Brothers,” but please return it as soon as possible, as it is one of a series of lectures and I will probably need to refer to it again.

With warm regards,

Your most humble,

A.W. Sellin.

• 1. This manifesto is printed and discussed by Rudolf Steiner in the lecture Berlin, December 9, 1904.
• 2. Sellin, whose own lodge at that time worked according to the Cerneau rite, points here to the contrast between the two Scottish 33% systems (Cerneau and Charleston). The system created in Charleston, USA, around 1801/02 is said to have changed the original rituals, which go back to Cerneau (1763-1829), by means of forged documents. In the “Historical Edition of the Oriflamme” cited by Sellin, which was co-authored by Yarker, it is stated that the earlier, legitimate Cerneau system is used for the Scottish Rite.
• 3. Rudolf Steiner must have informed Sellin orally that he had already made contact with the Order himself in the meantime. This also explains why he makes no reference to Sellin's efforts of 1904 in his letter of August 15, 1906. Cf. page 50.

Hamburg, December 20, 1904

Dear Dr.,

With reference to my letter of 14 December, I am sending you the latest issue of Oriflamme, which contains an article by Dr. Franz Hartmann that may be of interest to you.

In the September 1903 issue of Oriflamme, I found the following remarkable report:

"In North America, 50,000 women belong to the Eastern Star order, which consists only of Freemason wives, daughters and widows. This year, a so-called ‘mixed lodge’ was founded in London by the well-known Theosophist Mrs. Annie Besant, who was admitted to the Freemason Federation in Paris.

The latter note is to be understood as meaning that the “mixed lodge” founded by Mrs. Annie Besant in London has received a charter from Paris.¹

Do you know anything about this?

“Mixed lodges” have only existed since 1893. On March 14 of that year, Maria Deraismes in Paris was the first to initiate 16 women into the Freemasons' Association and founded the Scottish lodge “Le droit humain”.

These “mixed lodges” are no more recognized by our German grand lodges than the Memphis and Misraim lodges and the adoption lodges, as they operate in the Order of the Eastern Star.

I would be very grateful if you would return the enclosed booklet, as well as the two federal newspapers and my lecture. Hopefully, your attendance in January will allow you to grant me a dialogue about personal questions concerning my inner development.

With fraternal greetings and best wishes for the coming celebration, yours truly, highly esteemed and faithfully devoted:

A.W. Sellin

• 1. Adoption of Freemasonry and Annie Besant
  Until the end of the 17th century, women were completely excluded from Freemasonry. It was only when similar associations emerged in France at the beginning of the 18th century that the so-called adoption masonic lodge came into being. These were women's lodges that were subordinate to the men's lodges, i.e. each female dignitary was adopted by an equivalent male dignitary. The first such adoption lodge - emanating from the Grand Orient de France - was established in Paris in 1775. At that time, Cagliostro had also admitted women to his Egyptian Freemasonry. The first woman to be admitted to a regular men's lodge a century later is usually said to have been the French women's rights activist Marie Deraismes (1828-1894). After her admission, she gave a speech in which she said: “Why did Freemasonry exclude us women? Does it perhaps possess superior truths that are only accessible to an enlightened elite? Does it deal with abstract, transcendental problems that require preparatory study? No. You can be admitted without any kind of certificate or diploma. Does Freemasonry perhaps have secrets, arcana or mysteries that should only be shared with a select few? No, because the time of mysteries, secrets and arcana is definitely over!” (Quoted from A. Mellor in ‘Logen, Rituale, Hochgrade’, 2nd edition German edition 1985, without publisher and place of publication, p. 202)
  However, since her admission to a regular men's lodge in 1882 remained an exceptional case, she founded a new order in Paris in 1882 together with a few masons of the Scottish 33°-rite, the “Ordre Magonnique Mixte International” (International Mixed Freemasonry), known under the name of the French grand lodge “Le droit humain”, whose legitimacy, however, is disputed.
  Annie Besant was admitted to this order in 1902, received a foundation charter for London in 1903 and, alongside her Theosophical activities, helped it to spread in the English-speaking world, where it is known as the “Order of Universal Co-Masonry”. According to a message from Emil Adriänyi to Rudolf Steiner, Reuss told him, in response to his question as to whether Annie Besant was a member of the Memphis-Misraim Rite, that she had indeed sought admission to Yarker and Reuss, but had been rejected by both sides.