The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The course of the negotiations [of the assembly of delegates] is discussed. Schwebsch's proposal with the six points is mentioned again.

Dr. Unger: The formation of the committee must be described and the replacement of the central committee by this committee.

Dr. Steiner: This point is very important. Actually, everything depends on this point. First of all, Dr. Schwebsch has very well described the tendency of the matter and that the matter is known in Stuttgart. It would just have to be characterized a little more specifically. It would have to be said what is meant by it; furthermore, how to characterize the wrong position of the tax - you can't just always complain - and how to characterize the reversal of the tax. That would have to be presented by the person who is thinking of giving the presentation. A great deal depends on this being presented in the right way.

The matter requires a thorough study.

Theodor Lauer and Jose del Monte ask Dr. Kolisko to give this report.

Dr. Unger: It should be done together with a member of the old Central Executive Board & 5.

Dr. Schwebsch speaks.

Dr. Kolisko: It should be done by Mr. Leinhas.

Dr. Steiner: If it is done by a member of the old Central Committee, it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. It should be done by someone who speaks from the outside, as an observer from the outside, and at most the old Central Committee should comment on it afterwards. He does not have to offer any justification, otherwise it sounds too much like the Theosophical Society. How can the old central council give this report impartially? I would like to know that!

Emil Leinhas: It would be more impressive if someone who was in opposition to the leadership did it.

Dr. Steiner: In the last few weeks, everyone has been well aware of the content of such a lecture. It should be possible to prepare a respectable lecture with the appropriate study and organization of thoughts. Many people knew exactly what the sins were.

Emil Leinhas and others suggested Dr. Kolisko for the lecture.

Dr. Kolisko: The failings could be explained as being due to a lack of awareness.

Dr. Steiner: It is a great pity that this first lecture cannot be given by someone who is linked to the life of the Anthroposophical Movement through having founded a branch. For many reasons, the life of the anthroposophical movement has dwindled to the same extent that personalities who were not connected with the founding of branches have entered leading positions. Everywhere the branches will die under the successors, because the successors do not muster the same enthusiasm as the founders. You may judge the quality of having founded a branch or of having established it, but that means something quite different from having entered a position that had already been created. In a sense, it would be true of Werbeck that he could have been well informed about what was lacking in the founding of a branch because there was no central leadership. Someone like that would know, from the former branch leaders.

If you take Mrs. Wolfram or anyone who has set up a branch, you will find that they know how it is to work with a central administration. Certain branch leaders have lacked this. Werbeck will not have any complaints in this regard. Tell him, Mr. Leinhas, to account for all his friendship for you, and then ask him for his opinion. Of course, he will only bring up the negative things; but that is useful if it is presented in such a way that one can see what positive things will come out of it.

Emil Leinhas answers.

Dr. Steiner: It would be necessary to study from this point of view what someone who should lead a branch has missed due to the lack of central leadership.

Dr. Krüger speaks to this. Jose del Monte: Dr. Kolisko should give the report.

Dr. Steiner: It seems to me that the main reason for this is that no one else can be found. This task should not be underestimated. You have to bear in mind that the person who gives this lecture is, in a sense, in the position of someone who has been at the forefront of the opposition so far, and who actually has the sympathy of this opposition. He must be able to inspire people just by the way he presents himself. He must represent the counter-complex of what was, namely, what should become. It is the most difficult task imaginable that anyone could undertake with regard to the Anthroposophical Society.

Emil Leinhas: So we can entrust Dr. Kolisko with this task?

Dr. Steiner: He will have to do it. The difficulty lies only in the fact that as a member of the Anthroposophical Society he is only nine years old, for his membership dates from 1914; so he is a child of the Society. Well, war years count double; Austrian noses are always more amiable than others, even when you throw your head back.³

Dr. Unger: Whether [he] should reel off the whole opposition?

Dr. Steiner: With sufficient cooperation, it would be possible. Of course, in the bosom of the community that is sitting here, it will be very easy to find everything that needs to be presented.

Emil Leinhas: Surely it will be possible to treat it so that we have to present a joint confession of guilt?

Dr. Steiner: Nevertheless, it doesn't have to be.

Emil Leinhas and several others talk about the inner history of the Society (and the history of its institutions).

Dr. Kolisko: These include: the Religious Renewal Movement, the League for Free Spiritual Life and the Waldorf School.

Dr. Steiner: It is a very difficult story. Care must be taken to ensure that the matter is dealt with objectively, very objectively. Up to now, discussion of this point has been emotionally unobjective. It should be dealt with objectively. The point of “inner history” is in itself suitable for raising the whole thing to a very serious level. It must be shown how individual institutions have arisen from a universal of anthroposophy, and how they therefore also have the inner conditions for flourishing. And then one must show how these institutions can flourish, how, for example, the Waldorf school can attract a Japanese professor to look at it, that the English come and so on. The thing is that from what is healthy in the institutions, and from what is sick, the repercussions on society show up. Care must be taken that such institutions, which are already established in the outer world, do not suffer damage. The Waldorf School and the “Kommenden Tag” must not be harmed, they must be used. One must not blindly rush into it. On the other hand, it must also be emphasized that the other institutions must emulate those that are flourishing.

Dr. Kolisko: The difficult question of religious renewal must also be dealt with.

Dr. Hahn speaks to this question.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps someone could at least hint at how something like religious renewal should be treated; at least the direction of it. Otherwise there is no certainty. There must be an awareness of how to treat something like this, from which points of view. Especially when the living conditions of society come into consideration, one must be clear about the points of view from which religious renewal must be treated.

Emil Leinhas: Surely Dr. Rittelmeyer is not supposed to present the fundamentals?

Dr. Steiner: It will be necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to bring the right point of view to the discussion.

Dr. Unger and Stockmeyer speak to this.

Marie Steiner: If we go back to the starting points and take as our first point the lack of interest in the path of knowledge, and make point 3 into point 1, because that shows the starting point of the religious movement, that would be good. The starting point was that theologians came to Dr. Steiner and said: Religion can no longer give us what we need to satisfy people's spiritual needs. But the fact is that the Anthroposophical Society puts some people off. Could we give them what their souls need in a more religiously attuned form? In any case, the theologians are the ones who asked for it and who knew that all knowledge could be given through anthroposophy and through Dr. Steiner. I had a conversation with Prof. Beckh, who said, “We have made a big mistake. We have done it in such a way that we do not convey the knowledge, the Anthroposophy, to the community, so that we talk about Anthroposophical knowledge among ourselves, but not in the community. — The starting point was that the Anthroposophical Society should not become involved with the religious renewal movement, which does not primarily pass on knowledge but rather provides pastoral care. What has happened is that the content of anthroposophical knowledge has been taken and the material basis of the Anthroposophical Society has been used, and now it is being claimed that all the knowledge comes from theology. But it was not anthroposophy that needed religious renewal, but the others, the theologians.

Dr. Steiner: Why should the main thing not be asserted as such, that with full recognition of the content of the religious movement (note from Dr. Heyer: “Unger obviously knows it too little”), the fact that the anthroposophical movement is the creator of the religious renewal movement is placed in the foreground? Why should this point, which is the main point, not be emphasized? If one describes it conscientiously, it was the case that younger theologians emerged who said: We are at the end, we are finished. No more pastoral care can be gained from theology. Theology has no understanding of true Christianity. Now we need anthroposophy, which gives us that again. — That has happened. A cult has really emerged.

Now, that this is a necessity in the present within civilization, that simply follows from the fact that this longing has already emerged strongly precisely within the Theosophical Society. When Olcott was still president of the Theosophical Society, some people converted to Catholicism. Olcott said: If all Theosophists convert to Catholicism, then we can close the Theosophical Society. This was already an acute problem within the Theosophical Society. Then the whole calamity occurred with the Leadbeater crisis in the Theosophical Society, and all with the most repulsive degenerations. Leadbeater converted to an Old Catholic Church. What was completely missing was the creative element. There was a convulsive return to the old cult. Outwardly, it was connected with the theory, which in the theory of descent went back to the original ape. I don't know if people know the things better?

But here in the Anthroposophical Society, something new has emerged creatively. Of course, every cult will include the old elements; but here the necessary creative element has emerged anew. Why not point out that the Anthroposophical Society has been able to create what the religious movement needs? There is no need to emphasize the petty mutual rancor. The point is to emphasize the fact that the Anthroposophical Society was able to create this religious movement. The point is to regulate the mutual relationship, and to do so in a very clear way. Now the devil's advocate would have to come and say that the Anthroposophical Society has not had the right instinct. That is what should come, that one develops an awareness of everything that is going on in the Anthroposophical Society. But the Anthroposophical Society has slept through all the facts.

There is much talk in the world about the Waldorf school. But the people in the anthroposophical movement had to be made aware of the Waldorf school. Little has come from the Anthroposophical Society that has put the Waldorf school movement in the appropriate anthroposophical light. It is precisely from the anthroposophical side that the moment could be emphasized that it is only the anthroposophical movement that has succeeded in founding a school that is universally human. Anthroposophy sets out not to found an anthroposophical school of thought, but a school for all humanity. The fact that something can be anthroposophical without necessarily being “anthroposophical” is something that must come out on this occasion, with striking examples. There was no article in “Anthroposophie” about the religious movement. I know that the magazine “Anthroposophie” is not very well known in this circle here. The most important event in anthroposophical history is missing from the work of the Anthroposophical Society.³ She just trots on. When I come to the Waldorf School, I see the numbers of “Anthroposophie” lying there; they are picked up quite late. But I think what I said belongs to the history of the religious movement. When we return to this starting point, everything will be said.

Emil Leinhas: Within the religious renewal movement, the origin from anthroposophy is not discussed.

Marie Steiner: I could see from what the gentleman said [the name was not recorded] that this point of view is strictly adhered to. I cannot imagine Dr. Rittelmeyer doing such a thing. But what others have done seems more questionable.

Several people talk about keeping quiet about the anthroposophical origin of the religious renewal movement: Dr. Streicher, Dr. Heyer, etc.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to avoid the opponents adding new antagonism to the old antagonism. By pointing the finger of accusation at the fact that things have been given in Dornach and here in Stuttgart, one only makes new enemies. It is not necessary to present this to people on a plate. The point of this discussion is that something like this can be avoided quite well, because that would only be grist to the opponents' mill. You don't have to deny such a fact, but you don't have to present it either.

I didn't say that you should point out how it happened. There is no need to present the outer story. That the religious movement is a child of anthroposophy can be deduced from the nature of things. It is not necessary for anyone to present the outer history now. It is not a matter of pointing the finger at things that will give the opponents ammunition. It was agreed that one should not present the things of the world in an unclear and vague way, but should present the matter clearly from its essence. What I have outlined above can be put forward without anyone from the religious movement being able to object to it. It only leads to quarrels when they are accused of denying their origin. They can say what they themselves believe to be the truth.

Emil Leinhas speaks to this.

Dr. Steiner: When it is said that they do not talk about anthroposophy, that is nonsense: they only talk about anthroposophy. What is the significance of approaching these people in such a way? If they introduce other people to spiritual life, what does it matter if they do not immediately label it as nonsense by using the word “anthroposophy”? They have every reason to avoid the word “anthroposophy”.

Marie Steiner: I had the impression that you present it as if all of this could be derived from theology.

Dr. Steiner: This is a dispute about ownership. This is about something other than the dispute over ownership. It is about characterizing the anthroposophical movement itself. Turn the question around: Would there be a religious renewal if there were no anthroposophy? But that already answers the question. One could just as well ask Emil Bock whether his essays represent anthroposophy. It is up to the Anthroposophical Society to take care of the matter of anthroposophy. I do not notice any tactics in this regard among people. The tactic was collecting money.

There are various things to be considered. You have to bear in mind that here in Stuttgart, the task of dealing with such matters is different from that of any other branch. Here, the right balance should have been established.

Imagine any branch that is led by someone very well-behaved. One of the best-behaved branches is in Elberfeld. Let us assume that one of the personalities who is now within the renewal movement also appears in Elberfeld. Now it is natural that these people - even if they are the youngest - have a range of concepts that the others do not even suspect; one is then differently prepared for the spiritual questions.

It is spoken about this.

Dr. Steiner: These are special questions that cannot be treated in this way. Here in Stuttgart, the task would be to gradually develop the right relationship. This would consist of what happens at Landhausstrasse 70 becoming so important for the theologians themselves that they would always appear in person. Then the community members will also be present. The point is that the Anthroposophical Society is not just the mother, but also remains the mother. For this to happen, there must be real life in the Anthroposophical Society. That must be there. Now it is no longer possible for the Anthroposophical Society to simply go on trotting along; it must grow with these things. It is necessary that a center of this growth be formed in Stuttgart.

You can say anything, but you have to say it with the awareness that the tradition of ritual to the religious renewal gave this religious movement the backbone. If you simply have my lecture of December 30, 1922 [in CW 219] interpreted in such a way that you are merely told negatively that anthroposophy does not need a cult, then people lose this backbone. It is never a matter of putting forward the negative assertions alone, but of also putting forward the other thing that I have radically emphasized: For present-day civilization it is necessary that there should be a separate Anthroposophical Society to nourish this other movement. If this is presented in the right way, the Anthroposophical Society can only gain from it, and there is no need to go into the question of ranks. The Anthroposophical Society is independent of the daughter movements, but the daughter movements are not independent of the Anthroposophical Society.

There are a few comments.

Dr. Steiner: Most of the people working outside don't really know very much about the way the financial side of things is handled.⁴For us, however, it is a matter of showing the fertility of the anthroposophical movement at the delegates' meeting.

Marie Steiner: I have read letters from representatives of religious renewal that did not give this impression of restraint. There is a terribly strong competition that seems authoritative.

It is suggested that a speaker for the question of religious renewal must be found. Dr. Hahn is suggested. Leinhas and Dr. Hahn are discussing this.

Dr. Steiner: We have a textbook example here again. Just think how easy it would be for a representative of the religious renewal movement to speak from his point of view about the matter. But the Anthroposophical Society has neglected to inform itself about the matter. I am convinced that this information will be missing if it is not followed by a thorough study. It must be discussed in a proper and professional manner.

Marie Steiner: They will not report on what happened during the courses.

Dr. Steiner: One should not talk about these things at all in terms of believing that one has to communicate the content of the external story, but rather the essence and significance of the matter for the anthroposophical movement.

Ernst Uehli comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: You don't need to say anything about the religious movement. You can get to know it. So you don't need to characterize it to people. But the anthroposophical point of view, which has not been asserted so far, must be taken into account. This anthroposophical point of view is terribly easy to find if you are only interested in it. Steffen is now publishing my lectures on scholasticism in the “Goetheanum”. In them you have all the points of view you need. Of course you have to familiarize yourself with the material. If you just inform yourself a little, then you have everything you need. Leo XIH revived Thomism for the Catholic Church, but in a dead way. In this dead way, all of Christianity persists. But the religious renewal movement demands a living way. You have everything in this lecture series on scholasticism. The elements have been given everywhere.

There must be a center somewhere that is interested in anthroposophical questions, and that should be Stuttgart. These things should be present! The Goetheanum is also coming to Stuttgart. I see it lying upstairs in the Waldorf School. But in any case, what is in it can be processed. The points of view are everywhere, the points of view are really there.

Dr. Hahn: On this positive basis, I would be happy to give the presentation.

The Waldorf School will be discussed.

Dr. Steiner: That can be done. But I don't see why this should be the main point. The main thing is that there is a Waldorf School. There are enough things about this. The person who wants to give a presentation should comment on this. So Dr. von Heydebrand wants to talk about the Waldorf School. Hopefully she will then stop being a Waldorf teacher and be an anthroposophist.

The Hamburg school is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: From here, no position can be taken on other schools. The financial question will decide the matter by itself. You can't let both schools exist and thereby perish, while you could maintain one. That should be terribly easy to arrange. Werbeck himself and his entire entourage are not in favor of this school being established in Hamburg. The Werbeck branch is very large. It will be very difficult to found a second branch based on Pohlmann's and Kändler's authority.

Blumenthal once said that you can fake everything at the theater: criticism, applause – but you can't fake the box office. The members who are only fictitious will pay nothing for the Goetheanum.

Emil Leinhas: They are not only turning outside. Pohlmann has threatened that he also wants to turn to the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Steiner: The letters to me will not prove much. The whole school came about because Pohlmann wanted to pay. I do not yet know about this other intention of his, that he wants to turn to the Society. But that proves nothing at all. It seems that an understanding is not possible. Then it must be left without an understanding. I do not believe that Werbeck wants an understanding. I do not believe that it can lead to anything other than Werbeck speaking out against it. So all our things are private matters. The old question arises as to whether the whole Anthroposophical Society can be used as a school. The only thing we can talk about is whether we should do something to have Kändler there.

Emil Leinhas: Perhaps we can come to an agreement to the effect that there is a division of interest in Hamburg.

Dr. Steiner: Pohlmann is the founder. Kändler fits in quite well with Pohlmann. Why can't we take this point of view: “Mr. Pohlmann, you are the founder of the school; do what you want. We cannot support it because we have no money. We must first let the Waldorf School in Stuttgart exist as a model school.

Dr. Heyer will speak at the delegates' meeting about the Hochschulbund and the threefold social order. Dr. Unger will speak on this.

Dr. Steiner: The Hochschulbund should show how not to do it.

Dr. Stein and Dr. Kolisko want to take on the question of science and university courses. The question arises about the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life). Ernst Uehli knows nothing about it. Dr. Unger comments on this question.

Dr. Steiner: More than twelve personalities have signed this paper [“Federation for a Free Intellectual Life”]. They were former members of the committee. All those named are prime examples of the curule chairs.

Would it not perhaps be better not to talk about the “Federation for a Free Intellectual Life” since it is not an offshoot of the Anthroposophical Society? It has been buried enough already. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “The Bund could still become something today.”) It is strange that no one has thought of reviving the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Spiritual Life).

Dr. Kolisko and Dr. Krüger comment on this.

Dr. Steiner: We recently added up our researchers. Of these eleven researchers, not a single one seems to have been interested in the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for a Free Intellectual Life), although it is precisely this free intellectual life that should be the foundation on which these researchers stand.

Dr. Streicher will say something about this.

Dr. Steiner: (Note from Dr. Heyer: The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” was intended to win over people who are only just searching for a standpoint.) There are many people who are searching for a standpoint. If the Anthroposophical Society itself had been founded in the same way as this one, with only 12 signatures on the paper and then nothing more (Dr. Heyer's note: “Kurulische Stühle” [curule chairs]), then the Anthroposophical Society would not exist at all. The “Association for a Free Spiritual Life” could be a good advance troop for the Anthroposophical Society, in that people who do not initially want to become members of the Anthroposophical Society but who want to participate in a real spiritual life that is building itself up independently would join. So far nothing has been done about this, just as our researchers have done nothing at all. It should also be possible for someone to get behind this idea and be a kind of vanguard for the Society. Why should these things not be possible? Why should something like this not be done?

You yourself are a symptom of this whole complex of problems. Your calling was only brought about, only made sense, because the threefolding movement was understood as a “federation for free spiritual life”. Now, from the time you were called until the time you came, they had forgotten what they had called you for.

Dr. Kolisko: Many people would be interested in the scientific work.

Dr. Steiner: Try to get the heavy mass of the Research Institute on its feet so that it will stand behind you as one block at the delegates' meeting.

The question is discussed as to who will take over a presentation about the institutes.

Dr. Steiner: The only question is whether someone who is inside or someone who is outside should speak.

It is decided that Strakosch and Maier will speak about the scientific research institute. Dr. Palmer should speak about the clinical-therapeutic institute, Emil Leinhas should take over the co-presentation.

Dr. Steiner: You were mistaken about the comparison of the horse. It started with the most primitive means. The matter only started to stop when the horse was to be brought to a trot with the right bridle.

Dr. Kolisko and Emil Leinhas discuss the question of propagation.

Dr. Steiner: At the delegates' meeting, some kind of human trust should be inaugurated. At the very least, we should take advantage of the fact that we have a number of representatives of the Society here who are working to spread the means. From the way people speak, it should be clear that the Anthroposophical Society would become a kind of collaborator in spreading the word. On the part of the physicians, someone should appear who explains the full significance of the medical stream, who speaks the preface to the Vademecum. In the medical field it is terribly easy to present a matter that strikes like a bomb. Such things, which must ultimately be decided by the experts, cannot be decided at a meeting of delegates. It would only lead to idle talk. We should approach it in such a way that we use the opportunity to get the Society to work with us on this. We only have to consider how easily people take an interest in two areas: religion and medicine, because people are afraid for their souls after death and for their physical bodies before death. These two areas are the easiest to work with.

Dr. Palmer speaks on this matter.

Dr. Steiner: Regarding specific things, I would think it desirable to point out the centrifuge. It is like when two spouses quarrel. Neither is to blame; the blame lies in the middle.

The branch work is being discussed.

Dr. Steiner: At most, the results of the branch work can be discussed. You cannot give directives there. You can only have a discussion about the experiences that have been achieved. But in any case, interference in the freedom of the branches must be avoided.

Jürgen von Grone: I am in favor of not talking about the youth movement.

Dr. Steiner: The point is to find someone who will speak about the youth movement from an anthroposophical point of view. It can only be a question of how far one has to intervene in a supportive way in order to have the next generation among young people. It is a delicate question. The fact that the connection between the generations has been completely broken means that it is easy to make young people obstinate when you approach them in a fatherly, motherly or auntly way. You must not flatter them, be unjust to them or flatter them.

Emil Leinhas talks about it.

Dr. Röschl wants to help Dr. Hahn prepare the presentation on the youth movement. Dr. Wachsmuth speaks about it. The question of opponents is discussed. Dr. Rittelmeyer should speak about it, as he has extensive experience. Dr. Stein comments on it.

Dr. Kolisko: One should characterize the opponents, for example Seiling and Goesch.

Kolisko wants to take on the Seiling case, Dr. Unger the Goesch case.

Marie Steiner: Fräulein von Heydebrand should treat the Schmettau case.

Dr. Steiner: Why should we treat the Schmettau case as such?

The Schmettau case is not a case that comes into consideration.

Marie Steiner: But the opponents use this case - ——

Dr. Steiner: But now it is so that I have only seen her a few times.

The opponents, as for what happened in the case of Schmettau – Fräulein von Schmettau – [here is a larger gap in the notes] – things are simple. There is no need to discuss the psychological case of Ruth von Schmettau. On the other hand, Goesch needs psychiatric treatment because of the many indicatives and conjunctions. It must be shown that some people are ordinary liars. With Goesch, one must not shy away from showing that the whole gang takes a madman seriously. The things must be grasped from the characteristic side. You can't just dish up all the gossip. I don't think it's hard to do.

Dr. Kolisko and others talk about the trust organization and the management of the Society, Leinhas about the publications and the publishing house, the magazines “Dreigliederung” and “Anthroposophie”.

Dr. Steiner: The last issue of “Anthroposophie” was unsatisfactory. There will have to be a change.

Dr. Kolisko: We must take up the fight against the opponents of “Anthroposophy”. Articles about Seiling, Goesch and Leisegang must appear in it. I am thinking of writing an article about Seiling, one of the doctors about Goesch. The number of subscribers is much too small.

Dr. Steiner: “Anthroposophy” must be placed on the cultural basis to which it belongs. “Anthroposophy” must become the expression of the movement.

One should not talk theoretically, one should indicate how things can be carried through the Anthroposophical Society.

Dr. Heyer speaks to this.

Marie Steiner: There will be another presentation for the students. Call for and invitation to the delegates'

• 3. A typical gesture of Dr. Kolisko.
• 3. This sentence reads in Karl Schubert's notes: “The most important event in anthroposophical history is missing from the work of the Anthroposophical Movement.” The word “movement” was replaced by Marie Steiner in her publication with the word “society”. Dr. Heyer noted instead of this sentence: “The most important events are missing in the ‘Anthroposophy’.”
  Obviously, the remarks of Rudolf Steiner could only be insufficiently recorded. It may have been said that not only was the most recent important event in the anthroposophical movement not reported in the journal Anthroposophie, but that the most important events are missing altogether.
• 4. This last sentence was edited by Marie Steiner. In Karl Schubert's notes it originally reads: “Most of the people working outside don't really know that much about the way in which the matter financially (?)” — above that stands three-fold (?) — “is utilized.”

Dear friends!

The Anthroposophical Society has entered a new phase of its development. We need to grasp this fully consciously and shape our anthroposophical work accordingly. In the early years, it may have been enough to absorb the results of spiritual research with an open mind and receptive heart and to prepare places for it in smaller circles. In recent years, the anthroposophical movement has increasingly become a world movement. This fact poses new challenges for those who want to represent anthroposophy to the world. This is a consequence of both the inner progress of anthroposophy and the changing conditions of the times in general. The realization that anthroposophy can bear fruit in all areas of life has given a number of people the courage to found a series of enterprises in the spirit of the anthroposophical worldview and its practical implications for life since 1919. Dr. Steiner supported this intention in the confidence that those who undertook the enterprises would also work with unyielding will to carry them out. In view of the fact that the opinion has taken hold in wide circles of the Anthroposophical Society that Dr. Steiner himself is the founder of such enterprises, it is our duty to emphasize that this is not the case. Rather, full responsibility lies with those who founded them. The way in which anthroposophy can enrich life, where it can work out of its own inner impulses, is shown by creations such as the now destroyed Goetheanum and the art of eurythmy, which has developed in unexpected ways under the direction of Mrs. Marie Steiner in recent years. They have been recognized worldwide as creations of universal human significance. Similarly, the Waldorf School, with its pedagogy born of anthroposophical spiritual insight, has found the greatest respect in Germany and far beyond. In the practical economic sphere, it has been possible – despite fierce hostility arising from old ways of thinking – to develop the joint-stock company “Der Kommende Tag” (The Coming Day) in such a way that it can fulfill its important task within the limits imposed by the general economic situation.

Dr. Steiner has shown how scientific work can be enriched by supersensible knowledge. But this gives rise to enormous tasks for anthroposophical work. The scientist can only do justice to them if he incorporates anthroposophical methods into his research, as was done, for example, in the work on the function of the spleen by Mrs. L. Kolisko of the Scientific Research Institute. Whoever is aware of the difficulties with which research in this field has had to contend up to now must welcome such a discovery, as presented in this paper, as the epoch-making beginning of a new understanding of the nature of the human organism. Dr. Hermann von Baravalle's work “On the Pedagogy of Mathematics and Physics” is a similar achievement in its field. Dr. C. von Heydebrand's work on experimental pedagogy must be seen as an act in the field of pedagogy. It delivers a scathing critique of the grotesque excesses of experimental psychology and pedagogy, countering them for the first time with positive results of the spiritual-scientific art of education.

How are these achievements to be taken into account by external science if they are not appreciated to their full extent in our own ranks?

Beyond such positive results, there are many indications from Dr. Steiner that, in continuing legitimate scientific research, the researcher himself can see himself on the path to supersensible knowledge. The Anthroposophical Society, if it wants to be the true bearer of anthroposophical life, must take a lively interest in these important tasks. Cultivating the path of spiritual-scientific knowledge is the main task of the Anthroposophical Society. The present consciousness is undergoing a transformation in many people that threatens to drive some into a state of mental chaos if they are not offered the strength to shape it through anthroposophical work.

Young people carry within them the power of new creation. They are striving to escape from the dull atmosphere that sometimes still hangs over our college courses and go to where they can find anthroposophy as such. Anthroposophy must meet their desire for healthy internalization in such a way that it takes hold of knowledge, feeling, moral and religious striving. An older generation that has followed the path of inner soul development in the sense of anthroposophy cannot come into conflict with the young, since this development awakens youthful forces in all souls. On this basis of the anthroposophical striving for soul development, there is no antagonism between old age and youth. The smear campaign by our opponents demands a counter-campaign that is conducted with objective clarity and vigorously pursued. The opposition that arose from Dr. Steiner's establishment of anthroposophical spiritual science would not have been of significant importance. It was only since the various enterprises were founded after 1919 that dangerous opposition arose. This latter type of opposition took up foolish assertions of former members and used them as a means to their intention of eliminating anthroposophy from the world. Thus an unscrupulous opposition managed to shower the person of Dr. Steiner with a flood of slander.

It is the task of the Anthroposophical Society, and especially of those who want to represent Anthroposophy in all fields, to vigorously counter these slanders in order to finally protect Dr. Steiner from such attacks in an effective way. Above all, it is important to vigorously combat defamations, such as those contained in the “Psychischen Studien” (Psychical Studies), which have then been uncritically circulated by almost all opponents, by characterizing and pillorying their authors.

In Munich, for instance, there was a man who was particularly troublesome to Dr. Steiner because of his fanatical devotion to him. He tried, for example, to kiss Dr. Steiner's hand at every opportunity. Later, out of wounded vanity, he became an equally fanatical opponent. All the other opponents drew from this source of filth. An example from the most recent past also sheds light on the character of our opponents. A private lecturer at a famous university tried to obtain unpublished material from us under the guise of scientific interest. At about the same time, he proved his manly courage by asking some of our members not to treat him in the polemic debate, as they did Prof. Drews, and thus ruin his career. The methods of many of these new opponents must also be exposed. They have tried to foist a distorted image of anthroposophy on their contemporaries, often abusing their official positions or scientific authority, and maliciously compiling numerous quotations from Dr. Steiner's books and lectures out of context. We must counter this distorted image with an accurate representation of the true nature of the anthroposophical spiritual heritage.

We owe it to anthroposophy that its representatives express an attitude of soul created by independent spiritual experience, which enables them to present anthroposophy in its full dignity in such a way that all human souls can find their way to it. Even the opponents' assertions, such as that supersensible knowledge about past human conditions has no significance for real life, are refuted simply by the way Anthroposophists themselves live when these insights are cultivated in the branch work and in individual life in such a way that it becomes apparent what they can give to people in terms of strengthening their personality and enlightening their existence. The knowledge of prenatal and post-mortal life will not be presented to people in abstract dogma if it becomes directly tangible as an ethical force. The revival of Christianity through the results of anthroposophical research will not be presented to people as a disputable assertion or an uncertain promise when it comes to them from the whole attitude of the anthroposophists themselves.

In view of the strength of the opposition, it is also imperative that all the living spiritual forces present in the Anthroposophical Society neither weaken through isolation nor wear themselves down in antagonism, but fully develop in free cooperation, and that the leadership of the Society should support everyone working in a truly anthroposophical spirit, to achieve the fullest possible effectiveness in the service of the common cause. A human relationship must develop among the individual anthroposophists. New flexible forms must be sought, so that the Anthroposophical Society can emerge from its isolation and self-isolation and become a versatile mediator of its spiritual wealth. Every leadership of the Society will have to be supported and at the same time kept flexible by a living organization of trusted individuals who will feel jointly responsible for the work as a whole.

What we have only outlined in this appeal from our sense of the new tasks for the Anthroposophical Society, we would like to present to a representative assembly for discussion. In view of the extraordinary significance of the decisions we have to make, we request the working groups in Germany to send such personalities, who are deeply committed to a re-organization of the Anthroposophical Society, to a conference to be held in Stuttgart from February 25 to 28.

Until the representatives' meeting, we signatories will form the leading trust body for the affairs of the Anthroposophical Society. Stuttgart, February 13, 1923.

Jürgen v. Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Johanna Mücke, Emil Leinhas, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth.

Dear Friends!

From the appeal that we hereby present to you, you will see the importance for the Anthroposophical Society of the delegates' assembly to be held from February 25 to 28, 1923. In this appeal, we also present those points of view that we consider to be the most important foundations for the deliberations. We may express the hope that if you now send the delegates of your confidence to this meeting, we will all be able to discuss and organize our affairs together in a fraternal spirit.

We would like to give you a completely free hand in the way you wish to appoint your delegates, including the number of delegates; in particular, we consider it a good thing if groups that carry out joint anthroposophical work within or outside the recognized working groups are also represented. In addition to the delegates, every member of the Anthroposophical Society is entitled to participate in the discussions. Please bring your delegate ID and membership cards. During the days of the conference, rooms will be available for free gatherings, group discussions, individual meetings, etc.

A detailed report of the conference will be provided.

We will try to provide free accommodation for a limited number of delegates at our local members. We therefore ask that the names of delegates who require this and any accommodation requests be sent to us by telegraph.

If any of the working groups should have financial difficulties in sending their delegates here, we ask to be notified quickly so that we can help out according to the available funds.

We request that all correspondence regarding the delegates' meeting be addressed to Mr. Jürgen von Grone, Stuttgart, Champignystr. 17, with the note “Delegates' Meeting”.

We would like to point out that this is an extremely urgent matter and request that you begin preparations for the determination of delegates as soon as possible.

With warmest anthroposophical greetings

Jürgen von Grone, Dr. Eugen Kolisko, Emil Leinhas, Johanna Mücke, Dr. Otto Palmer, Dr. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, Dr. Carl Unger, Wolfgang Wachsmuth

Delegates' Assembly program

On Sunday, February 25, 1923, at 8 p.m., Landhausstraße 70

Meeting of delegates.

Further deliberations will take place at the Gustav Siegle House, Leonhardplatz, Stuttgart, on Monday, February 26, from 9:00 a.m. to noon,

from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. On Tuesday, February 27,

9 to 12 a.m. and 2½ to 4½ p.m. Wednesday, February 28, 9 to 12 a.m. and 2½ to 4½ p.m.

Tuesday, February 27, 5 p.m., Landhausstraße 70, performance of eurythmic art

under the direction of Mrs. Marie Steiner. The performance will be repeated on Wednesday, February 28th, at 5 p.m., at the same place.

Tuesday, February 27th, and Wednesday, February 28th, at 8 p.m. at the Gustav Siegle House, Leonhardsplatz.

Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

NB: On March 1, the prices of tickets are expected to rise again, but it can be assumed that tickets purchased on February 28 will again be valid for three days.

on the three main questions for anthroposophical youth work

My dear friends! I think I can assume that the present appeal to the members of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany is known to you all. You have seen from it that it is recognized in the circles of the Anthroposophical Society that, to a certain extent, the rudder, as it has been steered from Stuttgart in particular, must now be turned and that there is, after all, an awareness that such a change in direction is necessary. The details that come into consideration will naturally be discussed at the delegates' meeting. I believe you will be particularly interested in all that will be going on there. You found society in a particular state when you yourself were seeking the path to anthroposophy out of the external circumstances of your life. You imagined that what a young person seeks from the depths of his soul but cannot find in the institutions of the world today must be found somewhere. They were placed in these institutions and found that what has emerged from recent history does not correspond to what is actually demanded from the human soul as humanity. Perhaps you were looking for where this demand for true humanity would be fulfilled, and finally you believed you could find it in the Anthroposophical Society. Now, however, many things were not in accordance with the facts as they were. At first it was not all of you who somehow made this discord a conflict. You found many things unsatisfactory, but at first you remained at the stage of merely stating this dissatisfaction. In the face of the past and present facts within the Anthroposophical Society, however, the fact must be faced that the Anthroposophical Society has simply not fulfilled the development of anthroposophy, and that the extent to which something completely new must be created or the old Anthroposophical Society must be continued with a completely new impulse must be faced.

This has been considered by the personalities who have been involved in the leadership to a greater or lesser extent: to leave behind many old sins, which mostly consisted of omissions and bureaucratic forms, and to attempt to create the basis for the further existence of the Society in agreement with the representatives of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany.

In Stuttgart, it must be said that the developments of recent years have brought together a large number of excellent workers. As individuals, they are excellent people, but when brought together in a group, they are a truly great movement in their own right. But as one of the leading personalities here has already said, each one stands in the way of the other. This has actually been the cause of much unproductivity here. Each individual has filled his post quite well. One can be highly satisfied with the Waldorf School. But the actual Anthroposophical Society, despite the fact that the anthroposophists were there, has basically disappeared bit by bit, began to dissolve, one cannot even say, into goodwill, but into displeasure. An end must be put to this state of affairs if the Society is not to disintegrate completely.

You have obviously noticed this very clearly and then formed your own views. But it was necessary for the Anthroposophical Society to give itself a new form out of its old supports. After all, the work of twenty-three years is present in the bulk of the Anthroposophical Society. Many who are in it are in a completely different situation and find something that exists: Even if the branch decays, the individual anthroposophists remain, and anthroposophy will find its way; for example, Mrs. Wolfram, who led the branch in Leipzig for many years and then resigned from the leadership, recently founded a local group of the “Federation for Free Spiritual Life” in deliberate contrast to the local anthroposophical circles.

The fact that replacing old forces with young ones is not enough is evident in Leipzig, where the local chairman emerged from the student body. A balance must therefore be struck between what has been created over two decades and what is coming in from young forces.

The appeal should also represent this in the right way. Many members of the Anthroposophical Society have sought a reassuring element in this society; they were always very uncomfortable when something had to be said against external opposition. Sometimes harsh words had to be used. But this will also be unavoidable in the future, because the opposition is taking on ever more outrageous forms. A strange defensive position must therefore already be adopted. One must not lose sight of this. It is difficult for the old ones to be good anthroposophists after the reassuring element has become habitual in them.

As soon as one lives in anthroposophy in such a way that one experiences things as if out of habit, this is something very bad. Anthroposophy is something that actually has to be acquired anew every day; otherwise one cannot have anthroposophy. One cannot just remember what one once thought up. And the difficulties of the old Anthroposophical Society are due to the fact that human beings are creatures of habit, as we used to say when I was very young. For Anthroposophy must not become a habit. You will in turn find difficulties because Anthroposophy demands that we go beyond everything that is merely egoistic in an intellectual sense. Of course, human beings can be selfish, like other creatures. But anthroposophy and selfishness do not go together. If you are an egoist, you can be a tolerable philistine, even a tolerable human being. If you are selfish as an anthroposophist, you will constantly contradict yourself. This is because human beings do not really live on earth with their whole being. When he comes down to earth from a pre-earthly existence, a part of him still remains in the astral realm, so that when a person wakes up in the morning, it is not the whole person that goes with it; it is precisely what goes down from the supersensible human being. The human being is not completely on earth, he leaves a certain part of his existence in the supersensible. And this is connected with the fact that there can be no completely satisfactory social order. Such a social order can only come from earthly conditions. Within such a social order, human beings cannot be completely happy.

I have said it again and again: threefolding is not paradise on earth, but it shows an organism that is possible within itself. Otherwise it would be a deception, for the human being is not only an earthly being. This is the fact that one must actually hold to in order to really feel one's full humanity; and that is why one can never be satisfied with a purely materialistic world view when one feels one's full humanity within oneself. Only when we really feel this, are we truly ready for anthroposophy, when we feel that we cannot come down completely to earth, we need something for our supersensible human being.

You have evidently felt something of the kind quite instinctively, and that is why you have come to the Anthroposophical Society. You will have to realize that this fact makes your difficulty more or less clear to you. For if, on the one hand, Anthroposophy can never become a habit, on the other hand it is necessary that Anthroposophy does not merge into a being that really comes from a merely earthly one. For that which arises out of egoism is connected with the earthly. Man becomes as bad as he is as a human being when he is supersensible and at the same time egoistic: a supersensible being is made entirely in the character of a sensual being. Spiritual feeling and perception are not compatible with egoism. That is where the obstacle begins.

But this is also the point where the anthroposophical movement coincides with what today's youth is really seeking, due to the fact that all connection with the spiritual world has been lost. And now the external institutions are there. Young people flee from them and seek a consciousness of their humanity. It is out of this feeling that you must try to come to terms with what is already there and to feel with your own inner being. You must hold together the difficulties you encounter with the difficulties that others have, and then the way will be found to actually get a strong Anthroposophical Society for the near future, including in the circle that seeks internalization, a strong Anthroposophical movement.

If you go down this path, you will have to go through many a privation and many a difficulty, because humanity does not want such a movement. There is still a lot ahead of you before you are really so far that you are truly connected to the cause with your whole being. Then anthroposophy will assert itself under all circumstances. The disintegration of the civilized world is so strong that Europe will not have much time left if it does not turn to the spirit. Only from the spirit can an ascent come! Therefore, the spiritual must be sought unconditionally, and in this striving you have done the right thing, you have taken the right path. Now it is a matter of taking up the work for the near future. And to hear some more about how you imagine your intentions will take shape, we have come together today.

[The following is a question and answer session, printed in full in GA 217a. This is only a summary of the social context:]

A participant: About the difficulties students have in asserting themselves with anthroposophical works.

Dr. Steiner: The Anthroposophical Society must learn to recognize how important it is that the work done within its framework is not ignored; it must come to recognize such work. It must learn to appreciate the work of Dr. von Baravalle or the brochure by Caroline von Heydebrand, 'Against Experimental Psychology and Education'. Little by little, even if our research institutes were to solve the tasks that lie in the natural science courses and cycles, it must also be the case that even the opponents say that there is something to be found in the Anthroposophical Society that they respect. One must train oneself to recognize human achievements. Today, a student working on an anthroposophical dissertation is rejected! The Society must become a place where such things become “conscience”, so that it can no longer happen that a professor rejects an anthroposophically oriented work for these reasons. The research institutes, in which people are involved in practical work, must stand behind it, so that a student who is working in a seminar or doing a doctoral thesis is also granted it. The Anthroposophical Society must become such that a professor must accept an anthroposophically oriented seminar paper or dissertation, provided it is substantial enough, because he is concerned that otherwise he will get the Anthroposophical Society on his back.

Dr. Steiner asks if youth representatives are coming to the delegates' meeting.

A youth representative says a few words about the assembly of delegates.

Dr. Steiner: It would be good if something could be presented in as comprehensive a form as possible and taken completely seriously on the three main questions that need to be addressed here:

Firstly: What is the situation regarding the student and youth movement?

Secondly: What kind of experiences does someone who feels their full humanity through anthroposophy have at the universities?

Thirdly: What does the academic and younger person expect from the Anthroposophical Society?

These things must, of course, be brought to bear by grasping them in a penetrating way. Nietzsche showed in a penetrating way what the situation was at our educational institutions at the turn of the 1960s. He brilliantly described how the educational institutions should be and what he expected of them. Unfortunately, Nietzsche has almost been forgotten. Today, what Nietzsche described at the time would have to be surpassed. These three questions that have just been characterized are the most important. And if we succeed in bringing personalities into the center of the Anthroposophical Society who not only have the highest interest in their field, but also attention for everything that is going on in the Society and everywhere, then everything will be fine. What has been lacking is interest and attention. This is shown by the fact that the emergence of the religious movement went unnoticed until it occurred. Attention and interest must be paid to everything in the Anthroposophical Society. For it is indeed the case that thoughts do not grow, they remain unchanged, but that attention and interest grow and can bear fruit.

Above all, one must seek and follow the path to the supersensible worlds with clarity and determination. Then one will also find the right relationship with people. And vice versa: if one has found the right relationship with people, then one is no longer far from entering the supersensible worlds.

Meeting with the Thirties Group

Dr. Steiner: It is important that the Anthroposophical Society asserts what it wants.

Emil Leinhas: It is to be presented what is still to be said about the presentations [about the various institutions at the assembly of delegates].

Several: Heyer, Stein, Maier, Hahn, Stockmeyer, Rittelmeyer, Krüger and Leinhas speak about the “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Federation for Free Spiritual Life). One should give it concrete tasks for young people.

Dr. Steiner: The “day to come” can no longer finance things. With the large expenses that our institutes require, it will not be possible to finance such things. But then it must be shown that the world is interested in them. The “day to come” could only be in a position to finance such things if it could be placed on a broader basis. We often encounter the opinion that people do not want to join the “Kommende Tag”, but would like to profit from it. As long as it is not possible for us to involve everyone in the “Kommende Tag”, we will not be able to achieve anything.

A large number of speakers – Stockmeyer, Kolisko, Werbeck, Baravalle, Heyer, von Grone, Leinhas, Kolisko, Rittelmeyer – speak programmatically about the “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life” and also about the newspaper “Anthroposophie”.

Dr. Steiner: If we had learned by chance that a lecture was to be given on eurythmy, we would naturally have found it out of place. Eurythmy has its own content. The point is that there is no need to talk about eurythmy at all. Imagine if the report on religious renewal contained instructions on what the leaders should do, for example, in worship! On the other hand, there are a number of agendas that fall to the Society with regard to the religious renewal movement. In the same way, we would have to talk about such things as the newspaper [Anthroposophie] and the Bund für freies Geistesleben. On the other hand, we are constantly discussing the substance of the matter. This will not be the task of the assembly of delegates, but rather to show what the Anthroposophical Society as such has to contribute. You will also not be able to present the lecture on the Waldorf school in such a way that you talk about the curriculum, but rather about what the Society has to do. If we do not stick to the issues, people will leave. The questions must be addressed in such a way that the assembly of delegates gets the impression: these people know what they are doing with “Anthroposophy”, these people know what they are doing with the “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life”.

Now it is a matter of giving the members suggestions as to what the Anthroposophical Society has to do to enable the anthroposophical movement to be fed by it. The discussion should be concentrated on this point. One should give a picture, for example, of the “Bund für freies Geistesleben”, that it has a great justification in the whole spiritual life of the present day. A few strokes are needed to indicate the factors from which it can draw its substance. One would have to show how society wants to absorb this and what it can do in the process.

The question of financing is answered by the anthroposophical movement. We have never worried about financing the anthroposophical movement. We have not financed anything. The “Bund für freies Geistesleben” (Association for an Independent Spiritual Life) is best financed when it is left to finance itself. If one continually strives to create funds that are spent in the most inappropriate way until there is nothing left, and does not ensure that the cause finances itself, it will not work. In the Anthroposophical Society we had no need to discuss financial questions until 1918. If one has to talk as one has done just now about financial questions, it is because one thinks only of funds.

Things that have inner life will assert themselves. The meeting on Wednesday must not break up without having achieved anything; without having talked about everything except the specific tasks of the Society, these great tasks that lie ahead for the Waldorf School, for the Research Institute, eurythmy and art. Then the discussion of community life comes up by itself. If we continue our conversation as before, the members will leave at the end as they came. It must be shown that the things are there and what one has to do with them. When the tasks of the society are discussed, it will emerge from such a discussion that the newspaper is also being properly edited.

The publishing house [“Kommender Tag”] is discussed: Wolfgang Wachsmuth, Dr. Kolisko.

Dr. Steiner: The publishing house of “Kommender Tag” is precisely an institution for a free spiritual life, which in turn is a gift of the Anthroposophical Society. The Society should continue this activity.

Gratitude must be expressed by spreading the spiritual knowledge. The existence of spiritual knowledge gives rise to the obligation to protect it.

The Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press is mentioned.

Dr. Steiner: The Philosophical-Anthroposophical Press can be satisfied. It will fulfill its tasks even when the Society is really up and running. (Note from Dr. Heyer: “It will at most receive new tasks when the Society is functioning.”) In itself, it hardly needs to be mentioned.

Marie Steiner: But there was a time when it was presented as overcome and people wanted to move beyond it. There was a time when it had to defend itself.

Dr. Steiner: The important thing is to let what is going well develop properly and to point out the real harm. This lies in the tendency to want to do something for the publishing house. The real task is to not interfere in something that is solidly grounded in itself. It must be placed on a more general footing. There have been cases in the past where a tendency has emerged to interfere with things that were in order. Instead of dealing with the things that were out of order, people have always been concerned with things that were in order.

Marie Steiner: It was thought that the women's economy should be done away with and that the matter had to be handled in a cosmopolitan way.

Dr. Steiner: It is mentioned as justified in the matter, in lectures on economics as an example that is based on a healthy foundation. First there was consumption, so that it is based on a healthy foundation. It must be mentioned from the anthroposophical point of view. Of course, you can also have a framework first and then give it content. The basic difference between these two publishing houses is that the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag emerged from the anthroposophical movement, while the Kommende Tag Verlag came into being because people wanted to found a publishing house in opposition to the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag. That is one aspect here. One is something that has become necessary out of anthroposophical affairs; the other is something that is tremendously linked to things that have been founded out of unobjective points of view. All these kinds of foundations have caused the movement many difficulties as a result. You cannot imagine the difficulties we are now facing, the huge difficulties that have arisen from the fact that, for example, the quirk has arisen of having the financial affairs of the Goetheanum administered by a Stuttgart trust company. This is something that hangs around like shackles. In the last few days I have even been obliged to tell the experts that they wanted to pass off as reasonable something that I regarded as unreasonable. These things were justified by “really practical people”, and they turn out to be the most impractical stuff there can be. Of course, if the personality and its energy are behind it, you can put a lot into such things. This must be talked about in the next few days. You can't just sweep the things that have happened since 1918 under the carpet; but you have to explain that you want to give them substance.

Dr. Krüger comments on this.

Dr. Steiner: It depends a lot on how things have been done since 1918. It must become apparent that things will not be done in the same way, that they will not be done from points of view that are heterogeneous to anthroposophy. Something has been added from outside to purely anthroposophical activity. It is not anthroposophy that cuts one off from the rest of the world. You may even find that people are very interested to know about anthroposophy. It is the things that have happened that discredit anthroposophy. We must call things by their right name.

Was it necessary to go to the President of Württemberg in 1918 without my knowledge, so that these things are now attributed to me? Was it necessary to combine something so un-anthroposophical with the anthroposophical current? These things are what has led us into the abyss. We must realize that things must not be done in this way. Was it necessary to do all this work? If in the next few days there is no talk of the things that matter and about which one can say: mistakes have been made — and the mistakes are avoided in such a way that one becomes aware of the direction in which the mistakes were made and how one will therefore do things differently — we will not make any progress. It must be shown that it is this positive doing-differently that matters (Dr. Heyer's note: “not pater peccavp”).

Ernst Uehli: I have offered to give a talk on eurythmy.

Dr. Steiner: I am just taking this opportunity to point out that we need to address the question of what the Society has to do in relation to the problems at hand. We can talk about the things that have led us away from our anthroposophical endeavors. All these endeavors should have been guided by anthroposophy, as was the case with eurythmy. All these things could have been done in the anthroposophical sense. But they were done in a bureaucratic sense. It would be just as if one were to improve the Waldorf school method by mixing in all kinds of nonsense.

But in the other areas, all kinds of nonsense has been mixed in from the outside.

Louis Werbeck is to give the presentation on the opponents.

Dr. Steiner:

But in the other areas, all kinds of nonsense has been mixed in from the outside.

Louis Werbeck should take over the presentation about the opponents.

Dr. Steiner: You have to take the standpoint of the real conditions. It is important to realize that conditions are getting worse, so that we have to expect that the books will be boycotted by the retail book trade. We have to be prepared for this fact. Now, in the next few days, our members must be spoken to in the same way that the “Berliner Tageblatt” dared to speak to its subscribers. The French have banned it in the Ruhr area because of certain articles. The Tageblatt has said: “We will nevertheless find ways and means that all those who previously received it will continue to receive the Tageblatt.” We cannot achieve anything by getting books from booksellers. We have to look for ways and means of spreading our literature.

Then it will be necessary for the branches to become disseminators of anthroposophical literature in a real way, but in such a way that it can be seen that the Society is actually working for the various fields. We must seek out new channels. I have been recommending this for two or three years; only it has not been taken into account much. To find new channels, you have to put your brainpower to work. Only cleverness belongs in criticism. We really do not lack genius. But there is a lack of goodwill. With goodwill, one must apply one's brainpower. This is not necessary with genius. One can be a genius and a mere automaton at the same time.

The question of the opponents of the Goesch case is discussed.

Dr. Steiner: You only need to take the thick document that Goesch wrote shortly after he was expelled. You just need to look at it: constant repetitions, nitpicking, fear of physical contact like shaking hands, and so on. You can put together an absolutely reliable clinical picture from these things. I do not think it is right to put things together from his own statements. That is not decisive. With these things one can throw in “situations”. I have mentioned the matter somewhere; one could know that, since every piece of rubbish is copied. For example, Goesch writes that the children spit eight days before a great battle. If you take the concoction, you will find all the symptoms that make up a complete clinical picture. I have dealt with this clinical picture in a Dornach lecture.

The main thing is that the Anthroposophical Society would understand what its duties are. The Goesch case has been left lying around; it has been left lying around. No further attention has been paid to it. But if the Anthroposophical Society is there and makes demands, it would be obliged to follow up the matter. It is a matter of drawing attention to what the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society are in each individual case.

It is just as easy to make it clear with Seiling. He has become an opponent simply because our publishing house has not accepted his Christ brochure. It is of no use if this is mentioned in a subordinate clause. This must always be brought to the attention, it must be said again and again. The archives have made it their business to lock things up and not take any responsibility for them. So the lectures in which something like this is said were locked up, so that the things have now become a scandal. This is part of the bigger picture. You have to characterize your opponents correctly.

Goesch is a medical case. He has to be destroyed professionally because he is simply a pathological case. Many people could have written a paper about him, but they didn't. I don't understand why it wasn't possible to find this Goesch case interesting. It's an interesting medical case. One really has to say: any journal with even a passing interest in psychiatry would have accepted this paper if 'y' had been used instead of 'Goesch'. Today one could have pointed to Goesch. Psychiatry is entitled to do that. There is talk of Dr. Steiner's scientific courses 'The Doctrine of Heat and Light' [GA 320, GA 321] and their publication.

Dr. Steiner: The point is that you yourselves do what you consider necessary. The point of the courses is that I would have to correct them so that they do not contain various cabbages, but are consistent. We can no longer avoid the fact that all these things are being made accessible to a wider public.

One course was about thermodynamics. Now, on the basis of this course, a theory of heat can be written in the way one is accustomed to writing a theory of heat. On the basis of this course, an optics can be written on the basis of this course on light, so that physicists would see that it is possible to treat such chapters anthroposophically in this way. In doing so, it would be shown that some things have been treated briefly there. We shall have to consider how to treat this or that problem from the point of view of the course. The chapters in question would have to be treated in such a way that, based on these principles, a theory of heat and an optics would be written anthroposophically. I have made that clear.

It happens again and again that others express their own opinions and then claim that these are my opinions. I never said that this course should only be used to do experiments. That is a task that is never complete. I don't know why people keep putting their own opinions out there as if I had said them. You can tell whether I said it or not.

Dr. von Baravalle: That is my favorite answer. In that sense, I would have liked to have taken on this task.

Dr. Steiner: I would not have had the slightest objection to things being done this way after my course. Steffen's account of the pedagogical course is an independent work. But why do people keep racking their brains over how to solve my tasks? It would have been quite a different matter if someone had reported on the courses in Anthroposophy in the manner of Steffen in the Goetheanum. Anthroposophy must solve the tasks on its own initiative.

The processing of the language course given by Dr. Steiner, “Geisteswissenschaftliche Sprachbetrachtungen” [GA 299], is discussed.

Dr. Steiner: The only thing that can be done is to write a short linguistics paper as an independent work. A Zurich student has dealt with the problems in his own way. The Stuttgart students are so lazy that they let the things in the archive gather dust. A suitable terminology would have to be found. If the Stuttgart people could do what they are capable of, the Anthroposophical Society would be the most brilliant society in the world. The suggestions that are made must be reviewed by me myself. I thought that the work would be based on the linguistic course. Instead of that, it has not been worked with at all.

There is talk of the Hochschulbund and the academic youth.

Dr. Steiner: The Hochschulbund was the pivotal point of the matter, where things were started and left lying around. From the outset, I had said that the Hochschulbund would only be taken on if there was a will to carry it through to a successful conclusion. It was left lying around. The Hochschulbund is one of the things that most clearly illustrates what must not be done. This Hochschulbund phenomenon, which we knew would be used to send private lecturers after us, was a complete waste of time. You have had opportunities here to interact with a whole range of young people and thus to see for yourself what these people say, in order to gain something positive from what now remains as a sad wreck.

When I sat with the young people here after the illustrious assembly ended the other day [on February 14], they presented their scientific problems and wanted to know what they, as anthroposophists, have to do in relation to science. The young people are completely wild. You have to make it clear to them: the possibility must be created that such a free college is enabled to issue doctoral diplomas. It is one of the tasks of the Anthroposophical Society to do something with this “Federation for a Free Spiritual Life” so that it does not end in failure. To do that, you need the young people. You can't do it with the old fogies, you can only do it with the young people. Then you also have to have young people for the Anthroposophical Society. At present there is no heart for the Anthroposophical Society. I have the feeling that the young people would prefer it if there were no society at all.

That can only happen if you are able to awaken real enthusiasm in these young people. The great fiasco was that no enthusiasm was awakened. You have to awaken enthusiasm in young people. Youth goes along when enthusiasm is awakened. Nationalist university folly has the youth behind it because it has awakened enthusiasm. But if the Genualität is used to present dry theories, then the youth will not go along. Anthroposophy must have momentum! Why is it that in Stuttgart genius is not used? That there is a reluctance to activate the will in order to use the head? Why is the seat of the organs of perception the most active and why does the soul not want to rise up into the head?

The Free School and the World School Association are discussed. Dr. Hahn and Dr. von Heydebrand discuss this.

Dr. Steiner(?): Healthy self-confidence could be given to society.

Louis Werbeck: Society should be interested in the central school.

Dr. Steiner: The difficulty is this: initially, for the first step, the people who live somewhere have no direct interest in supporting a school in Stuttgart that they cannot send their children to, so they have to say to themselves: We support a school, but we cannot allow our children to benefit from it. The only way to overcome this is to make it a matter for the whole of humanity. To support something that I have often emphasized: to propagate the idea of a free school in the form of a world school association. Then people would broaden their primary judgment and say to themselves: We see that schools can become better through this method, and such a school must exist as a model school. Then people would not focus so much on the effectiveness of the details but on the big idea of the free school. Something like this would have to be popularized and introduced to the branches. It would have to be seen as a general anthroposophical matter that free education was being addressed. Then something could really be achieved.

Then one would be able to maintain one school through contributions, and the other schools would be treated in such a way that one would say: You can found them if you have the money to maintain them in a private way. But one matter for the Anthroposophical Society is the one model school, which is simply intended to demonstrate the practical side of this methodology. In all things, it is important to present it to the whole world. Then it would work. But the founding of the World School Association has been thrown to the wind. I don't see why it couldn't have been supported. I don't see why the World School Association shouldn't have come into being. But when it comes to putting the genuality into action, then the forces fail.

In Hamburg, the matter has been messed up. What was the starting point? Pohlmann came and said he wanted to found a school. In this matter, he alone is fully responsible. Today, Pohlmann would have to be obliged to fulfill his obligations: he should found his school as a private citizen. I thought this community would be a good one, because this community of Pohlmann and Kändler seems to suit me quite well, and that would have worked. If only our membership would take something like this seriously and not always go awry! I don't know why this private school, which Pohlmann wants as a hobbyhorse, why this school had to be a branch affair. Mr. Pohlmann took over this school, so he should also carry it out.

It was not possible to found the World School Association. The Stuttgart vice also came to light outside of Germany.

Nor did Germany try to encourage friends abroad. The difficulty is that people say to themselves: We cannot send our children to Stuttgart. Therefore, this matter would have to be put on a different map.

Louis Werbeck: People feel it is a world affair.

Dr. Steiner: You can be sure: If the same conditions were possible today as before the war - that a large number of people could easily give their children away -, then a large number of parents would be scattered in different places and people would have much more heart for the Waldorf school for primary reasons. We need to popularize the secondary reason: the idea of a free school. People are easily inspired by educational ideas. Apart from isolated praiseworthy exceptions, our society is not characterized by what must be called enthusiasm. How often have I expressed my despair here in such terminology, how difficult it is to get a thirty-strong committee moving! There is a viscousness there like in strudel dough. Everything is coughed up. Only when there is something to grumble about is there momentum. Momentum is lacking in ideal things. If only momentum could be injected into them! Ingenuity is there, but momentum and enthusiasm would have to be injected into this ingenuity! It is no exaggeration to say that enthusiasm and drive are lacking here. People carry the Curule chair with them, even when they walk. Things are discussed so endlessly cleverly. This endless cleverness also characterizes the way the other person is judged.

Report in the “Communications for the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar Headquarters) published by Mathilde Scholl”, No. 1/1905

At half-past ten, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, as General Secretary of the German Section, opened the third ordinary General Assembly and welcomed the representatives of the foreign branches and all other guests.

After reading and approving the minutes of the General Assembly of October 30, 1904, the number of votes of the various branches was determined, with the following result:

Absolute majority 21 votes

Two-thirds majority 28 votes.

Mr. Hubo proposes the following procedural motion: The General Assembly shall decide to grant the Secretary General the exclusive right to publish the General Assembly; however, any other publication shall be declared inadmissible. After a lengthy debate, in which Dr. Löhnis, Mr. Ahner, Mr. Krojanker, Mr. Arenson, Mr. Stübing, Mr. Kieser, Dr. Paulus, Dr. Steiner took part, the Hubo motion was adopted as follows, with all but two votes in favor:

“The report of the General Assembly is to be duplicated by the General Secretary and sent confidentially to all members. It may not otherwise be published or sent.”

Dr. Rudolf Steiner makes the following statement on the first item on the agenda - the Secretary General's report:

"The Theosophical movement has spread extensively and intensively within Germany and Switzerland. The Theosophical idea seems to be understood more and more. During my visits to Munich, Nuremberg, Regensburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt am Main, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Weimar, Zurich, Basel, Kassel and so on, it has become clear that there is a great longing in people's hearts for a spiritual deepening of life. In these cities, we either already have branches or their establishment is in prospect. Branches have been established in Freiburg im Breisgau and Karlsruhe, and in other cities: Sankt Gallen, Frankfurt am Main and so on, such branches are likely to be established soon. In Basel and Heidelberg, the circumstances are more difficult; there, the understanding that the high spirit, which was sent into the world thirty years ago, flows through our society, must first be created. There is still much misunderstanding to be cleared up, which has been caused by the split-off theosophical movements.

This longing should give us strength. It is essential that we not only cultivate theosophical teachings, but also theosophical life. Only when art, science and all other branches of life radiate out of theosophy, only then has the mission been fully grasped. The significance of the Theosophical movement was beautifully demonstrated at the Congress of the Federation of European Sections in London. One may object to such congresses as one likes; perfection has not fallen from heaven; but here we are dealing with intentions. We must set ourselves the ideal of improving what needs improvement, of working to improve it, not of criticizing it.

Before I move on to the Congress report, I would like to mention an event that relates to certain recent events. On the eve of the Congress, Mrs. Besant spoke at the Blavatsky Lodge about the needs of the student body in connection with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. All those present at the time will not contradict me when I say that it was an hour of intimate Theosophical togetherness, from which one could take away a lasting impression in one's heart and mind. I have seldom heard Mrs. Besant speak in such an inward and heartfelt way. In the English “Vâhan” it had been expressed some time before that the qualities of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky were in contradiction to the discipleship, and the question had been raised: Can someone possess the qualities and yet not be free from such faults as smoking, intermittent passionate outbursts and so on? Mrs. Besant took up this remark about “Vâhan” and said that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a personality who was the bringer of light for her; she was the one who led her out of darkness towards the light. Well, it is true that Mrs. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky smoked and flew into a rage; but do such questioners know what it means to go through the storms and struggles that someone has to endure before they have worked their way to this level of knowledge? Even the sun has sunspots, but we should not judge it by these spots, but as the bringer of light and warmth. The younger members should first try to understand the older members whom they cannot recognize in their greatness before they begin to criticize.

Let us tie this in with a few words about personality cults and belief in authority, because such things have also been discussed in our section. It might seem that I myself now wanted to engage in such personality cults and belief in authority with regard to Mrs. Besant. Before I knew Mrs. Besant, I was as far removed as possible from engaging in personality cults; it was more important to me to continue searching for the truth in the world. Then I met Mrs. Besant. Not out of personality cult, but out of the spiritual content of the personality, I became convinced that she lives in what leads to the higher spiritual worlds. Fifteen years ago, I still stood before Helena Petrovna Blavatsky as before a mystery, but through Mrs. Besant I also found my way to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Mrs. Besant demands the least cult of personality; nothing is more unpleasant to her than this. Mrs. Besant has never demanded the slightest cult of personality from me.

At the congress, a scene took place that seems to symbolize the global reach of the Theosophical Society. In addition to Mrs. Besant, there were representatives of the various sections and countries. Everyone spoke in their mother tongue. The idea of Theosophy, which is common to all, was heard in the languages of the most diverse peoples of the earth: Dutch, English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Indian. The course of the congress was the usual one. There was an exhibition, in particular of works of art by our members. Among the German exhibitors, I would like to highlight Lauweriks (Düsseldorf), Seydewitz (Munich), Boyer (Düsseldorf), Miss Stinde (Munich), Miss Schmidt (Stuttgart). The pictures of the Irishman Russell should be mentioned, who tried to express inner astral life in the environment and also in the symbolism in his landscapes and persons. Besant also pointed out that those who want to find theosophy in art can find it in Richard Wagner, for example. The sculptural work of a sculptor named Ezekiel, who lives in Italy, was also mentioned. Besant said that it reflects well what a theosophist can imagine of Christ.

Ms Besant's lecture on occult research, its methods and dangers on Sunday evening should also be mentioned. No one should accept anything that is claimed about occult research on good faith or on authority, but should consider it only as a suggestion at first. What comes to light is researched in difficult ways. Therefore, anyone who does such research should only want to suggest.

I myself was allowed to give a lecture on the occult basis in Goethe's works.

Regarding last year's Federation Yearbook, I note that it was completed by the beginning of July, except for the index, which I assume has been finished by now.

This year's Yearbook should be ready in less time.

The location of the 1906 congress is Paris. It is expected to take place in May.

This concludes the factual information. However, I would like this information to be understood as it is meant, and that these messages are not understood as meaning that all theosophical teachings, dogmas and thoughts are only valuable if they flow directly into life.

Those who enter Theosophical Society should know that everyone who sits there should be a battery of power for the mind. We are clear about the living weaving and living of the mind. We do not want to spread the teachings through mere words on the physical plane. We know that the spirit flows out like the current of an electrical power source. Wherever theosophists sit together, there should be such a power source. Then those who receive these waves will also be found. One should feel like one is a member of a spiritual community.

The treasurer, Mr. Seiler, now gives an account of his stewardship:

The total income in the past
financial year was 1462 marks
The total expenditure was 936.67 marks
Thus there was a surplus of 525.33 marks.

Added to this are 1000 marks in the bank, giving a total cash wealth of 1525.33 marks.

Dr. Steiner also reports that Countess Wachtmeister has provided him with 50 pounds for Theosophical work in Germany. He asks that these be used exclusively for propaganda and that he be allowed to administer them together with Miss von Sivers. The General Assembly agreed.

Fräulein von Sivers, as secretary of the German Section, gives the following report on the course of Theosophical life in the past year:

The number of branches is 18 compared to 13 last year, an increase of 5 (Besant Branch, Stuttgart II and III, Freiburg, Karlsruhe).

Total number of members: 377 (previous year: 256), an increase of 121.
8 have left
3 have died
132 have joined (previous year: 121).

Members in the individual branches:
Besant branch [newly founded] 83
Berlin branch [DTG] 18
Charlottenburg 5
Weimar 11 Munich 33
Stuttgart I 9
Stuttgart II (Kerning-Loge) 11
Stuttgart III 11
Freiburg i. Br. 10
Lugano 9
Karlsruhe 9
Cologne 22
Düsseldorf 15
Hamburg 21
Hannover 25
Leipzig 26
Dresden 9
Nuremberg 18

Section members 22

Reports from the individual branches:

Mr. Ahner reports on Dresden that there has been much struggle in the theosophical movement there, especially with the secession. The circumstances had led to the founding of an Adyar Lodge, which, however, found it very difficult to maintain its membership, as there were very few funds available. Therefore, work could only be done in a smaller circle. Mr. Ahner concluded with a general appeal to the generosity of the members with means. Mr. Hubo called for such voluntary donations to be made immediately after the General Assembly.

After the report of the auditor, Mr. Krojanker, the treasurer is granted discharge, as are the other members of the board.

The next item on the agenda is the election of the board:

Mr. Bresch takes the floor to speak about the election of the General Secretary and says something along the following lines: He is against the re-election of Dr. Steiner. Three years ago, he himself had urged Dr. Steiner to accept the position. At that time, Dr. Steiner was to be seen as a scholar. Since then, he has been working as an occultist, and it must be said that such personalities are not suitable for administrative positions. Dr. Steiner could better perform his services as a teacher if he were not burdened with the post of General Secretary. Furthermore, it is dangerous to have people with occult pretensions in such posts. The case of Judge proved that. Occult life is only too easily associated with fraud, imposture, deception, and so on. Mr. Bresch would therefore like to ask Dr. Steiner to refrain from re-election himself.

Dr. Steiner first notes that no motion for re-election has yet been made. He acknowledges Mr. Bresch's reasons to a certain extent; however, as things stand today, he feels obliged to accept the election if he is elected.

Proposal Arenson: Dr. Steiner shall be re-elected as Secretary General.

For the duration of this vote, Dr. Steiner hands over the chair to Miss Scholl.

Mr. Stübing asks if it would not be possible for Dr. Steiner to devote his activities entirely to propaganda.

Dr. Steiner replies that this has been his wish for a long time, but given the circumstances, he would be failing in his duty to the Theosophical Society if he did not accept the election at the moment.

Mr. Hubo proposes the middle way of re-electing Dr. Steiner but relieving him of mechanical work by paid assistants. Dr. Steiner requests that these motions be treated separately. After a lengthy debate, in which Mr. Ahner, Dr. Paulus and Mr. Arenson take part, Dr. Steiner is re-elected by roll call with all but two votes in favor of the motion to end the debate.

Dr. Steiner resumes the chair.

The remaining twelve members of the executive committee are then elected; they are elected individually by roll call.

The results of the election are as follows:

1. Miss von Sivers
2. Miss Scholl
3. Mrs. Lübke
4. Miss Stinde,
5. Mr. Arenson,
6. Mr. Kolbe,
7. Mr. Kiem,
8. Mr. Wagner,
9. Mr. Deinhardt,
10. Mr. Bauer,
11. Mr. Hubo,
12. Mr. Ahner.

The treasurer is then elected. At the request of Mr. Wagner, Mr. Seiler is re-elected. Since Mr. Krojanker declines re-election, Miss Motzkus and Mr. Tessmar are proposed and elected as auditors. Proposal by the Secretary General: For reasons of fairness, the section members, of whom we currently have 22 in Germany and who do not belong to any branch, should also have representation at the General Assembly. On behalf of the board, he proposes that they be treated as a single branch, that is, in addition to a joint delegate, they should have one additional delegate for every 25 members (or part thereof). Adopted.

Dr. Steiner requests the mandate to greet the general secretaries of the remaining sections on behalf of the general assembly. Accepted.

Proposal Bresch and Dr. Löhnis, regarding the Fuente matter, Leipzig, August 30, 1905: Proposal: The general assembly of the German section of the Theosophical Society should decide as follows:

1. The President of the Theosophical Society, Mr. H. 8. Olcott, is hereby informed of the displeasure of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society at his having allowed Mrs. Besant to use half of the estate of Don Salvador de la Fuente for the purposes of the Central Hindu College, although according to the arbitral opinion in the testator's papers this does not mention the college and rather states that the legacy should be used for the purposes of the Theosophical Society.

2. The President of the Theosophical Society is further expressed dissatisfaction because he has responded to factually justified complaints from individual members with personal insults (“impertinences” and “selfishness”, according to “Theosophist”, July 1905, p. 622).

3. The President of the Theosophical Society is requested to hand over to the Theosophical Society, as it has now acquired corporate rights, the foundations and bequests in his possession that were given to him as a representative of the Theosophical Society.

4. The President is further requested to always obtain the prior consent of the Central Board when using foundations and bequests intended for the purposes of the Theosophical Society, since, according to Clause 11 of the statutes of the Theosophical Society, he himself only acts as a co-administrator, not as the sole administrator of the Society's property.

5. The Vice President and the Secretaries-General of the various sections are to be expressed, as members of the Central Board, the displeasure of the members of the German Section for failing to object to the unlawful actions of Mr. Olcott and Mrs. Besant in matters concerning the Fuente bequest.

6. The Central Committee is requested to have the documents of the Fuente legacy submitted to it by the President and to duly settle this matter with the assistance of a court of law.

7. The General Secretary of the German Section shall issue the resolutions listed in Nos. 1 to 6 in the required number of copies within four weeks and then immediately send one copy each by registered mail to the President, the Vice President and the General Secretaries of all Sections of the Theosophical Society.

Richard Bresch, Dr. F. Löhnis

Dr. Steiner reports that the following is available:

1. Counter-motion from the Munich Lodge and several other lodges: “To the Secretary General of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.” Mr. Bresch publishes a motion to the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in number 3 of “Vâhan,” volume VII, according to which the General Assembly should decide: “To express to the President and Vice-President as well as the General Secretaries of the various sections of the Theosophical Society the displeasure of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society for allowing or not objecting to Mrs. Besant's use of half of the Certral Hindu College.

Although the arbitrator Sir Subramania Iyer recognized in his verdict that “Mrs. Besant is entitled to one half of the property bequeathed by Colonel Olcott and her, although on the other hand, Mr. Bresch had already once raised an accusation against President Olcott and Mrs. Besant in this matter, which he had to recognize as “(“Vâhan” No. 12, Volume VI, page 280), Mr. Bresch and his friends would like to put Mrs. Besant on trial because Mr. Bresch wants the money distributed, and because Mr. Bresch and his friends have no confidence in any of the leaders of our movement. Dr. F. Löhnis, co-signatory of the aforementioned motion, accuses Mr. McAd of dishonesty, Mr. Olcott of partiality, Mrs. Besant of pride, and the majority of the members of servility in an article that precedes the reasoning behind this motion (“Vâhan” No. 3, Volume VII). The undersigned members of the Theosophical Society consider the motion of Mr. Bresch and his friends to be unjustified and see in the arguments of Dr. Löhnis an unjustified insult to the highly esteemed leaders of our movement and to the majority of the members of the Theosophical Society. In order to express the trust of the members of the German Section in the esteemed leaders of the movement, the undersigned members request that the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society vote on the following motion instead:

Proposal: “The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society expresses its fullest confidence in Mr. H. $. Olcott and Mrs. Besant, in grateful recognition of the great services they have rendered to the Society, the fullest confidence of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society. The General Assembly expresses the conviction that Mrs. Besant acted fully within her rights in appropriating half of the assets bequeathed to her by Don Salvador de la Fuente Colonel Olcott.

Munich, September 22, 1905.
Rosa von Hofstetten, 1st Chairwoman of the Munich Lodge.
Sophie Stinde, 2nd Chairwoman of the Munich Lodge.
Heinrich Hiernickel.
Countess Pauline von Kalckreuth.
Emmy von Rumpler.
Harriet Vacano.
Marie von Seydewitz.
M. M. von Scherpenberg.
Hermine von Scherpenberg.
Max von Seydewitz.
Emmy von Gumppenberg.
Gertrud von Tschirschky née Scholtz.

2nd proposal from the Hanover branch: Hanover, October 12, 1905. Regarding the proposal from Bresch and companions. Contrary to the proposal from Mr. Bresch and companions (printed in the “Vâhan” of September this year), the Hanover branch decided at its meeting on October 9 this year to submit the following proposal to the general assembly on October 22 this year:

Proposal: “With regard to the proposal submitted by the Leipzig branch, or rather by Mr. Bresch and his associates, as published in the September issue of Vâhan, the Hanover branch proposes that the agenda be changed to address this matter on the grounds that – quite apart from the question of whether or not the individual complaints can be justified factually – it is formally quite inexpedient to discuss such matters of the Society in a public journal, and even more so to do so on behalf of a section. This must damage the reputation of our society and impair the influence of our movement. Such expressions of opinion should only be expressed personally and privately on the basis of expert examination rather than formal judgment, and they should never be settled in public, but at most in closed negotiations between the parties involved.” The board of the Hanover branch of the Theosophical Society.

Wilhelm Eggers.

The Secretary General announced that the following branches had joined the Munich application:

The following signed:
Cologne Lodge,
Weimar Lodge,
Hamburg Lodge,
Hanover Lodge,
Lugano Lodge,
Düsseldorf Lodge,
Nuremberg Lodge,
Munich Lodge
and the Besant branch in Berlin.

The delegates Bauer (Nuremberg), Mücke (Besant branch), Lübke (Weimar), Arenson (branch III, Stuttgart) then communicate the decisions of their branches: to support the motion from Hannover to move on to the agenda. The motion will be discussed first as it is the most far-reaching.

The following spoke against the motion: Messrs. Krojanker, Jahn and Stübing, the latter two emphasizing that Messrs. Bresch and Löhnis had been misunderstood. Furthermore, a new motion had already been drafted in a less harsh form; in the interest of fairness, the gentlemen should be allowed to speak. It would be intolerant and un-Theosophical to accept the Hanover motion. The delegates Arenson, Bauer, Huchthausen, Hubo, and von Sivers speak in favor of the motion, which has been well thought out. There can be no question of intolerance. A debate would hardly bring anything new to light, and the assembly would have better things to do than to listen again to everything that has been said in this regard in recent weeks. The form and content of the Bresch motion are so seriously offensive that, also in view of what became known at the board meeting, the only dignified thing to do is to accept the Hanover motion.

After a motion to close the debate has been adopted, the motion for Hanover is adopted by an overwhelming majority, whereupon Mr. Bresch and Mr. Löhnis and a supporter of the same demonstratively leave the meeting.

A letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mr. Deinhard is now read out about the brochure by Dr. Hensoldt that has been distributed from Leipzig in recent weeks; the same reads:

"To the annual meeting of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in Berlin, October 22, 1905. Regarding the proposals of Mr. Bresch and his colleagues regarding the use of the De la Fuente legacy, the undersigned request permission to express their personal views: We have in our possession a pamphlet by Dr. Heinrich Hensoldt entitled “Annie Besant, a Whimsical Saint”, which was sent to us from Leipzig. We cannot help but suspect that this pamphlet was the cause of the agitation that has spread from there against the leaders of our society. This pamphlet has the sole purpose of fighting and suppressing our society. It mixes incorrect statements of fact with a spiteful distortion of real circumstances. The description of the character and endeavors of Mrs. Besant and Colonel Olcott (page 42 and following) is in the main the exact opposite of reality. The picture they paint contradicts the judgment of all those close to them regarding their moral and intellectual value; and to be able to judge such personalities validly, one must have known them for decades. The same requirement applies to the assessment of the factual circumstances.

As for the use of de Ia Fuente's legacy, it has been used in accordance with the wishes of the testator. Dr. Hensoldt (page 46) only objects to the donation to the large Adyar Library. But this is undoubtedly the most important creation of our movement. Therefore, its support had to be considered first and foremost. Under the direction of Dr. Otto Schrader, an outstanding German Sanskrit and Pali scholar, this collection of rare books and unique manuscripts is now on the verge of developing into a world-class library. The capital contribution from the legacy serves as a necessary prerequisite for this. Even if this had not been the testator's wish, his gift could not have found a more beneficial use. Incidentally, we older members are familiar with the fact that our society tends to go through a crisis every ten years, during which the same objections are always raised against it. Its founding took place in [1875], the Coulomb crisis in 1885, the Judge crisis [1895], the current crisis in 1905: but the effect of all these crises has always been that all those who judge the essence of our society only intellectually fall away from it because they do not possess the necessary intuition to sense the spirit that is effective through the leaders of our society."

Döhren near Hannover, October 12, 1905.
Hübbe-Schleiden.
Ludwig Deinhard.

Dr. Steiner declares the brochure to be a terrible pamphlet and reports that Mr. Bresch said at the board meeting that he provided Mr. Hensoldt with printing and address material.

As a representative of the Leipzig lodge, Mr. Jahn objects to this. He believes that the condemnation of Mr. Bresch and Mr. Löhnis has gone too far. Although he himself is against the attacks made in “Vâhan”, he must nevertheless take the gentlemen into his protection, since he is of the opinion that Mr. Bresch is a fanatic, but that he is not guided by bad motives. From this point of view, he asks to be judged by him.

Dr. Steiner remarks that no one should be denied the [subjective] feeling of fighting for the truth. But here, any sense of a basis for the truth is completely lacking. This is proven by the way in which “Vâhan” has behaved towards eyewitnesses of true facts that he has distorted. The behavior towards Miss Scholl, Mrs. Lübke and Dr. Vollrath clearly shows that Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis simply lack a sense of the necessary factual basis for the truth.

Dr. Paulus proposes that the meeting move on to the agenda, since it is really not worth engaging in lengthy debates about such an elaborate piece of work by a non-member. Mr. Stübing notes that the brochure is not to be understood in the context of the Bresch-Löhnis motion.

Mr. Ahner disagrees. Anyone who reads “Vâhan” and the brochure recognizes the connection. Hensoldt is, so to speak, held up on a shield in “Vâhan”.

After Fräulein von Sivers speaks against the opinion of Her Stübing and Frau Geheimrat Lübke announces that Mr. Bresch stated at the board meeting that he is indebted to Mr. Hensoldt for the unveiling, the motion to move on to the agenda is adopted.

This is followed by a motion from Dr. Paulus for the Stuttgart I branch. The applicant refers to the circular of the Stuttgart branch dated June 27 of this year and proposes that a “news sheet” be established for the German Section in the following form:

“The General Assembly resolves to publish a newsletter for members and to have it appear as soon as possible, as a supplement to Luzifer, at the expense and risk of the section, since there is a need for it.”

A further motion is made in this regard:

“To ask a member to take on the publication of this newsletter. The costs for this are to be covered by voluntary contributions.”

Mr. Hubo, Ms. Stinde, Mr. Bauer and Dr. Paulus take part in the debate.

Dr. Steiner proposes “that the newsletter be published officially and sent to each member separately from ‘Lucifer’, free of charge and on a mandatory basis”.

After further debate by members Ahner, Peipers, Bauer, Hubo, Arenson and von Sivers, it was deemed appropriate to place the entire matter in the hands of a suitable member, who could then initiate the process as they saw fit.

The following motion is proposed: Miss Scholl would first like to deal with the publication of a newsletter and to contact personalities she considers suitable for this purpose. The motion is adopted.

Proposal from the Leipzig Lodge:

“The General Assembly shall decide: ‘All motions received by the date of dispatch of the invitations to the General Assembly shall be sent to all members with this invitation’.”

The motion is adopted.

Proposal Scholl:

“The General Assembly shall decide: Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis are to be asked to resign from the society.”

Mr. Jahn then says that the two gentlemen should not be treated equally with regard to the assessment, since they certainly have different motives.

Mr. Engel, Mr. Stübing, Mr. Krojanker and Mr. Feldner speak against this motion. Mr. Ahner asks Ms. Scholl to withdraw this motion. Ms. Scholl remarks that she has thought about this matter carefully and cannot in any way comply with this request.

Mr. Stübing proposes: “To move on to the agenda item regarding Ms. Scholl's motion.”

This proposal is rejected.

Scholl's proposal is rejected.

It is now proposed that the “Theosophical Library”, which has been under the direction of the “Berlin Branch” and in the possession of a few private individuals, be transferred to the direction of the German Section. The General Assembly generally expresses its approval of this proposal.

Preparatory work for a possible congress of European sections in Germany is assigned to the board.

The Munich branch once again puts forward the request, already made last year, to move the general secretariat to Munich. The matter is taken note of again.

Dr. Steiner then closes the business part of the meeting at half past three and invites the members to attend the substantive part of the General Assembly at half past four. With regard to a report on the General Assembly of the German Section contained in the November 1905 issue of 'Vâhan', we note that it is impossible and also quite useless to engage in polemics with people who adopt such a way of fighting. We want to work and not argue. However, we do want to register the following 'objective untruths':

1. Dr. Löhnis writes: “Instead of the factual annual report that the General Secretary is obliged to present, Dr. Steiner offered his faithful followers a brilliant apotheosis of Mrs. Besant, and he he increased his own nimbus by declaring that he had been in contact “on higher planes” with Mrs. Blavatsky, the “great teacher, to whom all who ‘know’ look up out of true knowledge.”

This is an objective untruth. It is much more true that the report was given entirely in part by Dr. Steiner and in part by Miss von Sivers, and that the alleged “apotheosis” was necessarily part of this factual report on the congress of European sections. Regarding Mrs. Blavatsky, Dr. Steiner only said that Mrs. Besant had opened his understanding for her. Nothing was said about “higher plans”.

2. Dr. Löhnis writes here with all sorts of combinations of his imagination that are too indifferent for us that Countess Wachtmeister “has donated a considerable amount to promote the Theosophical movement in Germany. It was deemed unnecessary to provide more precise information about the amount. Only so much was communicated that about 1000 marks are available annually.

This is another objective untruth. What was actually said was that 1000 marks had been given once (not annually) by Countess Wachtmeister.

3. It is also objectively untrue that Dr. Steiner himself stood for election as General Secretary; he merely said a few words after Mr. Bresch's speech against this election to say that he would accept the election if he were elected because he currently still considered it his duty.

4. It is objectively untrue that Miss Scholl proposed the motion to expel Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis. Rather, it is true that the motion was to request the aforementioned gentlemen to resign. That's enough; anyone who illustrates the principle “No law is above the truth” with such “objective untruths” can justifiably use it in conversation or write it in their letters every now and then!!!

The following have resigned from the Theosophical Society:

Mr. Richard Bresch, Dr. Löhnis, Mr. Haase, Mr. Heyne, Mr. Emil Hubricht.

Newly admitted are:

Miss Clara Rettich, Mr. Paul Weiß, Mr. Eduard Bachmann, Mrs. Helene von [Gillhaußen], Mrs. Anna Werner, Mrs. Eliza von Moltke, Mr. Ludwig Weiß.

by Felix Löhnis in “Vâhan”, Volume VII, No. 5, November 1905

The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society took place on October 22, a.c. in Berlin. We can summarize our report briefly. Cult of personality and servility have triumphed there. Not only for the board meeting held the day before, but also for the general assembly itself, it was decided, at the request of Mr. Hubo (Hamburg), that the strictest silence must be maintained regarding the course of the negotiations. The Secretary General was to report exclusively to the members and in strict confidence at a time and in a form of his own choosing. The vast majority of the delegates agreed to such a restriction of freedom of expression. Instead of the factual annual report that the General Secretary was obliged to give, Dr. Steiner offered his faithful followers a brilliant apotheosis of Mrs. Besant, and he increased his own nimbus even more by declaring that he had been in contact for a long time “on higher planes” with Mrs. Blavatsky, the “great teacher,” to whom all those who “know” “look up from true knowledge.” During the discussion of the financial matters, it was mentioned that Countess Wachtmeister had donated a considerable sum to promote the Theosophical movement in Germany. It was not considered necessary to provide exact details of the amount. Only so much was communicated that about 1000 Marks are available annually, which, according to a proposal by the Secretary-General, which was of course very favorably received, do not flow into the section's treasury, but are transferred to him, together with Fräulein von Sivers, for his free disposal, in order to make accounting superfluous. (!) The “revered leaders” of the Theosophical Society are also setting an example in this respect. Under such circumstances, it was also very understandable that Dr. Steiner himself campaigned vigorously for his re-election as General Secretary during the election of the new board. Mr. Bresch spoke against the re-election. He pointed out the serious concerns that arise in this regard with regard to the alleged clairvoyance that Dr. Steiner boasts of, compared to the experiences in a very similar situation in America ten years ago. The same fate befell the motion printed in issue 3 of Vâhan, which was intended to remedy the violations of rights and duties mentioned at the locations listed, of which the president and the central committee of the Society have been proven to be guilty. It was not admitted to the proceedings at all. In accordance with a motion from the Hanover branch, it was decided by a large majority to “proceed to the agenda”. (!) And how did the Hanover branch justify its motion? Literally as follows:

“Quite apart from the question of whether or not the individual complaints can be justified factually, it is formally quite inexpedient to discuss such matters of the Society in a public journal and even less to represent them from the point of view of a section. This must damage the reputation of our Society and impair the influence of our movement.”

Thus, in the Theosophical Society, no longer are objective reasons valid, but only formal ones. It does not matter if the Society itself suffers harm at the hands of disloyal officials; only its reputation must be protected at all costs. The motto of the Society is still: “No law above the truth!” But under no circumstances may the members publicly stand up for justice and truth; the “fear of the truth” reigns in the Society and demands strict secrecy. - For historical reasons, it may be mentioned in passing that Miss Scholl (Cologne), probably to make up for the “Autodafé” in London (see numbers 2-4 of “Vâhan”) that she denied, made a motion to expel Mr. Bresch and the reporter from the Society. A quarter of the votes were in favor of this first heresy trial; over the course of a year, it might be the majority. In fact, such a motion was completely superfluous in this case. Because – however shamefully this General Assembly went otherwise – it did produce a result that was beneficial to the cause: It has now made it completely clear to anyone who can and wants to see that, given the current state of affairs, one can no longer serve the truth and the progress of humanity within this society.

Finally, on behalf of the editor of 'Vâhan', I would like to point out that this magazine will no longer deal with the affairs of that 'Theosophical Society' in the future.

Report by Rudolf Steiner in “Lucifer - Gnosis” no. 31/1906

In the first days of June [1906] (on the 3rd, 4th and 5th), the third congress of the federated European sections of the Theosophical Society took place in Paris. Around 450 members from various European countries were present. The welcoming speeches that the representatives of the various nations gave in their own languages at the first official meeting therefore expressed a common human interest in the most diverse forms. One could hear this interest expressed in English, French, Swedish, Italian, Dutch, German, Russian, Spanish, Czech; one could hear it expressed by a Hindu and a Parsee. There were over twenty German members present.

The President-Founder of the Theosophical Society, H. $. Olcott, presided over the meeting. The preparatory work had been done by the members of the French section in a devoted and sacrificial manner. It is, of course, impossible to list all those esteemed members of the Society who have earned recognition on this occasion. Those who have even a slight idea of how much work is involved in such an undertaking can appreciate what those members who are at the venue of the meeting at such a time have to accomplish. In particular, however, we would like to mention the ladies Aimee Blech and Zelma Blech, the gentlemen Commandant Courmes, Charles Blech, P. E. Bernard, M. Bailly, Jules Siegfried fils, A. Ostermann and, above all, the Secretary General of the French Section, Dr. Th. Pascal.

Thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of our French friends, the Society has a beautifully furnished French headquarters at 59 Avenue de la Bourdonnais in Paris, which is ideal for lectures and visits. It not only has a spacious and friendly lecture hall, but also good rooms for work, a library and a book depository for Theosophical works in French. There is a lot of work going on at these headquarters. The Secretary General receives visitors there on the first and third Sunday of the month from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Public lectures are held on the first Sunday of the month (4 p.m.) and every Thursday at 8% p.m. A meeting for members takes place every third Sunday of the month at 4 p.m. In addition, a course is held on Tuesday at 4 p.m. in French and one on Monday at 4 p.m. in English.

During the congress, these rooms also housed the “Exhibition of Arts and Crafts”, which was opened by President H. S. Olcott on Saturday, June 4 (4 p.m.). Our French friends put a lot of effort into tastefully assembling works of art and art objects that testify to the endeavor to also depict the Theosophical interest in pictures.

The actual meetings of the congress took place in the magnificent hall of the Washington Palace (14 Rue Magellan). The first official session opened at 10 a.m. on Sunday, June 3 [1906]. M. Ed. Bailly had written and composed an opening chorus for the occasion: “Ode to the Sun”. This provided a beautiful, atmospheric introduction. This was followed by a warm welcome from the Secretary General of the French Section, Dr. Th. Pascal. The next item was a longer address by the President-Founder H. S. Olcott. It was possible to see from it how the Society is growing all the time (it has now spread its branches to forty-four different countries around the world). In particular, the gratifying growth of the movement in France was emphasized, considering its current state compared to its modest beginnings in 1884, when he, the President, and H. P. Blavatsky first endeavored to stimulate interest in Theosophy from Paris. Olcott presented the nature of the Theosophical work in its most important aspects to the assembled members. He characterized the importance of the headquarters in Adyar, the library there with its treasures of old manuscripts and a rich collection of books containing invaluable material for the study of occultism, the various religions, and so on. In his speech, Olcott was particularly concerned to emphasize the universal human character of the Society. It wanted to keep away from anything that could somehow give rise to disharmony between people. Nothing should be included in its endeavors that had to do with the one-sided, special interests of gender, race, class, creed, and so on. Society as a whole should stand above the achievements, reputation, etc. of individual leaders and teachers of the same. One should not put individuals on a pedestal and expect absolute perfection from them, and one should not be immediately disappointed when one finds faults in those from whom one would not expect them. One should behave in such a way towards particular questions, directions and views that one never loses sight of the broad basis of society. Esoteric, Masonic and so on currents are none of the Society's business. It can only deal with the overarching goal of leading to human brotherhood and must not identify with the aforementioned currents.¹

The President read his address in English. It was repeated in French by Mr. Jules Siegfried fils. After this “presidential address”, the representatives of the individual regions were welcomed in the corresponding languages, as already described above.

This year, the permanent secretary of the Federation, Johan van Manen, was once again in charge of the business of the congress. It must be said that J. van Manen deserves the special thanks of the society for his dedicated work. He has to conduct extensive correspondence with all section leaders and many individual members many months before the annual meeting. He has to take care of the difficult arrangements. And J. van Manen has now taken on this task for the third time in his pleasant and personable way.

On the afternoon of June 3, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m., the first of the general debates took place. Two questions were debated:

1. “To what extent is the Theosophical Society only a group of people seeking the truth; to what extent does it unite learners or those who propagate or adhere to a particular direction of spiritual science?”

2. “If the Theosophical Society has no dogmas, it does recognize authorities, and rightly so. Is the relative value of these authorities merely a matter of individual acceptance? What qualities or abilities should such authorities possess?”

A wide variety of views were expressed in the debate, from the strict rejection of all authority to the emphasis on the necessity of such. At present, it seems, as was noted in the debate, there is a strong tendency towards the view that it is dangerous to rely too much on authorities. But those who recognize that the necessary authority should not be disregarded also spoke up, which arises wherever those who have already progressed in some knowledge are to have an effect on those who have yet to learn in one way or another. The participation in the debate was very lively; the third question envisaged could no longer be tackled. According to the program, it should read: “Should the moral character of a person influence his admission to the Theosophical Society? Can persons whose morality does not coincide with prevailing social views be within the Theosophical Society? Can there be any general rules in this direction?” - Bertram Keightley chaired this debate in his sympathetic and judicious manner.

That same evening, two lectures were held. The first was given by Mr. G. R. S. Mead, the scholar of Gnosticism. He spoke about “The Religion of the Mind”. He started from his studies of the Theosophical-Gnostic views of life at the time of the origin of Christianity, which spanned many years of his busy life. He explained the essence of the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus and his followers. Through these teachings, a wisdom was to be found that, in perfect harmony of head and heart, would lead the soul of man to its union with the “higher divine self.” A religion based on science, leading to the highest levels of experience, was outlined as that of certain ancestors and contemporaries of the emerging Christianity. A French translation of this speech, delivered in English, was distributed among the audience. The second lecture was given in French by M. Bernard on “Problems of the Present Moment.” He spoke about the current tasks at hand in society, the attitudes required of its members, and the best way to achieve the goals of the Theosophical Society.

On Monday, June 4, lectures were given by members in two sections in the morning hours. One of the sections, which had to deal with religion, mysticism, mythology, and folklore, was chaired by Dr. Koopmans, a member of the Dutch section. The second section was concerned with philosophy; its chairman was Dr. Steiner, and later, when he had to speak in the first section, Miss M. von Sivers. Mr. Becker from London served as secretary for the first section, and Mr. Max Gysi from London for the second. In the first section, Mrs. Sharpe first read an essay by Edward E. Long entitled “Insight into Islam”. The aim was to present the moral foundations and beauties and the sublime teachings of this religion, which are so often misunderstood. It was shown in what particular way the followers of this religion strive for “union with God” in order to achieve inner harmony and peace of mind. The original nobility of this religion and its later decline into idolatry and superstition were presented, but also the more recent efforts around this belief, and the theosophical points of view that can be found in it. - Georg Doe then spoke about “Some research results in folklore, especially with regard to Devonshire”. - This lecture was followed by one by a member of the Italian section, Mrs. von Ulrich, on “The old Slavic religions”. The lecturer spoke about the simple lines of Lithuanian and Latvian religious forms, within which a kind of worship of the forces of nature prevails. There are no priests or temples; every head of the household is a priest. She went on to say that the Russians started out with similar religions, but later adopted Germanic gods and gave them Slavic names. Then it was shown how the transition from this form of religion to Christianity took place. There was also talk of the part of the Russians who occupied the north of the Germanic territories and changed their faith in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, of their richly endowed temples and images of the gods. The conclusion in this section was a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “Theosophy in Germany a Hundred Years Ago”. The lecturer explained that in the spiritual movement in Germany at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, which is associated with the names Schiller, Goethe, Fichte, Schelling, Novalis, Hegel and so on, there is a significant undercurrent whose origins are to be found in esoteric, occult brotherhoods. Such occult fraternizations have existed in German-speaking areas since the fourteenth century. Personalities such as Paracelsus and Jakob Böhme were not members of such societies; however, what they taught emanated from them in a certain way. In particular, the speaker showed how Schiller can only be fully understood if the mysterious foundations of his thinking and writing are revealed. Knowledge of German occultism contains not only the key to his youthful essay “Theosophy of Julius,” but also to his later work. Then the occult basis was uncovered in the philosophy of J. G. Fichte. Finally, the speaker pointed to the intimate esotericism of Novalis, to the actual psychological studies of Ennemoser, [Eckartshausen], Justinus Kerner, but especially to a no longer known theosophist who only called his theosophy “biosophy”, namely Troxler, who gave the most beautiful discussions about the “astral body”, for example. The speaker concluded by discussing why the idea of reincarnation had to be absent from this “German theosophy” and what relationship this idea has to that world view. Miss Kamensky from St. Petersburg then gave a summary of this lecture in French.

In the second section, which was dedicated to philosophy, Herbert Whyte spoke first about “Agvaghosha's Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana”. He explained that the essence of Mahayana is the same as that of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and he showed the similarities between Agvaghosha's teachings and Annie Besant's explanations of the expansion of self-awareness in “Studies in Consciousness.” True enlightenment cannot be attained through anything external, but only through the inner life of the mind. The spirit is the source from which the higher life must flow. And it must be supported by the following forces: compassion, patience, concentration, energy, inner harmony and calm. - Then Mr. Xifré read an excerpt from a longer work by Rafael Urbano, which dealt with Spanish mysticism and explained it with examples such as St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross and so on. Then an essay was excerpted that the study group “Yoga” in Algiers had worked on “Devotion and Wisdom.” It is shown in it how for much that the still ignorant man undertakes, the “masters” on the higher planes are the leaders. Then, as the person develops, he enters into a relationship with these masters. This union with them leads to wisdom and to “yoga”. - Mr. Wallace then spoke about “diagrams and symbols”. He distinguishes between static symbols, which contain nothing essential of what they represent, and dynamic symbols, which in their whole structure reflect the essence of the laws of nature. He expressed the demand that true symbolism must be taken from the essence of things. After this lecture, Louis Desaint spoke about “Bergson's Philosophy in Relation to Ancient Indian Philosophy”. According to this philosophy, the spirit is understood as an entity independent of matter. Maurice Largeris gave an excerpt from his work “The Alleged Pessimism of the Indians and the Moral Theory of Happiness”. He showed how inaccurate the widespread views of this pessimism are. They find their correction in the idea of that “freedom” that is attained through union with the “own divine self”. Finally, in a lecture entitled “An Attempt at a Way of Life”, Eugene Levy presented a series of rules that can be applied in the daily life of those who aspire to higher spiritual development.

On the afternoon of June 4, 1906, the second general debate took place under the chairmanship of Commandant D. A. Courmes, who led it in a tasteful and judicious manner. The following questions were discussed:

1. Is propaganda an essential goal of the Theosophical Society?

2. How is it that despite the long existence of the Theosophical Society and despite the propaganda it has conducted, the number of members today is still relatively small (13,000 in 1905)? Can it be said that the Theosophical Society lacks a method or a system? If it did, would that be regrettable? If it did, how could it be remedied?

Many members also took part in this debate, which again lasted from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., and again the most diverse views came to light. There was discussion about the usefulness of propaganda, as well as about the best way to do it. There were also warnings that some clumsiness happens when individual overzealous members do the propaganda work. It was said that it was above all a certain way of thinking and feeling that made a Theosophist, but less the acceptance of certain dogmas and teachings.

Another question that was discussed was: “Should the Theosophical Society or its parts (sections, branches, etc.) officially bring everything related to the course of the movement to the attention of the members?” Regarding this question, it was agreed that the president would send a detailed annual report on the events to the sections, which would then be passed on to the members. There was little time left for the fourth question: “Are measures for material assistance among members necessary?”

In the evening of the same day, an interesting concert took place, in which the French members participated in an appreciable way: Mme Revel, M. Gaston Revel and M. Louis Revel, Mme Pauline Smith, Mme Andre-Gedalge, Mme Lasneret, Mile Roberty, Mme Strohl and Mme Alice-Heres, Mlle Jeanne Bussiere, M. Rene Billa and M. Henry Farre.

On Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, the individual members' lectures began again. The following sections were active: 1. proposals, discussions, criticisms, requests, resolutions and so on; 2. art; 3. history of the Theosophical Society and the Theosophical movement; 4. science and border areas in the various directions; 5. brotherhood; 6. administration, propaganda, working methods and so on.

In the first section, the possibility and usefulness of a unified world language, “Esperanto”, was discussed. In the second section, Ed. Bailly gave a presentation on ancient Egyptian music, accompanied by singing samples. It was an “invocation of the planetary spirits”; the relationship of the seven vowels to the planetary spirits was discussed. Madame Andre-Gedalge also developed a mystical interpretation of Mozart's “Magic Flute”. She explained how Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn, through their initiation into the “Scottish Rite” of Freemasonry, were able to give their musical works an occult foundation. In the third section, P. C. [Taraporewalla] spoke about the Theosophical movement in India and its significance for religious life in that country. In the fourth section, Dr. Th. Pascal gave a lecture on: “Le mécanisme du rêve cérébral”. It is hardly possible to reproduce the subtle arguments of the French theosophical researcher, who is trying to gain a truly scientific basis for certain theosophical views. —After that, F. Bligh Bond gave a discussion of “Rhythmic Energies and Form Design with Illustrations”. By combining pendulums that swing in different directions and at different speeds and which fix the movement on a sheet of paper with an attached pen, very complicated oscillation patterns are created. This can give an idea of the forces at work in matter. Miss Ward then spoke of how it would be desirable to find suitable people in a wide variety of places who would collect everything that recent scientific and other research could produce as evidence for the theories contained in H. P. Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine”. Science has found many new things since the book was published. If one were to collect it and compare it with the “Secret Doctrine” in an appropriate way, one would first see what a treasure of wisdom humanity has received in the said work. Monsieur le Commandant D. A. Courmes spoke in the fifth section on “Material Assistance within the Theosophical Movement”. In the sixth section, Ré Levie gave a discussion on the systematic study of Kabbalah using the Theosophical key.

In the afternoon, the closing session of the congress took place. Unfortunately, President Olcott was unable to attend this session due to feeling unwell. First, it was announced that a telegram of welcome should be sent to Mrs. Besant and that next year's congress should take place in Germany.

Then the general secretaries of the various countries spoke on behalf of their sections: Dr. Th. Pascal for the French section, Arvid Knös for the Scandinavian section, Miss Kate Spink for the British section, W. B. Fricke for the Dutch section, Professor Dr. O. Penzig for the Italian section and Dr. Rudolf Steiner for the German section. The secretary of the Federation, Johan van Manen, gave business announcements. The conference was closed in a moving way by a 'final chorus', composed by Rita Strohl.

In particular, it should also be emphasized that during the debates, Mr. P. E. Bernhard, Mr. Johan van Manen and Mr. Xifré took the trouble to translate the statements made in different languages into French.

On Wednesday, there was an excursion to Meudon, by boat on the Seine. The gracious way in which our French friends took care of the foreign visitors on this afternoon was a wonderful way to end the entire congress.

• 1. It is expressly noted here that the above is intended to be an objective report, that the President's remarks are therefore to be reproduced factually and that the rapporteur is not to mix his own views into the report.

Rudolf Steiner's lecture at the Congress of the Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society

Those who portray the spiritual life of Germany from the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century usually see, alongside the high point of art in Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, Mozart, Beethoven and others, only an epoch of purely speculative thinking in Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and a few less important philosophers. It is frequently held that the latter personalities are to be recognized as mere laborers in the field of thought. It is admitted that they have done extraordinary work in the speculative field; but one is all too easily inclined to say that these thinkers were quite far removed from actual occult research and real spiritual experience. And so it happens that the theosophically striving person expects little gain from delving into their works.

Many who attempt to penetrate the thought-web of these philosophers give up the work after a time because they find it fruitless. The scientific investigator says to himself: These thinkers have lost the firm ground of experience under their feet; they have built up in the nebulous heights the chimeras of systems, without any regard for positive reality. And anyone interested in occultism will find that they lack the truly spiritual foundations. He comes to the conclusion: They knew nothing of spiritual experiences, of supersensible facts, and merely devised intellectual constructs.

As long as one stops at merely observing the outer side of spiritual development, it is not easy to come to a different opinion. But if one penetrates to the undercurrents, the whole epoch presents itself in a different light. The apparent airy-fairy notions can be recognized as the expression of a deeper occult life. And Theosophy can then provide the key to understanding what these sixty to seventy years of spiritual life mean in the development of mankind. During this time in Germany, there are two sets of facts, one of which represents the surface, but the other must be regarded as a deeper foundation. The whole thing gives the impression of a flowing stream, on the surface of which the waves ripple in the most diverse ways. And what is presented in the usual [literary histories] are only these rising and falling waves; but what lives in the depths is left unconsidered, and from which the waves actually draw their nourishment.

This depth contains a rich and fertile occult life. And this is none other than that which once pulsated in the works of the great German mystics, Paracelsus, Jakob Böhme and Angelus Silesius. Like a hidden power, this life was contained in the worlds of thought that Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel found. The way in which, for example, Jakob Böhme had expressed his great spiritual experiences was no longer at the forefront of the leading literary discussion; but the spirit of these experiences continued to live. One can see how this spirit lived on in Herder, for example. Public discussion led both Herder and Goethe to the study of Spinoza. In the work that he called “God”, the former sought to deepen the conception of God in Spinozism. What he contributed to Spinozism was nothing other than the spirit of German mysticism. One could say that, unconsciously to himself, Jakob Böhme and Angelus Silesius were guiding his pen. It is also from such hidden sources that we can explain how, in the “Education of the Human Race”, the ideas of reincarnation emerged in a mind as rationally inclined as Lessing's was. The term “unconscious” is, however, only half accurate, because such ideas and intuitions led a full life within Germany, not on the surface of literary discussion, but in the most diverse “occult societies” and “fraternities”. But of the above, only Goethe can be considered as having been initiated into the most intimate life of such “fraternities”; the others had only a more superficial connection with them. Much of it found its way into their lives and work as inspiration, without them being fully aware of the real sources.

In this respect, Schiller represents an interesting phenomenon of intellectual development. We cannot understand the real intellectual nerve of his life if we do not delve into his youthful works, which can be found in his writings as “Correspondence between Julius and Raphael”. Some of the material contained in it was written by Schiller while he was still at the Karls School in Stuttgart, while some of it was only written in 1785 and 1786. It contains what Schiller calls the “Theosophy of Julius,” by which he means the sum of ideas to which he had risen at that time. It is only necessary to cite the most important thoughts from this “theosophy” to characterize the way in which this genius assembled his own edifice of ideas from the rudiments of German mysticism that were accessible to him. Such essential thoughts are, for example, the following: “The universe is a thought of God. After this [idealized] image of the spirit entered into reality and the born world fulfilled the plan of its creator – allow me this human representation – so the task of all thinking beings in this existing whole is to find the first drawing again, the rule in the machine, the unity in the composition, the law in the phenomenon and to transfer the building backwards to its ground plan... The great composition that we call the world now only remains strange to me because it exists to symbolically describe the [manifold] expressions of that [being]. Everything in me and outside of me is only a hieroglyph of a force that is similar to me. The laws of nature are the ciphers that the thinking being combines to make itself understandable to the thinking being – the alphabet by means of which all spirits negotiate with the most perfect spirit and with themselves... A new experience in this [realm of truth], gravity, the discovery of blood circulation, Linnaeus's system of nature classification: these things seem to me to be, in their very origin, what an antique, unearthed in Herculaneum, reveals to me – both mere reflections of a spirit, a new acquaintance with a being similar to myself. [...] There is no longer any wilderness in all of nature for me. Where I discover a body, I suspect a spirit. Where I perceive movement, I guess a thought... We have concepts of the wisdom of the supreme being, of his benevolence, of his justice – but none of his omnipotence. To express its omnipotence, we help ourselves with the piecemeal idea of three successions: nothing, its will [and] something. It is desolate and dark – God calls: light – and there is light. If we had a real idea of its active omnipotence, we would be creators, like Him.” Such were the ideas of Schiller's theosophy when he was in his early twenties. And from this basis he rises to the comprehension of human spiritual life itself, which he places in the context of cosmic forces: “Love, then, the most beautiful phenomenon in the creation of the soul, the almighty magnet in the spiritual world, the source of devotion and the loftiest virtue. Love is only the reflection of this one primal power, an attraction of the excellent, based on an instantaneous exchange of personality, a confusion of beings. When I hate, I take something away from myself; when I love, I become richer by what I love. Forgiveness is the recovery of a lost possession; hatred of men is a prolonged suicide; egotism is the greatest poverty of a created being.” From this starting-point Schiller seeks to find an idea of God corresponding to his own feeling, which he presents in the following sentences: ”All perfections in the universe are united in God. God and nature are two entities that are completely equal to each other... There is one truth that runs like a fixed axis through all religions and systems: Approach the God you mean.

If one compares these statements of the young Schiller with the teachings of the German mystics, one will find that in the latter, there are sharply defined contours of thought, which in Schiller's works appear as the exuberant outpourings of a more general world of feeling. Paracelsus, Jakob Böhme, Angelus Silesius have as a certain view of their intuitive mind what Schiller has in mind in the vague presentiment of feeling.

What comes to light in such a characteristic way in Schiller is also present in other of his contemporaries. Intellectual history only has to present it in the case of Schiller because it has become a driving force of the nation in his epoch-making works. It can be said that in Schiller's time, the spiritual world of German mysticism as intuition, as direct experience of spiritual life, was hidden as if under a veil; but it lived on in the world of feeling, in the intuitions. People had retained devotion and enthusiasm for that which they no longer saw directly with the “sense organs of the spirit”. We are dealing with an epoch of veiling of spiritual vision, but of a kind that is based on feeling, on an intuitive sense of this world.

This entire process is based on a certain law-governed necessity. What entered the hidden world as spiritual insight emerged as artistic life in this period of German spiritual life. In occultism, one speaks of successive cycles of involution and evolution. Here we are dealing with such a cycle on a small scale. The art of Germany in the epoch of Schiller and Goethe is nothing more than the evolution of German mysticism in the realm of outer, sensual form. But in the creations of the German poets, the deeper insight recognizes the intuitions of the great mystical age of Germany. The mystical life of the past now takes on a completely aesthetic, artistic character.

This is clearly expressed in the writing in which Schiller reached the full height of his world view, in his [letters “On the Aesthetic Education of Man”]. The dogmatist of occultism will perhaps find nothing in these “letters” either but the spirited speculations of a fine artistic mind. In reality, however, they are dominated by the endeavour to give instructions for a different state of consciousness than the ordinary one. A stage on the way to the “higher self” is to be described. The state of consciousness Schiller describes is indeed far removed from the life of experience of the astral or devachanic, but it does represent something higher than our everyday life. And if we approach it with an open mind, we can very well recognize in what can be called the 'aesthetic state', according to Schiller, a preliminary stage of those higher forms of intuition. Schiller wants to lead man beyond the standpoint of the 'lower self'. This lower self is characterized by two qualities. Firstly, it is necessarily dependent on the influences of the sensual world. Secondly, it is subject to the demands of logical and moral necessity. It is thus unfree in two directions. The sensual world rules in its drives, instincts, perceptions, passions, and so on. In his thinking and in his morality, the necessity of reason prevails. But only the person who has ennobled his feelings, drives, desires, wishes, etc., so that only the spiritual is expressed in them, and who, on the other hand, has so completely absorbed the necessity of reason within himself that it is the expression of his own being, is free in the sense of Schiller. A life led in this way can also be described as one in which a harmonious balance has been established between the “lower and higher self”. Man has so ennobled his desire nature that it is the embodiment of his “higher self”. Schiller sets this high ideal in these “Letters”; and he finds that in artistic creation and in pure aesthetic devotion to a work of art, an approach to this ideal takes place. Thus, for him, life in art becomes a genuine means of educating the human being in the development of his “higher self”. For him, the true work of art is a perfect harmony of spirit and sensuality, of higher life and outer form. The sensual is only a means of expression; but the spiritual only becomes a work of art when it has found its expression entirely in the sensual. Thus, the creative artist lives in the spirit; but he lives in it in a completely sensual way; through him, everything spiritual becomes perceptible through the senses. And the person who immerses himself aesthetically perceives through his external senses; but what he perceives is completely spiritualized sensuality. So one is dealing with a harmony between spirit and sensuality; the sensual appears ennobled by the spirit; the spiritual has come to revelation to the point of sensual vividness. Schiller would also like to make this “aesthetic state” the model for social coexistence. He regards as unfree a social relationship in which people base their mutual relationships only on the desires of the lower self, of egoism. But a state in which mere legislation of reason is called upon to rein in the lower instincts and passions also seems no less unfree to him. As an ideal, he presents a social constitution within which the individual feels the “higher self” of the whole to be so strong that he acts “selflessly” out of his innermost urge. The “individual ego” should come to the point where it becomes the expression of the “total ego”. Schiller perceives social action that is driven by such impulses as the action of “beautiful souls”; and such “beautiful souls”, which bring the spirit of the “higher self” to revelation in their everyday nature: for Schiller, they are also the truly “free souls”. He wants to lead humanity to “truth” through beauty and art. One of his core statements is: “Only through the dawn of the beautiful does man penetrate into the realm of knowledge.”

Thus, from Schiller's view of the world, art is assigned a high educational mission in the evolutionary process of humanity. One can say: What Schiller presents here is the mysticism of the older period of German intellectual life that has become aesthetic and artistic.

It might now appear that it is not easy to build a bridge from Schiller's aestheticism to another personality of the same time, but who is no less to be understood as coming from an occult undercurrent, to Johann Gottlieb Fichte. On superficial examination, Fichte will be seen as a mere speculative mind, as an intellectual thinker. Now it is true that thought is his domain and that anyone seeking spiritual heights above the world of thought will not find them with Fichte. Those who want a description of “higher worlds” will look for them in vain with him. Fichte has no experience of an astral or mental world. According to the content of his philosophy, he is concerned only with ideas that belong to the physical world. But the matter presents itself quite differently when one looks at his treatment of the world of thoughts. This treatment is by no means a merely speculative one. Rather, it is one that corresponds completely to occult experience. Fichte considers only thoughts that relate to the physical world; but he considers them as an occultist would. It is for this reason that he himself is thoroughly conscious of living in higher worlds. We have only to refer to his lectures in Berlin in 1813, where he says: “Imagine a world of the blind-born, who know only those things and their relations that exist through the sense of touch. Stand among them and speak to them of colors and the other qualities that are only present through light for those who can see. Either you speak to them of nothing, and that is fortunate if they say so; for in this way you will soon notice the error and, if you are unable to open their eyes, stop the futile talking. Or they want to give your teaching a reason for some reason: so they can only understand it from what they know through touch: they will want to feel the light and the colors and the other relationships of visibility, feel that they are feeling, and lie to themselves about something they call color. Then they misunderstand, distort, and misinterpret it.” At another time, Fichte states directly that for him his contemplation of the world is not merely a speculation about that which the ordinary senses give, but that a higher sense, one that reaches beyond them, is necessary for it: ”The new sense is is the sense for the spirit; for which there is only spirit and absolutely nothing else, and to which even the other, the given existence, takes on the form of the spirit and is transformed into it, to which therefore existence in its own form has in fact disappeared... It has been seen with this sense ever since man has existed, and all that is great and excellent in the world, and which alone makes humanity endure, comes from the visions of this sense. But that this sense should have seen itself, and in its difference and contrast to the other ordinary sense, was not the case. The impressions of the two senses merged, life disintegrated into these two halves without a unifying bond.” These last words are extremely characteristic of Fichte's place in the world of intellectual life. It is indeed true of the merely external (exoteric) philosophical striving of the West that the sense of which Fichte speaks “did not see itself”. In all mystical currents of intellectual life that are based on occult experience and esoteric contemplation, it is clearly mentioned; but its deeper basis was, as has already been explained, unknown in Fichte's time for the prevailing literary and scholarly discussion. For the means of expression of German philosophy at that time, Fichte was indeed the scout and discoverer of this higher meaning. That is why he took something quite different as the starting point of his thinking than other philosophers. As a teacher, he demanded of his students, and as a writer, of his readers, that they should, above all, perform an inner act of the soul. He did not want to impart knowledge of anything outside themselves, but rather he called on them to perform an inner action. And through this inner action they should ignite the true light of self-awareness within themselves. Like most philosophers of his time, he started from Kant's philosophy. Therefore, he expressed himself in the form of Kant's terminology, just as Schiller did in his mature years. But in terms of the height of inner, spiritual life, he surpassed Kant's philosophy very far, just like Schiller. If one attempts to translate Fichte's demands on his readers and listeners from the difficult philosophical language into a more popular form, it might go something like this. Every thing and every fact perceived by a person imposes its existence on that person. It is there without any action on the part of the person, at least as far as their innermost being is concerned. The table, the flower, the dog, a luminous apparition and so on are there through something foreign to man; and it is only for him to establish the existence that has come about without him. For Fichte, the situation is different for the “I” of man. The “I” is only there to the extent that it attains being through its own activity. Therefore, the sentence “I am” means something completely different than any other sentence. Fichte demanded that one become aware of this self-creation as the starting point for any spiritual contemplation of the world. In every other realization, man can only be receptive; in the “I” he must be the creator. And he can only perceive his “I” by looking at himself as the creator of this “I”. Thus Fichte demands a completely different way of looking at the “I” than at all other things. And he is as strict as possible in this demand. He says, “Most people would be more easily persuaded to consider themselves a piece of lava in the moon than an ego... Anyone who is not yet at peace with himself on this point does not understand fundamental philosophy, and does not need it. Nature, of which he is a machine, will guide him in all his affairs without any effort on his part.” To philosophize requires independence: and this one can only give oneself. We should not want to see without an eye; [but should] also not claim that the eye sees.

This very sharply defines the boundary where ordinary experience ends and the occult begins. Ordinary perception and experience extend as far as the human being's objective perception organs are built in. Occultism begins where man begins to build higher organs of perception for himself through the dormant powers within him. Within ordinary experience, man can only feel like a creature. When he begins to feel like the creator of his being, he enters the realm of so-called occult life. The way Fichte characterizes the “I am” is entirely in line with occultism. Even if he remains in the realm of pure thought, his contemplation is not mere speculation, but true inner experience. But for this very reason, it is also so easy to confuse his world view with mere speculation. Those who are driven by curiosity into the higher worlds will not find what they are looking for by delving into Fichte's philosophy. But for those who want to work on themselves, to discover the abilities slumbering in their souls, Fichte can be a good guide. He will realize that what matters is not the content of his teachings or dogmas, but the power that grows in the soul when one devotedly follows Fichte's lines of thought. One would compare this thinker to the prophet who did not enter the promised land himself, but led his people to a summit from which they could see its glories. Fichte leads thought to the summit from which entry into the land of occultism can be made. And the preparation that one acquires through him is as pure as can be imagined. For it completely transcends the realm of sense perception and the realm of that which originates from the nature of human desire and covetousness (from the human being's astral body). Through Fichte, one learns to live and move in the very pure element of thought. One retains nothing of the physical world in the soul except what has been implanted from higher regions, namely thoughts. And these form a better bridge to spiritual experiences than the training of other psychic abilities. For thought is the same everywhere, whether it occurs in the physical, astral or mental world. Only its content is different in each of these worlds. And the supersensible worlds remain hidden from man only as long as he cannot completely remove sensual content from his thoughts. If the thought becomes free of sensuality, then only one step remains to be taken and the supersensible world can be entered.

The contemplation of one's own self in Fichte's sense is so significant because, in relation to this “self”, man remains without any thought content at all if he does not give himself such a content from within. For all the rest of the world's content, for all perception, feeling, will and so on, which make up the content of ordinary existence, the outer world fills man. He needs - according to Fichte's words - basically nothing but the “machine of nature”, which “manages its business without his intervention”. But the “I” remains empty, no outside world fills it with content, if it does not come from within. The realization “I am” can therefore never be anything other than the human being's most intimate inner experience. So there is something speaking in this sentence within the soul that can only speak from within. But this apparently quite empty affirmation of one's own self is how all higher occult experiences take place. They become more meaningful and full of life, but they retain the same form. Through the ego experience as presented by Fichte, one can get to know the type of all occult experiences, initially in the purely intellectual realm. It is therefore correct to say that with the “I am” God begins to speak in man. And just because this happens in a purely mental form, so many people do not want to recognize it.

Now, however, a limit to knowledge had to be reached precisely by the keenest minds that followed in the footsteps of Fichte. Pure thinking is namely only an activity of the personality, not of the individuality, which passes through the various personalities in recurring reincarnations. The laws of even the highest logic never change, even if in the stages of re-embodiments the human individuality ascends to the stage of the highest sage. The spiritual perception increases, the perceptive faculty expands when an individuality that was highly developed in one incarnation is re-embodied, but the logic of thought remains the same even for a higher level of consciousness. Therefore, that which goes beyond the individual incarnation can never be grasped by any thought-experience, no matter how refined, even if it rises to the highest levels. This is the reason why Fichte's way of looking at things, and also that of his contemporaries who followed in his footsteps, could not bring them to a realization of the laws of reincarnation and karma. Although various indications can be found in the works of the thinkers of this epoch, they arise more out of a general feeling than out of a necessary organic connection with their thought-structures. It may be said that the mission of these personalities in the history of thought was to present pure thought experiences as they can take place within an incarnation, excluding everything that reaches beyond this one embodiment of the human being.

The evolution of the human spirit proceeds in such a way that in certain epochs portions of the esoteric original wisdom are transferred into the consciousness of the people. And at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century it fell to the German national consciousness to shape the spiritual life of pure thought in its relation to the individual personal existence. If we consider what has already been said in connection with Schiller's personality, that art at this time was to be brought to the center of spiritual life, then we will find the emphasis on the personal point of view all the more understandable. Art is, after all, the living out of the spirit in sensual-physical forms. But the perception of these forms is conditioned by the organization of the individual personality living within the one incarnation. What extends beyond the personality into the supersensible realm will no longer be able to find immediate expression in art. Art does cast its reflection into the supersensible realm, but this reflection is only carried over as the fruit of artistic creation and experience by the abiding essence of the soul from one reincarnation to another. That which enters into existence directly as art and aesthetic experience is bound to the personality.

Therefore, in the case of a personality of the marked epoch, a theosophical world view in the most eminent sense also has a thoroughly personal character. This is the case with Friedrich von Hardenberg, who as a poet bears the name Novalis. He was born in 1772 and died as early as 1801. What lived in this soul, which was entirely imbued with a theosophical attitude, is present in some of his poetry and in a series of poetic-philosophical fragments. This attitude flows from every page of his creations to the reader; but everything is so that the highest spirituality is coupled with an immediate sensual passion, with very personal drives and instincts. A truly Pythagorean way of thinking lives in this young man's nature, which was further nourished by the fact that Novalis worked his way up to become a mining engineer by undergoing thorough mathematical and scientific training. The way in which the human mind develops the laws of pure mathematics out of itself, without the help of any kind of sensory perception, became for him the model for all supersensible knowledge in general. Just as the world is harmoniously structured according to the mathematical laws that the soul finds within itself, so he thought this could be applied to all the ideas underlying the world. That is why man's relationship to mathematics took on an almost devotional, religious character for him. Sayings such as the following reveal the peculiarly Pythagorean nature of his disposition: “True mathematics is the actual element of the magician... The highest life is mathematics... The true mathematician is an enthusiast per se. Without enthusiasm, there is no mathematics. The life of the gods is mathematics. All divine messengers must be mathematicians. Pure mathematics is religion. One can only attain mathematics through a theophany. Mathematicians are the only happy people. The mathematician knows everything. He could do it even if he didn't know it. ... In the East, true mathematics is at home. In Europe, it has degenerated into mere technique. He who does not grasp a mathematical book with devotion and read it like the word of God does not understand it. ... Miracles, as unnatural facts, are amathematical, but there is no miracle in this sense, and what is called that is precisely understandable through mathematics, because there is nothing miraculous about mathematics."

In such sayings, Novalis has in mind not merely a glorification of the science of numbers and spatial dimensions, but the realization that all inner soul experiences should relate to the cosmos as the purely sensual-free mathematical construction of the mind relates to the outer numerical and spatially ordered harmony of the world. This is beautifully expressed when he says: “Mankind is the higher meaning of our planet, the nerve that connects this limb with the upper world, the eye that looks up to heaven.” The identity of the human ego with the fundamental essence of the objective world is the leitmotif in all of Novalis's work. Among his “Fragments” is the saying: “Among people, one must seek God. In human affairs, in human thoughts and feelings, the spirit of heaven reveals itself most brightly.” And he expresses the unity of the ‘higher self’ in all of humanity in the following way: ”In the I, in the point of freedom, we are all in fact completely identical – only from there does each individual separate. I is the absolute total place, the central point.” At Noyalis, Noyalis's position is particularly evident, which was dictated by his awareness of art and artistic feeling at the time. For him, art is something through which man rises above his narrowly defined “lower self” and connects with the creative forces of the world. In the creative artistic imagination, he sees a reflection of the magical forces at work. Thus he can say: “The artist stands on man as the statue stands on the pedestal.” “Nature will be moral when, out of true love for art, it surrenders to art and does what art wills; art, when, out of true love for nature, it lives for nature and works after nature. Both must do it at the same time, out of their own choice for their own sake and out of the other's choice for the sake of the other.... When our intelligence and our world are in harmony, then we are equal to God.” Novalis's lyrical poems, especially his ‘Hymns to the Night,’ are imbued with such sentiments, as are his unfinished novel ‘Heinrich von Ofterdingen’ and the little work ‘The Apprentices at Sais,’ which is rooted entirely in mystical thinking and feeling.

These few personalities show how German poetry and thought in that period were based on a theosophical-mystical undercurrent. The examples could be multiplied by numerous others. Therefore, it is not even possible to attempt to give a complete picture here, but only to characterize the basic note of this spiritual epoch with a few lines. It is not difficult to see that individual mystical and theosophical natures with a spiritual and intuitive mind found the theosophical basic ideas in their own way. Thus, theosophy shines out beautifully from the creations of some personalities of this epoch. Many could be cited where this is the case. Lorenz Oken could be mentioned, who founded a natural philosophy that on the one hand points back to Paracelsus and Jakob Böhme through its mystical spirit; on the other hand, through ingenious conceptions about evolution and the connection of living beings, it is a forerunner of the justified parts of Darwinism. Steffens could be cited, who sought reflections of a cosmic spiritual life in the processes of earth development; Eckartshausen (1752–1803) could be referred to, who sought to explain the abnormal phenomena of nature and soul life in a theosophical-mystical way ; Ennemoser (1787–1854) with his “History of Magic”, Gotthilf Heinrich Schubert with his works on dream phenomena and the hidden facts in nature; and the brilliant works of Justinus Kerner and Karl Gustav Carus are rooted in the same school of thought. Schelling moved more and more from pure Fichteanism to theosophy, and then, in his “Philosophy of Mythology” and “Philosophy of Revelation”, which were not published until after his death, traced the developmental history of the human spirit and the connection between religions back to their starting point in the mysteries. Hegel's philosophy should also be viewed in theosophical light, and then one would see how wrong the history of philosophy is in regarding this profound spiritual experience of the soul as mere speculation. All this would require a detailed work if it were to be treated exhaustively. Here, however, only a little-known personality is to be mentioned, who, in the focus of his mind, combined the rays of theosophical world-view and created a structure of ideas that in many respects completely coincides with the thoughts of theosophy that are being revived today. It is I. P. V. Troxler, who lived from 1780 to 1866 and whose works, in particular, the “Blicke in das Wesen des Menschen” (Glimpses into the essence of man), published in 1812, come into consideration. Troxler objects to the usual division of human nature into soul and body, which he finds misleading because it does not exhaust nature. He initially differentiates between four parts of the human being: spirit, higher soul, soul (which he considers the lower soul) and body. One need only see this classification in the right light to recognize how close it is to the one commonly found in theosophical books today. The body in his sense coincides completely with what is now called the physical body. The lower soul, or what he, in contrast to the body, calls the body, is nothing other than the so-called astral body. This is not just something that has been inserted into his world of thought, but he himself says that what is subjectively the lower soul should be characterized objectively by falling back on the term used by the ancient researchers, the astral body. “There is therefore,” he explains, ”necessarily something in man which the sages of ancient times foresaw and proclaimed as a σῶμα αστροιδες (Soma astroeides) [and ομραγιον σῶμα (Uranion soma)], or as a σχημα πνευματιχον ([scheme] pneumatikon) [sensed] and proclaimed, and what is the substrate of the middle sphere of life, the bond of immortal and mortal life.” Among the poets and philosophers who were Troxler's contemporaries, theosophy was alive as an undercurrent; but Troxler himself became keenly aware of this theosophy in the intellectual world around him and developed it in an original way. Thus, he himself comes upon much of what is found in the ancient wisdom teachings. It is all the more appealing to delve into his thought processes, since he does not directly build on old traditions, but rather creates something like an original theosophy out of the thinking and attitudes of his time.

[Rudolf Steiner:] “The first condition for an occultist who acquires powers to lead others is a willingness to make sacrifices. The good that such a self-sacrificing occultist has done cannot be erased. It continues to have an effect, it remains. And it would be highly unchristian and even more untheosophical to judge a fallen occultist without love. Every person who joins the Theosophical Society must be able to count on brotherly feelings. Those who join the Society only to learn have the wrong idea. Those who give their best to help their brothers and thereby support the brotherly spirit have correctly recognized the purpose of the Society.

Now there is the case of a member who has done a lot of good being rejected. What is it that rejects?

It is very difficult to talk about this matter in public. It is a matter of opinions here. By doing things that are not approved by ordinary morality, Leadbeater had the ideal in mind of counteracting precisely this sexual evil. He thought he had done nothing wrong, he saw the matter as a remedy.

One cannot say: “Leadbeater does not want to improve.”

The Society has excluded him. In doing so, it has set itself up as a judge of an idea. In so doing, it has acknowledged its own infallibility. During the congress, there was some talk about common sense. Here, an occult case has been brought before the forum of “common sense”. This means that any occultist could be brought before this forum.

The case has been created and society must see how it deals with it.

Dr. Steiner: “We have only been informed of the fact. We have no right to judge the actions of others; if we do that, we make heretics. Everyone should answer for their own actions.

The exoteric leadership of the Society has only to occupy itself with administrative matters. The rest they have to place in the hands of those who stand behind them. They should not exercise police power.

If they want to start judging the faults of the members, they are beating their own faces. There are seemingly quite harmless things, but they are not as harmless as they seem. These include, for example, the ladies' coffee klatch and the gentlemen's early or evening drink. This is where lust is encouraged. And those affected are, to a certain extent, committing fornication on the astral plane. They are performing a veritable witches' sabbath there. Certain astral beings feed on this gossip.

Only the intention of the culprit determines the difference between white and black magic.

The question at issue here is: Did the culprit act out of lust for his own sake?

Kieser, Stuttgart: “How did Leadbeater behave during the interrogation? Did he confess?”

Miss Bright: “Yes. He fully confessed it and retired from the Society for the good of the Society. He does not want to attach his karma to that of the Society, so he resigns. He has firmly declared that he did not do it to satisfy his lust.”

Dr. Steiner: “So Leadbeater acted in good faith. If the method he used to fight the evil is wrong, it shows in the fruits it produces. If it is right, that can also only be recognized by the fruits.

A similar case is celibacy. Society has no right to judge occult matters. If it does so, it makes itself into a sect that establishes dogmas. The dogma is the establishment of a doctrine whose meaning is not understood. The Trinity, for example, is a dogma as long as it is not understood. If one understands it, it ceases to be a dogma.

The things that are in question here have always been practiced in occult societies. Occultism is the wisdom of the future. Through the heroism of the occultists, they often prepare a tragic end. The occultist lives the morals of the future and that is not understood by his fellow human beings.

This case will become clearer to us if we consider the evolution of man. Wisdom teaches us to look from the bottom up, from man to God. There we saw a whole hierarchy of spiritual beings, a hierarchy, a spiritual state. In this hierarchy, the occultist occupies a very specific place; it is not appropriate for a less developed person to accuse an occultist, because that would be like accusing the gods. The gods have brought illness and sin into the world. Where there is much light, there is also much black shadow. Therefore, the gods could not bring us good without also causing evil. To look for the shadow in the light is nonsense; but the shadow is the consequence of the light. Man first had to emerge completely onto the physical plane before he could become self-aware on the higher planes. First he should explore the physical plan independently. Once in ancient Greece, man was not yet independent, he did not yet feel as an individual, that only developed in Rome. So three to four hundred years before Christ, the Romans developed this sense of independence. We actually owe independent thinking to the ancient Romans. But the decline of sexual morals is connected to the development of thinking. All this is known to the occultist, and we have high occultists to thank for the institution of prostitution. We have to tie in with this if we don't want to go around blindfolded in the world.

A large percentage of humanity is afflicted with sexual vices. That is a fact and there is little that can be done about it. Anyone who thinks that moral sermons can remedy the evil is mistaken. The occultist knows that other things are needed to do so. Even if these things stink, they are necessary and we cannot completely escape them, just as we cannot escape the stench of the faeces we ourselves secrete. Man must go through the swamp. The only question is whether he will wallow in the mud like a pig or whether he will go into the mud to transform it, as it is well known that the most beautiful scents can be developed from feces. Anyone who undertakes this for humanity is acting in an apocalyptic sense. He anticipates something that humanity as a whole will only come to in later times. What he wants to accomplish in view of the future, he must carry out in a physical body that, especially in his brain, does not offer him the necessary conditions to carry out what he has already anticipated in spirit before the rest of humanity. He is crucified in the flesh. He has skipped a step and his physical body does not offer him the necessary conditions.

Let the matter speak as it speaks through the personality. Let it not become a dogma that can be discussed. The interdependence of people, who are all working at different levels of humanity, means that when one person falls, many fall with him.

The point here (with Leadbeater) is that something has happened with the best, noblest of intentions that is incompatible with the current order of things.

Question: “What should we say about this case when we are asked?”

Dr. Steiner: “Right and wrong can only be distinguished according to the attitude from which an act is done.

The higher beings send us teachings through society. Those who do not want them have no place in society. When a teacher falls, we do not want to sing dirges because of it; we need not fear. There are still more suitable teachers to lead the good cause to victory. It depends on the person, not on the idea he has; not on the organization of society, but on the spiritual individuality of the person in whom we have or have no trust."