The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Theosophical Society (Madras Headquarters) German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear Friends!

The undersigned takes the liberty of inviting you to the regular ninth General Assembly, which will take place in Berlin on October 29, 30 and 31, 1910.

The proceedings will be as follows:

Saturday, October 29, 3 p.m. (Motzstraße 17): ordinary board meeting. In the evening, at 7 p.m. (architect's house, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), the business part will take place with the following program:

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and Auditors.

3. Motions from the plenary session.

4. Reports of the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, October 30th, at 4 p.m. (Architect's House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), there will be a factual-theosophical part with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members. (Fran Elise Wolfram has announced three lectures about Paracelsus, the first of which will probably take place during this time, with the following lectures taking place in the coming days. Mr. Franz Seiler has also announced a lecture. We hope that many more lectures will be announced by members.

2. Free informal discussion.

Monday, October 31, at 10 a.m., the factual-theosophical part (free lectures by members) will be continued.

On Monday, October 31, at 8 p.m. (Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhaus), the Berlin Besant Branch will host a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner followed by a recitation by Miss Marie v. Sivers, to which all members of the section are invited.

On Tuesday morning and the following days, the factual-theosophical part can be continued as needed and desired.

For the evenings: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, lectures by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on psychosophy are also planned. (Since the time allotted for the General Assembly is to be devoted to the members' lectures, Dr. Steiner's cycle will only be held after the General Assembly, not during it as before, and more details will be announced during the General Assembly).

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie von Sivers, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, speeches, etc. are requested (to the address of the Secretary General) by October 25, 1910.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

The Theosophical greeting

The Secretary: Marie v. Sivers.
The General Secretary: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Theosophical Society (Adyar Headquarters) German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear friends!

The undersigned hereby take the liberty of inviting you to the tenth general assembly of the Theosophical Society, which will take place in Berlin on December 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1911.

The program is as follows: Saturday, December 9, 3:00 p.m. (Motzstraße 17): regular board meeting, 8

p.m. social get-together at the Geisbergstraße 2 branch.

Sunday, December 10th, at 10 a.m. (architect's house, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), the business part of the meeting will take place with the following program:

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and Auditors.

3. Motions from the floor.

4. Reports from the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, December 10th, at 4 p.m. (Architects' House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), a Theosophical part will take place with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members. (Initially, Ms. Elise Wolfram, Ms. Wandrey, Dr. Unger, and Dr. Wagner, among others, have announced lectures. Hopefully, many more members will register to give lectures.

2. Sunday, December 10, 7 p.m., social gathering of members at the architects' house (Wilhelmstraße 92/93).

Monday, December 11th, at 10 a.m., the factual-theosophical part (free lectures by members) will be continued.

Monday, December 11th, in the afternoon, the factual-theosophical part will be continued.

On Monday, December 11th, at 8 p.m. (Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhaus), the Berlin Besant Branch will host a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner, followed by a recitation by Miss Marie v. Sivers, to which all members of the section are invited.

On Tuesday morning and the following mornings, the factual-theosophical part can be continued as needed and desired.

On Tuesday, December 12th, at 10 a.m., the Johannes-Bauverein will hold its general assembly, for which special programs will be issued.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner's lectures on Pneumatosophy are also planned for the evenings of Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. On Thursday evening at 8 p.m., there will be a public lecture by Dr. Steiner in the architects' house. (Since time during the general assembly will be devoted to the members' lectures, Dr. Steiner's cycle will only be held after the general assembly, and more details will be announced during the general assembly).

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie von Sivers, Berlin W[ilmersdorf], Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, addresses, etc. are requested (to the address of the Secretary General) by December 10, 1911.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the above days,

The Theosophical greeting

The Secretary: Marie v. Sivers.
The General Secretary: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Dear Colleagues,

With regard to the letter sent under “Confidential” by Mrs. Besant, President of the TS, to the members of the esteemed General Council (undated), the undersigned takes the liberty of submitting the following to these members as a basis for their assessment of the situation.

I would just like to say in advance that writing the following is not a sympathetic task for me, as I completely lack any sympathy for what the allure of opposition entails. I would certainly refrain from doing so if the challenge posed by the letter of the P[resident of the] TS were not so apt to convey completely erroneous opinions to the members of the Theosophical Society regarding the matters concerning the German section and myself. Some criticize that I have remained silent about many things so far. Well, I can also tolerate unjustified criticism, and would continue to tolerate it if I did not do a disservice to the truth by continuing to do so. The following statements may show anyone who is willing to evaluate facts that I have not adopted any position that is incompatible with theosophical principles, but that one day I was confronted with such a position from another quarter and now, as the letter mentioned testifies, I am confronted with it to an ever greater extent. My only aspiration is to achieve peace for a calm possibility of communicating spiritual knowledge.

1. The case of Dr. Vollrath, cited by the President of the TS on p. 3 of the aforementioned letter, has nothing to do with what the President of the T.S. describes on p. 2 of the letter as a “restriction on the opinions of a person”. The case is as follows: in 1908, the board of the German section decided by one vote to one (the undersigned did not vote personally) that Dr. Vollrath could no longer be considered a member. The reasons for this were Dr. Vollrath's general behavior within the Society, which made working with him seem impossible, and not at all his opinions. After some time, Dr. Vollrath sent a letter to Mrs. Besant, the President of the TS, with a whole series of unjustified accusations about me. Mrs. Besant sent me this letter at the time. I answered this letter confidentially and in detail – all this happened in 1909 – and Mrs. Besant was thus fully informed about Dr. Vollrath's behavior from that time on. Since then she knew what unjustified accusations Dr. Vollrath was making. It was therefore not important that Dr. Vollrath repeated these accusations in 1911, adding others, in a printed pamphlet. For me, the “Dr. Vollrath case” came to an end in 1909. I myself did not reply to Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet of 1911 and I did not object in the slightest when Dr. Vollrath was appointed as a representative of the “Star of the East” in [1911]. I have now stated my position in the whole matter in March 1912 in a detailed letter to Mrs. Besant, President of the TS, with the following words:) ¹

"Now to the point Dr. Vollrath. This is the thing through which you have made it simply impossible for me to represent you in the proper way in Germany. Dr. Vollrath has been carrying on a violent personal antagonism against me for a long time, he is writing a pamphlet, the falsity of which, dear Mrs. Besant, must be known to you, because I informed you in 1909 in a detailed manner about the real state of things. In Germany it is known that you made Dr. Vollrath the representative of the Order of the Star at exactly the same moment when, in the form of a pamphlet full of objective untruths, he made a new attack on me and some of my colleagues. You thus put me into the really undesired necessity, either to be silent, and thus admit that something in the attacks of Dr. Vollrath must be true, as he is the representative of Mrs. Besant in Germany, aye, as he is appealing to it; or, if I am not doing this, to turn myself against it, and thus against you. It seems that scarcely anything could be comparable to this enormity: The President of the Theosophical Society herself makes it impossible for the representative of a section to stand for the president. The objection that the representation has been taken from Dr. Vollrath could only have had a value if I had not reported to you in 1909 the whole state of affairs concerning Dr. Vollrath. I would like to make it clear once again that I personally take the matter with absolute indifference; as for myself, things worse than these can be undertaken against me; I read these things as if they did not concern me. I have only compassion for Dr. Vollrath, not the slightest rancour. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, I would like to be able to feel affection as I do always. But as little as the matter comes into consideration for me, as much it comes into consideration for the German Section, which, if it would not think too soundly about the things, could lose its faith in everything. For you, dear Mrs. Besant, have expressed, as President, by nominating Dr. Vollrath, a full vote of no confidence in the General Secretary of the German Section. I am only stating this as a fact because I do not, of course, discuss in the least your right to nominate any person you feel pleased with, with whom I do not want to have anything to do. [These words have nothing to do] with the personality of Dr. Vollrath, but only with the fact that [to] the eyes of the members of the German Section you have given a full vote of mistrust to its General Secretary. Herewith I have simply characterized with dry words, that may sound harsh, a state of things, but I have reflected for a long time if I [could] use other words.

It may well be pointed out that Mrs. Besant's objection to the matter, which she had already raised, cannot be accepted, that she had recommended Dr. Vollrath not in her capacity as President of the TS, but as protector of the Order of the “Star in the East.” For the German section, just as I myself, has never denied Mrs. Besant the right to make this recommendation; she merely stated that if Mrs. Besant, who after all is one person in both capacities, recommends Dr. Vollrath as her representative in an important public matter, despite the fact that Dr. Steiner had already informed her in 1909 about Dr. Vollrath's behavior, then Mrs. Besant does not trust Dr. Steiner's words. So it was not that the German Section wanted to interfere with Mrs. Besant's actions, but only to make it clear that Dr. Steiner's words meant nothing to Mrs. Besant when she publicly performed important acts. This was expressed at the General Assembly of the German Section in 1911; and I merely explained this in detail in the above-mentioned letter.

What has Mrs. Besant done? She wrote the letter to me printed on S. 12 of her present letter to the members of the General Council, in which she does not mention that she was fully informed about everything concerning Dr. Vollrath not only through his pamphlet of 1911, but already through my letter of 1909, and declares that she did not know the pamphlet of 1911 when she recommended Dr. Vollrath. But in doing so, she only confirms that she was completely indifferent to what my letter of 1909 already contained, that what the German section was accusing her of, my communications meant nothing to her.

One more example of Mrs. Besant's recent actions against me is worth mentioning. At the last general assembly of the German section, I was forced – because I had been asked – to discuss the objective facts of the cancellation of the congress in Genoa. I said that after the cancellation, I contacted the Secretary General of the Italian section to find out the reasons for the cancellation. He replied, “I was acting on strict orders from President Mrs. Besant and Secretary Mr. Wallace. Please contact them.” This was the strictly objective fact as I presented it. Mrs. Besant is now spreading the rumor that I have misrepresented the matter, because she would never have canceled the congress, but only reported to Genoa that she would not be coming there. I would like to point out that I only told the facts, and Mrs. Besant is twisting the matter so that the reader must conclude from her words that I have presented the matter incorrectly. Moreover, Mr. Wallace later gave a version of the matter in a letter to me that was entirely consistent with the telegram from the General Secretary of the Italian Section.

The fact that this letter, which Mrs. Besant $12 prints, has not yet appeared in the “Mitteilungen der deutschen Section” is simply because no further issue of these messages has appeared since that time. It will be published when one appears.

But for me, this letter can only mean that Mrs. Besant finds everything I have communicated to be meaningless, because she does not answer the question that is at the heart of my letter, but rather something that I have explicitly stated is not important.

Since Mrs. Besant's various printed statements are likely to create the belief that I have violated the principle of general tolerance of opinions in the Theosophical Society, it is necessary to also reproduce the statements that I also made to Mrs. Besant in my letter of March 1912:

“And here I come to another point, one of principle. You, dear Mrs. Besant, said in your last address at the Adyar Convention that here in Germany Theosophy is brought forth upon lines that are particularly adopted to German circumstances and which other nations could not accept. Nothing of this is in reality the case. There are actually two points that have to be considered. The first concerns my occult position, which differs in some points from yours and Mr. Leadbeater's, and which seems to culminate in the Christ-question. I say “seems” on purpose. This point concerns not only the German members of the Theosophical Society, but also many members of other sections. As for the first point: it is at least strange that an agitation is being stirred up over it, and that things are being distorted so as to suggest aggressive action on our part or even on mine. In the principal lines I have already stated my point of view concerning the Christ-problem in my book 'Christianity as a Mystical Fact', which appeared in 1903. That this point of view differs from yours and Mr. Leadbeaters has been remarked immediately by Mr. Keightley and has been expressed by him in the article which he wrote about it for the 'Theosophical Review'. All that which since then has been added to the statements put forth in this book, are details of occult investigation, which I had to bring forth in the course of years, because I, who had to work essentially in Christian countries, was obliged to give an objective interpretation of the gospels. Thus, in the whole trend of my work since I entered the Theosophical Society nothing has been changed, except that in the course of time, in many territories, more and more people have got attentive to my point of view. I could think the more, dear Mrs. Besant, to have your approval in all I did, as this way of action was a natural consequence of the conversations I had with you in Munich in 1907 and in Budapest in 1909. As for other deviations from yours and Mr. Leadbeater's point of view, I had no reason to think about your contradiction, as you yourself had written a warm preface to the English edition of my book “Initiation” and had recommended the translation. From my part nothing has happened, but that I could not endorse your views about the “coming Christ which you brought to expression only after the fixation of my point of view. In the beginning I did everything to equalize the gap, in order to give members the opportunity to remain neutral. When then the opinion got stronger and stronger that my point of view could not be brought into line with the opinions you brought forth only since 1909, I could not do more than rely upon the fact that the Theosophical Society could give expression in her midst to the most varied points of view. I do not think that with all that happened, I have done, even in the slightest measure, something which is in contradiction with this principle of the Theosophical Society. It was quite self-evident that on the basis of all I have just explained, I could not have anything to do with the “Star of the East” and with anything concerning Krishnamurti. I have done that in the way that I simply did not speak about these things. I will continue to do so, and will [not put anything into the way] of those that are working for these things in Germany. For this is the good right of any one, just as I cannot do else, but ignore these things. Despite my absolute silence about the ‹Star of the East› Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, as your representative in Germany, made violent opposition to me in this matter. Why must this be, as I shall not put anything into his way in doing what he wants, if he will respect [the fact] that no one can compel me to act otherwise, when my conviction forces me simply to pass by a thing and be silent about it. This question too has nothing to do with any national point of view, so that the characteristic you give about it, saying that my conception of Christ is adapted to German circumstances, gives an unright conception of it. What I am saying about Christ has as little to do with anything national as a mathematical assertion has to do with it. To my insight there is no other possibility of turning against me than to say quite distinctly: in the Theosophical Society nothing else is permitted to be brought than that which is brought by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater. Only when one is proclaiming this principle can one turn against that which comes from me. I will not complain if one is opposing me, but I cannot consider it right when one is spreading about: this or that is done because of national reasons, and there are not such ones, or when aggressiveness is reproached to us, and we do nothing but expose our point of view».

It might appear that these different standpoints have nothing to do with the questions that are being considered and that have been put to the General Council by the President of the TS. And it is absolutely true: in theory they have nothing to do with it. But the reality of Mrs. Besant's statement forces us to start from this point. For I may well ask anyone who wants to look objectively at facts, and not at the words that people say about these facts, to ask themselves, in view of everything that has happened on the part of the President, the question: Can such an unprejudiced judge believe for a moment that I would have been treated by the President in the well-known manner if, from the time about three years ago when Mrs. Besant began to expound her teachings of the “Coming Christ,” I had also begun to expound these teachings at her behest, and if I had joined the “Star of the East”? No matter how you look at it, the fact is that I and a number of other members of the TG did not follow the teachings of the “coming Christ” and the “Star of the East”. In reality, everything else followed from this. Just look at the most superficial points. Mrs. Besant repeatedly expressed her approval of the election of certain members of the board of the German Section for life, in print, in letters, and also orally – on the occasion of a conversation at the Budapest Congress in 1909 –; now she turns on p. 4 of her letter to the General Council what she previously approved, as a weapon against the German Section and me.

It can be substantiated at any time upon request that within my sphere of influence nothing has been done that could be described as an attack on the teachings of Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater, but that as soon as Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden took over Mrs. Besant's representation of the “Star of the East” in Germany, the latter immediately turned against me and the German section in an aggressive manner. It is even true, which hardly anyone will find credible, that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me suggesting that I teach in such a way that my teachings could not be understood by my audience as contradicting Mrs. Besant's teachings.

While those who attack us always emphasize that all opinions must be tolerated in the Theosophical Society, the only thing that all accusations are based on is the fact that a number of members of the Theosophical Society do not blindly follow Mrs. Besant's and Leadbeater's teachings with me. In reality, those who do not agree that the entire Theosophical Society must follow the dogmatism of Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater are being accused of dogmatism. Look around you, among the members of the Theosophical Society who have become my audience, and see if any dogma has ever been imposed on them, if they have ever been asked to rely on anything other than their own free consent to what is said and on the inner truth of what is presented. Just try to imagine how carefully we try to avoid any possibility of dogmatism.

And then compare this to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's description, in a letter about an “Undogmatic Association” he founded, of the German section as an organization that is led by a pope and in which individual branches are treated dogmatically as if by bishops. Compare this with the opinions deviating from mine that were expressed within the German section, for example at our last general assembly.

Anyone who really considers all this with an evaluation of the facts will perhaps understand when I dare to say the following – sincerely and honestly: For years now, the only reason I have not resigned from my position as Secretary General of the German Section is the trust that a large number of members place in me, which imposes on me the ironclad duty not to leave the post where a work has been begun that I must not leave. Because of the behavior of Mrs. Besant and some of her supporters, the office of General Secretary of the German Section is nothing but a source of bitterness. I do not say martyrdom, just to avoid being accused of sentimentality. I would bear all this myself, perhaps even without a word of protest; but I must speak for the members who have placed their trust in me.

And I would truly have a lot to say in this regard. But for the time being, I am optimistic that what has been said in support of my words is enough. And perhaps it will not be necessary to add to the list of evidence given. I will only say that Mrs. Besant's only response to the above account of the true facts was the very matter-of-fact words: “As regards difference of opinion on the Christ question or on any other, such difference is legitimate within the Society. I have often said, both publicly and privately, that you [and I] and others have an equal right to form and to express our opinions; I think differences of opinion are useful, not harmful, and I have often urged people to read your books.

These few self-evident lines I received in reply to a detailed account of the matter from the same Mrs. Besant, who in her letter to the members of the General Council complains that I leave her letters unanswered. But what do these words mean in fact? Since there is no other reason for all the accusations against the German Section and me than the difference of opinion, these lines mean: One may accuse someone if they do not unconditionally follow the teachings one wants to have oneself, and one is justified for this act if one only says: I find different opinions useful and not harmful.

As Mrs. Besant reports to the General Council, the following case may serve to illustrate: Mrs. Besant writes (p. 7): “Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestion to form a German-Swiss National Society -...” I now ask you to compare this “ignoring” with the objective fact that I wrote the following to Mrs. Besant in March 1912 regarding this matter: “In my last letter I tried to describe to you the position of those lodges in Switzerland that formerly belonged to the German Section, according to the real state of things. In my presentation I have stated that I have no personal desires in this matter; I have only given an expression to the desires and opinions of the said lodges. In consequence of the way in which you, dear Mrs. Besant, received this presentation of mine, and owing to the statements made in the 'Adyar bulletin report', the whole matter has been removed from its ground, so that there will be now the greatest difficulty to set it aright. What the above-mentioned lodges in Switzerland want has nothing to do with national sentiment. And if the matter is presented as being based on national animosity, our Swiss lodges are being deeply wronged. The matter is – I have emphasized this in my last letter – that the way in which the Geneva section was founded was felt by our lodges, and could not be felt otherwise, as a wrong done to them, an action through which violence has been done to them, and because they find the spirit of the Geneva foundation untheosophical, these lodges want to form a separate section, or, if for some reason the consent from Adyar should not be given to it, to leave the Theosophical Society. In my last letter already I accentuated, that one could easily call such an action from their part untheosophical, but it really ought not be possible to turn things round in such a way, that in the Theosophical Society first something untheosophical is done, and then, when another resists, that he should be called untheosophical. Our Swiss lodges do not feel in any way aggressive, but absolutely in the defensive. What I myself am thinking about the matter is of no concern, only this, that all the lodges formerly belonging to the German Section, have expressed their will to remain united, not excluding Lugano and Neuchâtel but with these together. The national point of view is not the one in question; therefore these united lodges do not want to be separated by national points of view. Therefore I really can but repeat today what I expressed in my last letter concerning this point."

I now ask the objective judge, firstly, how this fact of my detailed letter agrees with the other fact that Mrs. Besant says on p. 7 of her letter: ‘Dr. Steiner wrote - ignoring my suggestions to form a German-Swiss-National Society’.

Unfortunately, I was again in the position of having to do the same this time as I had to do in the case of the alleged attack on Mrs. Besant at our 1911 general assembly. At the time, I said nothing other than the objective facts that had occurred. Mrs. Besant called this account of facts that she herself had brought about an attack on her person. Now, is it not the case that I have not said anything against Mrs. Besant, but that it is enough to tell the facts that happened through Mrs. Besant, and Mrs. Besant finds a sharp attack on herself in these facts brought about by her.

I have in fact written to Mrs. Besant about everything concerning the Swiss lodges and other matters; and I had no reason to write the same things again because Mrs. Besant formally answered my letters, but her letters contained nothing on the points that mattered. It is quite easy to answer letters when these letters do not touch on the important points. Whether it is justified in such a case to say of the other person that he is remaining silent, I ask the esteemed colleagues to judge.

On pp. 14 ff. of the letter to the members of the General Council, Mrs. Besant shares a letter written by Mr. Bernhard Hubo, a member of the German section and chairman of a Hamburg branch, in response to a letter from Mr. Cordes. The content of this letter, written out of honest conviction and probably also indignation, can easily be misunderstood if one does not know Mr. Cordes' letter, to which Mr. Hubo's letter is the answer. Mr. Cordes' letter reads verbatim: “Dear Mr. Hubo: I had sent you all kinds of catalogs and lessons to Hohenfelde, all of which came back. But through the ‘Theosophist’ I found your present address, so you did come to Munich after all! Our esteemed President, Mrs. Besant, has appointed me National Representative for Germany for the International Council meeting in Adyar. I have already written to Mr. Westphal, whose acquaintance I owe to your kindness. I know only what I have heard from you, because since 1900 I have only been to Hamburg once, and that was those four weeks in June 1911. Mrs. Besant asked me to contact Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, you and Leipzig. Can you help me to get short, concise notes for the public and as much private and intimate news as possible? I don't know anyone in Leipzig, but if I have your valuable help – Munich, Mr. Westphal – Hamburg, Mr. Koethin – Hanover and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in Göttingen, things will go well. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden has just sent me his book 'Diene dem Ewigen' (Serve the Eternal) with the following dedication: 'To his spiritual brother Cordes, in devotion, steadfastness and gentleness'. I will write to him today. If you honor me with private messages, I will of course maintain the strictest discretion. Otherwise a postcard with brief notes intended for the public will suffice. The important thing is to maintain this connection with Germany, and once you have agreed to correspond with me, once a month will help. You are not the man to let it drop. Because if you ever want to have workers in the German field, you must not be deterred from taking the trouble to train apprentices. In friendship, J.H. Cordes.

Although I should be allowed to have my thoughts about someone who, in league with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, “serves the eternal” by “wanting to get as much private and intimate news as possible” in order to publish them in “devotion, steadfastness and gentleness”, or, if necessary, to maintain “strict discretion”, the fact is that I have never worried about Mr. Cordes in truth, and I have never even in the slightest way hindered his steps. Mr. Hubo wrote his letter to Mr. Cordes quite freely and of his own accord, as is the custom in our section, and without the slightest influence from me. And I could only say afterwards that I found Mr. Hubo's words understandable, since he had been expected to become the mediator of “private and intimate news”.

What does Mrs. Besant do? Without the slightest reason, she writes on page 19 of her letter to the General Council: “Dr. Steiner evidently regards him - Mr. Cordes - as an enemy, for he was refused, by Fräulein von Sivers, an invitation to the Congress lately held in Munich.

The only thing in the letter that Mrs. Besant wrote to the members of the General Council that could even give the appearance of justifying any kind of accusation concerns the case of Leonhardi, which is mentioned on p. 19 f. But so that it can be seen that here, too, only the appearance of a violation of the statutes having occurred is being created, the case should be reported here, although I am extremely reluctant to touch on the matter, for reasons that will become apparent from the narrative itself. Mrs. and Miss Leonardi applied for admission to our Leipzig Lodge. I must now confess that I have a certain sense of responsibility when I put my name to an admission diploma of the Theosophical Society. When the application for admission of the two ladies mentioned was submitted to me, this fact had been preceded by several others. In the preceding months I had received several letters from one of the ladies. These letters were for the most part pure hymns of praise to me. The address was “To the Master of German Theosophy” and the letter contained many intensifications of this designation of my person on the outer address. From the content of these letters, I formed the conviction that the two ladies, whom I otherwise hold in high esteem as a result of a previous fleeting encounter after one of my lectures in Berlin, had not yet been convinced of how we work within the Theosophical Society and that, in my opinion, the emphasis on one person – in this case mine – over the objective truth must be overcome above all else. In short, after all the praise for me, I couldn't bring myself to put my name all too quickly on the relevant admission diplomas. This is how the rumor arose: Mrs. Wolfram rejected the ladies because they were connected to Dr. Vollrath and corresponded with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. As soon as I heard that this was being said, I immediately asked Frau Wolfram, the president of our Leipzig lodge, whether this was the case. I myself had not even known that the ladies were corresponding with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Frau Wolfram categorically denied having said anything of the sort to the ladies. But I assure the esteemed members of the General Council that there was no other reason for not signing the admission diplomas of the two ladies than that which arose from the content of the letters mentioned. Call it weakness on my part, but I am convinced that someone who writes me letters of such praise is not yet fully aware of the nature of the Theosophical movement and would do better to wait a little while before accepting until he can properly distinguish the personal from the objective.

What Mrs. Besant says on page 4 about certain additions to our statutes of the German Section is completely unfounded for the reason that the added points (lifelong membership, signature of the chairman of a lodge for someone who wants to be admitted to one of our lodges) have never violated the general statutes of the Theosophical Society in any way. No one has been rejected by us after the addition of these points who would not have been rejected before the addition of these points.

Of notable rejections in our organization, only the following comes into consideration. I was unable to issue the diploma for some of the admissions recommended by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden because I knew that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden did not even know the applicants. I could not, on my own responsibility, authorize the founding within the German Section of a branch that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wanted to found under the name “Freedom Branch,” because Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has been behaving in the most unbrotherly way against the German Section for a long time, publicly defaming it and spreading demonstrably untrue characterizations. As I have indicated to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, I will submit the request of the “Freedom Branch” to the next board meeting. A branch in Leipzig wanted to be established. I could not approve it as a branch of the German Section because Mrs. Besant had already indicated to me that this same branch had already been established as a branch directly affiliated with Adyar. But a branch that is already connected to Adyar cannot at the same time be a branch of a section.

It seems to me that I have sufficiently characterized the accusations that Mrs. Besant directed against the German Section and against me in the aforementioned letter. I wanted to give the esteemed members of the General Council at least some material for their judgment. It was difficult enough for me to write these pages. Anyone who wants to know what it is about will find that I have done nothing but present the positive results of my spiritual research in all peace, and that a number of members are among my audience for inner reasons. After this increase in the size of my audience, I was suddenly confronted with attacks from Mrs. Besant and a number of her supporters, among whom Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden is working in the manner described above. I want nothing at all but the recognition of the fact, not by words, but by facts, that the Theosophical Society may still be a place for the representation of what has been recognized as true and that it is not in reality developing into a Leadbeater-Besant sect, which, instead of confessing that it only wants to be that, speaks of freedom of opinion and accuses those who take the matter seriously of things that in reality do not even exist. Those who have followed my work know that the opinion that one likes to spread – that we are pursuing a particular “Christian-German” view – is only suitable for creating the misconception that other religions are not viewed as objectively as Christianity.

My dear colleagues! I have presented you with facts; judge them. I am optimistic enough to believe that the facts will be enough for you. I do not want to accuse anyone; and if these pages do contain an accusation, it is only the facts that accuse. Only one thing needs to be emphasized: if Mrs. Besant, about whom I have to write this with great regret, wants to accuse me, then she should openly admit that within the Theosophical Society no opinion should exist other than hers and Mr. Leadbeater's. For I have nothing to accuse myself of other than not being able and not being allowed to blindly follow Mr. Leadbeater and Mrs. Besant. Objectively speaking, everything else is only the consequence of this cardinal transgression of mine.

With brotherly love, Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society.

• 1. I must make an insertion here. The detailed letters that I wrote to Mrs. Besant regarding the matters touched upon in these pages were written by me in German and then translated into English by Miss v. Sivers so as not to inconvenience Mrs. Besant by making her read a German letter. Now, Miss v. Sivers feels that she translated absolutely accurately, but not in good English. Of course, the letters must be printed here as they were sent to Mrs. Besant at the time. However, I would ask you to excuse the translation, which Miss von Sivers did not seem to have mastered entirely, with the following: Due to being overburdened with theosophical work, I was unable to write the decisive letter to Mrs. Besant at any other time than at night, immediately before a journey to be undertaken the next morning. Miss v. Sivers, indisposed, had to complete the translation in a few hours of the night. So that a comparison with my German text is possible, I am including the same here.

It is my duty to inform the esteemed members about this letter from Mrs. Besant. I will do so objectively on the basis of the true facts.

1. Mrs. Besant writes in May 1912: “Dr. Vollrath made no appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to consider right or wrong in this matter, and to this day I do not know it.”

The exact opposite is the objective truth!

The facts are as follows: Dr. Vollrath addressed an appeal to Mrs. Besant in the form of a five-page letter regarding his expulsion in October 1908, as early as December 1, 1908. This letter from Dr. Vollrath was sent to me by Mrs. Besant, enclosed in a letter she wrote to me on January 7, 1909, in which Mrs. Besant wrote: “Dr. Vollrath is sending me various complaints; I enclose his letter. Kindly let me know whether you consider that there is anything in his case which should prevent his being a member-at-large? A man is sometimes troublesome in a Lodge or Section whose membership is harmless in the General TS and a Section can expel a man from itself but not from the TS, as a Lodge can expel a man from its own body but not from the Section. I am not in favor of expelling a member from the general TS, but I shall not answer Dr. Vollrath definitively till I hear from you.” This means in German: “Dr. Vollrath sends me various complaints. I enclose his letter. Please let me know if you think there is something in his case that would prevent him from remaining as a member in the broader sense. A person is occasionally disturbing in a lodge or in a section whose membership is harmless in the General Theosophical Society, and a section can exclude a person from itself, but not from the Theosophical Society, just as a lodge can exclude a person from its body, but not from the section. I am not inclined to expel a member from the General Theosophical Society; but I will not answer Dr. Vollrath definitively before I hear from you."

In response to this letter from Mrs. Besant and the appeal addressed by Dr. Vollrath to Mrs. Besant, which already in 1909 contained things of the very same kind as Dr. Vollrath repeated in his pamphlet of 1911, I replied to Mrs. Besant at length, presenting the case to her and also writing to her about the reasons which then led not me but the Section's Executive Council to take the step.

In response to this, Mrs. Besant replied to me on 18 March 1909:

“As regards Dr. Vollrath. I fully recognize that it is sometimes necessary to exclude a man from the smaller working areas of a lodge or of a Section. As an appeal to me has been made (these words are underlined by me, Dr. Steiner). I, as President, confirm the action taken by the German Section, and enclose a note to that effect, which you can use or not in your official organ as you please. I also write by this mail to Dr. Vollrath, so informing him.”

The above-mentioned note, which was enclosed with this letter, reads: “To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German TS. My dear Colleague, under Rule 36 of the General-Constitution of the TS which vests in the President alone the power of issuing and cancelling Charters and Diplomas; and having in view Rule 37, which gives to each National Society the power of making it own Rules; I, as President of the TS, having been appealed to by Dr. Vollrath, of Leipzig, against his expulsion by the German TS and having heard all particulars thereof, (These words are underlined by me. Dr. St.), decide that his expulsion from the German TS is valid, and that Dr. Vollrath has ceased to be a member of that body.» This is the English translation: “To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society. My dear colleague. In accordance with Rule 36 of the General Constitution of the Theosophical Society, which gives the President alone the power to grant or revoke charters and diplomas; and bearing in mind Rule 37, which gives national societies the right to establish their own rules: I, as President, having Vollrath of Leipzig has appealed to me (these words are underlined by me, Dr. St.), because of his expulsion from the German Theosophical Society, and after hearing all the details of the case (these words underlined by me, Dr. St.), I decide that his expulsion from the German Theosophical Society is well founded, and that Dr. Vollrath has ceased to be a member of this body.

In the face of these facts, I will simply summarize and say: On March 18, 1909, Mrs. Besant writes: “after Dr. Vollrath has appealed to me and after I have heard all the details of the case...” On May 8, 1912, the same Mrs. Besant writes: “Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to consider right or wrong in this matter; and to this day I do not know it.”

Mrs. Besant now continues: “In the summer of 1911, when the question of a representative of the ‘Order of the Star of the East’ in Germany arose, I suggested Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. The Order is not part of the Theosophical Society, and Adyar has nothing to do with its administration. The whole attack on Adyar is not nice, because the Adyar administration had no knowledge and did nothing for Dr. Vollrath or the order. When talking to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about possible secretaries in Germany who would work under him, I suggested Dr. Vollrath, not as a representative of the president – who cannot be represented within the order – but as a secretary under Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

This was agreed to, but on his return to Germany the good doctor found that Dr. Vollrath was regarded as an antagonist of Dr. Steiner, and so the election was rescinded. This is what actually took place, and I cannot possibly see in it any injury to Dr. Steiner or to the German Section. We had no reason to think that his exclusion from the German Section should be taken to mean that he should be excluded from any kind of useful activity outside the Theosophical Society. But when we found that his election was regarded as antagonistic to the General Secretary, it was withdrawn to avoid injury.

Dr. Steiner speaks very strongly about Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet and brands this pamphlet as the cause of the injury. But I have never read a line of this pamphlet and have no knowledge of what it contains. Had I known what a damaging pamphlet was being prepared against Dr. Steiner, I certainly would not have proposed Dr. Vollrath's name as secretary, for I have always shown respect for Dr. Steiner, both as General Secretary and as a friend. It might have been better to ask me if I knew the pamphlet before such speeches were made.

Again, the following is the objective truth: It did not matter that Mrs. Besant had read the pamphlet, because in many respects it was a repetition of things that Dr. Vollrath wrote to Mrs. Besant two years earlier and which were refuted by me in a detailed letter to her at the time. I therefore never assumed that Mrs. Besant had read the 1911 pamphlet, but that she had not responded to my 1909 letter. In a detailed letter that I addressed to her in March 1912, I now expressly explained to Mrs. Besant that I certainly did not claim the right to give her instructions regarding measures relating to the “Star of the East”, which I never took care of and which therefore does not concern me at all. I myself did not say a word against Dr. Vollrath's appointment. What was expressed at the general assembly of the German Section was only the stating of the fact that Mrs. Besant, who has known the relevant facts since 1909, expressed a vote of no confidence to the German General Secretary by completely disregarding his judgment. This expression of opinion came from the German Section assembly; it did not come from me.

For some time now, Mrs. Besant has been taking action against me that is very similar to that in this letter. What I do as General Secretary of the German Section, what I undertake as a lecturer, is treated in this way and repeated and reprinted in numerous Theosophical communications in the Theosophical Society. What the present assistant of Mrs. Besant in Germany, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, is doing in Germany in this direction, goes beyond all bounds of possibility to such an extent that it is difficult for me even to write about it. Only one thing may be mentioned, namely, that he calls the German Section an organization like the Catholic Church, with a Pope at the head and with branches resembling dogmatically governed bishoprics. He compares my and my colleagues' approach to that of the Jesuits. And all this after he has used the most unctuous words about brotherly love, peace, and the like.

My dear friends, anyone who is familiar with my writings and lectures can see how far I am from anything that could be described as dogmatism. I certainly do not refrain from emphasizing often enough, not only in words but in theory, how little should be taken dogmatically, what I have to represent, but how it should be examined; I always try to point out possible serious objections myself, in order to give everyone the opportunity to make their own assessment through the whole approach of what I assert. Examiners, what is happening against me from Mrs. Besant's side and her helpers, and it will hardly be possible for a different judgment of real impartiality to arise, than that my work is precisely the obstacle to allowing the Theosophical Society to become a mere Leadbeater-Besant sect. It is incredible that we are spoken to about things that are not really important, but treated in a way that is, for example, the following. I am forced to discuss the objective fact of the cancellation of the Genoa Congress at the last general assembly of the German section. I say that after the cancellation, I contacted the General Secretary of the Italian Section to find out the reasons for the cancellation. He replied to me in a telegram: “I have acted on strict orders from President Mrs. Besant and Secretary Mr. Wallace; please contact them.” This is the strict, objective fact. Mrs. Besant is now spreading the following: I had misrepresented the whole matter, for she had never canceled the congress, but only reported to Genoa that she would not be coming there. As a result, the opinion is forming in wide circles of the Theosophical Society that I said something incorrect at our general assembly, while I did not say anything about my view of the matter, but only communicated to my members the clear wording of the official telegram from the responsible General Secretary. I never said that Mrs. Besant had canceled the Congress, but only that she could not have canceled it because she had no right to do so.

This is how it goes with statements that Mrs. Besant makes about me in almost every issue of The Theosophist. Dear friends, do not ask me to refute all these errors in The Theosophist. It would lead to nothing but a series of replies, and in the end no one would understand anything. You can refute errors, but when it comes to the issues at hand, you refrain from refuting them for reasons that are easy to understand. I truly have better things to do than refute things that are not there.

I would like to tell you only one thing. Your trust alone allows me to hold out at the post of Secretary General of the German Section. Because what I have had to endure for years in this position is bitter, and only to avoid being called sentimental do I not say that it is a martyrdom.

Anyone who has followed how the relevant things have developed in recent years can see how little it is true when the attackers and accusers now claim that I represent an intolerant dogmatism. This does nothing more than shift the main points everywhere. Those who have followed my lectures know how things were a long time ago. I held to a certain view, for the reasons I had to put forward, of the Mystery of Golgotha, for instance. I initially presented these things in isolation. I hardly touched on other views; I wanted to let everything speak for itself on its own merits and on its own grounds. Then individual personalities approached me and repeatedly bombarded me with questions about the mismatch between my presentation and that of Mrs. Besant. I hardly engaged in such questions at first. For it seemed to me that the audience should decide which account was supported by the stronger arguments. I could understand that some of the prominent figures in the Theosophical Society found it difficult to come to terms with themselves when they saw the contradictions in the accounts. But I wanted nothing to be said for this account other than the internal consistency of this account itself, which can be seen from the publication of my book: 'Christianity as a Mystical Fact'. Everything I presented after this book was nothing more than a further elaboration of what was given there. I had good reasons for simply stating what I believed I had recognized, and leaving it entirely up to each listener to decide how to relate to what I had presented. That is how I wanted to continue. Nothing should have any effect except what my listeners found convincing in my presentation. I cannot be blamed for the fact that a number of listeners found something useful for themselves in my presentation.

In the following period, I would have done nothing other than continue with what I have just characterized. Then quite different things happened. People not only began to attack what I had said. Everyone had every right to do that. I would have done nothing in the face of these attacks except let my statement work through its inherent reasons. But what came from the other side was not at all an attack on what I had said, but something quite different. I will mention only a very few of the many things that were said against me here. I could see from an official account of a speech Mrs. Besant had given at the Annual General Meeting of the Theosophical Society in Adyar that she was not polemicizing against what I had said, but that she was putting forward things as peculiar to my account that no one could match with this account of mine. She presented, for example, what I had said as something specifically German-Christian in a way that had never occurred to me. I wanted to maintain the peace, so I initially confined myself to pointing out Mrs. Besant's error in a letter. I did this at great length. I also wrote to her that what was at issue here was not applicable to the fact that the most diverse points of view can coexist within the Theosophical Society. This, after all, is self-evident. What I had to do was to teach Mrs. Besant that it is quite another thing to tolerate different points of view and to say something about another point of view that has nothing to do with that point of view but distorts it. I wanted to make it clear that truth should prevail when one person is talking about another. After all, the versatility of points of view cannot also include the possibility that something incorrect can be said from a different point of view. Mrs. Besant did not answer me when I wrote to her that she had always emphasized that different points of view in the Theosophical Society were useful and not harmful. So it was finally with many; on what it comes down, one did not go in, the answers were taken for granted that meant nothing. I had now, despite all this, the intention to quietly continue in the manner described above and to let what I had to say take effect through its own reasons alone.

The following period showed that Mrs. Besant's words at the general meeting were repeated in many places. In addition, many other similar things happened. Of the numerous cases that occurred, only one of the most recent ones will be highlighted. A pamphlet by one of Mrs. Besant's helpers, “The Message of Peace,” was published. In it, various statements are made against the descriptions I have given. If you look more closely, you will make the astonishing discovery that the quotations from my writings mean something different, and in several cases even the opposite of what I have had printed. In addition, the passages that are not in my writings are quoted. This or that is then presented, not against what I actually said, but against things that I did not say. I must confess: the experience of such quoting, as practiced in the “Message of Peace”, must first be made to even consider it possible. Well, I will limit myself, as I have already done in various branches, to merely reporting this kind of behavior towards other views and making it clear that one really has no reason to go into such an “alternative point of view” in any more detail. But it will be interesting to see whether anyone is found who does not shy away from the judgment: I am aggressive because I tell people that I am being quoted incorrectly. It will also be interesting to see whether someone can be found who is willing to say, among those who find something useful for them in my descriptions, there is intolerance towards other opinions because of the compulsion to say that Mrs. Besant said the opposite in a letter in 1912 of what she said in a letter in 1909. It will be interesting to see whether people will realize that you are not fighting viewpoints when you simply present facts. And it will also be interesting to see whether anyone will be found to accuse us of being aggressive and unchristian for stating the facts of important matters and saying: this is how things are. Or is it also possible to have different points of view about what has happened on the physical plane, which can be established as fact by anyone?

I continue to believe that points of view can coexist, but that this has nothing to do with the obligation to accept the facts as facts and to treat them truthfully where these facts have nothing to do with any opinion or theory.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

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

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

The executive committee of the German section will be forced to expel members who do not comply with this request from the German section.

On behalf of the executive committee of the German section of [the] TG.

The General Secretary.
The Secretary.

Re: Ferdinand von Paungarten: The marriage problem as reflected in our time, Munich

Rudolf Steiner, Berlin

Dear Baron! In your circular letter, the first question is whether one can have the opinion that there is a crisis in the marriage question that urgently needs reforming. The answer to this question depends on one's ideas about the conditions under which the marriage question can be discussed at all. These conditions are given by the fact that through marriage, man places himself in a whole of humanity in two directions. Therefore, he cannot by any means claim the full right to make demands on the marriage question based on personal considerations. The one whole in which man places himself through marriage is the social context in which he lives: religious community, state, etc. Not only the person who enters into the marriage has an interest in the marriage being a success, but also the context. If a person wants to serve this context, they must be able to make sacrifices for the whole with the institutions they enter into. Therefore, any discussion of the marriage question is impossible if only the individual interests of the people entering into the marriage are included in this question. But the social context, for example, must have an interest in ensuring that marriage, which by its very nature is so closely linked to the maintenance of this context, can be considered a stable relationship that can be counted on once it exists. Of course, individual interests can come into conflict with general interests; but the solution to the problem lies in the individual not placing his or her interests above those of his or her social context. The second whole into which man places himself through marriage is the family, and with that into the whole development of mankind. The normal thing is that marriage with children leads to the family. Therefore, the relationship between a man and a woman is only part of what comes into consideration when considering the question of marriage; the more essential part is, normally, the care for the family, and thus for the following generations. But this makes the question of marriage a family question. Anyone who correctly assesses the forces that are at work in this regard in the present and will probably also be at work in the distant future will realize that with the child, on whom the hearts of the man and the woman should be equally dependent, a bond is given that has a retroactive effect on the stability of the marriage; and this undoubtedly demands it. But I cannot see anything else in the modern marriage question at all but the question of greater or lesser firmness and indissolubility of the bond. All other questions always go back to this one, even if one is not aware of it in all cases. And as soon as marriage is placed in its necessary context, it becomes clear that both the social and the family context always force us to recognize stability, however personal interests may tend otherwise. In such matters, man cannot shape institutions according to individual needs; he must adapt these institutions to the whole.

For someone who thinks this way, the “crisis in the marriage question” cannot appear as one that can be judged for social, historical reasons, etc. The fact is that in many areas of life, people are confronted with a certain contradiction between the whole of a context and their individual experience. This contradiction affects many relationships in the present, and only one of these relationships is the institution of marriage. What follows from this fact for many marriages does not depend at all on the essence of marriage, but on things that lie outside of it. For example, marriages can end unhappily; but this unhappiness does not necessarily depend on the marriage, but on the fact that one or both spouses have not been educated to get along with each other at all. Here we see how the focus can be shifted from a single institution to the great intellectual and cultural issues of the present day. And as long as these are in such a state of flux as they are at present, the discussion of a single issue will not lead to anything significant. A world and life view that gives people inner peace and harmony will also have an effect on marriage; and the form of marriage will then have no influence at all on this effect.

From what has been said, however, it follows that the “marriage question” should have nothing to do with the modern women's movement in the deeper sense. Both should be kept quite separate from each other. Whatever is intended and achieved by the women's movement has no direct effect on the family issue. Because, for example, whether improving the social situation of women can also have a favorable influence on education belongs to a completely different area. It certainly can. But all the demands that are given by the nature of the family remain in place for themselves, as do the demands of the one part that enters into marriage, in the rest of social and intellectual life.

For all these reasons, I must express my opinion to you, Baron, regarding your main point of inquiry and, at the same time, regarding the fourth point, namely that the “form of marriage,” as it has developed among the civilized peoples of the West, could never, by its very nature, contribute to any decline in culture, nor to any such decline in ethical, aesthetic or racial hygiene; such a decline would have to arise from quite different things, e.g. questions of world view, of inner soul harmony, etc. It could express itself in marriage, but could never be brought about by the “form of marriage.

Yours sincerely
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Time is experienced through the changing phenomena of the world. This change connects the new with the old in the course of the world. Night follows day; day follows night. The new day brings forth what has not yet been from the womb of existence; but it also repeats the previous day in its own essence.

The light of the moon penetrates the darkness of night, brightening it. In fourteen days and nights, it waxes and wanes again to the same extent. This, too, is repeated over and over again, preserving the old in the new.

From the earth's soil, the power of the sun draws forth plant life. This unfolds, fades away, withdraws into hidden depths, like daylight at nighttime, or the moon's radiance in new moon nights, and rises anew, revealing the essence of the old in the new.

Man stands face to face with this world evolution, changing and yet preserving itself in change. He must bring his own experience into harmony with this life of the world. The calculation of time on which the calendar of various peoples is based is the expression of this fact.

The repetition of the old in the new is most characteristically expressed in the position of the stars in relation to one another. These positions always occur in such a way that the new ones are similar to the old ones. Man can express his experience at a particular time by speaking of the position of the stars at that moment. The simplest way to do this is to express the experience of the morning in the words: the sun rises. All time calculations are based on the same process. The experience of spring can be expressed in the words: the sun appears to the human eye in such a direction that when the eye turns in that direction, it also finds this or that constellation.

Just as a particular written character is the expression of a human sound, so the position of the stars can become the written character for the experience of a particular moment in time. Take a look at one of the pages of the following calendar. Take a particular day, for example in May, and then another in August. The overall experiences that a person has on these two days in his interaction with the becoming of the world are quite different. He can express this difference by relating, for example, the position of the sun in relation to a constellation of the zodiac to the experience, like a written character to its sound. In the calendars of different ages and peoples, the position of the sun in relation to a constellation of the zodiac at a particular point in time is expressed by a symbolic sign. Thus, the sign found for the constellation of Pisces on a particular day refers to the fact that on that day, at a certain hour, the gaze directed towards the sun also falls on the constellation of Pisces. If characteristic positions are chosen for such a designation, then the repetition of these positions provides the basis for the division of time.

In the following calendar entries, the fact that the gaze that follows the rising sun also falls on a constellation is expressed in the continuous monarch figures by a symbolic figure.

During a month, approximately, the position of the sun in relation to a zodiacal constellation can be considered. After a year has passed, approximately the same positions recur. The term “approximately” is justified because a shift in the positions occurs as time progresses. For example, whereas centuries ago the rising sun in March coincided with the constellation of Aries, at the present time the rising sun coincides with that of Pisces.

In this calendar, instead of the usual signs for the positions of the sun in relation to the signs of the zodiac, there are signs that bring the experience of the world phenomena that a person can have when the sun rises in the corresponding months into a characteristic intuitive image. Thus, in the consecutive monthly images, one finds expressions for the soul experiences that a person can have who compassionately follows the changes in the world's evolution and expresses them as if in a script through the position of the sun. Just as the simple experience, “I feel the nightly darkness giving way to light,” can be expressed in the words, “the sun rises,” so the more complicated soul experience, “I feel the earth preparing for new growth in a spring-like way and increasing solar power,” would find expression in the words, “the rising sun is seen in the direction of Pisces.” And this relationship between the soul experience and a cosmic process is symbolically expressed in the monthly pictures for the following calendar dates. If one experiences the co-experience with the world becoming in these continuous pictures, as with a character the corresponding sound enters into consciousness, so one will feel the meaning of these pictures correctly. Less emphasis is placed on abstract astronomical relationships.

The pictures that are added to the days are characterized by similar conditions for the moon as for the pictures of the months for the sun.

The number of a year is always determined by one part of humanity in such a way that the count is started from an event that is perceived as particularly important for that part of humanity. The Jews count from the point in time they call the “creation of the world,” and the Christians from the “birth of Jesus.” This calendar counts from the year 33-34 of the Christian era. It is based on that date in the development of the earth that is significant for all of humanity without distinction of race, nation, etc. The assumption of “spiritual science” is based on this, which sees the moment in the year indicated when the forces entered the development of mankind through which the human ego can grasp itself within itself and bring it into relation with the world through the forces of its own life of ideas, without any symbol. Before this point in time, in order to understand himself and think his way into the world, the human being needed images taken from external perception. The preparation for this point in time lies, on the one hand, in ancient Hebrew culture, which first brought the “God within” without images; on the other hand, in Greek intellectual life, which, both in its artists and in its world sages, prepared the time by grasping the human being through the presentation of himself as an earthly creature and characterizing world-becoming in his philosophy not through external images but through ideas that originate only in the human mind as a thinking consciousness (Thales to Aristotle). The Christian confession expressed the feeling towards this human fact by placing the “death and resurrection of Christ”, the “mystery of Golgotha”, at the corresponding point in time. From this point on, the years are counted in the following information. And in keeping with this, the day of remembrance of this year is assumed to be the first in the year count. Whether there is any right to this, in relation to the counting from January 1, is of course debatable. This should not be done here.

The annual remembrance days do not aim for completeness. They are provided with names in such a way that what is mentioned can be useful to those who want to follow the spiritual development of humanity.

To the Members of the Theosophical Society.

Anyone reading my reply to Mrs. Besant's letter of May 8, 1912, would probably have the impression that it is the compelling force of the facts that has prompted my comments. I had to state the serious fact to the President of the Theosophical Society, whose actions had provoked me to do so in the strongest possible terms, that in 1912 she was denying things which she had not only written in 1909 but which she herself had carried out in that year as an official act in her capacity as President.

One could have been optimistic enough to believe that such a statement, where it is read, would open people's eyes to the way Mrs. Besant administers her presidency. That after this account of mine in No. XIV of our “Mitteilungen” it is still possible to obtain a letter from one of Mrs. Besant's helpers, the secretary general of the Italian section, which contains an assertion to be discussed immediately, is one of the no less serious facts that clearly show the disastrous way in which the Besant system is spreading within the Theosophical Society. I expressly emphasize that it is completely foreign to me to direct any kind of attack against persons. I did not want to offend any personality in No. XIV of the messages, but I had to cite facts that were related to personalities. I can only have the deepest sympathy for the person in question. - Likewise, the following remarks should not be understood as directed against the person of the Italian General Secretary. They are demanded of me because they show by way of example – and there are quite a number of such examples – how the Besant system is gaining ground in the Theosophical Society.

In the letter of January 5, 1913, which the Italian General Secretary wrote to me, the following words can be found: “On pages 5 and 13 of the December 1912 issue of the official “Mitteilungen” of the German Section, the question of the suspension of the Genoa Congress is mentioned again, and particularly on page 13, the contradiction between the wording of my telegram of September 11, 1911 and the subsequent statements by Mrs. Besant, and Mr. B. Hubo makes various comments against the President on the basis of this fact. In my letter of November 23, 1912, I gave you what I believe to be an exhaustive explanation of the circumstances underlying this contradiction, and I asked you to give this explanation of mine the widest possible dissemination and publicity, so that the view, widespread especially in Germany, that Mrs. had canceled the congress of her own accord by direct order (which she would not have had the right to do), was finally and definitively refuted.

Now, in response to this letter, I must again state the real facts. I had to say in No. XIV of the “Mitteilungen” of the German Section that Mrs. Besant was spreading throughout the Theosophical Society that I had misrepresented the whole matter regarding the Genoa Congress at our General Assembly in 1911, and that I had attributed to her the cancellation of the Genoa Congress, which she was not authorized to do. I had to refute a serious accusation that Mrs. Besant had made against me. Because I never said that Mrs. Besant canceled the congress. On the contrary, I opposed the opinion that Mrs. Besant could cancel the congress at all. I did this in spite of the telegram from the Italian General Secretary, which reads: “I have acted on strict orders from the President, Mrs. Besant, and Secretary Mr. Wallace; please refer.” So the German section never received a false account from me, but the facts were presented as clearly and correctly as possible. Nevertheless, Mrs. Besant accused me of saying that she had unjustifiably canceled the congress. Why did I have to present this fact in No. XIV of the “Mitteilungen”? Because it is one of the completely unfounded accusations that Mrs. Besant continually spreads against me. Anyone who reads my words in No. XIV of the “Mitteilungen” will be able to be completely clear about this context. Because these words read: “I never said that Mrs. Besant had canceled the congress, but only that she could not have canceled it because she had no right to do so.”

What then does the Italian General Secretary want with his letter of January 5, 1913? In this letter he refers to another letter that he wrote to me on November 23, 1912. And this letter was written in the style of the Besant system. I must say a few words in advance, before I quote the decisive passages of this letter. I was obliged to discuss the above facts regarding Mrs. Besant's contradictory behavior in 1909 and 1912 in a detailed letter to several leading figures in the Theosophical Society, even before the publication of No. XIV of the “Mitteilungen” of the German section. This detailed letter has also been sent to the Italian General Secretary. He therefore knew from this letter that I never accused Mrs. Besant of an unjustified cancellation; he knew that I was only obliged to reject Mrs. Besant's completely unfounded accusation against me. And yet what does the Italian General Secretary write? On November 23, 1912, he writes: “I have already read in the ‘Mitteilungen’ of the German section how, in your section, the suspension of the Genoa Congress of our president was criticized as an arbitrary act, and now I find this criticism repeated in your circular letter.” Something like this really has to happen for someone to consider it possible. It shows that you can present even the most telling facts to Mrs. Besant's helpers, and yet they are able to contradict them by saying, “I read...” and, “I find this accusation repeated”. An accusation that was never made by me and has never been repeated. And for this statement, the Italian Secretary General demands “the widest possible dissemination and publicity”.

In his letter of November 23, 1912, the Italian Secretary General also writes: “I have already described in detail in our Bollettino della Soclietà Teos[ofica] Italiana (October 1911) the entire course of the cancellation of the Genoa Congress in detail, and today, since you apparently have not read that account, I take the liberty of sending you a German translation of the relevant passage, to which I am adding the wording of the telegrams exchanged between Genoa and London at the time. - I will not say a word about the assumption that I “apparently” have not read that account, but I will only note that the publication of that “account” was quite irrelevant for the German section, since a correct account was given at our General Assembly in 1911.

But what does this “presentation” make clear? Well, what becomes clear is distressing enough. It becomes clear that at the time when the Italian General Secretary had set the congress and many members had prepared to go there, Mrs. Besant sent telegrams to this Italian General Secretary, with which he did not quite know what to do, so that he, unlawfully, accepted the first telegram for a “strict order”, and then later canceled the entire congress because Mrs. Besant did not come. One could even ask: what is more distressing, what is worse: if Mrs. Besant, believing that she could do so, had canceled the congress, or the fact that the Italian General Secretary cites: that he simply accepts Mrs. Besant's hint as the reason for the cancellation, and on top of that justifies this cancellation in the way he did in that “presentation” (which is printed below)? All the other members and all the affairs of the Theosophical Society are treated as a matter of indifference; the holding of the congress is made dependent solely on whether Mrs. Besant comes or does not come!!!

Now, because the Italian General Secretary absolutely wants to, I will have his “account” and also his accompanying letter of November 23, 1912 printed in this issue of the Mitteilungen as a description of the Besant system. The fact that I have handed over these letters in individual lodges, not for the “widest possible distribution and publicity,” apparently does not satisfy him.

Another leading figure in the Theosophical Society, who was informed by the detailed letter preceding the messages, as the statements of Mrs. Besant in 1912 are in absolute contradiction to what had happened in 1909, surprised me by actually being able to make the following judgment. She said Mrs. Besant must have forgotten what had happened in 1909, and that was excusable, given the amount she had to do. Now, it seems to me that a system that would make such a judgment possible could not possibly be in the Theosophical Society. The gentleman in question must know that Mrs. Besant not only could have forgotten what happened in 1909, but that in 1912 she not only denies what happened in 1909, but in this denial accuses a General Secretary of misrepresenting a matter. One would think that the impossibility of such an act by a President of the Theosophical Society would be obvious, whatever the reasons for this President's behavior. I will refrain from characterizing the dismal experience that one of Mrs. Besant's helpers finds it possible to find the opportunity to say that Mrs. Besant must have “forgotten” the matter after such an act. Is it possible to imagine a greater impossibility than the Besant system in the face of such things?

I would have a lot to write if I wanted to list everything that has been done in the characterized style. I will just say the following: Mrs. Besant accuses me in a circular letter that she addressed to certain personalities and that she prepared as a basis for the proceedings at the 1912 Adyar meeting of “invading other sections”. The members of other sections in question may judge to what extent Mrs. Besant's assertion contradicts the objective facts. Mrs. Besant refers to the Lugano branch in the above-mentioned circular. It is supposed to be an example of how I have unlawfully added branches that should actually belong to other sections to the German section. And Mrs. Besant says in her circular letter: “Here lies the root of the difficulty. Dr. Steiner invaded the territories of the French and Italian Sections and thus caused the trouble.” That means in German: “Hier liegt die Wurzel der Schwierigkeit. Dr. Steiner invades the territories of the French and Italian Sections and thus caused the disturbance.” Now, what is the objective truth here? The Lugano branch was founded before I was even mentioned as a candidate for the post of German General Secretary; it was justified from the outset that its founders only thought of founding it for the German Section. Without my intervention, it was put on the list of those branches that were initially to found the German Section. When I was later appointed General Secretary of this Section, the Lugano branch had already been legally incorporated into the German Section. Mrs. Besant was present at the founding meeting of the German Section at which this branch of the German Section was incorporated. She handed me the document with her own hands on which the Lugano branch of the German Section was incorporated. These are all facts, and in response to them Mrs. Besant writes: “Dr. Steiner intruded into the domains of the French and Italian Sections and thus caused the disturbance.”

A fine example of how Mrs. Besant and her helpers treat the German Section is provided by the report in the December issue of The Theosophist, edited by Mrs. Besant, of the meetings held by members of the German Section in Munich in August 1912. One would have to write a great deal if one wanted to list all the inaccuracies contained in this report. However, it must be said that the report is so incorrect that the attitude, content, and goal of the German Section, among many other things, are presented to the entire Theosophical Society in a completely erroneous way. Does the reporter, who works in the Besant system, have no sense at all of the inaccurate impressions that such a report about the German Section creates? Does Mrs. Besant have no sense at all that an editor must first be convinced of the accuracy of a report that he brings? What an attack such a report is! What a report that should surely be one of the impossibilities of the Theosophical Society!

If things were not so bad, I would certainly not have spoken of them. Only the greatest pressure could have been used to take up time with such statements, which would otherwise have been so necessary for other matters. How can we work calmly and objectively when our work is disturbed in such a way? It is surely permissible to ask questions, and if the President dares to write in view of the above facts: “Dr. Steiner intruded into the areas of the French and Italian sections and thus caused the disturbance,” then it is surely also permissible to ask: who is causing the disturbances in the Theosophical Society in the eyes of those who look at facts and not at the assertions that absolutely contradict these facts? My Theosophical friends may answer this question for themselves and then feel with me when I consider that precious time must now be wasted in the face of things that are so obviously not as they should be.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Theosophical Society. German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear friends!

The undersigned take pleasure in inviting you to the eleventh general assembly of the Theosophical Society, to be held in Berlin on February 2, 1913.

The proceedings will be as follows:

Saturday, February 1, 3:00 p.m. (Motzstraße 17) regular board meeting; 8:00 p.m. social gathering at the branch, Geisbergstraße 2.

Sunday, February 2, 10:00 a.m. (architect's house,

Wilhelmstraße 92/93) the business part with the following program will take place:

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and the auditors.

3. Possible discussion of pending matters.

4. Motions from the floor. 5. Reports from the representatives of the branches. 6. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, February 2nd, at 4 p.m. (Architect's House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), there will be a factual-theosophical part with the following program:

Free lectures and discussion by members. (Ms. Wandrey, Ms. Wolfram, Mr. Daeglau, Dr. Unger, among others, have announced lectures so far. Further lecture registrations from members are requested.

Sunday, February 2nd, at 7 p.m., social gathering of members at the architect's house (Wilhelmstraße 92/93).

Monday, February 3rd: Possible continuation of the factual-theosophical part, which will be announced on Sunday.

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie v. Sivers, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, addresses, etc. are requested (to the address of the General Secretary) by January 25, 1913.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

The Theosophical greeting

The Secretary: Marie v. Sivers.
The General Secretary: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

If I were to follow my inclinations, I would no longer speak out in the matter of the exclusion of the German Section from the Theosophical Society. The work that I have attempted in the German Section, and in which broader circles of the Theosophical movement have also participated, has actually passed over into the Anthroposophical Society. In no objectively relevant direction has the slightest interruption occurred in this attempt at work, which for years has wanted to take on such a character that it should express what the theosophical movement can be under the conditions of the present. From all that I have presented so far in this matter, I believe I have shown for anyone who wants to examine the facts impartially that the true reason for the exclusion of the German Section was the intolerance of the system currently prevailing in Adyar towards independent life within this Section. The means used to bring about this exclusion can be recognized in their true character from my previous statements. They went to excess in their unlawfulness when the President, on the occasion of the last General Assembly of the Theosophical Society in Adyar, dared to make the absolutely objective truth directly contradictory, even absurd, assertion that I had been educated by the Jesuits and had not been able to shake off this fatal influence and so had not been able to allow freedom of expression in the Section. Since this claim is absolutely untrue, indeed the opposite of the truth, it is clear that the current president of the Theosophical Society is saying things in the most improper way, without even the slightest sense of obligation to take any care about the truth of what she says. It seems to me that one could have had enough with this one fact alone. For my person has nothing whatever to do with it as such. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been between the president and me is no longer in question when faced with the outrageousness of the fact that the person at the head of the society makes such a serious claim at the society's general assembly, a claim that is the objective opposite of the truth. But this act of the president's was only the crowning of a corresponding edifice. For me personally, this claim had a very special connotation. On the occasion of the Budapest Congress of European Sections in 1909, Mrs. Besant and I had a conversation in which the following was touched upon. Mrs. Besant spoke to me of a personality who had various objections to me. When I asked her why this person had something against me, she said that this person thought I was a Jesuit, and to emphasize how much she, Mrs. Besant, was amused by such an assertion, she added that this same person had already thought she, Mrs. Besant, was a Jesuit. So in 1909 Mrs. Besant knew that the accusation of being a Jesuit was a ridiculous one and considered it to be foolishness; in 1912, before the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society, the same Mrs. Besant makes the same accusation in order to prove that I am incapable of respecting free speech within the German section! Perhaps this little story can also help to show how well-founded the allegations of the President of the Theosophical Society sometimes are, of which President Mr. Leadbeater said he had stood before the director of Globus. Perhaps it is still allowed – even if only in a very modest way – to express the opinion that one could learn a different way of handling the truth from the director of Globus.

It may seem understandable that further illumination of a matter in which one has already experienced such things is not something one would seek out. After all, it would seem that the matter is truly settled simply by the presentation of this one fact.

However, there are a number of things that make it necessary to say a few more things. Among other things I could mention, the following is important. I have assumed that once the exclusion of the German Section and its background had become known, the feeling must arise quite naturally in everyone who had gained understanding for the way I tried to work that I should not be allowed in future to give internal lectures for the Anthroposophical Society to personalities who still regard themselves as members of the Theosophical Society led by Adyar. Nevertheless, concerns arose here and there that all members of the Theosophical Society under Mrs. Besant's leadership should initially be excluded from all internal events of the Anthroposophical Society.

Since such a judgment could be formed, and since it is still considered possible by some individuals that I would give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society, and since there are many other reasons, I must once again select a few facts from the abundance of evidence in order to perhaps counter some of these misunderstandings.

It should be started with a circular, which Mrs. Besant sent in response to my presentation of the facts and also had printed in “Theosophist”.

I emphasized in my account that Mrs. Besant wrote to me in 1909 regarding the Dr. Vollrath affair: “Since an appeal has been made to me, I, as President, approve the action of the German Section...” and that, on the other hand, Mrs. Besant wrote in 1912: “Dr. Vollrath made no appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to pay attention to right or wrong in this matter, and to this day I do not know it.” In order to “shed light” on these two directly contradictory assertions, Mrs. Besant now does the following in the aforementioned circular (dated January 12, 1913). First, she introduces the little word “it” into the fray. She fights with this “it” in relation to her words of May 8, 1912, which read: “A few years ago, the German Section expelled Dr. Vollrath, and the General Secretary informed me of the matter. Expulsion from a section does not mean expulsion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to ratify this (it) and thus make it – here the battle word “it” appears again – an exclusion from the Society. Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me. ...” In her latest circular she now says about this: ‘It is quite obvious that the ad, which ’ch was not asked to confirm, was the ”exclusion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only. («It is fairly obvious that the it which «I was not asked to ratify» was expulsion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only.»)

Let us first limit ourselves to simply reading the two sentences one after the other, the one that Mrs. Besant wrote in May 1912 and the one she writes in January 1913, not only that, but the one she writes on the same page (repeating the first one) one after the other:

May 1912: “Exclusion from a Section does not mean exclusion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to confirm this, and thus make it an exclusion from the Society.

January 1913: “It is quite evident that the ‘iv, which ’I was not asked to certify‘ was the ’exclusion from the TS.

So Mrs. Besant claims that she was not asked to confirm the “exclusion from the Theosophical Society”; insert this explanation into her sentence from May 1912, and it reads: “I was not asked to make this - that is, the exclusion from the Theosophical Society - an exclusion from the Theosophical Society.” Anyone who accepts such a justification truly deserves to remain a follower of the one who justifies himself in this way. It is clear to anyone but the most obtuse that only someone who wants to save himself from having to defend objectively untrue assertions that he has made would resort to such a blatant sophistry. But that could still be dismissed as a formal matter. But now the actual facts. Who asked Mrs. Besant to turn the expulsion from the German section into an expulsion from the Theosophical Society? I did not ask her for anything. In 1908, I simply reported the expulsion to her. This mere report contained nothing, not even the slightest suggestion that she should also expel Dr. Vollrath from the Theosophical Society. And when she then sent me Dr. Vollrath's appeal in a letter in which she touched on this exclusion from the Society in general, I wrote to her, “As far as Dr. Vollrath is concerned, I am far from wanting to have any influence on what you, as president, consider to be right to do in this case. I only said further that in the event that she, as president, now accepted Dr. Vollrath as a member of the Theosophical Society, it could easily be said that the president was disavowing the German Section. I expressly added that I was not worried about what Dr. Vollrath might say about me in the future, but that it was important to avoid the interpretation that the German Section had been disavowed by the President of the Society. After all, this interpretation would still be possible on the opposing side.

In view of these facts, Mrs. Besant now writes on January 12, 1913: “Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the Theosophical Society at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him if I allowed Dr. remain in the Theosophical Society since he had been expelled from the Section.“ (”Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the TS at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him, if I allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain in the TS when expelled from the Section.") Compare this sentence with what I have quoted above, and you will see that it contains a complete objective untruth. I have explicitly emphasized that I personally do not care about any attacks; Mrs. Besant writes that I said it would be very awkward for me if she allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain a member of the Society. So let the facts be what they may, Mrs. Besant does not trouble about facts; she announces to the world what she wants, without any regard for the facts.

And now for the appeal. The appeal that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant is five pages long. It is so composed that it does not clearly show how Dr. Vollrath wants his affiliation to the Theosophical Society to be handled in general; but at the end it contains the words: “If you, dear Madam President, consider it necessary to submit this case to the General Council, then I request that you do so.” In her letter of 1909, Mrs. Besant says: “Having been appealed to by Dr. Vollrath, of Leipzig, against his expulsion by the German TS.”

Nowhere in the correspondence of 1909 was there any mention of an expulsion from the Society, and to claim in January 1913 that the appeal could only mean an expulsion from the Society in general is as absurd as can be. Dr. Vollrath's appeal was in protest against his expulsion from the German Section, and it was full of accusations against me, which will be touched upon later, and it certainly could not have been otherwise if Dr. Vollrath had sought membership in the Theosophical Society. Yet in 1912 Mrs. Besant says, “Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me.” In order to prove that she was allowed to write this after all, she does the following in her circular of January 1913. She presents the matter as if Dr. Vollrath had not made an appeal to her because his appeal was not one for his admission to the society in general. But there was never any question of such an appeal. But since Mrs. Besant did write to me in 1909: “As an appeal to me has been made,” she now presents the matter in the following words: “The appeal was from Dr. Steiner to confirm the local action of the Section and from Dr. Vollrath against that confirmation.” This sentence is, again, as far as I am concerned, an objective untruth. I never made an appeal to Mrs. Besant for the confirmation. Such an appeal would not have made the slightest sense. The German Section considered itself fully entitled to expel Dr. Vollrath. She did not for a moment assume that this action required the president's confirmation. Rather, Mrs. Besant wrote two unsolicited documents – in response to my notification of the expulsion, not to an appeal – which are included in the preceding notifications – in which she confirmed the expulsion from the German section. At the time, I considered these documents to be so inconsequential that I did not include them in our reports. Why print on paper documents that were completely unfounded.

So in January 1913, Mrs. Besant does nothing less than turn Dr. Vollrath's 1908 appeal to her into an appeal that I am supposed to have made, but which I never made.

The highlight of this January 1913 circular, however, is the sentence that Mrs. Besant dares to write: “As to the pamphlet – meaning Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet, which was printed in the January 1913 issue of the Mitteilungen – I had assumed that it contained something important, since Dr. Steiner was obviously very annoyed by it, saying that if its assertions were true, “not a dog would take another piece of bread from us. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a reheating of the original points at issue, which were stated in his letter to me, then the expression seems a little strong.“ (”As to the pamphlet, I had supposed that it contained something important, as Dr. Steiner was evidently very angry about it, saying that if its statements were true “a dog would not take food from us”. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a rehash of the original quarrels, stated in his letter to me, the language seems a little strong."

Mrs. Besant takes the liberty of writing down this sentence in view of the following fact. Dr. Vollrath claimed in his letter to her in 1908: 1. That I feared his (Dr. Vollrath's) opposition, for example, in that I had pushed through receiving a fixed salary of 2000 Marks from the section treasury. (I was always opposed to my being paid out of the Section funds.) 2. That I did not want him in the Section because he could not share Mrs. Wolfram's views, which are: Dr. Steiner is a high initiate and the only initiator for Europe and must therefore be elected at the next presidential election. (Mrs. Besant finds the expression I used, a “little strong”. I would like to know whether I would really be worthy of “a dog taking a bite of bread from me” if I had ever wanted to have a personality in the section not approved of the above crazy demands that I should make. Of course, Ms. Wolfram could not have made such absurd claims. 3. That I did not want him in the section because he had privately expressed the opinion that the hysteria of some Leipzig students of Dr. Steiner was probably due to the occult exercises that lead to a loosening of the etheric body. And Dr. Vollrath adds that he himself knows of some exercises that I give, but that they serve more to develop strength and neglect the development of virtue. (Had I heard such a “private” remark by Dr. Vollrath, which I did not even hear, it would have seemed to me to be truly irrelevant, since it would be just as foolish as if someone said that I had stolen silver spoons. Mrs. Besant does not find it “of some importance” that Dr. Vollrath writes such things.) These and other similar assertions were contained in the “appeal” that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant in 1908. This will suffice to prove that I was absolutely right in what I said, and what Mrs. Besant's circular refers to, namely that Dr. Vollrath, as early as 1908, made similar allegations against me in a letter to Mrs. Besant herself, as can be found in his later pamphlet. Therefore, I stated that Mrs. Besant's claim that she was unaware of this pamphlet was irrelevant, because she was aware of the way in which Dr. Vollrath was acting against me and yet she made him an official in a matter she represented in Germany. It is now characteristic of the way Mrs. Besant assessed me that she later even emphasized that she had again worked for the dismissal of Dr. Vollrath as secretary of the Star in the East when she realized that his election was “seen as antagonistic to the general secretary.” So I am surprised that I could ever feel offended when she made an opponent of mine her official. That was never the point, but merely that the German section — not I — perceived Dr. Vollrath's appointment as a vote of no confidence against me by Mrs. Besant, and that I was deprived of the opportunity to defend myself if she did so. Apart from the fact that such an imposition made it clear how little Mrs. Besant is able to pay attention to the finer things of the heart, I must confess that I myself regarded the appointment of Dr. Vollrath as a matter of complete indifference to me, and that I only felt truly offended when Dr. Vollrath was dismissed on the assumption that I approved of or even desired this dismissal. On the contrary, I felt it was wrong to dismiss Dr. Vollrath because it was thought that I did not approve of him. For me, the fact that Mrs. Besant behaved in the way she did was proof that my words are air to her. And I could not change this judgment by subsequently doing Dr. Vollrath an injustice by deposing him, because it was believed that this would be a service to me. Because – according to my feelings – it is wrong to first appoint someone and then dismiss them because they are unpleasant to someone else.

I think I am now in a position to summarize how I feel about the whole matter of the exclusion of our section, and the preceding remarks and those already contained in the “Mitteilungen” serve as proof. I would have to write a detailed paper if I wanted to add to this evidence everything that has been in preparation and taking place for years.

When I was elected General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society years ago, I saw myself working within the framework of this society for the dissemination of the results of spiritual scientific research, and in connection with this, leading the office of General Secretary in a way that arises from the consequences of this research. I knew that I was in full agreement with the principles of the Theosophical Society. I tried to work in a way that was natural in this field: I expressed what I thought the results of my research were, and I waited quietly to see what this or that person would say about it. I organized my work so that no one could take pleasure in what I advocated who did not see what I said as correct on the basis of his or her own judgment. I did not put forward anything other than what I had to acknowledge as true on the basis of my own research, or what was accessible to me through spiritual sources. It came about that within the German Section, and then also in other circles of the Society, there were personalities who, on the basis of their own convictions, were interested in my research results, a current within the Theosophical Society that felt independent of other currents in that Society. This group did not demand anything except to be able to develop and operate freely within the Society in accordance with its statutes. Within the German Section, there were circles that wanted nothing to do with us. They held different views. We let them be. They could work in their way, just as we wanted to work in ours. No attempt was made to interfere with their work through my will.

From the time when Mrs. Besant showed more and more that she had no understanding for what we wanted, it became more and more necessary for me not to count on our being supported by the central leadership of the Theosophical Society. We had to get used to counting only on our own resources. This led to the fact that in free agreement with Mrs. Besant on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1907, it was determined that the current within the Society that was interested in my research results should develop as an independent and self-contained circle. Such independence could exist regardless of the fact that within the German Section, branches with a different type of work developed freely and also created new structures. Anyone who knows my way of representing spiritual science will find the claim completely absurd that anyone could have been disturbed in the representation of a different opinion by this representation.

Some time after the Munich Congress, the claim of the “coming Christ” as represented by Mrs. Besant emerged in the Theosophical Society in a form that I initially had to consider amateurish based on my research results. I presented my results and did not care about the effect of Mrs. Besant's claims. Then came the time when Mrs. Besant “paraded” with Krishnamurti, to use Dr. Huebbe-Schleidens expression. Everything connected with this, I had to, according to what I had come to know, no longer consider merely amateurish, but reprehensible. It became my duty, when asked, to express my thoughts on the matter seriously. And it also became my duty to adhere to what I had recognized. As late as the summer of 1912, I was still expected to do the following by Mrs. Besant's followers: I could say: I do not agree with Mrs. Besant's opinions, but I should still recommend her books by saying that they represent different views from mine. I had to reply that I would be acting against my convictions if I were to do so in relation to Mrs. Besant's more recent writings. For I do not consider them merely to be works that represent “different” opinions, but I consider them to be bad and full of easily verifiable errors, which I could not say are merely a different opinion. I could not be dissuaded from this appropriate behavior by Mrs. Besant's occasional emphasis that she was in favor of the free development of my opinion and her encouragement to read my writings. From what I could verify myself of what Mrs. Besant said about my “opinions,” it was clear to me that she did not understand them. It would have seemed to me to be a lie to admit that I did not want to have anything in common with Mrs. Besant's doctrines. In a spiritual movement, truthfulness must prevail. And it would have seemed true to me if Mrs. Besant had not praised me, but had sharply criticized me from her point of view. There would have been no need to prevent my research results from establishing their validity through their inherent value.

For example, a follower of Mrs. Besant wrote to me that Krishnamurti would now first complete his studies and then perhaps also be sent to my school, with the strange addition: “After all, Jesus could have learned something from the Essenes,” I mention this only in passing.

The “Star in the East” movement came. I would have had to deny everything I believe to be right and healthy if I had wanted to have anything to do with this movement. I had to ignore it. It was transplanted to Germany. Its representatives behaved in such a way that their actions consisted of outright attacks against the German Section. It was spread that the German Section was intolerant of any opinion that differed from mine. These attacks originated with individuals who had always been treated within the German Section in the same way as all those who were now presented as blind followers of my opinion. I was written that those who presented from our circle only repeated word for word what I said. Similar things were printed. Things happened that, if one assumes full awareness on the part of the people involved, would have to lead to a rather dire characterization. My writings were incorrectly reproduced and then polemicized against the caricature of my statements, which they themselves had first made, in an outrageous manner. Nothing was clearer than that only a strict separation and the strictest possible ignoring of the “Star in the East” movement was necessary for us.

Now it became apparent that Mrs. Besant always speaks of tolerance and free speech, but that her whole being wants to exclude from society any opinion that differs from her own. She then made a series of objectively untrue allegations about the German section and about me, some of which have already been discussed. Her followers blindly repeated these allegations. It became necessary to write a lengthy defense, which I sent to the general secretaries of the various sections and to the General Council. Of all the General Secretaries, only the Scandinavian one responded to my defense. What the others said amounted to a complete disregard for what I presented, not in terms of views, but of objective facts. I had spoken completely into the air.

The behavior of the Star in the East movement forced the German Section to declare that it could not regard the personalities belonging to this movement as members of the German Section; not because of their opinions or their program, but because of their behavior, which violated the highest principles of the Theosophical Society. This measure, which was initially imposed on the German section as a kind of self-defence, was then taken by the General Council – ignoring all the facts that had been presented against Mrs. Besant's ability to preside – as an opportunity to make a decision that amounted to the exclusion of the German section from the Theosophical Society. This exclusion was then carried out by letter of Mrs. Besant (which will be communicated below).

All these things, when viewed impartially, cast a thick veil over the true facts of the matter. These are that the current leadership of the Theosophical Society only wants Mrs. Besant's views and cannot tolerate any other way of thinking or working. My research results were perceived as heretical and could not be tolerated within the Society. The fact that they did not want our way of working was twisted into the claim that we did not tolerate any other opinion. And so the almost unbelievable fact took place that the Theosophical Society expelled a working group from itself under the pretext that this working group was intolerant. As if this were not even a contradiction in terms. Any other way of working could have developed alongside us according to its strength.

Now, anyone who can be unbiased wonders whether I may continue to give internal lectures in front of personalities who want to continue to belong to a society that excludes me as a heretic. The Theosophical Society has spoken, and anyone who continues to belong to it speaks in the same way: We don't want you in our ranks. Anyone who demands of me that I should give internal lectures before the members of the Theosophical Society should realize that his demand would be the same as saying: We expel you from our house; but we demand of you that you continue to behave towards us as before.

Furthermore, it has always been a strict duty in all occultism not to impose teachings on anyone who does not want them. The Theosophical Society has said that it does not want what I have to say; I would be violating my duty if I did not say at this moment: So I am not allowed to give lectures for members of the Theosophical Society for which I have been expelled from it.

It must seem incomprehensible how anyone can think that it would only be possible for me to give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society. It is completely impossible to speak of intolerance on the part of the Anthroposophical Society, since anyone who does not dispute its origin can join it. But anyone who, by belonging to the Theosophical Society, declares their agreement with Adyar's ban on heresy disputes its origin.

Rudolf Steiner.