The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Address by Rudolf Steiner at the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

You have heard some very beautiful thoughts and ideas from the circle of those gathered here and have been made aware of certain difficulties of the Theosophical movement. Indeed, we have even had to hear that there are numerous people who, in the existence of the society, see an obstacle for themselves in joining this society, but also find that the movement as such is perhaps being hindered rather than promoted by the existence of the present society. These are important considerations, especially for those who are truly concerned about theosophical satisfaction in the right way.

The question may arise: Yes, Theosophy, as we understand it, is something real, which has to some extent flowed into the development of humanity in our modern times, and which has created a vessel in this Theosophical Society, as we have created a vessel; and what about the fact that this vessel has emerged from Theosophy after all, and that it does not really fit in with this movement at the present moment? This is a question that, I believe, many of you are entitled to ask myself, so to speak. For some might say: Why do you represent what you call the Theosophical movement within this society?

I cannot, because I don't want to take up much time, go into detail about what anyone can easily see when they examine the facts, namely that the way in which Theosophy is disseminated, as I do and as Baron Walleen meant, actually has very little to do with what we call the Theosophical Society. Anyone could easily see this for themselves from the facts of recent years. For what of all that has happened and of which Baron Walleen has spoken depends on the, well, let's say central points of what is called the Theosophical Society?

'Even the most rigorous scrutiny would find very little that has flowed out of the Theosophical Society for the movement that is meant here. In a sense, this question can only be answered historically. I have already done so for individuals and would like to point out a few purely factual aspects here. From these facts, everyone can then draw their own conclusions as to what they need to assess the issues at hand.

Firstly, I have already given the theosophical lectures here in Berlin, which were then published in a brief outline in my Mysticism in the Awakening of Modern Spiritual Life. I have also given theosophical lectures of a different nature in these or also given other kinds of theosophical lectures in these or those circles, and also – at the request of theosophists and non-theosophists – a part of those lectures that led to the book 'Christianity as Mystical Fact', without my even being registered in the Theosophical Society at that time. That means that for me, nothing depended on being enrolled in the Theosophical Society or not in order to practice Theosophy as I practiced it.

Then people became aware of this fact [that I was not a member of the Theosophical Society]. And at that time I got to know a person, Fräulein von Sivers, who has remained connected to this kind of theosophical movement [as advocated by me] ever since, but who had joined the Theosophical Society much earlier than me. And at the time when Miss von Sivers was already a member, but I was not yet, we had a conversation in which she asked why I did not join the Society. And I answered in a long discussion, the content of which was: It will always be impossible for me to belong to a society in which such a theosophy is practised, which is permeated to such an extent by misunderstood oriental mysticism as the case of the Theosophical Society; for it would be my profession to recognize that there are more significant occult impulses for our present time, and that it would be impossible, with this knowledge, to admit that the Occident has something to learn from this orientalizing mysticism. What I have to represent would expose itself to a false judgment if I were to say: I want to be a member of a society that has orientalizing mysticism as its shibboleth. That was the content of that conversation.

Then another fact arose - and I only relate facts and leave the judgment of them to you. I gave those lectures on “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life,” which soon appeared in a considerably abridged form in book form. This book was in turn published in extract form in the then-published journal The Theosophical Review, which was edited by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Mead. The extract, or actually the review of this book, which Mr. Keightley gave at the time, is somewhat different from the translation he has now [1911] provided. I define this fact, and I defined it at the time, as meaning that the Theosophical Society did not demand anything from me, did not demand that I should have anything in common with any tenets, principles or dogmas that were to be advocated, but rather accepted something that was given from outside, from me. So it was the most kindly invited that could be given.

Then further facts emerged. The prospect of founding a German section had arisen. Now, due to what had happened, there was simply a kind of connection between the Theosophical Society and me, in that the movement expressed itself in the Society. This led to the fact that while on the one hand the tendency existed to establish a German section, on the other hand the then leader of the “German Theosophical Society” [in Berlin], which was a branch in the [European section] of the general Theosophical Society, made me the proposal to accept me into the society and at the same time to become the chairman of the “German Theosophical Society”. This meant that I was not joining a society, but that I was entering it to give what was not previously in it, what it did not have before. I never made any request to become a member of the Society, but said to myself: if the Society wants me, it can have me. I also took the precaution - and this also has an external aspect - of freeing myself from all payments. I paid nothing. I was then sent the free diploma from England, and at the same time I was president of the German Theosophical Society. If I could speak in more detail, I would show that it was a necessary consequence to continuously acknowledge this fact, that I never wanted anything from the society and had no need to take on any of its principles and dogmas, but that it was agreed that they wanted something from me.

Then the establishment of the German Section took place, with much hesitation and fear, with terrible discussions, I will spare you the details. At that time, a personage who has since left the Society was also a mediator of karma. Much could be said about this in an occult context. It so happened that Mr. Richard Bresch, the then chairman of the Leipzig branch, after conferring with various personalities, came to Count Brockdorff one day and said: Now that Dr. Steiner is already chairman of the Berlin lodge, he can also be general secretary of the German Section. Now all kinds of necessities arose for this application to become chairman of the German Section to be accepted, and I will summarize all these necessities for you in a few words so that you can recognize them as such:

First: the necessity to represent Theosophy in the way it is meant here and to bring it into the world.

Second: the other necessity, not to make things too difficult for those who should work, because we started in very small circles.

Now, in line with much of what has happened on occult ground at all times, I had to say to myself: This society, with all that has developed in it, is actually only an obstacle to the theosophical movement. And I believe that Miss von Sivers still remembers how I took this view in a conversation about Schur and his relationship to H. P. Blavatsky. In this conversation, I thoroughly discussed with the person closest to me how much of an obstacle this society is for the movement. The other thing I had to say to myself is what had to happen in many periods on occult ground in order to cope with resistance: you absorb it, you take it into your own body, and in that way it is in a sense eliminated. Those who were in the movement in Germany at the time will be able to confirm that we would have faced the most incredible obstacles from society in those years if we had not become that society ourselves. We would not have had time enough to carry out everything that was necessary at the time to clear the obstacles piling up on all sides and to fill the movement with positive content. It would have been impossible not to go with society. Because you must not forget that the concentration of obstacles, as they are now occurring at first at one point – there will be others, but that does not matter – which were represented within society by two people in particular, that these obstacles and then the much chatter of brotherhood were spread in the widest circles; it shot up everywhere. And you see, the same thing happened to me methodically with one person [Hugo Vollrath], but at that time it happened to an entire society; namely, that exactly the opposite of what I told them was put forward and spread in the form of brochures. That was the method within the various societies that had developed through the principle of society itself.

In the same year that I had been admitted to the Theosophical Society, where I had been made chairman without a vote – there was no such thing at the time – there was a congress in London of the European sections, to which the German section was just about to be added. There I had a conversation with Mr. Mead in the presence of Mr. Keightley, which mainly revolved around my “mysticism,” which he had learned from Keightley's presentation. At that time, Mr. Mead's words came up - I have to mention them as a fact, because it is enlightening: “Your book contains the whole of Theosophy.” Of course, in such a thin book, not all of Theosophy is contained. In such a case, it means: it contains that from which the whole of Theosophy can arise as a consequence. Basically, everything that has since been secreted away is contained in my “Mysticism”. I would like to tie the question to this: does it not lie in this saying that one might assume that this particular current of theosophical intellectual life will be met with longing? Because if one says, “the whole of theosophy lies in it,” then a surprising amount is said.

After this pronouncement, it was reasonable to assume that the Theosophical Society might gradually develop into a framework that could be used for what was said in London: “That is where the whole of Theosophy is to be found.” For nothing that is currently said “No” to in the Theosophical Society is even remotely in this book.

So you can see that there was a necessity to act as we did at the time. From the most occult point of view, this can be justified; for the Theosophical movement, which we mean, has indeed succeeded in preparing the Theosophical ground that we were able to prepare for it. Without this having happened at the beginning, none of the following could have happened.

Actually, it is nonsense for me to say this, because I could say the opposite: in order for everything that happened to happen, it had to be done the way it was done.

Over the years, I have tried hard to create an understanding for everything that arises as a kind of consequence of feelings and emotions. No one, if they analyze conscientiously, will be able to say that I have treated society differently than in terms of the consequences of the facts at the time. And something else has emerged. This emerged clearly and distinctly in the beautiful words of our friend Baron Walleen, that since that time, not within our movement, but outside of it, circumstances have changed. Nothing has changed within our movement at all, but everything has been carried out step by step. I will cite facts here again.

Take the situation of the Theosophical Society as it was at the time I became General Secretary of the German Section. At that meeting in London I also met Mrs. Besant, and at the second congress, a year later, I met Colonel Olcott. I mention this because it is necessary to emphasize that nothing emerged from any of the facts that took place at that time other than a confirmation of the view that we represent Theosophy in our way. Olcott said at the time that he was quite surprised to see me – that was a fact that made me think a little for a moment – he said that, having known about me for a year and a half, he had expected me to be at least as old as he was.

The facts that had taken place up to that point were such that every time obstacles arose, they always existed in the most diverse things, but they often took on those forms that this or that person said: “We cannot join the Society because everything is dictated to it from Adyar, it has an autocratic principle.” I always said to people – and this is one of the consequences that arise from the conditions: I find it unfounded that people in the German Section talk like this, because I treat the “Ukases” of Adyar in such a way that I put one down and leave it one by one, and otherwise do what seems right to me. And I told Colonel Olcott during our first conversation, even at the risk that he would have preferred to hear it from a man of the same age, that I would proceed in this way so that he would not be left in the dark. I have always spoken warmly of Olcott, because he truly was the ideal founder of such a society. He immediately understood every impulse of freedom and never opposed such a thing; it did not even occur to him. He did not talk much about such things, but when someone wrote to him, the General Secretary of the German Section put the ukases of Adyar down one after the other and ignored them, he also put down such a letter of complaint and ignored it. You see, it was excellent to work at that time. Then, little by little, different times came. And you see, I am not really talking about what is somehow represented as a doctrine; nor am I talking about the fact that it should have seemed important that the program of my mysticism should have been taken into account to a greater extent, but I am talking about the fact that it happened. Then, little by little, other things happened. It would be going too far to relate all the other things that happened. I would have to start with the fact that Olcott died, and that something happened even then, which can certainly be interpreted as being in line with the spirit of the Theosophical Society, but which is extremely difficult to subject to such an interpretation. Briefly, I can say that it was spread from Adyar that at the time of Olcott's death, the Masters had appeared and determined who should be Olcott's successor.

Now there are two ways of looking at such things; I am not talking about the substantive view. One possibility would be to say that it is absolutely necessary in all circumstances, regardless of how one views the content, to keep this fact to the very inner circle and not to talk about it in society. The other possibility is to talk about this fact. In that case, such a fact naturally gets passed from mouth to mouth and cannot be contained. That is how it happened.

Even if no personality has done anything against the spirit of the Society, even if no personality can be reproached – for Mrs. Besant had the right to think as she liked and to act accordingly, thus to use this manifestation and in this sense to lead the Society – it is still a fact that since that time we in the Society have no longer stood on healthy ground. That is also a fact.

What our friend Walleen said refers to the judgment of outsiders who may wonder whether they want to join or not. What I am saying now refers to the internal, to the ground on which we ourselves stand. It was no longer healthy soil, and from then on the question was no longer resolved as to whether one can be within society at all, or whether one should not leave. You know that many people around the world have left, for example, one of the most outstanding of them being Mr. Mead. Since that time, we have no longer stood on solid ground – for a variety of reasons – and it is certainly only since that time that the outside world's judgment of society has become as negative as

it is now. For since that time, the strangest things have happened, which do not in fact belong to the administration of the Society, but which bear the signature of the Society. Various things happened: first there was the Leadbeater case, but not the case as such. Those who know my position will know that I have taken the view that As a personality, Leadbeater must be defended to the greatest extent. The only bad thing about the Leadbeater case is that it was also attributed to the Society. That was the second time that I emphasized: One can no longer work with this Society. It is also known, through indiscretions, that Mrs. Besant first personally condemned Leadbeater and then, after a short time, converted to him. This is a fact that has also been publicly included in the Society's signature. Now comes something that, strictly speaking, does not belong in the administrative affairs of the Theosophical Society either, but which, if I were to remain silent or fail to mention it today, could be interpreted as a kind of dishonesty.

Furthermore, to mention just one of many things that would lead us too far afield, Annie Besant said in Munich in 1907, in front of a witness [Marie von Sivers] who is prepared to testify to this at any time, that she was not competent in matters concerning Christianity. And so, at that time, she effectively handed the movement over to me, in as far as Christianity was to be incorporated into it. After Annie Besant had told me this, various things were done which, from this point of view, could have brought order into the Society. But at the time one could hear from many sides: Now Dr. Steiner has separated from Annie Besant; now there are two currents; this brings discord into the Society. - That made people wonder. And now a peculiar method began to be put into practice, which consisted of actually reversing the matter. And since that time, reversing the facts has been rampant in a strange way. It is difficult to make it understood what this reversal means. At the time, people said: Yes, many people will leave because of the disunity! The truth was that many people would have left if this so-called disunity had not occurred. They only remained because that current left in a completely socially legal way after Annie Besant had made that agreement. Another fact is this, which suddenly emerged two years later, in 1909. Please do not misunderstand, but accept this as a fact without any criticism, which should of course be presented as a fact in such a way that it is absolutely justified - in 1909 Annie Besant announced a lecture on the nature of Christ for various places. At that time it slowly emerged that the idea of a Christ coming in the flesh was also heard, and this idea became more and more powerful and finally developed into the one you know. And if recently the judgment of outsiders has become even less favorable, the story of the Christ coming in the flesh undoubtedly contributed to this judgment to a great extent.

Now a fact has been created – also in the wake of that fact [at Olcott's death] – which makes it seem impossible today to separate the purely administrative and the doctrinal. It is a fact that has brought about the impossibility of such a separation, and that is the fatal situation in which we now find ourselves in society as a whole. This is only a symptom, of course. You will have gathered from what I have said that I do not dispute that Mrs. Besant has the right to appoint whomever she wishes as her representative in matters concerning the “Star of the East.” Not only do I not dispute her right to do so, but I do not for a moment resent the fact that she has appointed Vollrath to this position. She is well within her rights to do so, because she is entitled to have a different opinion of Vollrath than I do. But that was not the point at issue, although I know for a fact that it will be mentioned in the near future, as if that were the case. Of course I don't see why someone who tells me I stole silver spoons can't represent something else; but the fact is that this has created the impossibility of representing the president, of standing by her side when she is doing so at this very moment when such a pamphlet is appearing. Because by doing so, one will have the right – if the President continues to be represented, even if one only says what is a fact, that one loves her – one will have the right to say to me: So, you are standing by Mrs. Besant, so you agree with her; you are a fine fellow! That is the fact of the matter; or one would have to say on the other side: Mrs. Besant does not know that. – But that is not true, because she knows the case very well. In a detailed letter, I had to inform Mrs. Besant of these facts in response to a letter she received from the other side [from Vollrath]. Besides, everyone would say: What about the judgment of this president you represent, if she does not realize that she cannot do that? – In other words, you are faced with an impossible situation. And we are faced with such situations all the time. This is now the signature of society.

I don't even want to talk about the Genoa Congress, which also means an impossible situation. But you see, when two people hold opposing views from a podium, as was the case in Budapest in 1909, this is possible in a society built on the equal right of opinions. But you cannot do otherwise within a society of people. I would like to ask you first: Imagine you are invited somewhere and you bring along someone who is extremely valuable to you. You attach great importance to bringing this person with you. You then arrive at the place where you are invited and the host says: I don't want to know anything about that person, it's none of my business. Yes, how should we understand such a thing? As a kind of insult to your personality. There is hardly any other way. If you introduce someone to someone else who is valuable to you, and the other person rejects them, it is not possible. Suppose it had come to the Genoese Congress: Then we would have been in this case. No matter what the others represented, we would not have had to reject out of hand, that is, ignore, a person that Mrs. Besant brought with her, and only because she saw something very special in him, and it was sufficiently ensured that we learned about this special thing. Any other possibility was excluded. We would have been forced to insult the president in this way. When you mix the things of society with the personal, the personal comes out. You can teach the opposite; but when you put people who are intertwined with it, you have the fact that society is radically driven into the personal. How does that fit with what Olcott once said: It is not about H. P. Blavatsky, not about me, but about the cause, personalities are not allowed to play a role there? - Is it right then, when personalities are presented as belonging to the teaching? Isn't that a breach of the principle of the society in the most unequivocal way? Yes - even if unconsciously. Likewise, when one represents the brotherhood in the way that has been criticized today. Where in the three points originally set out by H. P. Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott is it written that such fraternity should be practised, as people say in the Vollrath case, it would be in the first sentence? But it says that a “core” is to be formed, not a general mishmash, but the core of individually fraternally connected people who have the task of carrying Theosophy into the world. This is different from saying that one is primarily obliged to practice brotherhood. Brotherhood is something that can arise by itself, about which one remains chaste and silent; then it is most present. When one speaks of it loudly, then it is least present. But it is connected with all other things, so that this general stir-fry has gradually come about as a matter of our statutes.

You see, I have presented you with a few facts. But it was perhaps necessary to talk about these things in order to establish the opinion, to evoke the reasoned judgment, that we are now, after all, facing an extraordinarily important situation within society, without having done anything about it. And the only thing that is decisive for me, up to this moment, is that I know – not that you consider it justified for me to speak in this way, but I say it because it is decisive for me – that the individuals who are the leaders of our Theosophical Society are of the opinion that the Society should be maintained as long as possible! And that is what makes it difficult for me to recommend any immediate initiative to destroy society. One could say: Of course, the things that were there then are no longer there today – that would not be entirely correct – but on the other hand, it is true that we have something with this society that has arisen – not through us, because we did not come into it, but joined it – from the founding of the Theosophical movement of modern times. So that the destruction of the society as such is certainly not the right thing to do at this moment; but the right thing is the positive. And as far as this is concerned, it is more difficult to do than the negative, that is soon done, it only requires a resolution. But a positive requires actions that are not only at the starting point, but must continue to happen. That is the essential point that must be clear to us; and so it will be a matter of our coming to such things that are really positive, that is, that in a certain way gradually result in what is a realization of the fine word of Baron von Walleen: that content always creates the framework when the content is there. But it is always necessary to take the first step. It just seems to me that this is an extraordinarily important and significant matter, and that it should not be taken as lightly as it sometimes is. Therefore, I take the liberty of saying one thing already today: that tomorrow at eleven o'clock from this place I will be obliged to speak to you about a matter that already exists as such, that has already been established on particularly solemn occasions in recent times, but in such a way that it is intended to become a kind of common property in a very peculiar way. What can be announced in this direction will happen tomorrow. We will then see how the matter is intended.

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

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

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

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

My dear friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postscript by Marie Steiner to the reproduction she edited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hermann Ahner

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

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

The Theosophical Society, German Section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The enclosed is self-explanatory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours, Annie Besant President Theosophical Society

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

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

Dear Dr. Steiner,

Enclosed explains itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely Yours, Annie Besant,
President Theosophical Society

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

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

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

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

(Stormy applause from the assembly.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is to say:

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

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

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

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

(The assembly accepts the offer.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Approval.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Fidus: “They should.”

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

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

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

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

(Call to order)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The assembly rises from its seats.

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

(Call to order)

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

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

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

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

(The sentence is read out.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Everyone rises from their seats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ahner: ”I beg your pardon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The discharge is granted.

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

The first proposal is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The undersigned propose that the General Assembly resolve:

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

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

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

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

Reasons for this proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Letter from Dr. Bachem)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The request is accepted.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now there were several things about school that interested the boy in an extraordinary way. First of all, there was the director of the secondary school, a very remarkable man. He was at the center of the scientific life of the time and devoted all his efforts to establishing a kind of world system based on the concepts and ideas of natural science at the end of the 1860s and beginning of the 1870s. As a boy, he became acquainted with one of the school's programmatic essays, 'The force of attraction considered as an effect of motion', through his director's endeavors. And the matter started right away with very powerful integrals. The boy's strongest endeavor was now to read into what he could not understand, and again and again he read about it as much as he could grasp. He understood one thing: that the forces of the world and even the force of attraction should be explained by movement. The boy now aspired to know as much mathematics as possible as soon as possible in order to be able to understand these ideas. That was not easy, because you first had to learn a lot of geometry to understand such things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From before, from the beginning of the 1880s, only a few essays are worth mentioning: one that was published under the title “Auf der Höhe”, one about Hermann Hettner, one about Lessing and one about “Parallels between Shakespeare and Goethe”. Basically, these are all the essays that were written at that time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is incumbent upon me at this moment to inform this larger circle of an intention from the narrower circle of those who already know about it. But allow me to say a few words beforehand. It should be specified that what is said now has nothing to do with what occurred at this General Meeting or what is otherwise related to previous actions – which however does not exclude the possibility to consider them later should it be so desired.

When we look around in the world today we must say to ourselves: the contemporary world is full of ideals – and when we ask ourselves: Is the representation of these ideals by those who believe in them and are in the service of them sincere and honest? In many cases we will find the answer is: Yes, that is the case. It is the case with respect to the belief and dedication the individuals are capable of. When we then ask: How much is generally demanded when such a representation of ideals is brought to life, whether by an individual or a society? From an observation of life we will find the answer to be that in most cases all is demanded; but what is mostly demanded is that the asserted ideal finds an absolute, unconditional recognition. And the basis for such an assertion of the ideal is that an absolute agreement is demanded. And usually a lack of agreement is expressed in some kind of derogatory criticism. Those words characterize how the principle of an association of people has occurred in a natural way during the course of human development and the justification of such a principle is not meant to be doubted in any way.

But above all the possibility I wish to present is this: one was always convinced that opinions were never authoritative in respect to the realities of what went on within the societies; whatever a person might think, in the moment he uttered it, by the very fact of uttering it he entered into a contradiction with the reality. Much must be said in this moment which is not in agreement with much that is valid in the world. Thus it must be said: the avowal to a thing may not be true when this avowal is spoken of. I would like to give a simple example from which you can see that the danger can exist of being untruthful simply by pronouncing it. And I would like that this simple truth be understood as being in agreement with Rosicrucian principles.

Let's assume that someone expresses his agreement using the words: “I am silent“, which cannot be true. When someone says: “I say nothing“ and wants to describe a present condition, what he says is not true. The possibility exists that by verbally avowing a thing he denies it. From this simple example: “I say nothing”, you can see that it is applicable to innumerable instances in the world and can happen again and again.

What is the consequence of such a fact? The consequence is that the people who want to associate in order to represent such and such a thing find themselves in a most difficult position if the reasons for associating are not those of the sense world but the super-sensible world.

And when we understand what we have been able to receive from the new occultism in the course of time, then we will perceive that it is absolutely necessary in the immediate future to represent certain aspects of this occultism before the world. Therefore the attempt must be made against all the principles of occult societies and their heretofore possible organizations with something completely new, something born from the spirit of that new occultism about which we have often spoken in our circle.

This can only be done, however, if we turn our view only towards something positive, only toward something which exists in the world as a reality and which can be cultivated as such a reality. Realities in our sense are only the things which primarily belong to the super-sensual world. Therefore the attempt will for once be made to realize something that comes from the super-sensible world: an attempt not to found a community of people, but to endow it.

In other opportunities I have already emphasized the difference between founding and endowing. It was many years ago. It was not understood then, and since then hardly anyone has thought about this difference. Therefore the spiritual powers which stand before you under the symbol of the Rose Cross have also overlooked bringing this difference to the world.

A renewed attempt must be now made, this time in an energetic way, not to found but to endow a community. If it is not successful, it will have failed for a certain amount of time.

Therefore I am announcing to you now that among the appropriate persons a method of working is endowed of which the individual, whom we have called Christian Rosenkreuz since western pre-history, is the originator.

What has been said today is preliminary. For what has happened until now refers only to a part of the endowment, which, if possible, should enter the world; it refers to the artistic representation of Rosicrucian occultism.

The first point I want to make is that a method of working shall enter the world as an endowment under the direct protectorate of that individual whom we designate by the name which he had for the outer world during two incarnations: Christian Rosenkreuz; and that this endowment shall be called by the provisional name: “Gesellschaft für theosphische Art und Kunst“ (“Society for the Theosophical Way and Art“)

This named is not definitive, but a definitive name will be introduced once the first preparations for bringing this work into the world have been accomplished. What is described as the “Theosophical Way” is in a beginning stage, for the preparations must still be made in order to understand what is meant.

But what is understood with the concept of theosophical art has already begun in many ways by the performances in Munich and above all the meaningful beginnings in Stuttgart; and an additional important advance for the understanding of these things is shown by the Johannes building [in Munich].

In a certain sense what has been tried provides the required sanction. Within this working group a purely spiritual task should develop, a task which is to result in a spiritual method of working and in its results.

Obviously no one can be a member of this working group who holds to a different viewpoint, but only if he has the will to dedicate his strength to the positive aspects.

Perhaps you may say that I am talking a lot of words that are not understandable. That must be so with things such as these – for they must be grasped directly in life. And what must happen within this endowment is that according to purely occult laws what is a very small circle at first is formed which sees its duty as cooperating on this project.

A very small circle has been created. It has been created in the sense of our stream for this endowment; thus in a certain sense a beginning has been made, to be detached from me and to have its own substance.

Thus this small circle that has been sanctioned stands before you, which has received its task with its own recognition of our spiritual stream, and thereby the sovereignty and the independence of all spiritual striving, which is an absolute necessity for the future to be introduced to humanity.

Therefore within the endowment I will only serve as interpreter of the basic principles, which as such only exist in the spiritual world – as interpreter of what is to be said about the intentions behind the thing itself. Therefore a curator will be named for the outer cultivation of the endowment. And with the positions which will be created only duties are associated, no honors, no laurels, so that it is impossible for rivalries or other misunderstandings to occur if it is correctly understood.

At first Miss von Sivers will be recognized by the endowment itself. This recognition is none other than what is interpreted from out of the endowment; there are no namings, only interpretations. It will be her task in the immediate future to do what can be done in the sense of the endowment, to gather a corresponding circle of members - not in the usual sense, but rather that they come on their own.

Furthermore within this branch of our endowment a number of associate branches will be created. And as the leading personalities of these associated branches – insofar as these already exist – several of the proven personalities from within our spiritual movement will be placed with the corresponding responsibilities.

This is also an interpretation: for each of these associate branches an archdeacon will interpret.

We will have an associate branch for general art; arch-deacon will be Miss von Eckhardstein – and that is a specific recognition for what this personality has done in recent years for this art.

Literature will be published: provisional Curator Miss von Sivers. Further architectural subjects: Dr. Felix Peipers; for Music: Mr. Adolf Arenson; for painting: Mr. Hermann Linde. The work to be done is essentially interior. What will appear in public will be what has been done in total freedom by these personalities.

A certain coordination of the personalities involved in this work will be necessary; this coordination will take place in a completely different way than is the case with normal organizations. The office of Conservator will be served by Miss Sophie Stinde, in charge of this coordination.

The way in which these personalities coordinate requires work very soon. In order for the organization to come into being a Keeper of the Keeper of the Seal will be necessary: Miss Sprengel, and the Secretary will be Dr Carl Unger.

At first this will be a tiny circle. Don't think of it as something which appears immodestly in the world and says: Here I am. Rather think of it as nothing more than a seed around which the thing itself will develop.

It will be organized so that by next Three-Kings Day (Epiphany) a number of members of the community will be interpreted [sic]. This means that by that time a number of members will have been given to understand that they may participate. So that for the beginning the most ample freedom in this direction must be assured in that the will to be a member should not come from anyone except the one who desires to be a member. And the fact that he is a member is brought about by his being recognized as a member. This will only be for the time between now and the next Three Kings' Day, January 6, 1912.

Thus we have before us something which because of its peculiarity reveals itself as something which flows from the spiritual world. Furthermore it will present itself as flowing from the spiritual world in that the membership will be always and exclusively concerned with spiritual interests and the recognition of spiritual interests – with the exclusion of everything personal.

This announcement constitutes a deviation from older occult principles, and this deviation consists in the fact of the announcement itself. Therewith no use is made of that assertion of the man who says: I say nothing.

The initiative will be announced; and in full consciousness that it will be announced, this should be the result. But as soon as someone indicates that he somehow does not agree with what is announced today, then he should of course not be expected to adhere to such a way of working. For nothing but complete free will for such a way of working is applicable. You will see though, if something like this should come into being – if our time with its peculiarities allows that it come into being – then really through recognition of the spiritual world work can be done, the principle that not only all nature and all history, but everything done in the world, all human deeds are based on the spiritual, super-sensible world.

You will see that it is impossible for someone to belong to such a community if he is not really in agreement with it. If you think that what I am saying is somewhat curious, then please understand it thus: that it happens in full consciousness that what is therewith preserved is everything which belongs to the eternal laws of being. And what also belongs is that the principles of becoming are taken into consideration.

At this moment one can sin against the spirit of what is to happen if he goes out into the world and says: this or that has been founded. Not only has nothing been founded, but the fact is also that to give a definition to what is to be done will never be possible – for everything is to be in continual becoming. And what is to happen because of what has been said today cannot be described. It is based on what happens, not on words, but on persons, and not even on persons, but on what the persons will do.

It will be in a living stream, a living becoming, and everything that is said about it will be untrue at the same moment. Thus also today the principle is none other than the first principle: Recognition of the spiritual world as the basic reality. All other principles are to be formed as the thing develops. As a tree in the next instant is no longer what it was, but has added something new, so should this be like a living tree. Never should what it is to become be compromised in any way by what it is.

Therefore if someone wanted to define outside in the world as a founding what has been described here as a beginning, then he would commit the same untruth as someone who says: I say nothing. Whoever uses in this way this or that word in order to characterize the matter, he says something incorrect. Therefore at the beginning it is a question of the people who want something like this coming together. Then the matter will progress. And it will profoundly differentiate itself from what the Theosophical Society is. For not one attribute described here today can pertain to the Theosophical Society.

I had to say these things for the simple reason that the matters which the endowment deals with are also publicly connected to the Theosophical Society. Because through this endowment – in the sense of intentions the contents of which do not lie in the physical world and have nothing to do with Ahriman – a spiritually ideal counterbalance to everything connected to a founding in the outer world must be created. Only in the context can a connection be seen with what already exists, that this branch of our endowment, the branch for Theosophical Art, should create a counterweight for what is connected to the Ahrimanic. It may be hoped that an excellent model will be created by the existence of this branch of our endowment. And the other branch will do its duty in the corresponding manner.

What figures as art in the movement for spiritual science must flow into our culture from the spiritual world. Spiritual life must be the basis for everything we do. It will be impossible to confound this ideal spiritual movement with any other, which also calls itself “Theosophical Movement” and will wish to participate.² Wherever we may be, the spiritual moment is our foundation. The example of the festival in Munich, the building in Stuttgart – at the limits of possibility at first, but it was everywhere attempted that the spirit be the most important, was the conditio sine qua non.³ Those who are already somewhat familiar with what this is all about will understand me. These words are spoken less for their content than that the guidelines be indicated.

When the next Three Kings Day passed and no further nominations had been made known, one of the people who had heard his address asked Dr. Steiner when that would happen, he replied: the fact that it didn't happened could be considered an answer. The year 1912/1913 was overburdened with the dispute with Annie Besant, her proclamation of the new messiah and her “Star of the East” being active also in Germany. The President [A. Besant] received from the adherents of the western spiritual movement inaugurated by Rudolf Steiner a demand for a precise statement about the agreements reached in Munich and Budapest, instead of her evasiveness, her hide-and-seek games and behind-the-scenes acting. These were the same people who together with members from many provinces founded the “Bund”, which was followed in 1913 by the founding of the Anthroposophical Society after the expulsion of the German section by the President of the Theosophical Society. Meanwhile work was undertaken in various areas through the nomination of the intimate circle: the Johannesbau-Verein [St. John Building Society], in the completion of Society's house in Stuttgart, the so-called “Art-and-People's-rooms” in Munich and Berlin, one of Miss von Eckardstein‘s initiatives. The most spiritually outstanding publication was the Calendar of the Soul, a result of Dr Steiner's cooperation with Miss von Eckardstein; here the wonderfully transparent nuances of speech allow spirit and soul to interact and become one with nature. Various other things sought a peaceful unfolding in the future. But the World War started and its associated commotions, which deeply affected the living conditions and relations between the members from various nations in Dornach. We tried to overcome such blood [national] ties, but every now and again commotion and disruption occurred. The most irritating crisis for Dornach was in the summer of 1915. A Dr. Gösch, a typical representative of psychoanalysis, stepped front and center. He convinced himself that the Keeper of the Seal had opened his eyes about promises that Dr. Steiner gave and didn't comply with. He published this according to psychoanalytical methodology in a brochure. At the same time he wrote a letter to Dr. Steiner in which he described his theories based on the “revelations” made to him by the Keeper of the Seal. The Keeper of the Seal could not have understood the task given her by this name other than in a most personal sense. She felt herself to be the inspiration for the spiritual teaching given to humanity by Dr. Steiner. And as she also played the role of Theodora in Rudolf Steiner's Mystery Dramas in Munich, she took all this as evidence of a symbolic promise of marriage, for the fulfillment of which she had waited “seven years”. The many complaining letters revolving around this point gave Dr. Gösch the opportunity for a psychological interpretation in Freudian sense for the illumination of her case. He had been for a long time himself in Freudian treatment for a nervous disorder, which had deeply infected his person. His open letter of complaint provided the opportunity for strictly carried out actions by which the membership was to obtain clarity about the case. Descriptions about the case exist and constituted the basis for the special number of the magazine „Anthroposophie“ [and] the book published in Stuttgart: Anthroposophie und Psychoanalyse. Here is only mentioned what has to do directly with the case Sprengel – alias Proserpina – alias Theodora – alias Keeper of the Seal, and what she experienced in such a mystical, personal way as megalomania. Of course symptoms existed of her conceit even before the war. Because of this unfortunate megalomania, the possibility of further nominations to the existing circle of eight personalities failed – caused by egoistical conceit on one hand and the absurdity of false mysticism on the other. The Keeper of the Seal “sprang” the seal in the most common human sense. The necessity of women being active participants in the cultural tasks of the future is non-negotiable and will be accomplished despite failures in individual cases. - That's what happened in the case of the Keeper of the Seal.

Dr. Steiner expressed himself in the following way about this affair in an address during the so-called crisis in 1915:

“It was announced in autumn that because certain impossible symptoms had become apparent in our Society it was necessary to found a certain smaller society whereby I had attempted to attribute certain titles to a number of close associates who have been a long time in the Society in that I required of them that they would act independently in the sense of these titles. I said at that time: If something happens, the members will be informed by Three Kings Day. Nothing was informed and it is therefore obvious that the Society for the Theosophical Way and Art does not exist. It is self-evident because nobody informed anything. It is self-evident that the information would have been sent if the thing had been realized. The manner in which it was conceived in a certain case made it impossible. It was an attempt.⁴

The circle of nominees, as an internal matter, was shattered; outside the war raged; in Dornach the practical work continued no less intensively despite the external circumstances. Due to the recall to the fronts of so many artists and helpers, the burden of work fell heavily on the women. Few men were able to remain, Hermann Linde for one. From early morning on clanged the hammering and chiseling from wood which grew up out of the cement foundation to the curved domes. The outer and inner walls bore the organically moving forms, warmed and waved by the human hands grooving them. In the interior space the columns rose with their bases, capitals and architraves, until they reached the place where both domes merged into each other – a symbol of the soul's experience of how the cosmos separates and unites simultaneously.

The painters and their helpers were gathered around Hermann Linde. Dr. Steiner had drafted the motives for the painting of the domes, copies of which are preserved in Alinari's reproductions (Rudolf Steiner's drafts of the great dome in the first Goetheanum – realized by Alinari, Florence.) With diligence and zeal new priming methods were tried through which the effect of vegetable colors unfolded in glowing brilliance; plants were rubbed zealously by a group of helpers, from which the new colors for the dome paints derived. Weekly eurythmy performances provided the opportunity for the development of personal fantasy and to practice with the outlines Dr. Steiner had prepared.

In Germany a most capable replacement was soon found for the “sprung” Keeper of the Seal in the person of Miss Berta Meyer. During the months of the war years we spent in Germany, she often came from Bremen to Berlin to perfect her knowledge of jewelry art by means of Dr. Steiner's suggestions. A happy opportunity for new motivation was the return of a member from the orient with a collection of precious stones. Stones were selected whose inner substance and brilliance were especially appropriate. It was a peculiar experience to feel the cool ripple of the stones on one's hand and their penetration in one's etheric body. This grasp in the coolness of the stone kingdom and the almost exciting affecting glow of melting metal in fire, especially gold, brought the elements of nature's force clearly to consciousness. Dr. Steiner's drawing for the Mystery Dramas' seals provided the basis for the spiritual studies of this predestined [new] Keeper of the Seal, who left us so many excellent artistic works.⁵ Death tore her from us at the very moment that a place for her work, a Jewelry art school, could have been arranged in Dornach. The form forces of eurythmy, carried by etheric impulses and the musical art seeking new ways, which by experiencing the sharps and flats, over the fifth, to grasp the force of their origin in tone, to which they thanked their being, were also rehearsed with these seals. Thus feeling the way to lost words.

The new architectural style created by Dr. Steiner, which incorporated the plant movements and did not shut itself off from the outer world, but opened to the world, was also faithfully used in the glass windows.⁶ Floods of light had to stream into the space; differentiated according to the rainbow, but retaining the basic tones brought the hovering and weaving light colorings into the room. The delicateness of the nuances were intensified by the different thickness of the glass which acquired the motive during the grinding and etching; its spiritual content related to the path of initiation of humanity into the future. Whereas the motive of the larger and smaller domes followed the macrocosmic and microcosmic evolution of humanity leading to the fulfillment of his I.

The new art of black-white line drawing given by Dr. Steiner developed alongside the creative colors.⁷ And all these, artistically created from the most varied elements, were brought to life in the art of the spoken word – speech formation⁸ – which divines the original forces of the lost “Word” and to a certain extent grasps it. Through the little that was achieved by hard work it was possible to partly fulfill what Dr. Steiner referred to as the mission of the spiritual movement inaugurated by him: to allow the forgotten spiritual stream around Goethe and Schiller to flow again into culture.

We have lived in the plenitude of his impulses. He was torn from us by death in 1925. He had to pay with death for the immeasurable richness of his gifts. We were enlivened and carried by his encouraging spiritual force.

• 2. Rudolf Steiner may be referring here to the strong differences which occurred during this time, the end of 1911, because Rudolf Steiner refused to allow the members of the order founded by Annie Besant, “The Star of the East“ to attend events of the German Section [of the Theosophical Society] led by him.
• 3. Translator Note: gaps in all three manuscripts
• 4. lecture of August 1915 in Dornach – unpublished.
• 5. Kleinodienkunst. Die Dramasiegel. Nach himweisen und Entwerfen von Rudolf Steiner mitgeteilt und aussgearbeitet durch Beerta Meyer-Jabobs.
• 6. Die Goetheanum-Fenster-Motive Rudolf Steiners, Assja Turgenierff
• 7. Die schöpferische Kraft der Farbe, Hilde Boos-Hamburger
• 8. Sprachgestaltung

A lecture given during the first general meeting of the Anthroposophical Society in Berlin

My dear theosophical friends! When in the year 1902, we were founding the German Section of the Theosophical Society, there were present, as most of our theosophical friends now assembled know, Annie Besant and other members of the Theosophical Society at that date – members who had been so for some time. Whilst the work of organization and the lectures were going on, I was obliged to be absent for a short time for a particular lecture of a course which I was at that time – more than ten years ago – delivering to an audience in no way belonging to the theosophical movement, and the members of which have, for the most part, not joined it. Side by side, so to say with the founding of the theosophical movement in Germany, I had during these days to deliver a particular lecture to a circle outside it; and because the course was a kind of beginning, I had used, in order to describe what I wished to say in it, a word which seemed to express this still better than the word ‘Theosophy’ – to be more in keeping with the whole circumstances and culture of our time. Thus, whilst we were founding the German Section, I said in my private lecture that what I had to impart could best be designated by the word ‘Anthroposophy’. This comes into my memory at the present moment, when all of us here assembled are going apart, and alongside of that which – justly of course – calls itself Theosophy are obliged to choose another name for our work, in the first place as an outer designation, but which at the same time may significantly express our aims, for we choose the name ‘Anthroposophy’.

If through spiritual contemplation we have gained a little insight into the inner spiritual connection of things – a connection in which necessity is often present, even if to outer observation it appears to be a matter of mere ‘chance’ – feeling may perhaps be allowed to wander back to the transition I was then obliged to make from the business of founding the German Section to my anthroposophical lecture. This may be specially permissible today when we have before us the Anthroposophical Society as a movement going apart from the Theosophical Society. In spite of the new name no change will take place with regard to what has constituted the spirit of our work, ever since that time. Our work will go on in the same spirit, for we have not to do with a change of cause, but only with a change of name, which has become a necessity for us. But perhaps the name is for all that rather suitable to our cause, and the mention of feeling with regard to the fact of ten years ago, may remind us that the new name may really suit us very well. The spirit of our work – will remain the same. It is really that which at bottom we must call the essence of our cause. This spirit of our work is also that which claims our best powers as human beings, so far as we feel ourselves urged to belong to this spiritual movement of ours. I say, “ours best power as human beings” because people at the present time are not yet very easily inclined to accept that which – be it as Theosophy or Anthroposophy – has to be introduced into the spiritual and mental life of progressive humanity.

We may say “has to be introduced” for the reason that one who knows the conditions of the progressive spiritual life of humanity, gains from the perception of them, the knowledge that this theosophical or anthroposophical spirit is necessary to healthy spiritual and mental life. But it is difficult to bring into men’s minds, in let us say a plain dry way, what the important point is. It is difficult and we can understand why. For people who come straight from the life of the present time, in which all their habits of thought are deeply connected with a more materialistic view of things, will at first naturally find it very difficult to feel themselves at home with the way in which the problems of the universe are grappled with by what may be called the theosophical or anthroposophical spirit. But it has always been the case that the majority of people have in a certain sense followed individuals who make themselves, in a very special way, vehicles of spiritual life. It is true the most various gradations are to be found within the conception of the world that now prevails; but one fact certainly stands out as the result of observing these ideas – that a large proportion of contemporary humanity follows – even when it does so unconsciously – on the one hand certain ideas engendered by the development of natural science in the last few centuries, or on the other hand a residuum of certain philosophical ideas. And on both sides – it may be called pride or may appear as something else – people think that there is something ‘certain’, something that seems to be built on good solid foundations, contained in what natural science has offered, or, if another kind of belief has been chosen, in what this or that philosophical school has imparted.

In what flows from the anthroposophical or theosophical spirit, people are apt to find something more or less uncertain, wavering – something which cannot be proved. In this connection the most various experiences may be made. For instance, it is quite a common experience that a theosophical or anthroposophical lecture may be held somewhere on a given subject. Let us suppose the very propitious case (which is comparatively rare) of a scientific or philosophical professor listening to the lecture. It might very easily happen that after listening to it he formed an opinion. In by far the greatest number of cases he would certainly believe that it was a well founded, solid opinion, indeed to a certain degree an opinion which was a matter of course. Now in other fields of mental life it is certainly not possible, after hearing a lecture of one hour on a subject, to be able to form an opinion about that subject. But in relation to what theosophy or anthroposophy has to offer, people are very apt to arrive at such a swift judgment, which deviates from all the ordinary usages of life. That is to say, they will feel they are entitled to such an opinion after a monologue addressed to themselves, perhaps unconsciously, of this kind, “You are really a very able fellow. All your life you have been striving to assimilate philosophical – or scientific – conceptions; therefore you are qualified to form an opinion about questions in general, and you have now heard what the man who was standing there, knows.” And then this listener (it is a psychological fact, and one who can observe life knows it to be so) makes a comparison and arrives at the conclusion, “It is really fine, the amount you know, and the little he knows.”

He actually forms an opinion, after a lecture of an hour’s length, not about what the lecturer knows, but very frequently about what the listener thinks he does not know, because it was not mentioned in the hour’s lecture. Innumerable objections would come to nothing, if this unconscious opinion were not formed. In the abstract, theoretically, it might seem quite absurd to say anything as foolish as I have just said – foolish not as an opinion, but as a fact. Yet although people do not know it, the fact is a very widely spread one with regard to what proceeds from theosophy or anthroposophy. In our time there is as yet little desire really to find out that what comes before the public as theosophy or anthroposophy, at least as far as it is described here, has nothing to fear from accurate, conscientious examination by all the learning of the age; but has everything to fear from science which is really only one-third science – I will not even say one-third – one-eighth, one-tenth, one-twelfth, and perhaps not even that. But it will take time before mankind is induced to judge that which is as wide as the world itself, by the knowledge which has been gained outwardly on the physical plane. In the course of time, it will be seen that the more it is tested with all the scientific means possible and by every individual science, the more fully will true theosophy, true anthroposophy be corroborated. And the fact will also be corroborated that anthroposophy comes into the world, not in any arbitrary way, but from the necessity of the historical consciousness.

One who really wishes to serve the progressive evolution of humanity, must draw what he has to give from the sources from which the progressive life of mankind itself flows. He may not follow an ideal arbitrarily set up, and steer for it just because he likes it; but in any given period, he must follow the ideal of which he can say, “It belongs especially to this time.” The essence of Anthroposophy is intimately bound up with the nature of our time; of course not with that of our immediate little present, but with the whole age in which we live. The next four lectures,¹ and all the lectures which I have to deliver in the next few days, will really deal with the ‘essence of Anthroposophy’. Everything which I shall have to say about the nature of the Eastern and Western Mysteries, will be an amplification of ‘essence of Anthroposophy’. At the present time I will point out the character of this ‘essence’, by speaking of the necessity through which Anthroposophy has to be established in our time. But once again I do not wish to start from definitions or abstractions, but from facts, and first of all from a very particular fact. I wish to start from the fact of a poem, once – at first I will only say ‘once’ – written by a poet. I will read this poem to you, at first only a few passages, so that I may lay stress on the point I wish to make.

The god of love speaks softly to my inmost heart
In deep words of yearning,
He speaks of marvellous things,
Which throw my thoughts into a whirl;
So flattering is everything he says.
And as I hearken and delude myself,
I strive to repeat what I hear;
It is but lost labour.
It is beyond my power.

After the poet has enlarged further on the difficulty of expressing what the god of love says to him, he describes the being he loves in the following words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

It appears to be quite obvious that the poet was writing a love-poem. And it is quite certain that if this poem were to be published somewhere anonymously now—it might easily be a modern poem by one of the better poets—people would say. “What a pearl he must have found, to describe his beloved in such wonderful verses”. For the beloved one might well congratulate herself on being addressed in the words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

The poem was not written in our time. If it had been and a critic came upon it, he would say: “How deeply felt is this direct, concrete living relation. How can a man, who writes poems as only the most modern poets can when they sing from the depths of their souls, how can such a man be able to say something in which no mere abstraction, but a direct, concrete presentment of the beloved being speaks to us, till she becomes almost a palpable reality.”

A modern critic would perhaps say this. But the poem did not originate in our time, it was written by Dante.²

Now a modern critic who takes it up will perhaps say: “The poem must have been written by Dante when he was passionately in love with Beatrice (or someone else), and here we have another example of the way in which a great personality enters into the life of actuality urged by direct feeling, far removed from all intellectual conceptions and ideas.”

Perhaps there might even be a modern critic who would say: “People should learn from Dante how it is possible to rise to the highest celestial spheres, as in the Divine Comedy, and nevertheless be able to feel such a direct living connection between one human being and another.” It seems a pity that Dante has himself given the explanation of this poem, and expressly says who the woman is of whom he writes the beautiful words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

Dante has told us – and I think no modern critic will deny that he knew what he wanted to say – that the ‘beloved one’, with whom he was in such direct personal relations, was none other than Philosophy.

And Dante himself says that when he speaks of her eyes, that what they say is no untruth, he means by them the evidence for truth; and by the ‘smile’, he means the art of expressing what truth communicates to the soul; and by ‘love’ or ‘amor’, he means scientific study, the love of truth. And he expressly says that when the beloved personality, Beatrice, was taken away from him and he was obliged to forego a personal relation, the woman Philosophy drew near his soul, full of compassion, and more human than anything else that is human. And of this woman Philosophy he could use these words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

—feeling in the depths of his soul that the eyes represent the evidence for truth, the smile is that which imparts truth to the soul, and love is scientific study.

One thing is obviously impossible in the present day. It is not possible that a modern poet should quite honestly and truly address philosophy in such directly human language. For if he did so, a critic would soon seize him by the collar and say. “You are giving us pedantic allegories.” Even Goethe had to endure having his allegories in the second part of Faust taken in very bad part in many quarters. People who do not know how times change, and that our souls grow into them with ever fresh vitality have no idea that Dante was just one of those who were able to feel as concrete, passionate, personal a relation, directly of a soul-nature, towards the lady Philosophy as a modern man can only feel towards a lady of flesh and blood. In this respect, Dante’s times are over, for the woman Philosophy no longer approaches the modern soul as a being of like nature with itself, as a being of flesh and blood, as Dante approached the lady Philosophy. Or would the whole honest truth be expressed (exceptions are of course out of the reckoning), if it were said today, deliberately that philosophy was something going about like a being of flesh and blood, to which such a relation was possible that its expression could really not be distinguished from ardent words of love addressed to a being of flesh and blood? One who enters into the whole relation in which Dante stood to philosophy, will know that that relation was a concrete one, such an one is only imagined nowadays as existing between man and woman.

Philosophy in the age of Dante appears as a being whom Dante says he loves. If we look round a little, we certainly find the word ‘philosophy’ coming to the surface of the mental and spiritual life of the Greeks, but we do not find there what we now call definitions or representations of philosophy. When the Greeks represent something, it is Sophia not Philosophia. And they represent her in such a way, that we feel her to be literally a living being. We feel the Sophia to be as literally a living being as Dante feels philosophy to be. But we feel her everywhere in such a way – and I ask you to go through the descriptions which are still existing – that we, so to say, feel her as an elemental force, as a being who acts, a being who interposes in existence through action. Then from about the fifth century after the foundation of Christianity onwards, we find that Philosophia begins to be represented, at first described by poets in the most various guises, as a nurse, as a benefactress, as a guide, and so on. Then somewhat later painters etc. begin to represent her, and then we may go on to the time called, the age of scholasticism in which many a philosopher of the Middle Ages, really felt it to be a directly human relation when he was aware of the fair and lofty lady Philosophia actually approaching him from the clouds; and many a philosopher of the Middle Ages would have been able to send just the same kind of deep and ardent feelings to the lady Philosophia floating towards him on clouds, as the feelings of which we have just heard from Dante. And one who is able to feel such things even finds a direct connection between the Sistine Madonna, floating on the clouds, and the exalted lady, Philosophia.

I have often described how in very ancient periods of human development, the spiritual conditions of the universe were still perceptible to the normal human faculty of cognition. I have tried to describe how there was a primeval clairvoyance, how in primeval times all normally developed people were able, owing to natural conditions, to look into the spiritual world. Slowly and gradually that primitive clairvoyance became lost to human evolution, and our present conditions of knowledge took their place. This happened by slow degrees, and the conditions in which we are now living – which as it were represent a temporary very deep entanglement in the material kind of perception – also come by slow degrees. For such a spirit as Dante, as we gather from the description he gives in the Divine Comedy, it was still possible to experience the last remnants of a direct relation of spiritual worlds – to experience them as it were in a natural way. To a man of the present day it is mere foolish nonsense to except him to believe that he might first, like Dante, be in love with a Beatrice, and might afterwards be involved in a second love-affair with Philosophy, and that these two were beings of quite similar nature, the Beatrice of flesh and blood, and Philosophy.

It is true I have heard that it was said that Kant was once in love, and someone became jealous because he loved Metaphysics, and asked “Meta what?” – but it is certainly difficult to introduce into the modern life of the spirit enough understanding to enable people to feel Dante’s Beatrice and Philosophy as equally real and actual. Why is this? Just because the direct connection of the human soul with the spiritual world has gradually passed over into our present condition. Those who have often heard me speak, know how highly I estimate the philosophy of the nineteenth century; but I will not even mention it as possible, that anyone could pour forth his feelings about Hegel’s Logic in the words:

At the sight of her,
Breezes from Paradise seem gently to fan me.
Love itself gives her that smile,
And what her eyes say is no lie.

I think it would be difficult to say this about Hegel’s Logic. It would even be difficult, although more possible, with regard to the intellectual manner in which Schopenhauer contemplates the world. It would certainly be easier in this case, but even then it would still be difficult to gain any concrete idea or feeling that philosophy approaches man as a concrete being in the way in which Dante here speaks of it. Times have changed. For Dante, life within the philosophic element, within the spiritual world, was a direct personal relation – as personal as any other which has to do with what is today the actual or material. And strange though it seems, because Dante’s time is not very far removed from our own, it is nevertheless true, that for one who is able to observe the spiritual life of humanity, it follows quite as a matter of course for him to say: “People are trying nowadays to know the world; but when they assume that all that man is, has remained the same throughout the ages, their outlook does not really extend much further than the end of their noses.” For even as late as Dante’s time, life in general, the whole relation of the human soul to spiritual world, was different. And if any philosopher is of opinion that the relation which he may have with the spiritual world through Hegel’s or Schopenhauer’s philosophy, is the only possible one, it means nothing more than that a man may still be really very ignorant.

Now let us consider what we have been describing – namely, that on the transition from the Graeco-Roman civilisation to our fifth period, that part of the collective being of man which we call the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, which was specially developed during the Graeco-Roman period, was evolved on into the self-conscious soul, during the development which has been going on up to the present. How then in this concrete case of philosophy does the transition from the Graeco-Roman to our modern period come before us – i.e., the transition from the period of the intellectual soul to that of the self-conscious soul? It appears in such a form that we clearly understand that during the development of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, man obviously still stands in such a relation to the spiritual worlds connected with his origin, that a certain line of separation is still drawn between him and those spiritual worlds. Thus the Greek confronted his Sophia, i.e. pure wisdom, as if she were a being so to say standing in a particular place and he facing her. Two beings, Sophia and the Greek, facing each other, just as if she were quite an objective entity which he can look at, with all the objectivity of the Greek way of seeing things. But because he was still living in the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, he has to bring into expression the directly personal relation of his consciousness to that objective entity. This has to take place in order to prepare the way gradually for a new epoch, that of the self-conscious soul.

How will the self-conscious soul confront Sophia? In such a way that it brings the ego into a direct relation with Sophia, and expresses, not so much the objective being of Sophia, as the position of the ego in relation to the self-conscious soul, to this Sophia. “I love Sophia” was the natural feeling of an age which still had to confront the concrete being designated as Philosophy; but yet was the age which was preparing the way for the self-conscious soul, and which, out of the relation of the ego to the self-conscious soul, on which the greatest value had to be placed, was working towards representing Sophia as simply as everything else was represented. It was so natural that the age which represented the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, and which was preparing the self-conscious soul, should bring into expression the relation to philosophy. And because things are expressed only by slow degrees, they were prepared during the Graeco-Roman period. But we also see this relation of man to Philosophia developed externally up to a certain point, when we have before us pictorial representations of philosophy floating down on clouds, and later, in Philosophia’s expression (even if she bears another name), a look showing kindly feeling, once again expressing the relation to the self-conscious soul.

It is the plain truth that it was from a quite human personal relation, like that of a man to a woman, that the relation of man to philosophy started in the age when philosophy directly laid hold of the whole spiritual life of progressive human evolution. The relation has cooled: I must ask you not to take the words superficially, but to seek for the meaning behind what I am going to say. The relation has indeed cooled – sometimes it has grown icy cold. For if we take up many a book on philosophy at the present day, we can really say that the relation which was so ardent [passionate] in the days when people looked upon philosophy as a personal being, has grown quite cool, even in the case of those who are able to struggle through to the finest possible relation to philosophy. Philosophy is no longer the woman, as she was to Dante and other who lived in his times. Philosophy nowadays comes before us in a shape that we may say: “The very form in which it confronts us in the nineteenth century in its highest development, as a philosophy of ideas, conceptions, objects, shows us that part in the spiritual development of humanity has been played out.”

In reality it is deeply symbolic when we take up Hegel’s philosophy, especially the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, and find as the last thing in this nineteenth-century book, a statement of the way in which philosophy interprets itself. It has understood everything else; finally, it grasps itself. What is there left for it to understand now? It is the symptomatic expression of the fact that philosophy has come to an end, even if there are still many questions to be answered since Hegel’s days. A thorough-going thinker, Richard Wahle,³ has brought this forward in his book, The Sum-Total of Philosophy and Its Ends, and has very ably worked out the thesis that everything achieved by philosophy may be divided up amongst the various separate departments of physiology, biology, aesthetics, etc., and that when this is done, there is nothing left of philosophy. It is true that such books overshoot the mark but they contain a deep truth, i.e., that certain spiritual movements, have their day and period, and that, just as a day has its morning and evening, they have their morning and evening in the history of human evolution.

We know that we are living in an age when the Spirit-Self is being prepared, that although we are still deeply involved in the development of the self-conscious soul, the evolution of the Spirit-Self is preparing. We are living in the period of the self-conscious soul, and looking towards the preparation of the age of the Spirit-Self, in much the same way as the Greek lived in the epoch of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, and looked towards the dawning of the self-conscious soul. And just as the Greek founded philosophy, which in spite of Paul Deussen⁴ and others first existed in Greeks, just as the Greek founded it during the unfolding of the intellectual soul, or soul of the higher feelings, when man was still directly experiencing the lingering influence of the objective Sophia, just as philosophy then arose and developed in such a way that Dante could look upon it as a real concrete, actual being, who brought him consolation after Beatrice had been torn from him by death, so we are living now in the midst of the age of the self-conscious soul, are looking for the dawn of the age of the Spirit-Self, and know that something is once more becoming objective to man, which however is carrying forward through the coming times that which man has won while passing through the epoch of the self-conscious soul.

What is it that has to be evolved? What has to come to development is the presence of a new Sophia. But man has learnt to relate this Sophia to his self-conscious soul, and to experience her as directly related to man’s being. This is taking place during the age of the self-conscious soul. Thereby this Sophia has become the being who directly enlightens human beings. After she has entered into man, she must go outside him taking with her his being, and representing it to him objectively once more. In this way did Sophia once enter the human soul and arrive at the point of being so intimately bound up with it that a beautiful love-poem, like that of Dante’s could be made about her; Sophia will again become objective, but she will take with her that which man is, and represent herself objectively in this form – now not merely as Sophia, but as Anthroposophia – as the Sophia who, after passing through the human soul, through the being of man, henceforth bears that being within her, and thus stands before enlightened man as once the objective being Sophia stood before the Greeks. This is the progress of the history of human evolution in relation to the spiritual facts under consideration.

And now I leave it to all those, who wish to examine the matter very minutely, to see how it may also be shown in detail from the destiny of Sophia, Philosophia and Anthroposophia, how humanity evolves progressively through the soul principles which we designate the intellectual soul (the soul of the higher feelings), the self-conscious soul and the Spirit-Self. People will learn how deeply established in the collective being of man is that which we have in view through our Anthroposophy. What we receive through anthroposophy is the essence of ourselves, which first floated towards man in the form of a celestial goddess with whom he was able to come into relation which lived on as Sophia and Philosophia, and which man will again bring forth out of himself, putting it before him as the fruit of true self-knowledge in Anthroposophy. We can wait patiently till the world is willing to prove how deeply founded down to the smallest details is what we have to say.

For it is the essence of Theosophy or Anthroposophy that its own being consists of what is man’s being, and the nature of its efficacy is that man receives and discovers from Theosophy or Anthroposophy what he himself is, and has to put it before himself because he must exercise self-knowledge.

• 1. The Mysteries of the East and of Christianity, Berlin, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th February 1913 [PC]
• 2. Poem number 61 in Dante’s Rime {note from the book Isis Mary Sophia}
• 3. Richard Wahle (1857-1935) was professor of philosophy at the Universities of Czernowitz (in Western Ukraine) and Vienna.
• 4. Paul Jakob Deussen (1845-1919) was a German professor of philosophy at University of Kiel and academic researcher of the history and cultures, languages, and literature of the Indian subcontinent.

[Architect Schmid: We want to create the daily bread in the broadest sense, not a caricature of what it is supposed to be. Just as each column on the Johannesbau is the only, correct, best expression of what it is supposed to represent, so it should be with our entire environment. The aim is not to create cheap coffee and so on, but the right coffee, cocoa and so on. The name you choose is Maja; we should offer the right thing for the same money.

Many speakers spoke, then Mr. von Rainer: I had to ask the bread whether it wants to be sold like this. It told me: That's a sore point. - That doesn't suit the bread, the bread doesn't want to know anything about that either. The lowest possible prices, [that] doesn't suit the bread either. The bread is opposed to all these privileges because, in a sense, they violate the occult law under which it stands. That would just be another area of selfishness. Bread is very demanding and wants to be treated well and lovingly. It is against all modern business relationships and prefers a good wearer. Bread wants nothing to do with advertising. On the one hand, the matter must not take on fixed forms, but on the other hand, there is a desire to help others when the principle of altruism can be carried out in contrast to selfishness.

Rudolf Steiner: We should definitely avoid bringing something into the world in an indefinite way. Above all, we must be clear that it is necessary for us to proceed practically, to bring something viable into the world. Of course, some of the general principles that are developed are useful, and it is a practical matter. If we don't want to talk at cross purposes, we have to take something important into account. As unlikely as it seems, this touches on the practical side of the matter: Mr. von Rainer has stated that the bread feels offended, and Mr. Schröder has apologized. The bread cannot excuse anything by its very nature. It is necessary that we absolutely take into account the real factors.

In the moments after such a mistake as the one that has now been apologized for, but I think that when such a mistake is made later, it is important that it be translated into reality. In the moments when something like this is done, we are immediately dealing with the material consequences of it. We have to proceed practically; we talk about many points without any basis. What we should talk about would be: How can a trading company be established, how should it relate to those of our friends who produce something in some field or other and have something to sell, how can an understanding be reached with consumers? Basically, we cannot elect a commission; we cannot become a consumer association as an Anthroposophical Society. Things must develop in such a way that someone finds inspiration in their impulses and others go to them. It would be a mistake to choose a commission. We have to develop understanding and act on the basis of the original initiative. We can only be understanding consumers as an Anthroposophical Society. We can exchange our views. There are many things to consider. It is extremely important that this trade association does not take a purely materialistic point of view, but above all takes the point of view of offering support to good, appropriate production. The difficulties that arise from today's commercial nature, that those who are involved in material life cannot help but develop principles, however good a person they are, [that they] cannot help but develop the principles, as Mr. Schröder has described, that they apply in England, according to which a mistake would be worse than a crime.

But I ask you, what should the merchant, the mediator do today in the face of the fact that he has to reckon with the cheapness of the goods and not with the quality. People want cheap bread without the bread being properly right and good. Measures of value are basically false, and if we want to gain understanding, we must gain this understanding by not basing ourselves on a foundation that has not fundamentally improved the social order. Anthroposophy must advance humanity, and we must base ourselves on a foundation that advances. We can, of course, do such a thing quite properly, but we have to approach it practically; it has to yield something fruitful. We have nothing to do with patterns. We have to work from what is properly at hand; if we work according to old patterns, the only thing that can happen is that we achieve something old. We cannot establish a company to market Rainer bread, but we can spread understanding that we eat this bread! The trade association should be a mediator in the most practical way possible.

It would be completely impractical to proceed in the way we do for a purely idealistic cause, that we would organize collections. For a matter that is based on a material basis, it is not a matter of not having confidence in it from the outset, that would be an admission of failure from the outset, but rather of launching a matter that is actually well-founded, and it is a matter of the people who have an understanding of it participating with the prospect of interest and profitability. We did not want things to be based on material considerations that would fall apart after a few years, even though they had been justified several times. Capital should not be raised for an idealistic cause, but everything should be based on a practical foundation. These things must be taken into account; they are very beautiful when done right, but they should be understood in such a way that we stand vis-à-vis Mr. Schröder in such a way that we give him advice and he gives us advice, and should not talk about selfishness and altruism.

After a few other [speakers], Dr. Steiner takes the floor again and says after a few introductory words:

Of course, I take it for granted that everyone here is in favor of this trade association. We are in favor of everything good, and [it is also self-evident] that we consider Mr. Schröder to be a capable man for the job. It is very nice when there is such enthusiasm for the cause. However, I would like to emphasize right away: I am not here to

but I have experienced exactly the opposite of what Ms. Wolfram has claimed: the teaching of Saturn, Sun and Moon is quite easy to explain; people accept it readily. But if you tell them to have their shoes made by the shoemaker or to have a whole sack of Rainer bread delivered, that is more difficult than getting the teaching of Saturn, Sun and Moon across. Above all, it is necessary for the Theosophists to start thinking rationally and not just to be enthusiastic about practical things, but to persevere in the long run.

It is normal that everything is wrong at the beginning; it is usually very difficult to find understanding when this or that is wrong. The new thing about theosophists is that they should be aware that the good things are bound to appear with certain dark sides, which is self-evident. How often have we had to hear that what is based on an incorrect approach to the matter; some loaves of Rainer bread went moldy; that it is moldy is a sign that it is good, my dear theosophical friends, because vegetables only grow on good soil. It is only a matter of us working against such a thing. On the other hand, we must be clear that there are also difficulties inherent in the matter. I don't see why we can't look at the matter soberly. The story is nothing new, something we have always had in small circles. There have been many of us who said to others: Get your shoes made by this shoemaker, buy your bread here or there. There were also those who volunteered to get the necessities, to travel to cycles, order rooms and so on. All this has already been done.

Mr. Schröder has realized that something should be organized, and the newspaper is also just an expression of systematization, where it is best to turn, systematization of the matter, so that one can work more rationally when organizing a matter than when it is left to chance. Because we have the belief that when anthroposophists do something right, it will be a beautiful and ideal thing; they will do things quite differently, namely, the anthroposophists. I mean a connection between those who have something to offer - be it food, be it something else - they should connect with the trade association, where the thing is offered. It will be seen that the thing will flourish. I will be blunt: the only possibility is that it pays off in a rational sense. If someone can do or provide something well, the trade association will come to help them make a living. It is understandable that some of us producers have certain difficulties as such. A producer cannot count on a purely anthroposophical clientele. There are many details to be considered.

After further interjections, Dr. Steiner takes the floor again:

It is only necessary that this point of view be put into practice immediately, starting with the fact that what is there can be sold; and then adding more and more. We need what has been said today to be understood as nothing other than a statement from consumers to producers.

We do not need to postpone for the reason that the rest that needs to be done should come from the trade association itself. It should get in touch with our producers and get things moving. What we would like from our other friends is for them to get into the habit of taking things a little more seriously – the trade association can't do anything about that – and to be as well organized as possible when no one is buying from them. To do that, we need to talk a little, so that understanding is gained and not just among the small circle of those present, which is a small circle for 2,500 members. Try to spread understanding when you yourself agree with it, for this specific thing. Then we will actually make progress in this area, and then the matter is not so infinitely important, whether we say more or less: we take into account the other people or those who are among us. — Finally, it is quite true that we should carry anthroposophy out and not close ourselves off materially. But we shall also do what is necessary to support our materially productive friends; it is more important to accommodate a friend who is productive in some field and is part of society than to accommodate another who does everything he can to harm our movement just because it is more convenient for us. Altruism is not what moves us forward, but staying the course.

After further interjections, Dr. Steiner says the following:

Regarding Mr. Schröder's planned publication of a newspaper that is supposed to contain only an extract of the events of a certain period of time: It is not easy to publish such an extract. Just imagine: We were supposed to edit telegrams about the Balkan War that were supposed to be objectively true. One would have to proceed purely clairvoyantly – and that would be black magic in this case, [that] would not be a means of the physical plan to give a purely objective picture.

The advertising story is a questionable thing. We have to take the view that it is being done practically, that will gradually come out. Paid advertisements are not practical. And even if it is tried today, it will be different in a year. The advertising system will have to be different. It will do the newspaper good if it takes the approach of other newspaper companies. The big newspapers live from advertising, but that is also what they are like. A newspaper cannot help but take on a certain configuration if it lives from advertising. Take a large newspaper company. I would like to know how many readers there are who read these advertisements. Do you think that those who spend money on advertisements are unaware of the situation I have just described? Those who place these advertisements and pay for them with hard-earned money have very specific reasons for placing them. And even if these advertisements are not successful the first time, they still have an effect in a variety of indirect ways. It is natural that newspapers should be dependent on advertisements. In short, it will not prove to be practical at all. Only a newspaper that does not depend on advertisements, that can live on subscribers, can be in a position as it should be. A newspaper that relies on only one advertisement cannot possibly stand on solid ground. You may say that we anthroposophists are reforming the advertising business. I would like you to start with practical principles. The impractical people consider themselves the most practical because they are familiar with this subject. If they set up something new, they are not at all practical. It must be borne in mind that things must be done in a truly practical way. It will then become clear that a great many things that we imagine are not possible in practice.

Someone could easily say today: We are anthroposophists, we can easily organize things, everything should be put on a healthy basis. Certain things are in the nature of things. The advertising business cannot be reformed. If you base something on advertising, it cannot be reformed. Certain things are an inner necessity. So it is with many things that come into question in this matter, they cannot be reformed, they must be removed. Nothing can be reformed in the commercial sphere. The trade association would make no sense if it were to incorporate the principles of consumer associations and cooperatives. Our task is to ensure that what we receive is procured rationally and appropriately; commercial aspects must take a back seat. We must be sober and practical in our judgment. Our work must ensure that what is actually being implemented is that the paths of healthy, appropriate production are opened up to consumers. There is no reform in the commercial sphere. If you are dealing with a certain type of thing from the outset, you can only say: I don't want anything to do with the article, or I have to say that it is good. We must want to help healthy, appropriate production.

[Mr. Selling: draws attention to “Lucifer-Gnosis”, issues 30-32, where you can find the basics of understanding.

Dr. Steiner: The Rainer bread is just practical, that's what it's supposed to be eaten as.

H. Klepran: If not everyone can enjoy it, it's because it's living bread, in contrast to the dead bread we are used to eating.

Dr. Steiner: Found a very fine small handkerchief. Really nice! I believe it belongs to a lady.]

My dear friends!

We will see each other again tomorrow, so I will just say a few words of farewell now. We must not think, now that we have separated from the Theosophical Society, that the matter is over and that we can comfortably rest on our laurels. On the contrary, we will still have a lot to struggle for, because hatred lurks. On the other hand, I would like to say that, without being sentimental, even if it may sound so, we can say that what has been said here theosophically was a kind of prayer and that this prayer is for our own good and may end in the words that we may always bear in mind: Watch and pray.

So, my dear friends, we have finally come to the end of our meeting, but we can highlight one fact in all of this. You see, my dear Theosophical friends, something extraordinarily important seems to have taken place. One might ask: Was it a general assembly? What was it actually? When it is talked about later, it will be said, “Once upon a time...” — just as it is said in fairy tales. We were still members of the Theosophical Society in Adyar when we arrived here, but now we are no longer members. Something earth-shattering seems to have happened, but in terms of the matter, one has not actually noticed it. We are again diverging in terms of the matter, as we used to diverge, and precisely this fact, that we can do that, that we do that, is a very important one. Perhaps this does testify to how serious we were about the spiritual, about the cultivation of spiritual culture, about the content of our cause; and if we were serious about that, no form will break this content, but this content will seek its new form if the old one is challenged.

As for myself, my dear Theosophical friends, I must confess that, with regard to the external events that have occurred, I have been so touched by the matter that I must say again: things actually only differ in degree. You see, Mrs. Besant has found it necessary to make the claim, which defies all facts, that I was educated in a Jesuit school. It is so that one must take it seriously, because it is a very strong accusation in the present, and effective if it were believed in relation to the inner, to the hateful motives.

And with regard to the other underlying motives of Mrs. Besant, I find only a slight difference compared to another accusation that came across my eyes, from a letter that is one of a whole series of letters. I received a letter from Hamburg in which a lady writes that she had always been persuaded not to go to the lectures, but now she had seen for herself, because before she never went because a pastor had said that I was a Satan. I have not yet read the other letters, but there is one coming every day, sometimes two. Shortly before the lecture here in this hall, a letter was brought to me – I should definitely read it before the lecture. In the letter, a lady wrote to me that she had heard some of my lectures that she liked. But now she looked me up in the dictionary of writers to find out how old I actually am, and she discovered that I carefully dye my hair, because people my age don't have black hair anymore! So she can't come to my lectures anymore, because it would be outrageous and speak to the prevalence of such a thing.

You hear all kinds of things and finally, the accusations are to be distinguished according to the motives for how they are made effective. The motives are human, all too human, whether one or the other makes them, whether one is accused by Mrs. Besant of having been educated in a Jesuit school or by another lady because of something else. That's how people act. There are many more stories I could tell.

Something that really did meet with the enthusiastic support of our friends – the printing of the cycles – is also being made the target of attacks. I am being reproached for the fact that it says: “According to a postscript not checked by the speaker.” But there is a very simple reason for this; I don't have time to check the postscripts. They would never see the light of day if I had to read them first. The person concerned says: He – Dr. Steiner – has not looked at the matter, so he always leaves himself a back door open if he were to be caught making mistakes.

In this way, one can suspect everything, while we have really only taken into account the energetic wishes of the members. We are dealing with serious, profound, and meaningful things, and so we must be able to fully distinguish between what is a serious and sacred matter and what is an external form, and we must not sleep and believe that we can always dream and talk about the content to get ahead. The worst things could happen to us if we were not on guard, if we did not take into account the need to remain vigilant. And in this respect, I was also able to tie in with what Dr. Peipers said today, the word about keeping watch. There is also a productive way of keeping watch. That is in our nature and not in that of our opponents.

I hope that we will part peacefully, with the feeling that we will remain united intellectually.

Goodbye!

Wilhelmstraße 92/93, House of Architects

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (Theosophischen Gesellschaft), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 6/1914

At 10:30 a.m., Fräulein von Sivers opens the General Assembly with the following words:

My dear friends! On behalf of the Executive Council, I warmly welcome you to the second General Assembly, the first ordinary General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society! For as long as we have held general meetings of the Theosophical Society, it has been customary for the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society to also chair the general meeting. However, it is the right of the general meeting to elect the chair. On behalf of the board, I propose that Dr. Steiner be elected to chair this general meeting. I ask you to vote on whether you agree to this.

The meeting unanimously accepts this proposal.

Dr. Steiner: My dear Theosophical friends! We are gathered here for the first time in a regular General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, and it is my duty to greet you most warmly and to express my joy at the large number of you who have come. I would also like to express the hope that this first General Assembly of our Society will be fruitful in all respects. My dear friends, you have surely brought with you hearts filled with an anthroposophical spirit for this day, hearts throbbing with the enthusiasm that is necessary if a spiritual current is to be brought into existence in the world, a spiritual current like ours, which can certainly, without being guilty of the slightest exaggeration, be said to have to be born in pain. And from the many antecedents that have befallen us in recent times, it will indeed become clear that we have a great need to approach our task with great seriousness and a certain urgency at this time.

Before I try to continue the train of thought that I have stimulated with a few words, I would like to dedicate the word to those who have left the physical plane since we last gathered here and, as members of our movement, which is so close to our hearts, now look down on our work from the spiritual world. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize once again that those who have passed away from the physical plane will continue to be considered our members in the most beautiful sense of the word, and that we will feel united with them as we did when we were still able to greet them on this or that occasion on the physical plane.

First of all, we would like to remember an old theosophical personality, old in the sense that she was connected with what we call true, genuine theosophical life for the longest time of most of our ranks, Baroness Eveline von Hoffmann. She is one of those who have imbued their entire being and active will with what we call the theosophical attitude. Many have come to appreciate the deeply loving heart of this woman, if only because they have felt infinite strength flowing from this heart in times of suffering and adversity. Although little of this became known to the outside world, Mrs. von Hoffmann was a loyal and self-sacrificing helper to many. And we may consider it a particularly valuable thing that she, who had been involved in theosophical development for a long time, was last in our midst. And with her dear daughter, who is still with us, we will keep the memory of this loving, loyal, and helpful woman, who wants to be united with her in the spiritual world.

I also have to remember some old members who left us for the physical plane this year. I have to mention our dear old friend Edmund Eggert in Düsseldorf. If some of us perhaps know the great inner difficulties that our friend had to struggle with, the heroic strength with which he became involved in what we call our spiritual current, then those who knew the good, dear man will certainly join me in making unceasing efforts to continue to be loyal friends of our dear Eggert in the spiritual worlds. And those of the dear friends who hear this, what I say from a troubled heart, will faithfully send their thoughts to the one who has passed from the physical plane.

I also have to remember a dear, loyal member, a member who always gave us sincere, heartfelt joy when we were able to see her in our midst time and again, our dear Mrs. van Dam-Nieuwenhuisen from Nijmegen, who left the physical plane this last time, and who certainly was one of the most beloved personalities among those who were her close friends, who worked faithfully for our cause as long as we knew her, who in particular also did a great deal to ensure that our cause was appropriately represented among our Dutch friends.

I must also mention a loyal, if perhaps quieter member, who always gave me great joy when I was able to see her in the circle of our dear Nuremberg friends, Fräulein Sophie Ifftner. She was much appreciated in the circle of our Nuremberg friends, who will ensure that the way is created through their feelings so that we will always find her when we seek her in the spiritual worlds.

I would also like to mention another faithful friend who has been active within the circle of our worldview for many years. She has been tragically recalled from the physical plane to the spiritual worlds. I would like to mention one of those to whom she has become dear and precious, and who want to be and remain with her in their thoughts, Miss Frieda Kurze.

I would also like to mention our Julius Bittmann, who was torn away from his dear family and from us, until his last difficult days, the fixed point of his inner life, despite difficult external circumstances, in what we call Theosophy. It was a deep joy for me to be able to spend the evening before the death of our dear Bittmann at his side once more, and I am sure that those of our friends who were closer to this man will not fail to form the path here as well, on which the theosophical thoughts unite us with the friend in the spiritual world.

I must also mention Jakob Knotts in Munich, who was a man who, after all his various struggles in life, finally found his firm support and his definite point of reference in Theosophy, so that his friends will be his mediators in the same way.

I must also mention another friend who left the physical plane during this period. Mr. Eduard Zalbin, who had come to us from Holland, was sadly mourned by his wife and children when we saw him depart from the physical plane through a quick death. Shortly before this occurred, Zalbin was still at our last general assembly, and his departure from the physical plane had to be pointed out there.

I would like to remember an old friend of the Stuttgart Lodge, who had organized her innermost life in such a way that she associated everything she thought with Theosophy, and who will now certainly be surrounded by the thoughts of all those who knew her, Miss Duttenhofer.

I must also mention Miss Oda Wallers, who we felt was connected to our cause with all her soul, for a long time. She was one of those souls who was as loyal to the cause as a human soul on earth can be, so loyal that we not only saw this soul depart from the physical plane with deep sorrow – a sorrow that does not need to be particularly emphasized in this case because all those who knew Miss Oda Waller knew her, felt it with the deepest sympathy – but at the same time we looked up to her in the spiritual world with the most beautiful hopes, with those hopes that are justified in the case of such a faithful soul, who, like Oda Waller, has firmly established in her heart to remain connected to the theosophical cause for all time. There will be more than a few who, united with their dear sister Mieta Waller, will be in heartfelt contact with our dear Miss Oda Waller.

I have to remember our Munich friend Georg Kollnberger. Those who knew him will be our mediators when we reflect on him with our feelings and emotions.

I have to remember a dear friend in Bonn who left the physical plane not so long ago, Miss Marie von Schmid. Those who knew her feel deeply how closely connected Miss von Schmid's soul was to the spiritual life. Those who felt a close connection with Miss von Schmid, a soul so open to the spiritual life, have lost a great deal, as have those who felt a close connection with an outwardly shy and withdrawn nature. It is so pleasant to meet such a nature in life. Precisely because she was so reserved, we got to know her so little. Those who knew her understand what I mean by these words.

We have to remember a member who, in terms of his physical strength, was unfortunately taken from us all too soon, a man who was happy to put his physical strength at the service of our cause, but who will also be an esteemed member in the form in which he is now connected to us, Mr. Otto Flamme in Hannover.

I must also remember our friend Fräulein Munch, who was found in the circle of our Nordic friends in our midst, and who, after a long, heroically endured illness, despite the most careful and loving care, finally had to leave the physical plane. Perhaps those who were closest to her will have the most understanding for what I would like to say about this soul, when we consider how she clung to the theosophical cause, I would say with inner strength, and passed through the gate of death with it.

I would also like to mention a friend who had also become acquainted with our friends in Berlin and who, after long and severe suffering, has recently left the physical plane. She was fully aglow with the yearning to implement in practical life on the physical plane what shone so beautifully for her heart and soul. We are sure that she will now continue her work in other places in a way that we also assume for our dear friend Flamme from Hannover.

All those who have passed away, as well as those who have become less well known in the circles of our members, we remember in this solemn hour: Mr. Brizio Aluigi from Milan, Mrs. Julie Neumann from Dresden, Mrs. Emmy Etwein from Cologne, Mrs. E. Harrold from Manchester, and we affirm that we sense, we want to live with them in thought – with these dear departed members, who, after all, have only changed the form of their way of life for us – that we want to surround them with the forces and thoughts with which we are accustomed to connecting with those friends who have left the physical plane; we affirm this will and remembrance by rising from our seats.

Dr. Steiner continues:

My dear friends!

First of all, I have to read out some letters that have been sent to the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society.

To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society. On behalf of the Swedish members, we send our fraternal greetings and wish that the coming year may bring good success for our spiritual striving. We also express our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Steiner, Miss von Sivers and our German brothers and sisters for all that we have received in the past year.

Stockholm, January 15, 1914.
The board: Gustav Kinell, Gustaf Ljungquist,
Anna Wager Gunnarsson.

Zwolle, January 17, 1914.
Zwolle working group sends warm greetings and best wishes for the meeting.
[Gaston] Polak.

Prague, January 17, 1914.

The Prague working group sends its warmest greetings to the assembled members and asks the holy protecting powers to help us all so that we may work together to bring about a vibrant and harmonious development and prosperity of the high teachings and revelations entrusted to us. May our Society remain inwardly healthy and strong, and may it continue to be a spiritual brotherhood that brings help, consolation and blessing to all people for a long time.

Ptikryl

I am sure that you will all accept these very warm greetings with thanks.

My dear friends!

Perhaps I may, in accordance with the custom of earlier years, say something in advance to this assembly; something that is really meant not otherwise than as a kind of greeting from the bottom of my heart to your hearts and souls, a greeting that I feel so deeply this year because we are united in this way for the first time within our Anthroposophical Society. For in a sense, the constituent assembly that we had to hold last year was what we had to hold. But only this year have we been able to see how many souls want to walk with us. And it shows itself to us through your extraordinarily large attendance. Perhaps it is right, at the very point of origin of our anthroposophical endeavors, to bring ourselves face to face with what we actually want to be with our goals and endeavors. When we turn to these goals and endeavors with our thoughts, two feelings must prevail in our souls, side by side, for they can hardly go hand in hand. One is a deep awareness of the necessity and importance of the spiritual life, to which we want to be devoted in our time with seriousness and loyalty, a feeling that must be connected with the earnest desire and the striving for sufficient energy to participate in what can deepen our time spiritually. The other sentiment that must go hand in hand with the first is what one would call, not wanting to be sentimental, but precisely in order to express something quite serious: the humblest modesty. Only in the humblest modesty and in the feeling of our inability to accomplish the great task can the necessary counter-image be created in our souls to what could so easily lead to an overestimation of ourselves and to pride. Because that is precisely the most important thing: the seriousness, the importance and the dignity of spiritual striving on the one hand; on the other hand, we can only advance in the right way on the path we have chosen in the most humble modesty towards our inability. And, my dear friends, if I may now pick up on the first thought that was expressed, we must never lose sight of the need for true and honest spiritual striving in our present time.

What I would like to tell you, I must summarize here in a few words. But there are some things I do not want to leave unspoken. What is connected with the serious feelings is what must make us attentive to the whole course of the spiritual life of our time in the broadest sense. In particular, this makes it my task time and again to point out, in a way that I certainly do not seek from a different point of view, these or those other spiritual currents, which should truly not be fought in a superficial way, but only to show how little they are suited to meet the deep, serious longings of the souls of our time. But people do not yet know about most of the deep longings that are present in the souls. Unconsciously, they rest in the depths of the souls. But the spiritual scientist tries to dive down into these depths of the soul. He knows how necessary it is to make progress in this area and to integrate spiritual science into the currents of life as far as possible. People today do not always admit that there is something in the depths of the soul like the call for these spiritual necessities. But anyone who clearly sees in the eye of the mind what souls strive for without knowing it in their innermost being can find this silent, silent call for spiritual life everywhere. And this call becomes a duty in our soul: to work together on spiritual work in order to make progress in this area.

One symptom is shown of how these or those personalities fight us, how they refute us and describe the things that come to our attention through our teaching as fantastic and unscientific. Sometimes, however, they give themselves away in the way they reject something, and by rejecting us they show that in fact they agree with us at the deepest level. Perhaps one of the most daring assertions that I have often made is that the materialism of our time, the monism in [contemporary] intellectual life, is based on fear. I have had to experience it that people from the audience, especially after such statements, approached me after the lecture and were horrified by such a grotesque assertion. I will not mention any names, I will only mention one man who has already achieved a great deal for our present intellectual life, who bears a revered name in connection with the name of our great Schiller, Alexander von Gleichen-Rußwurm, who belongs to the descendants of Friedrich Schiller, and who has already achieved a great deal. I will quote his words, which—one might perhaps call it “coincidence” if one were not a theosophist—yesterday “karma” delivered to my desk:

Balzac once dared to express the wish that a professorship in occultism would be established at the University of Paris. Such a professorship, however, is not about to be established, nor is the laboratory for the purpose of researching occult things, which Schrenck-Notzing presents as a desideratum. Even today, most people, and not only the devoutly religious, feel uneasy, afraid, horrified, and physically and psychologically repelled by any study of such things. This is usually only manifested in attempts to ridicule these things and to deny their reality. It is what Madame de Staël so beautifully calls 'Le côté nocturne de notre nature', and hand on heart: we are all afraid in this nocturnal darkness.

Please pay particular attention to these words: “We are all afraid.” Here you have expressed the opposite point of view to our own, which has been expressed again and again as a result of decades of research: that all clinging to materialism arises out of fear. So, sometimes people betray themselves by saying things that show how right we are with our views. We hear, when people betray themselves, especially when they put their hand on their heart, affirmations such as: “We are all afraid in this nocturnal darkness...”. One must look at what is going on between the lines of present life. Then one will feel the justification that is emphasized by the necessity of our spiritual work.

And, my dear friends, however slowly it may proceed, we do see fruits that show us how what is sought in spiritual heights can be implemented in practical life. I would remind you of a saying that I have taken the liberty of saying and writing often in the course of the striving of our German Section: on the one hand, our task is to search for the secrets of the spiritual worlds, to make that which we can explore , to make it our spiritual heritage and to care for it among those who belong to us; on the other hand, our task is to make fruitful in the right way what we are exploring in the spiritual life in our lives, wherever we can. And we see fruits in this respect too - I would like to mention just one symptom. Souls are maturing in our midst who, we may say, are willing to carry into the place in life where they are placed, what can be won on our ground, even outside the circle of our Anthroposophical Society. Among many beautiful phenomena, let me mention one because it was deeply satisfying for me. Our young friend Karl Stockmeyer wrote a significant essay in a journal for the Baden school system about the impossibility and impracticality of what is being striven for from many sides: to use the cinematograph to teach mathematics in schools. It is wonderful to be able to guide the soul along such paths through the problems of life, where something can be gained if one engages with the way we have to approach the matter. This is exemplified by our dear young friend Karl Stockmeyer, who in such a modest way allows what has become his to be exemplary for what is meant when I have repeatedly said and written: In addition to cultivating the wisdom treasures, one should also make practical use in life of what we can gain in our souls from these wisdom treasures. I would like to sincerely request that as many of our friends as possible familiarize themselves with the unpretentious but very valuable essay.

I always want to speak only symptomatically about such things, I want to speak so that it can be seen from the example how the things are meant. What we strive for from spiritual heights can be fruitfully applied in the particular. So when we try to bridge the gap between our spiritual values and the demands of practical life, we will gain the opportunity in many ways to let real theosophical-spiritual striving, anthroposophical spiritual life, flow into the life of the present. And such a task we have, we have a task! I would like to place all the emphasis I am capable of on this simple word: we have a task to carry into the world in a proper and correct way what we recognize as being right, what we are able to research.

The mood in the world is not one that makes such a task easy. There are people who call themselves theosophists and who have done much to tarnish the reputation of the name “theosophy”. All the more reason for us to take on this task when people who believe they are at the height of spiritual culture repeatedly condemn us for giving a bad name to theosophy. For example, in a German journal, 'Die Tat', Giuseppe Prezollini uses strange words. In a lengthy essay, he describes what he means by theosophy. He starts by talking about all kinds of philosophical schools and characterizes them - one might say - wittily. Then we have the following sentence:

Theosophy and spiritualism are becoming more popular and enjoying the increased attention that all cheap imitations receive when the real product rises in price. Of course, women are not missing either, because women go wherever the wind blows, and their presence is both a sign and the best guarantee of success.

My dear friends! It is symptomatic that such things are written by people who are taken very seriously in their field. We must really bear in mind that what presents itself to our soul as a duty, that we have to regard a sacred belt in such a way that we have to stand up for it. The direct transition is made in this essay from philosophical education to the university. I would like to make the transition to the German university.

All kinds of cheap books are appearing today. There is a collection; “Bildung der Gegenwart”; in it there is the following chapter on modern theosophy:

In Germany, the Theosophical Society in Leipzig (founded in 1897) is a center of the movement. It is a branch of the “International Theosophical Fraternity,” which considers its main purpose to be “to form a nucleus of a general brotherhood that spiritually encompasses all of humanity, without distinction of race, nationality, creed, class and sex, around which the theoretically already recognized ideas of universal human love and human brotherhood crystallize, and the highest ideals of humanity can be realized.

This direction particularly appreciates the writings of the former physician Franz Hartmann, who spent a long time in India with H. Blavatsky († 1912).

Rudolf Steiner can be considered the spiritual leader of another (more aristocratic) theosophical group based in Berlin. He draws particularly on Goethe and the Romantic period. He wants to give Germanic-Christian mysticism a modern form that will also stand up to the criticism of scientific thought. In contrast to the Buddhist disdain for our world of experience, which can easily lead to quietism, he values Christianity as a source of positive life-enhancement and a powerful way of shaping life. The existence of supersensible powers is a fact that can be grasped by direct, intuitive insight. He believes that everyone can acquire this ability of intuition through training. On the basis of such inspirational insight, he gives teachings on the cosmic development of the planets and the epochs of human history, which, however, descend into wild fantasies. (Prophecies of major events, especially of violent wars and other catastrophes, are also common in theosophical circles).

Steiner regards the soul, the actual “higher self”, as an immortal force that comes from the Godhead and returns to it. (This is reminiscent of the doctrine of the nus poetikos in Aristotle and his Arabic interpreters, cf. vol. I, p. 68, 109; vol. II, p. 4.) From here, Steiner arrives at the doctrine of the re-embodiment of the soul (to which Lessing and Goethe also tended, and which Schopenhauer, in line with Buddhism, advocates).

So now anyone can educate themselves about Theosophy for little money. But what is distressing is that this is in a treatise on the “History of German Philosophy from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Present”. What is distressing is that the man who writes this refers, for example, to something that I certainly never quoted as a source: a Buddhist catechism, a superficial compilation that no serious person can use. He goes on to quote the “Secret Doctrine”. But then he gives the sources from which he has informed himself; he mentions Hans Freimark's (!) “Moderne 'Theosophie” (1912). But that is not yet the distressing thing, because if an ordinary writer had done that, it would not have meant anything for our culture. But this is written by the full professor at the University of Giessen, Dr. Messer. We learn from it how official representatives of the highest intellectual life judge us. We must conclude: this is how men who teach our youth today write.

With such conscientiousness, a licensed professor of philosophy, an official representative of science, teaches himself about things. Is one not entitled to conclude from this: if this man writes and teaches about Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, how is our youth taught today?

I do not want to say anything against the views that Messer presents against Theosophy. It is not this opposing criticism that concerns me, but how the man who writes such things informs himself about the things. What value can his explanations of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc. have if this is how the man informs himself? How, then, did that which is currently being disseminated as “science” and so accommodatingly believed by many come about? Can one not see the bleakest of circumstances here!? I am not talking about the fact that Messer is our opponent; I am talking, independently of that, about the nature of his “scientific conscience.” The final sentence in Messer's account reads:

Undoubtedly valuable ethical and religious tendencies are at work in this Theosophical movement, but only critical reflection will be able to prevent it from lapsing entirely into arbitrary and fantastic enthusiasm.

Undoubtedly, there is sometimes good will and the belief that something is known associated with what today calls itself philosophy and the like. Nevertheless, it will take a great deal of serious and genuine spiritual striving to put the incredible arbitrariness and ignorance that is spreading today into the right perspective for our time. I do not wish to shrink from pointing this out in a fitting manner, in order to show how deeply significant what I understand by seriousness and dignity is, and how it must be taken if we want to help what we call our spiritual heritage today to find its appropriate place in the world. Those who know how I avoid saying such things on all other occasions will forgive me if I put these things in their proper light on this occasion, in order to show how things stand and what tasks we must take on.

My dear friends! If, on the one hand, we link these considerations to the feeling of how serious and necessary our task is, then on the other hand, we should never forget how incapable we are, how modest we must be, how we must know how little we are actually capable of in the face of our great task. I am convinced that those who understand me will always adhere to this most humble modesty. So we must endeavor to bring our spiritual knowledge to people in such a way that we never lose the most humble modesty. If we were to take pleasure in the fact that we are compelled to speak such words, if we were to let ourselves be carried away by a feeling of superiority for a moment, it would be bad for us. We do not want to do that! We want to strive for our spiritual good in all seriousness and dignity, but we want to do so in such a way that this striving is carried by the most humble modesty, and that we carefully keep every trace of self-esteem, every trace of arrogance, away from our souls. Let this, what Karma has brought me, let this be kept in mind. I did not seek out the symptoms; they forced themselves on me. I was obliged to take Messer's book in my hands because I am obliged to inform myself about these things at the moment when I am working on a philosophical book myself. In the same way, the journal 'Die Tat' was also sent to me. This is a social monthly for German culture. I bought this, as they say, by chance from a newsagent. I really wasn't looking for these things. But I want to avoid telling you something else that I found in the farthest reaches of my mind that was similar to what I've been describing. I'll leave it at that.

I wanted to address these words as a first greeting to your souls. I think it is the best greeting I can offer you, when I speak those words that also touch me deeply, and that can contribute to our being together in the right spirit in these days, and to give an impulse for what we decide in our souls for the Anthroposophical Society, if we all decide it in the right spirit.

We come to the second item on our agenda, the report of the members of the Executive Council.

Fräulein von Sivers: The membership movement is as follows: The total number of working groups and centers is 107; of these, 47 are in Germany and 60 in other countries. The number of new members is 3,702. Of these, 19 have died and 36 have left. The total number is therefore 3,647. Of these, 2,307 belong to the working groups in Germany.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on this report? Since this is not the case, we will move on to the third item on the agenda, the financial report.

Mr. Seiler: The financial statements can be described as favorable, on the one hand because voluntary donations have been received, and on the other hand because two large items have ceased to apply, namely contributions to Adyar and contributions to congresses.

Cash report

The financial statements of the Anthroposophical Society from February 2, 1913 to August 31, 1913 are as follows [in Marks and Pfennigs]:

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on this financial report?

Mr. Tessmar: The meeting has just heard the figures that make up the final result. The two auditors commissioned to audit the books have done so and dutifully checked the accounts. It is to be said that we found everything to be correct and in order, and we can testify that the sum of 5,340 Marks 32 Pfennigs is deposited at the savings bank; the proof of this was presented to us. I would like to emphasize that this cash report covers the period from February to August 1913, and that this year was particularly difficult because three financial statements had to be prepared. The accounts have been properly and correctly prepared. I therefore take the liberty of proposing that the treasurer be granted discharge for the period from February to August.

Mr. Seiler: I would like to point out that a large number of members are unclear about the contributions. Each member has to pay five marks in entrance fees and at least six marks in annual dues. If a member belongs to a lodge or a group, they will be registered with us by the group. In this case, the group is then obliged to pay a contribution of three marks to the central fund. It is up to the individual lodges or groups to decide what contribution they charge their members. Members who do not belong to a group have to pay six marks to the central fund. The question has now arisen as to how much should be demanded from a regional group – foreign country, section. Basically, this issue is hardly acute, since the need for regional groups is hardly present. It only exists in one case. It has now been proposed to raise one mark from the members of such a regional group. At present, the dues for foreigners have been reduced to one mark to support the group. I would also like to mention that in previous years, the individual groups had to pay a fee for the charter diploma. A fee of ten marks was charged for these diplomas.

Dr. Steiner: Does anyone wish to comment on the financial report?

Fräulein Scholl: You have heard that it has been considered whether only one mark should be paid to the central fund by the individual lodges abroad for the member. However, as long as there are no national associations (no sections), there can be no reason for foreign lodges to pay only one mark in membership fees. This is simply for the reason of sending the “Mitteilungen”. In any case, it turned out that postage costs of around 80 to 100 marks had to be paid from Berlin for each issue. In 1913, seven issues were published, which resulted in additional postage costs of around 600 to 700 marks, a large portion of which was for shipments abroad. For the “Mitteilungen”, a standard rate, an annual contribution of at least two marks from each member, should also be levied. Relatively speaking, that is still very, very cheap, since a lot of the work is done for free. In other societies, much more is levied. I would like to propose levying two marks annually as a standard rate for the “Mitteilungen”.

Mrs. Geelmuyden: If it should be necessary to translate the “Mitteilungen” into foreign languages, then it might be appropriate to set the contribution so low. As long as we enjoy the same rights, it is only fair that we foreigners also bear the costs.

Mrs. von Ulrich: I would like to agree to change the membership fee and maybe make it an occult number, so that seven marks would have to be paid as a membership fee.

Mrs. van Hoek: I would like to ask whether sending the “Mitteilungen” would not be simplified by sending the “Mitteilungen” only in one package abroad, and then having the respective lodges take over the mailing to the individual members themselves?

Fräulein von Sivers: But in the future it will probably be even more necessary to address the mail personally to the individual members. The possibility has been created that a member belongs to several working groups: This also means a complication of the management. It will be necessary to start from a registry of personalities, not from branches, when sending messages and communications of any kind.

Mr. von Rainer: If I understand Mr. Seiler correctly, there are two types of members. Those who belong to a working group and those who do not belong to a working group, the latter pay six marks to the central fund. If Fräulein Scholl's proposal is accepted, each member who is directly connected to the headquarters would have to pay eight marks. I would like to propose that we accept Ms. Scholl's proposal. Each member is managed by the working group in which they pay.

Dr. Steiner: It would be a great help for the registry if each member were registered at the time of their registration and in all correspondence at the headquarters: “Member so-and-so, managed by working group so-and-so, belonging to working groups so-and-so.”

Fräulein Stinde: If we could call the working groups that are dedicated to specific studies study groups, then there would be no confusion. Dr. Steiner: But groups could also be formed that are not dedicated to a specific study. Perhaps we could just say “group” to indicate the difference. So let's note this for once, that we say “group” and call the others “working groups” to distinguish them.

Mr. Hubo: I would like to support Miss Scholl's proposal.

Miss von Sivers: Even if this proposal is accepted, the clause can remain in place that a reduction could be granted if necessary and at the request of the student.

Mr. Tessmar: Couldn't a conflict arise from the fact that it would be very difficult to account for the costs of sending the “Mitteilungen” in Mr. Seiler's account? Let's just drop the “Mitteilungen” and simply say: the contribution will be increased. That might be assumed. If the motion passes, then it must also be determined from when this increase should be introduced.

Mr. Meebold: But if one group claims the right to a discount, difficulties will easily arise. Our group in London would have nothing against an increase in dues. But they are doing it with sacrifices, and it will be more difficult for them to continue if other groups have discounts. The “Mitteilungen” thing isn't really fair, because the foreign members receive it in German.

Fräulein von Sivers: Perhaps the dues could just be increased by two marks for all German-speaking members.

Mr. Baster: I would like to ask whether it is necessary to increase the contribution at all, since the cash balance was quite favorable. One must not forget that individual lodges already have a lot to pay for. Could not those members who receive the “Mitteilungen” directly from headquarters contribute to this?

Fräulein von Sivers: I would like to point out that we are trying very hard to reduce expenses and that it would be necessary to enlarge the office space. We are forced to work under very uncomfortable external conditions at Motzstraße 17; our rooms there are quite inadequate in the long run. It is equally necessary to increase the number of employees as our society continues to grow. This year, we received a particularly large sum of voluntary contributions from the collection in Cologne before the Anthroposophical Society was founded, and we cannot count on this in the future. We have not touched them yet, in order to have something in the coffers for future cases, but we may soon be forced to make use of them because we do have to adapt external circumstances to the rapid growth of the movement.

Mr. von Rainer: If in the future it should turn out that the contribution of two marks is too much, then that can be changed again at any general assembly.

Mr. Bauer: It does not seem entirely practical to me that the two marks should be taken especially for the “Mitteilungen”; one could then do without the “Mitteilungen”. We may certainly make the request in the interest of simplifying the work: for German members, an annual contribution of five marks will be levied for the central fund; for foreigners, a contribution of three marks. If perhaps some fear that our current increase in contributions will not be met with entirely friendly feelings, I believe the matter can be smoothed over if we decide to introduce the increased contribution only for the year 1915. That is so far away that no one will be upset.

Ms. Scholl: Mr. Bauer will excuse me if I do not agree with him on this. I find this last suggestion unjustified. I would consider it right to pay an additional two marks for the past year, for the “Mitteilungen” that have already appeared. After all, one can look back on work that has already been done. You know what had to be published in the interest of our movement, and how so many members abroad in particular were able to be informed about the true events within the Theosophical movement. When you look back on it, you have to say that it has a value that cannot be paid for with two marks today. That should encourage us to pay later rather than postpone it. I propose that we stick with the first motion to raise the dues by two marks. If individual members are unable to pay these dues, then there are certainly wealthier members in the individual lodges who could step in for them. This way, no one will be harmed.

Fräulein von Sivers: Although I can understand Fräulein Scholl, who empathizes with the difficult external conditions under which work often has to be done in the cramped rooms on Motzstraße, I would still like to ask you to accept Mr. Bauer's proposal. 1915 is a normal point in time. The building in Dornach is standing, and the huge sacrifices that had to be made for the Johannesbau have been overcome. Of course, we have received proposals in which members propose an increase in contributions. Although they show a complete lack of knowledge of the situation, they are nevertheless very well intentioned. These proposals would now have to be read out.

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends! It is sometimes in the nature of such discussions that they expand endlessly. But the whole matter can be simplified. Before deciding whether to accept the more rigorous approach of Miss Scholl or the more liberal approach of Mr. Bauer, and before voting on the Sivers motion – which would create the possibility that after some time members will be happy to pay again – we must first read two motions from our Tübingen friends.

Fräulein von Sivers:

Tübingen, January 3, 1914
for Sunday, January 18, 1914,
three proposals from the plenum.
Proposal Tübingen, regarding membership fees.

A letter dated October 15, 1913, signed by Mr. Franz Seiler and attached to the membership statistics, informed the chairmen of the groups, lodges and branches of the Anthroposophical Society that our fiscal year would be changed from the September period to the calendar year and requested the advance payment of a four-mark membership fee for 16 months. This request directly contradicts the membership fee of six marks per year stated on page 6 of the draft of the principles of the Anthroposophical Society, according to which eight marks should have been charged for the aforementioned 16 months. These six marks annual contribution must be considered as intended only for the Anthroposophical Society and do not include any local membership fees.

In the interest of improving our financial situation, with due regard to our steadily growing income and expenses, the following motion is proposed:

Motion 1: The annual contribution to the Anthroposophical Society should be maintained at six marks in accordance with the draft principles, and the corresponding four-mark contribution should be levied retroactively for each member for the 1913/1914 financial year.

Furthermore, it should be noted that until the Anthroposophical Society was founded, we were obliged to pay three marks per capita membership fee to Adyar each year. This obligation to pay dues to Adyar has expired for each member upon their entry into the Anthroposophical Society.

Almost at the same moment, we have decided to regard the execution of the Johannesbau as a sacred duty, and to do our best to make it possible. Therefore, it must be considered a matter of course and unavoidable that the three marks of annual membership dues that have now been freed up by breaking away from Adyar should be donated to the Johannesbauverein.

This leads to proposal 2:

The annual membership fee of the Anthroposophical Society in the amount of six marks should be increased by a further three marks for the Johannesbau and collected retroactively for the 1913/1914 financial year.

Rudolf Schenkel.

In principle, the above motions to increase
membership dues are supported by
Christian Schuler, Bertha Hauff, Johanna Hauff, Paul Hauff.

Motion Tübingen in favor of the
Theosophical-artistic fund

The news that this year's Munich festival made a loss of around 15,000 marks, which was only whispered and only became known in a roundabout way, aroused deep indignation in many circles of our Anthroposophical Society, especially since, according to reports, previous festivals had also ended with at least a similar deficit.

However, it must be noted that such unofficial information, which gradually leaks out, is increasingly likely to arouse suspicion about the management or financial management of an organization. It should therefore come as no surprise that otherwise generous members everywhere are very reluctant to donate through their foundations.

The unfortunate consequence of such administrative techniques is the annually recurring recourse to the capital strength of individual members who are well-to-do.

This practice must be rejected out of hand in the interest of our Anthroposophical Society, because every participant in the festival would have been willing, without further ado, to pay an entrance fee that was more in line with the expenses, even double the amount, if properly informed in a manner consistent with the spirit of truthfulness.

It must therefore be deeply regretted that following the request to exchange any incorrectly issued tickets during the last days of the Munich festival, no member entrusted or charged with managing the Theosophical-Artistic Fund reported on the deficits that were growing larger every year. And if there had been even the slightest suggestion that the reimbursement of ticket prices could be waived in favor of covering the deficit, then practically minded members would certainly have gone so far as to propose that they would rather contribute to covering the previous and also the expected deficit by paying a voluntary contribution.

This would have had two practical advantages:

1. the costs incurred by the events would have been passed on to the participants to a much greater extent – and quite justifiably – and

2. the capital of the financially strong members, who were exceptionally called upon to cover the deficit, would have been reserved for our more extensive endeavors, such as the Johannesbau.

From the above considerations arises

Proposal 3: For future festival or similar events organized by the Theosophical Artistic Fund, an admission fee should be charged that is more appropriate to the value of these events and more commensurate with the costs incurred, if possible based on the previous year's financial statements.

Furthermore, consideration should be given to how, in the future, participants in such events can be made aware of the occurrence of such deficits in a dignified way and be asked to help cover them, although ideally only while they are gathered at the event and are therefore most willing to contribute financially. This will, frankly, cause many a prejudice and other thing against the management at our events to fall away and open many a hand more willingly to further donations in support of our efforts, but above all in favor of the Johannesbau.

Rudolf Schenkel.
In principle, the above motion to increase
entrance fees for the performances is supported by
Christian Schuler, Bertha Hauff, Johanna Hauff, Paul Hauff.

Dr. Steiner: You can now include these motions in the discussion.

Mr. Schuler: The author of the motion is solely responsible for the wording of the two motions. The other signatories have only endorsed them in principle. The contributions alone should create a certain basis. We have had exceptionally low contributions so far. I take the view that the lower the contributions, the lower the efficiency. The dues would surely have to be increased bit by bit. In my experience, the truly needy and poor people are the ones most willing to pay all dues and increases. Regarding the opinion on increasing the dues, I would like to say: Those who can pay three marks can also pay five marks. The individual lodges would have the opportunity to demand higher dues on their own initiative.

Dr. Unger: It was to be expected that Dr. Schuler would present a justification for these Tübingen proposals. These proposals are a serious matter. In the final analysis, it is not a question of payment here; after all, everything is moving towards the same goal. However, it is a different matter when it comes to creating clarity about the conditions that actually exist. It is not that the proposals contain truly strange things, but rather that these things are present due to a misunderstanding of the situation. We must pay particular attention to this at our Annual General Meeting, because such things are likely to cause confusion, which then proliferates again and again. These proposals speak of mistrust arising and so on. Furthermore, these Tübingen proposals show a tremendous confusion of the most diverse things. One should gradually start to distinguish between the Anthroposophical Society, the Theosophical Artistic Fund and the Johannesbau Association. In this proposal, the Theosophical Artistic Fund is placed in a kind of opposition to the Johannesbau Association and the Society itself. It is important to point this out because one should not actually base proposals on ambiguity. The matters of the Theosophical-Artistic Fund have been treated in this application out of complete ignorance of the facts. One really has no right to stick one's nose into such things. The point is that in recent years everyone has felt a sense of deepest gratitude, of deepest respect for all that is behind the Theosophical-Artistic Fund. We would never have had mystery plays today if these plays had been based on any kind of income. This is a pure gift that we accept in the appropriate way. Income and expenses do not and cannot play a role. It is a matter of course that an entrance fee is charged, but this should certainly not give anyone the right to interfere in these matters; we can only look up and accept this gift with the deepest gratitude.

The Johannesbau Association is now endeavoring to create a framework for these mystery plays. So when people talk about the fact that funds are being withdrawn from the Johannesbau through the Theosophical-Artistic Fund, it is a gross distortion. We would not need a Johannesbau if we did not have the Mystery Plays, the gift from the spiritual worlds. It is deeply regrettable that these motions have been tabled with the best of intentions. That is precisely why they are completely unacceptable.

Fräulein von Sivers: I would just like to add to what Dr. Unger said that it is one of the greatest ironies I have experienced in my working life within the Theosophical Society, which has been so rich in experiences, that what is being discussed here in this proposal has become possible. So a gift is made out of the purest, most unselfish motives, a personal, private gift. If two months of the year were not set aside for these performances, given the demands that the members place on Dr. Steiner's time, the mysteries would probably never be written at all. And it would never be possible to put on a performance in this short time if one had to ask society whether a worker could be given 50 pfennigs more or less in tips, or whether an artist could be compensated in this or that way. Anyone who knows just a little about everything that goes into a venture would give up from the outset under such conditions. The project was born out of personal initiative, and it was not even considered to ask society for contributions. How can one speak of a deficit when only expenses are calculated! How could such a low entrance fee even cover the expenses? Out of pure enthusiasm for art, to make possible something that is considered a gift, not only for society but for all humanity, the funds are given.

The Mystery Plays have been enthusiastically received, and a worthy setting had to be created for them. The Johannesbau was created from this idea. So it cannot be said that it is the more enduring. Many of us are convinced that these dramas will live longer than a building made of wood and stone.

Now it has proved expedient for the Theosophical Artistic Fund to provide an address for donations for the building. These will be receipted with the note “Theosophical Artistic Fund for the Johannesbau”. So they have nothing at all to do with the performances and are kept strictly separate from them.

Fräulein Stinde: The Theosophical Artistic Fund was set up so that the mystery plays could be performed and only secondarily for the Johannesbau. Of course, we older members who set up the fund find it easier to understand all this than the younger members. That would be an excuse. But they could still know what it is about. Of course, most people don't appreciate the monetary value of art and performances; they don't realize that when a new play is performed in a theater, the costs amount to 60,000 to 80,000 marks. Thanks to the great willingness of our artists to make sacrifices, we are only able to make such performances possible; it would be impossible if we had to pay our artists. The entrance fee that is charged cannot be counted against the costs.

Mr. Bauer: One more comment! It would be easy to say at first that a good opinion underlies the request, and therefore the rest could be overlooked. But we don't want to cloud the issue ourselves; we have to look at this opinion at its core. It may be well meant, but if we look closely, this good feeling has a heavy shadow. Otherwise this proposal would not be possible, because it could only come about from a bad opinion of others. One does not assume a sense of truthfulness in others. We must also be clear about this; specifically, he presents a good opinion based on mistrust.

Dr. Steiner: My dear friends! We still have a great deal of work to do in the so-called business part of our General Assembly. Now, however, we must allow the time to come when some refreshment must be taken for the less intellectual organs. This point cannot be postponed any longer, because our stomachs would not be able to appear in such a way with the tea that is offered to us here at six o'clock that we would be able to achieve as much as possible. So we will now take a break and meet again here at four o'clock this afternoon to continue our negotiations.

Adjourned at 1:30.

The negotiations adjourned at 1:30 will resume at four o'clock.

Fräulein von Sivers: The many arguments about the financial situation were perhaps quite useful in order to be able to know what the situation is. But since we have to make such strong demands on the willingness of the members of the Johannesbau this year, I hereby make the request that the assembly refrain from increasing the membership fee this year and break off negotiations on this point.

The proposal is adopted.

Mr. Walther: I propose that we also not enter into negotiations on the two Tübingen proposals, but rather assign them to the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society for resolution.

Mr. Schuler: I have no objection to this, but I would like to emphasize that these are not “Tübingen proposals”. The proponent is responsible for the proposals. The others have only agreed to the increase in contributions.

Dr. Steiner: The term “Tübingen motions” was not intended to refer to the Tübingen working group; it was meant only geographically, just so that the motions came from the city of Tübingen.

The proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner: We now come to the proposal of our auditor, Mr. Tessmar, to grant discharge to the treasurer and cashier.

The assembly grants this discharge.

Dr. Steiner: It will be necessary to deal with the Boldt proposal as the next proposal. I am obliged to present this Boldt proposal and to provide a little background information so that we are able to discuss this proposal in a reasonably objective manner.

Mr. Ernst Boldt, a member of the Munich I working group, wrote a paper in 1911 that was published by Max Altmann in Leipzig at the time: “Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural and Spiritual Science”. I would like to explain Mr. Boldt's intentions with a few words from the brochure that was sent out by the publishing house at the time and from which I will read a few passages:

This book stands out from the abundance of modern sex literature in a unique and purposeful way. It occupies a special position in that it seeks to establish the scientific basis and framework of an independent philosophy of sex and thus to open up new perspectives on life, independently of contemporary research. The inadequacy of the relevant literature, which mostly only gropes around the outside and surface of these problems and not infrequently speculates on the hidden lustfulness of the reader, prompted the creation of this thoroughly honest and solemnly written book. It can therefore lay claim to attention in the widest circles, because it offers the thinking person, who must be highly dissatisfied by the common vituperation of this topic, a wealth of new perspectives and rich thought content.

This is indeed a new publication that will, over time, provide the most important impetus and will truly break new ground for all sexual research. It is a fundamental work of sexual philosophy that literature has yet to match.

The author initially bases his ideas on the results of modern science, but in order to do full justice to his subject, he finds it necessary to supplement and deepen these with the little-known and much-misunderstood extrasensory or occult findings of spiritual or secret science (theosophy). Despite his spiritual research methods, Boldt agrees with the monists insofar as they remain on the firm ground of true science and do not stray into the barren swamps of materialism through vague hypotheses; but he turns with implacable severity against the dualists and their culturally backward tendencies. The author himself stands beyond monism and dualism, since both mean only stages of human knowledge to him. Seen from a higher vantage point and illuminated by the light of spiritual research, 'the world reveals itself in a completely new form. And the author had to base his explanations on this in order to enable a real solution to such profound problems.

Boldt has a calm and confident command of his subject and thus does justice to a great task. In seven concise treatises, he reveals the deepest mysteries of the past, present and future of human nature in terms of sexuality. It is precisely these broad views of the past and the future that sharpen the eye tremendously for the present state of things. Certainty about the “where from” and “where to,” which has always been the greatest concern of the deeper thinker, also sheds light on the “why,” allowing people to most clearly recognize their most pressing tasks. In this

sense, Boldt gets to the root of the problems. The simple and clear style facilitates understanding of the complicated, occult facts, which have so far remained inaccessible to both the layman and the academic, and which are presented and explained in the strangest of images. Although the reader must initially accept these “facts” without question, the explanations that Boldt bases on them meet the requirements of a self-contained, strictly logical thought process that can withstand any criticism. The author provides more detailed information about the sources from which the occult ideas in his book are drawn in the introduction and in a corresponding appendix.

The book is of equal interest to men and women, scholars and laymen.

This is what is known in the book trade as a “blurb”, which is always added to books when they are first published. I don't know who wrote this particular blurb; sometimes authors write their own. But I don't want to claim that in this case, I just want to mention a very common usage in this instance, because not all of our members are informed about the practices of book distribution.

If I were to tell the story of how I came to write this book, which culminates in my arguments, I would have to keep you waiting a very long time. I don't want to do that, but I would like to mention that Mr. Ernst Boldt originally intended to cover this subject, which was then condensed into his 1911 book of 148 pages, in a great many volumes. Then various things led him to make this short extract from his so-called “research”. I may well admit that long before this book was written, Mr. Boldt's various views and pretensions were brought to my attention by Mr. Boldt himself, according to various practices existing in our society, and that I was not in a position to Mr. Boldt made to me at the time – with the exception of the obvious, which is to tell a younger man: He should move in this or that direction in the field of thought so that he can move forward and also to give this or that piece of advice that you yourself consider good. Then, after this advice had been given, Mr. Boldt came to write this book. He also wrote me a letter of many pages, while the book was actually already in print. I am really not always able to respond to all such requests and to deal with all the details of what is in the literary intentions of our members. I also think it better if someone has the pretension to appear scientifically literary that he proves less in need of support in such a case. Now the book was published. Mr. Boldt had the obvious requirement that not only our various Theosophical working groups should display the brochure for this book – I have read it out so that you can judge it – in the lodge rooms in order to do their part for this book, but he also had the requirement, which is evident from his current behavior, that I should recommend the book in our circles; indeed, even assumes that the various measures or lack of measures that he criticized so sharply can be traced back to the fact that I did not recommend this book, and that I—despite Mr. Boldt's statement that I personally often asked how things were going with his book—never gave any information other than one that was “neither warm nor cold” when he asked me about it. You can understand that an author may easily feel that a piece of information is neither warm nor cold to him if it is not given to him exactly as he had imagined it. But not only did I have reasons not to deviate from a judgment that is “neither warm nor cold,” but I also had my good reasons, which I did not conceal from Mr. Boldt, in a gentle way, not to recommend the book. There will be more to say about some of this later, so I will mention the main reason I gave to Mr. Boldt first. I told him, roughly, that the book still has a very immature, amateurish character, and that this is especially evident from the fact that the whole execution is such that you can't do anything with it if you really want to get involved with the subject. Despite the cover, which says that it is a new publication that will change the whole of sex research over time, the book is actually such that, in my humble opinion, no one, even if they are responsive to the issues at hand, can really learn much from it.

There would have been only one reason – I don't know if anyone of those who know me better could see this as a reason for me in this case – to recommend this book: it contains many praiseworthy and laudatory things about myself. But that is no reason for me to recommend the book just because Mr. Boldt praises me. And I must confess that I would have preferred it if what I have endeavored to produce over decades in various fields of knowledge had not been presented in such a way in a book. The fact that someone pays all kinds of adulation that refers to me will never be a reason for me to give a special recommendation about anything; the only reason for this can be the quality of the performance.

So I did something for which, in addition to all the reasons I have given, there was another reason that could perhaps be appreciated: that it is my right to remain silent about something! I don't know if anyone doubts that I am entitled to do so? If one were to doubt that I am entitled to remain silent about anything, I would have to regard that as the worst kind of tyranny. If someone, as in this case, comes to me with the assumption that I am obliged to recommend this or that and would be acting incorrectly if I did not do so, I would have to regard that as the harshest and most terrible imposition that can possibly be placed on a human being. For I would like to know what would become of the freedom of mankind if a society were founded in which the person to whom some people adhere is obliged to recommend a book or other article by a member? You can imagine the tyranny that could result. So it happened that I could not give such a recommendation. I could give you many reasons for this; perhaps that could be done in the course of the negotiations. But our friends – perhaps with the exception of the 25 percent to which Mr. Boldt refers – did not particularly enjoy this work either. So it was left out of consideration. The great “injustice” has been done: this book has been ignored, let us say, has not been bought! My friends! In the past few days, a large number of us have received a brochure that now reads as follows:

Please pass this on!
Munich, January 1914.

Dear Members of the Anthroposophical Society! The undersigned respectfully takes the liberty of personally informing the esteemed members of his recently self-published work “Theosophy or Anti-Theosophy? - A Free Word to Free Theosophists”. In it, the author seeks, in the interest of our great cause, to shed light on various abuses within our circles and to bring them up for discussion at the upcoming second general assembly. The writing is of an intimate nature and therefore cannot be published by a bookshop. It is “printed as a manuscript” and is addressed exclusively to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, for whom this topic is likely to be of particular interest.

With theosophical greetings
Ernst Boldt, Munich, Adelheidstraße 15/111

Then, at the bottom, is the order form. A few days after the brochure appeared, I received the pamphlet “Theosophy or Antisophy? — A Free Word to Free Theosophists” from Ernst Boldt. The brochure contains the following words:

The writing is of an intimate nature and therefore cannot appear in bookstores. It is “printed as a manuscript” and is addressed exclusively to the members of the Anthroposophical Society, for whom this topic is likely to be of particular interest.

In the “preliminary remarks” of the brochure, I immediately read the words:

The following observations are taken from the manuscript of a larger work in the process of being written. They formed the first introductory chapter. However, since the completion and publication of this extensive work may be delayed for years due to the unfavorable economic and health conditions of the author, it seemed advisable to publish these observations now as an independent work, initially within our circles. Whether these remarks will be taken up in the Anthroposophical Society or not will determine whether they should later be included in the work intended for the general public, which has been temporarily set aside by this announcement.

So, it is said, if the members are well-behaved and accommodating, it will be refrained from being carried out to the wider public; but if the members do not behave well, this printed “manuscript” may perhaps be presented to the wider public after all. However, it is very strange that this was only learned after the booklet had been purchased. I did not buy it, because it was sent to me for free. This booklet – which is not to be read out because it is not desired – contains many accusations against the backwardness and ignorance of the members of our “Anthroposophical Society”, who, in their developmental naivety, ignore such things that address the most important problems of the present.

My dear friends, had the whole matter come to me before the program of our present General Assembly was sent out, I would have had – not exactly because of Boldt's proposal, which has more symptomatic significance, but for other reasons that could arise from the negotiations - I would have had reason enough not to give the four lectures announced, “The Human and the Cosmic Idea”, and instead to speak about the inferiority of some scientific work in the present day. For there is much that can be said about the subject that is called “sexology and related subjects”, which could one day provide an opportunity to say a few necessary words to those who hold many dubious views on this point at the present time, not to say it to our members, but so that our members can counter many of the corresponding pretensions in the present day by advancing the thought processes presented through their own research.

In the brochure “Theosophy or Antisophy?” the author relies heavily on Nietzsche as a fighter against ascetic ideals, and Mr. Boldt finds that he needs to tell our members the truth quite bluntly. On page 28, he writes:

It is entirely in the interest of keeping the Christian-Theosophical blood of life pure when we seriously warn against its parasites.

However, Mr. Boldt does not look for these “parasites” among the 25 percent who are in favor of him, but among the other 75 percent.

However “occult” they may behave, these “believers” are nothing more than a lively swarm, a lot of love, a lot of folly, a lot of non-bearded worship... anyone who knows the fleeting, cowardly human race should not believe in these springtimes and colorful meadows!

Woe betide if these half-wits spoil everything here too – there is no lack of tendency in that regard! For the intellectual posing as a Theosophist, to whom Theosophy means little more than a fashion, a kind of sport, is undoubtedly more dangerous to the anthroposophical movement than the monist who is disappointed in Theosophy. If the yearning flirtation with ascetic ideals, which is already “good form” in Theosophical circles, also becomes dogma and an epidemic, then we can no longer refrain from exclaiming indignantly with Nietzsche: “All our ‘reverence for the ascetic ideal, provided it is honest!’ But we may 'all these coquettish...

here the printer was probably unaware that he should have used a z instead of a g; for Nietzsche writes “Wanzen” and not “Wangen”, and since I do not believe that Mr. Boldt wanted to speak of the “flirtatious cheeks” of our members, I assume that the printer stumbled here.

... cheeks whose insatiable ambition is to smell of the infinite, until the infinite smells of bugs.

One cannot demand that the members of the Anthroposophical Society always be treated politely; nor can it be said that the least has been done here to be reasonably polite. There is not much politeness in the other sentence either:

In the interest of the great cause, which seems to me to be endangered by this behavior, I long for the day when Dr. Steiner will say with Nietzsche's Zarathustra: “Let them go and fall... and do not complain! Better still blow with rustling winds among them, - blow among these leaves,... that all that is withered may flee from you even faster!

(“On the Renegades.”)

So much for the tenor of how – and I am addressing the other 75 percent – you are addressed yourself. I myself am addressed in a peculiar way. If I put before me the figure in which I appear, then allow me to characterize it with an expression that is perhaps better understood in Berlin and the surrounding area than in the circles further outside this narrower country – that I say: the person who appears under the name “Dr. Steiner” seems to me like a “Konzessions-Schulze in the disguise of a superman”. That is more or less how I must appear after what I am portrayed as in this book. I don't know how widely this expression will be understood; but members who live further away and don't understand it can ask their friends in Berlin what a “Konzessions-Schulze in the disguise of a superman” is. Among other things, it is said that I have a right to do everything I do, but that because I have to make a pact with the 75 percent of the backward ones - those who are supposed to run away and who will contribute to the fact that infinity will one day smell of bugs - I am forced to say what my true opinion is. What I should actually have said about Mr. Boldt's book, I don't know; but in any case, I am the one who wears masks and has to rely not on telling the truth, but on saying what is pleasant for his 75 percent followers. So I appear in a very peculiar light:

I repeat: a philosopher as a great educator may and must be reserved with his true thoughts and judgments; he has the right and the duty to use masks and gestures. But should there not be a limit that must not be exceeded? The logical fictions and false judgments, which are undoubtedly necessary and fruitful for the theosophical movement in a certain initial phase of development, must have a hindering and paralyzing effect as soon as this development enters a second, higher phase. In other words, if these fictions and false judgments are part of the conditions of the former group and current, they must be felt by the second as a paralyzing poison.

Then it is said that it would indeed be necessary to gradually change tack, with the following words:

But in The Will to Power there is also an essay (980) that sheds even more light on this subject and can be applied to Dr. Steiner's powerful personality: “Let us imagine a philosopher as a great educator, powerful enough to draw long chains of generations up to him from a lonely height, then we must also grant him the uncanny prerogatives of the great educator. A great educator never says what he himself thinks, but only what he thinks about a matter in relation to the benefit of the person he is educating (and wants to be thought about it, I might add). In this pretense, he must not be guessed at; it is part of his mastery that one believes in his honesty. He must be capable of all means of discipline and punishment: he can only bring some natures forward by lashes of the whip of scorn, others, the indolent, the indecisive, the cowardly, the vain, perhaps with exaggerated praise. Such an educator is beyond good and evil; but no one must know it.

It's strange: what you have had to experience over the years! I must say: I do not want to expand the term “concessionary school in the disguise of the superman” any further, but only state a few things about how the 75 percent of the members who do not belong to Mr. Boldt are treated, and how I myself am treated, so that you may know a few things even if you have not been prompted by the brochure to read it. The brochure was sent to me together with the following letter:

Munich, January 9, 1914,br> Adelheidstraße 15/III

Dear Dr.

Since summer 1911, I have repeatedly asked you for a factual statement about my book (“Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural Science and the Science of the Spirit”), which was published at the time. Since you have given me only inadequate, contradictory, evasive and confusing answers to my private questions and have repeatedly promised me “critical marginal notes” on my book but have repeatedly promised me, I saw myself compelled, for reasons of spiritual and intellectual self-preservation, to deal with this embarrassing and distressing subject in a pamphlet (“Theosophy or Anti-Theosophy? - A Free Word to Free Theosophists”) and to submit it to you as my contribution to the second General Assembly, with the urgent request that you take a stand on it in the next few days. I have announced the publication of my writing by sending 2,500 brochures to all branches of the Anthroposophical Society and have already sent out a number of copies; I may therefore assume that the content of the brochure is known at the General Assembly. Although the dam of cold objectivity may be breached here and there by the stream of feelings in my remarks, I know that you will have to call me to order strictly for this, but I would still ask you to always separate the factual content from the jagged form and not to give the latter too much weight. In any case, I ask for leniency as far as the form is concerned; not everything is meant as badly as it may appear in the rigid print on paper. I have not named any personalities and certainly did not want to offend anyone. It is in itself quite unimportant who said this or that, but the fact that it was said is what I could not get over. Should anyone feel offended, however, well, he may justify himself as best he can, or apologize and regret his behavior. I will certainly not be unreceptive to it. Whoever knows how much I have suffered from these things over these years will understand that I could not remain silent any longer. And you, dear Doctor, should know first that it was only pain that guided my pen. If freedom and independence, truth and truthfulness are not to remain empty phrases or abstractions in our circles, then these words, wherever they take on concrete life, must also be respected and duly appreciated; otherwise, the same applies to us as to what Lykophron of Phrygius says (pages 24-25): “You are all shadows without life, larvae without will” and so on. But we want to be free men indeed, over whom the sun of Christ can rejoice. I still remember exactly your wonderful words in Düsseldorf (1909) about the praise of the ability to make “first judgments”. At the time, you lamented finding this ability so undeveloped in our circles, where you would so much like to encounter it. Well, I did not wait to be shown the way to take a step – I did not need to be seduced or goaded – I had the strength, the courage and the good conscience for my “first judgment”! – I hope it is not misunderstood and held against me as a crime – I passed it with the best of intentions.

Since it is financially and physically impossible for me to come to Berlin myself, I kindly request that this letter be read at the general assembly.

With deepest admiration yours, Ernst Boldt.

In the last few days, the explicit request has been made to discuss this letter first and to add the following:

Munich, January 15, 1914.
To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, Berlin.

Dear Doctor!

As was to be expected, my brochure has caused a storm to rage against me, especially here in Munich. This is also expected to continue in Berlin at the upcoming general assembly. Since it is unfortunately not possible for me to attend the meeting for the reasons mentioned, and to defend myself against any attacks and distortions of my intentions, I would like to kindly ask you, dear Doctor, to read this written material yourself in the order given, or to have it read.

The evening before yesterday, Director Sellin delivered to me the order of our lodge board to declare my resignation from the local lodge I, otherwise I would have to consider myself already excluded. From this I may well conclude that our board feels offended by my pamphlet. It is therefore to be assumed that he will speak in his defense at the general assembly, and in the sense in which he has already spoken here. He has claimed that I have besmirched him and a number of members from top to bottom with dirt, that I have severely insulted Dr. Steiner and accused him of moral cowardice, as reported to me by Director Sellin, who also made these claims.

I must protest in the strongest possible terms against this understandable but nevertheless outrageous distortion of the facts, against these objective untruths. It is not true that I threw mud at the ladies; I only pointed out facts in strong words and castigated the excesses that will have to get out of hand if we do not work energetically against them in time. In saying this, I was only expressing the convictions of about 25 percent of our members; if they now also have the courage to openly stand up for their convictions, this would certainly be in the interest of our great cause. It is also untrue that I severely insulted Dr. Steiner and accused him of moral cowardice. Only very superficial thinking, unacquainted with deeper psychology, can make such unfounded assertions. Those who are sensitive to nuances and have eyes for true greatness of mind and character will have to admit that this serious accusation does not apply to me in any way; rather, I have fully and completely done justice to the great mind and character of this superhuman personality, who, for his extraordinary purposes and goals, must also make use of extraordinary means and methods. Even if at one point, on pages 25-26, I asked for clarification regarding some points that had long weighed heavily on me, I believe that this is my good human and intellectual right.

On pages 25-26 of the brochure, the words can be read:

My question pains me deeply, but it must nevertheless be asked: Does Dr. Steiner do the “in the field of theosophy working”, who have not only made the cultivation and dissemination of the existing treasure of extrasensory knowledge their mission, but also “wherever it can be, observe where life needs and can experience a deepening by the theosophical way of thinking' - does Dr. Steiner not do them an injustice when he ignores their honest striving, apparently as a result of their compromising with backward groups and currents, as inadequate or inadmissible? And further I ask: Theosophy, which disregards every possibility of “making the highest realizations fruitful for the most everyday things of life”, as certain circles have proved by their behavior, does not lead in the best way “to things to which it should least lead to: the formation of sects, narrow-minded dogmatics and so on, which leads to a theosophical priesthood and sisterhood, which I already warned against so energetically in Düsseldorf, because I saw it coming for sure? Dr. Steiner, forgive me for asking this last question: If he is inclined to preserve the Theosophical Society in its primitive, initial stage by suppressing efforts of my kind, then he seems to me to be cutting off the lifeblood of this movement in its progressive impulses and thus falling into an unfathomable contradiction with himself.

Should the anthroposophical movement ever need a Luther in the future, which is likely, he can refer to me as his modest forerunner, who is willing to be fried for his convictions, mindful of the words: “Here I stand - I cannot do otherwise - God help me - Amen!”

That is there, as required by “good human and intellectual law.” I continue to read the letter to you:

Not everything is immediately clear and transparent to me, because I am not concerned with mere allegiance, which is certainly very cheap. As we know from him, Dr. Steiner has to defend himself against the blind adoration of these followers, as if they were astral clouds that block his work. I don't want any part in the formation of these astral clouds, I don't have the talent for that. I have no doubt that Dr. Steiner does not feel at all offended or accused of moral cowardice by my profound remarks. I am also convinced that Dr. Steiner will take the serious questions and honest striving of an independent thinker seriously again. Those who, like me, strive to understand rather than to admire, will best protect themselves against desertion and subsequent opposition. After all, “we should not show external reverence and admiration for our teachers, but we should strive for their understanding.” (Messages No. X, p. 3.)

This “aspiration” is quoted from the messages no. X, page 3, where the sentence is: “We want to be praised less, but understood more diligently.” - Now Mr. Boldt continues:

And that is the great crime of which I am accused by the blind admirers and admirers. “O sancta simplicitas!” - If only the Theosophists would take their Theosophy more seriously, they would not have so much time to admire and criticize, and would not compromise themselves so embarrassingly with their accusations...

Anyone who was present at the cycle in Düsseldorf in 1909 will know that it was Dr. Steiner himself who drew my attention to this $4 in Nietzsche's “Beyond Good and Evil,” with the words: ” The questioner (who was none other than me) once quoted 2sche; now, he should also be familiar with $4 in Beyond Good and Evil, where Nietzsche posits the sentence: “The falsity of a judgment...” and so on. This just needs to be understood correctly, and the questioner will understand me if he understands Nietzsche. This sentence also applies to the theosophical movement: if it is to be fruitful in a certain sense, then it does not depend on the pure truth, but... and so on, as I have reproduced almost literally on p. 16 of my writing.

There are the words that a great educator can tie up anything to people if they only believe in his honesty.

Well, I have understood Nietzsche and through him Dr. Steiner better than my indignant accusers. If they want to make up for what they have neglected and work their way to a deeper understanding of their great teacher, then they will also have to acquit me of the offence of which they now accuse me. So much for now in this point for my justification.

Furthermore, I am accused of vindictiveness due to hurt vanity as a writer because the ladies did not do any propaganda for my book. I understand this argument perfectly in view of the mentality of my judges; but nevertheless I must acquit myself of this accusation in every sense. I therefore expressly repeat that I have a completely impersonal interest in these conditions and processes. When I wrote my brochure, I was well aware that the personal impact and the sharpness of my speech would make it easy for my opponents to twist it into a rope. And yet I could not bring myself to change my mind; after all, I am addressing my writing only to free and insightful Theosophists, and I expect them to be able to distinguish between the factual content of my writing and its sharp form. In this sense, the board of a larger lodge wrote to me today, whom I do not know personally, but who addresses me in the name of his lodge or in the name of the few free and insightful: “Our dear Mr. Boldt”: “Your brochure is a painful call! But the good in it will be drowned out by the reproach that will be made to you by those who think they are “chosen”: that the non-acceptance of your book is to blame!” - This, however, was the starting point of my considerations; as such and in itself it is quite unessential and accidental. Only the conditions and events that attached themselves to it as an independent event were essential and necessary. Just as I do not feel personally attacked and hurt by this rejection, so it is not my intention to attack or hurt anyone personally, which is also criticized, and to which I can only reply with Nietzsche: “I never attack people; I only use the person as a kind of powerful magnifying glass with which one can make visible a general, but insidious, and hardly comprehensible state of emergency.” – (“Ecce homo” 1.7.) So much in general; in particular, I have the following to add. After I sent out the brochures, I was asked in writing in the most amiable way by our board to pin them up in the hallway and put them on the library table or distribute them to the members at the door themselves. Nothing else could be arranged without favoritism. I then enclosed the following lines with my brochure mailing:

Munich, January 10, 1914.

Dear Countess, dear Miss Stinde!

I was pleasantly touched by your willingness to help with the publication of my last brochure. I was actually quite surprised, all the more so because I still had feelings about you that you had caused about 2.5 years ago with the brusque way in which you responded to my request to announce the first brochure. While you have given me enough time to think about the step I have now taken, you have done nothing to make up for what you neglected to do, nor to apologize for it. If you had shown me even half as much kindness back then, this brochure, dictated by pain, could have remained unwritten. I deeply regret that it had to be written, but I also hope that it will not be without effect. This in response to your kind words. More details about this matter will be discussed at the upcoming general assembly in Berlin.

Kind regards, sincerely, Ernst Boldt.

In response to this, I received the following letter, which I can share here without incurring the accusation of indiscretion, due to its factual content:

Munich, January 11, 1914.

Dear Mr. Boldt!

Even before I can read your brochure, I would like to answer your card, which arrived earlier, to avoid any misunderstandings. According to this, you are surprised that we are accommodating you regarding the announcement of your last brochure, while we had to refuse to announce your first brochure. Perhaps you missed a lodge evening about 18 months ago, when we announced the following. We said then that it had always been our custom not to publicize any programs for works or lessons or other matters of our members in the lodge, that we had never hung any programs or brochures or the like in the library or in the hallway because it could have opened the floodgates to all manner of extolling of the work, leading many of our members to believe that we or even Dr. Steiner endorsed it. (Unfortunately, we have had more than enough experiences of this kind.) We were then asked by another lodge to provide the addresses of our members so that they could send a brochure. However, since we consider giving out our members' addresses to be an indiscretion, but still wanted to accommodate our friendly lodge, we decided, albeit very reluctantly, to display these brochures in the library and to pin them up in the hallway, thereby overturning an old principle and now also allowing all our members to display their programs and brochures in the library or pin them up in the hallway. Since then, our members have made much use of this permission, as they must have noticed, right? So displaying your brochure was not a concession on our part, but simply the result of the decision made by the lodge's board at the time. This from the board. – Personally, I would add that for me, there is no reason to apologize to you and I would not want to go back to that tone and manner. If you had donated your work to the library with an inscription stating that it was given by the author, as other writers do, that would have been the best way for the members to have read the book and commented on it.

Yours sincerely,
Countess Pauline Kalckreuth.

I am enclosing my response to this letter (copy) with the urgent request that it be read at the general assembly. It touches on a topic that urgently needs to be discussed in the interest of our cause and complements the content of my brochure. This letter was not read here on the last evening of the lodge, and I had to take the severe attacks by Director Sellin upon myself without being able to refute them or defend myself because I had already been expelled from the lodge. Therefore, I ask once again, politely but urgently, that this letter also be made known.

Finally, I would like to repeat my request for leniency regarding the harshness of my writing, which I condemn in a sense myself. After all, it has helped to hit the nail on the head and provide an unambiguous description of the hardships and events discussed. But let uncompromising severity and objectivity prevail as regards the content of my writing. Here I claim no mercy, no compassion; here I want to find an incorruptible judge. Should my expulsion from the Anthroposophical Society really be necessary in the interest of our cause, then I will submit to it, for I do not wish to serve myself but the cause, and in this case I am happy to sacrifice myself for the benefit of your great work. That is, after all, the fate of the firstlings. At least I will have the satisfaction of having set the ball rolling and thus achieved what I set out to do. May I be judged on the basis of my sharp polemics – after me there will come someone who will say the same thing and much more in terms of content, but who will not take a personal starting point for doing so and will avoid all polemics on principle. I would like to have broken the ice for him and paved the way – and this too is entirely in the interest of our great and lofty cause.

I remain in the most sincere veneration and unchanging loyalty,

Yours sincerely, Ernst Boldt

Munich, January 14, 1914.

To the board of the Munich branch of the Anthroposophical Society

Frau Gräfin Pauline von Kalckreuth Munich.

Dear Countess!

Please allow me to offer a few thoughts in response to your esteemed letter of the 11th of this month. Based on this, it could appear as though you are entirely in the right and I, beset by error, have taken hasty action. To superficial thought and appearances, this seems obvious. On the basis of deeper reflection, however, this is not the case at all, as I will show.

I knew very well that some time after my first prospecting affair, such a decree was announced in the lodge, and I also noticed the application of this new decree. But I also knew that this break with the old principle was not a free, insightful act of our board. You yourself admit that you were only “very reluctant” to decide to overturn this old principle. Ideologically, in spirit, you still represent this backward principle today, and that is the crucial point – formally, outwardly, you had to break with it because the spirit of freedom and progress cannot be kept in chains in the long run. As everywhere, and at all times, it had to enforce its just rights here too, since it is never voluntarily granted.

At the time, I complained to various quarters about this restrictive principle, which is unworthy of the free spirit of our movement, and this will not have remained without effect. I knew very well that nothing more should stand in the way of the publication of this second brochure, since the same rights apply to everyone. I was only extremely gratified and surprised by your kind offer, without my having asked for permission to distribute the brochure in the lodge, because I had no intention of making use of this favor this time, since I had already sent about 300 brochures to about 50 addresses of our Munich members. I therefore expressly repeat: it was not the permission to distribute my brochure that I addressed as an unexpected concession, but only the unsolicited willingness, the kind invitation to do so, which should be very understandable. This on my part to avoid any misunderstandings.

To stay with the matter at hand, I would like to briefly discuss why I called the old principle, which you only “very reluctantly” overthrew, backward and incompatible with the free spirit of our movement. First, a preliminary question: Don't you have any sense that there is something hurtful for these members in the assumption that our members could make the “most conceivable recommendations” to us in the lodge? But let us assume that not everything that is announced is theosophically tenable; how can we develop our independence and judgment if the executive committee anxiously withholds from us everything that could help us to develop our ability to make “first judgments”; if, in other words, we are so carefully patronized. Eating alone makes you fat, thinking alone strengthens the mind. I am reminded of the unrefined way in which we were recently patronized in the case of Fidus, the lecture. An approach that caused widespread outrage - but, as so often, many fists remained in their pockets. As adults, members should be left to form their own opinions about the things that come up to them. If they are not considered capable of it, “then away with all hypocrisy of freedom and independence. Just say: the Theosophists have to wait ‘to take a step that you can ’show them the way and so on. (Based loosely on Steiner: ‘Philosophy of Freedom’, pp. 155-156, and Schur &: ‘The Children of Lucifer’, pp. 24-25).

Returning to your letter, I would like to continue. Regarding the tone and nature of your rejection at the time, to which you do not wish to go back, I maintain my view that you, as the board, were at fault on this point and should therefore have apologized to me. I would like to remind you of the inappropriate phrases you used at the time: “I cannot possibly mention such a dirty subject in the lodge” and “We do not do any propaganda for theosophical books in the lodge”. These are two objective untruths; firstly, the area of procreation and reproduction, the area of human sexuality, is neither dirty nor clean in itself; it is a neutral area of nature that we simply have to take into account in the interest of our racial and spiritual development. As a lodge executive committee, you should be clear about this. Perhaps you could find out about the nature of this area from Dr. Steiner: “Lucifer-Gnosis, first edition, issue 23, page 345, where it says, among other things: ”In fact, noble divine powers are at work in this (dirty?) area, regulating and organizing... Refinement... but not destruction... of this whole area... is what occult science teaches,” and what I too have taught and advocated in my book in a way that cannot be misunderstood. According to Dr. Steiner, their tendency to regard this area as ‘dirty’ can ”only be the result of occult principles that have been misunderstood and distorted into misleading asceticism.

From this explanation it follows that my book cannot be un-Theosophical, which any unbiased reader will confirm. Since you have not corrected these two prejudices to date, I must assume that you still hold this untenable point of view for a lodge board, which makes me feel offended and insulted in my Theosophical honor. Formally, everything would have been fine if you had simply informed me objectively about your lodge principle, which was still unknown to me at the time, but not in such a harsh, insulting way, without having read my work. I make this accusation not to you personally, but to you in your capacity as a lodge board member, as a member.

I find your belated suggestion that I should have donated my book to the library to be bluntly naive. You can't seriously be trying to persuade me that the library would have accepted my book – and even if it had, that it would then have been lent to members. If such “dirty behavior” could not be mentioned in the lodge, then it could not have found a place in the Theosophical library either. This in response to your error-correcting lines.

Director Sellin discharged his duties to me yesterday evening. In response, I have to say that I am not inclined to resign from the lodge, for the reason already stated in my brochure, because I do not want to voluntarily deprive myself of Dr. Steiner's great wisdom, because I can no longer do without it. But should my expulsion be demanded, I must resign myself to it.

I request that this letter be read at the lodge this evening, but I leave it entirely to your discretion. Had I not already been denied entry, I would have read it myself, since it is not personal but entirely factual.

Yours sincerely, Ernst Boldt.

Munich, January 20, 1914.
To the General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, Berlin.

Dear Dr. Steiner!

Please be so kind as to also communicate the enclosed lines to the General Assembly. I have received another letter, but I do not yet know whether I am allowed to make use of it.

With the highest regard,
Yours truly, Ernst Boldt.

Munich, January 19, 1914.

Dear Mr. Boldt!

We read your brochure with great interest. We fully support your endeavors, all the more so since we had already read your book “Sexual Problems” with great benefit.

With best regards,
Karl Pschorn, Hedwig Pschorn, Emmy Zormaier, Heinrich Perri,
Deisenhofenerstr. 8/0.

My reply:

Munich, January 19, 1914.

Dear Mr. Pschorn,

Thank you for your kind words. I am pleased about them in the interest of our good cause. I have already received a letter of appreciation from the board of a larger lodge. Please let me know immediately whether I can present your letter to the General Assembly in Berlin if necessary and whether you and the other three want to stand up for your convictions there with your names. Only recently I had to experience a severe disappointment with a theosophist who reserves the right to put me in the dock because I had included in the brochure his opinion, which he had communicated to me in a letter, about my “sexual problems”. According to this, there are theosophists who have two opinions about a matter, one private and one public. Such experiences could seriously displease one about belonging to this society.

Yours sincerely,
Ernst Boldt.

The reply to this letter is:

Mr. Ernst Boldt, Munich,
Adelheidstraße 15/111.

Of course agreed.

On behalf of:
Pschorn.

In addition, Ms. von Sivers will read a letter from Mr. Horst von Henning, because Mr. Horst von Henning is mentioned in the brochure “Theosophy or Antisophy?” in a special way that may be considered symptomatic. It says on page 10:

Mr. Horst von Henning writes to me: “The reading of your writing interested me all the more to a high degree, since I am one of the oldest students of Dr. Steiner and head of the local (Weimar) branch of the Anthroposophical Society: I will remain concerned about doing my part to spread your book in serious circles.

Fräulein von Sivers: Mr. Horst von Henning writes regarding the Boldt affair:

Weimar, January 13, 1914.
Luisenstraße 19.

Dear Fräulein von Sivers!

You have so often kindly represented the members of our small Weimar branch at the general Meetings that I would like to ask you to do so at the upcoming General Meeting as well. Please find enclosed the relevant power of attorney.

Furthermore, however, I would like to address a personal request to you, as unfortunately I have to refrain from coming to the general assembly myself for financial reasons and therefore have no opportunity to counter any misunderstandings that may arise with regard to myself in the event of a discussion of the recently published brochure by Mr. Ernst Boldt, Munich.

Some time ago, Pastor Wendt here gave me a writing by Mr. Boldt about “Sexual Problems in the Light of Natural and Spiritual Science” to read, which interested me all the more because the author professed to be a follower of Dr. Steiner and also let it be seen in the brochure that he believed he could base his views on Dr. Steiner's teachings or bring them into line with them. Even after studying the paper, I couldn't shake the impression that Mr. Boldt was stretching this assumption a bit far and I didn't want to identify with Mr. Boldt's views at all. However, the paper encouraged me to pursue the problems developed in it, which is why I turned to Mr. Boldt with the request to help me with the further material mentioned in his writing and to tell me where to find the relevant literature.

Under the impression of the writing, which, as already mentioned, I could not approve of in all its parts and up to the conclusions drawn in it, but which interested me in some respects and took me for the author because of the frank language, I gained the impression that the problems raised in it could well be discussed by serious anthroposophists at some point, which is why I wrote to Mr. Boldt: “The reading of your writing interested me all the more, as I am one of the (I believe I said) older students of Dr. Steiner and lead the local branch of the Anthroposophical Society. I will do my part to spread the word about your book in serious circles.”

I then received a letter from Mr. Boldt, from which I gained the impression that he had interpreted my words more in his favor than I had intended, and that I was dealing with a personally annoyed man. I therefore refrained from any further correspondence with him and also refrained from recommending his writing, since I had second thoughts, despite all the recognition of the good intentions, it does not provide a suitable basis for the proper discussion of this extremely difficult problem. But now, a few days ago, I received several copies of the following announcement of another of Mr. Boldt's writings, which I had sent to me in order to be informed about everything, but otherwise refrained from further promoting the writing. I only mentioned it to Pastor Wendt, who had lent me Mr. Boldt's first writing at the time.

How great was my surprise and astonishment to see the above-mentioned sentence from my letter to Mr. Boldt reproduced on page 10. Although I now have the honor of being mentioned alongside the highly esteemed gentlemen Edouard Schuré, Ludwig Deinhard and Friedrich Lienhard, I believe that these gentlemen, like myself, will not be pleased to be named in the brochure as Mr. Boldt's supporters, so to speak. In any case, I will make it clear to Mr. Boldt that I consider it to be a lack of tact to have published parts of my private letter without my prior knowledge. The entire content of the new brochure is now such that I must strongly object to being associated with it in any way. I suspect, and not without good reason, that when Messrs Schure, Deinhard and Lienhard wrote approvingly about Mr Boldt's first book, they only wanted to make it known to me that they found it commendable to discuss the sexual problem in connection with our movement, they will certainly also reject the conclusions drawn by Mr. Boldt and, in particular, strongly condemn the recent attempt to force Dr. Steiner to make a public statement. It is unfortunately often the case that writers confuse the interest shown in their work with full approval of their statements, and I would never have revealed my personal relationship with Dr. Steiner to Mr. Boldt if I had suspected that he would make such an unpleasant use of it – or rather, misuse it. In any case, this unpleasant incident will serve as a warning to me and cause me to exercise the utmost restraint in disclosing my student status to Dr. Steiner. But one can certainly recommend a book for study without identifying with the content of the same; indeed, one can do so in order to get the discussion flowing and to see the errors corrected. It was with this latter in mind that I wrote the lines already mentioned to Mr. Boldt, but not to appear as an unconditional supporter of his views. After these explanations, you will understand that I am extremely annoyed to see my name misused in this brochure, the content and overall tendency of which I am very far removed from. I would like to ask you to take the opportunity of the general assembly to make this known in a way that you consider appropriate, so that the members attacked by Mr. Boldt do not consider me to be one of Mr. Boldt's supporters. I am not ashamed to admit that I would not consider it a mistake if the sexual problems, which have such a profound impact on human development, were to be properly examined by a serious party, and that I would deeply I would express a deep desire for understanding if he found it right to step out of his reserve, which he has certainly observed for good reason up to now. However, I must absolutely condemn any desire to exert the slightest pressure on the resolutions of our great teacher in this direction. Likewise, I am willing to admit that, due to my current state of mind, I may have shown more interest in Mr. Boldt's remarks than would be the case today. However, I strongly object to being considered Mr. Boldt's partisan and attach particular importance to the statement that I never authorized Mr. Boldt to consider me as such, much less to publish my private lines in a brochure.

I am taking a keen interest in the proceedings of the General Assembly. Please extend the special greetings of the Weimar branch to those gathered. I remain with the expression of loyal sentiments and warmest thanks for your efforts

as always, your very devoted
Horst von Henning.

A second letter, which arrived on January 15, reads:

Weimar, January 15, 1914
Luisenstraße 19

Dear Miss von Sivers!

Please forgive me for bothering you a second time with a request regarding the Boldt matter.

I thought it right to address the following circular to Messrs Ludwig Deinhard, Edouard Schuré and Friedrich Lienhard, and I have already received the same, along with the attachment, back from Mr. Deinhard, who writes to me that he, too, finds it an unparalleled lack of tact that Mr. Boldt, without asking him, printed in his brochure a statement that was only made orally and which, in his (Deinhards opinion) is full of tactlessness. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Deinhard does not have Mr. Schuré's address, and since I do not know it either, I would kindly ask you to forward the circular letter and its attachment to Mr. Schur&, with the request that he then also forward it to Mr. Lienhard. I enclose a stamped envelope for your convenience and would also ask you to take note of the copy of my letter to Mr. Boldt attached to the enclosures. With warm regards to you and all dear friends there, I remain always

Your grateful
Horst von Henning

Fräulein von Sivers says: It would probably also turn out that Mr. Schure and Mr. Lienhard, like Mr. Deinhard, only gave Mr. Boldt a verbal assurance; after all, a well-meaning man like Mr. Schuré would hardly want to say anything other than, “Quite interesting!” to a young writer.

Dr. Steiner: Ms. Wolfram has asked to speak first.

Mrs. Wolfram: One could indeed just shrug off the Boldt case with a smile, and wave the application away with a hand gesture into the waste paper basket, and get on with the agenda. But since this “Boldt case” is a typical case, since there is not just one Boldt, but unfortunately many “Boldtes”, and it can happen to us again and again that our precious time is taken up and stolen in this truly unqualifiable way, I would like to present some of the facts of this case and conclude with an appeal to you, so that this Boldt case remains the only one of its kind and is not repeated. After all, we have better things to do than to waste our time on these matters, which are as tragic as they are comical.

To avoid appearing to be concerned only with what Mr. Boldt said out of annoyance at the fact that his book was not accepted, and to avoid giving the impression that the book might not have been all that bad after all, and its author might have had some reason to write his pamphlet, then I would like to quote a few passages from the book to prove that we are dealing with a work that is as stupid as it is brazen and shamefully dishonest. From this it will be clear that if Mr. Boldt had read this book in 1911, he would no longer be with us today. Because if someone could write such a book, then he no longer belongs in our midst. We want to develop a sense of who belongs in our society and who does not. On page 2 of his book, Mr. Boldt says:

The publication of this book may now bear witness to the fact that the Theosophical movement has made some progress in these six years, even if it is only a small one at first. We want this little book to be seen as a modest attempt to incorporate the theosophical truths into one of the practical areas of life. We believe that we have sufficiently trained our thinking, feeling and willing in the “eternal laws of existence” to be able to step out into life and promote the cultural process in a proper, timely manner by solving the problems at hand.

The sexual area is one of the most fundamental areas of life, in which, because it was shrouded in night and fog and held in awe and fear by the most dreadful ignorance, it has been possible to sin in quite appalling dimensions; it therefore most urgently needs the light and its spiritual reforming idea. And the naturalist and spiritual researcher who, free of all materialistic and moral blinkers, seeks to plow up this field overgrown with weeds in the spirit of Schiller's “Aesthetic Letters,” Steiner's “Philosophy of Freedom,” and in the spirit of theosophy, must necessarily arrive at the present results through logical, appropriate thinking. If the mission of the spiritual researcher is now mainly to seek out and proclaim the occult truths and eternal laws of existence as the primary foundations of all life reform, then it is our task to work on the secondary development of the individual spheres of life in the sense of these truths and laws, and to build on the existing abilities of the given human material with full understanding of the tasks of the Theosophical movement within our cultural epoch, and to raise it by one step.

* * *

In the introductory words to the essay on the “Education of the Child”, Steiner set out the program for social reform work at a higher level. Since the existing sex literature does not meet these high standards, we felt compelled to establish a new one.

Yes, what impression do you get from that? The author is not a bit megalomaniac! He speaks of himself in the greatest conceivable modesty! I say this above all to show you that these accounts are teeming with examples of the impotence of consistent thinking. But the author does not notice any of this himself; on the one hand, he contradicts what he has said on the other. This only needs to be stated once. Because it is important to me to point out: we do not want to do it like our dear Mr. Horst von Henning, who may have read the book briefly. We want to approach the book with one thing in mind: whether it is sound or not. In this day and age, it is not difficult to publish a book teeming with mistakes – it is almost painful to listen to the chaos that it presents. And everyone who values logical thinking should get used to listening to this chaos. The young man continues (p. 4):

The monistic-spiritualistic literature on this subject, as attempted for the first time in this book, contains new, future-oriented values of a higher order and leads the herd-man out of the present dilemma of the sexual Scylla and Charybdis onto the only real path of the mountain-man to the goal of his highest perfection in the super-man.

We call the tendency of this book monistic-spiritualistic because, independently of contemporary sexual literature and overcoming it, it seeks to establish new foundations for life.

In his brochure, however, he says (p. 4):

As an occultist, I stand beyond monism and dualism...

In the book, however, he says “monistic-spiritualistic,” and then it continues:

It treats this material by drawing on occult, spiritual scientific research results, without therefore leaving the real ground of monism.

Just think about this tangle of thoughts! And on this ground, Mr. Boldt now wants to graft everything that the seer gives in terms of spiritual science! This is now amalgamated by Mr. Boldt and the further ground is created from it, on which we - we “bugs” - can develop further. Furthermore:

With its head in the sky, it seeks to gain a firm foothold on earth and vice versa: rooted in the physical world, it strives with its blossoms and fruits into the spiritual world. - For this reason, we too will not be able to please any of the contemporary parties, because our premises are also - since they are theosophical - “far beyond all party politics”.

When it comes to the various issues of the day, there is no reason to ignore the gender issue in favor of the other cultural issues, for it asserts itself in all its harrowing scope. The theosophist must therefore not withdraw his attention from it. He must also allow the light of his spirit to fall on this area of life and fertilize it with the spiritual reform ideas of Theosophy. This has been admirably stimulated by Steiner's two lectures on 'Man and Woman' and 'Man, Woman and Child in the Light of Spiritual Science'. Our task was now to treat this subject in a broader developmental-historical sense and to bring together all occult knowledge about it.

Where are the Theosophists, one might ask, who have so far dared to approach the reform of sexual life in the spirit of Theosophy? And how many are there who are able to bring the necessary interest and understanding to such endeavors? It is understandable that a pioneering undertaking like this one must meet with great resistance, especially from the partisans of the dualistic and monistic schools. But if such resistance also arises in part from the theosophical movement itself, this is merely due to the immaturity of the majority of its “followers”. But this movement is certainly not concerned with followers; it needs free spirits and big hearts that see through the life of the present with a bright, clear gaze and find the right points of attack for social action.

It is really not that difficult to see that this is written by a young, rather self-confident man, in whose head it not only looks quite chaotic, but also hovers in a rather ominous way the spirit of megalomania. And it must be said that during the time this young man has been our member, he has not only forgotten nothing of his megalomania, but has also profited nothing from the teachings of spiritual science. What does the insistence that we must deal with sexual problems mean to anyone who reflects on the facts of developmental history that have been given us through spiritual scientific research? The frequent references to sexual problems are somewhat superfluous. If one has only studied and thought about what has been communicated to us, for example, about the development of the human being, about the course of development of the world and humanity, from the fact of the influence of the spirit into the world and so on, then everyone will have to say to themselves: How foolish it would be if we Theosophists were now to coin a very specific formula for how we wanted to deal with this sexual issue. After all, this is about the most personal area of each of us, and everyone will know that it is self-evident how a person should behave in their particular case. It is a different matter if we wanted to know what foolish views prevail in scientific circles. In the case of Mr. Boldt's book, however, one can only conclude that it is a stupid and brazen book; but it is also a shamefully dishonest book. And I will prove this to you.

If one wanted to say that this Mr. Boldt was not aware of the terrible things he is saying and doing, that is no excuse. It only makes it much worse that in our circles, where enough can be learned, it is possible that a person writes, dares to write, that he lies and is not supposed to know it himself. So such things are growing in our circles. I still have to show you that there are other “Boldtes”, which is why I want to treat this case as a typical one. Mr. Boldt then talks about the “sources” of his book, cites works by Dr. Steiner and then says page [7-8]:

The elementary, ethical-aesthetic content of this writing is the author's own. Nevertheless, it should not go unmentioned that it is fully in line with what Steiner has set down in his brilliant “Philosophy of Freedom” and in the magnificent book on “Friedrich Nietzsche.

If you are not careful, you will not notice anything, not notice what the “ethical-aesthetic content of ideas” is. I must confess that I could not believe my eyes when I saw where Mr. Boldt finally ended up as a result of his interesting and valuable research, what he considers to be right for the sexual life of our time (p. 54 of his book). One can only describe it: that the ideal of asceticism should already be recognized, but that it should hover over people like a very distant ideal for the future. We humans are not yet so far that we could think of realizing such an ideal. When Mr. Boldt wants to think, he always quotes Nietzsche, and then he explains what is the only right thing for our time. It is remarkable that I, of all people, always have to say such things: the unrestricted freedom of the individual to experience lovingly sexually whatever he desires; and Mr. Boldt then presents the “Oneida practice” as something worthy of imitation. He says that what he quite openly proclaims as the conclusion of his ideal, his ethical-aesthetic idea, must be based on what Dr. Steiner himself says. In the remarks that follow $135 - as is the case with all profound works, there must be a commentary on them - things are said to explain why Dr. Steiner says the same thing as what Mr. Boldt proclaims as the ideological content of this book, which is his own soul property:

11) When Foerster often finds a “hymn to the powers of procreation” in the sexual education literature of recent years and thereby “really gets the feeling that religion has not disappeared, but has been transferred from the soul to the sexual sphere, and that God no longer reveals himself in conscience, but in the organs of procreation...”, he is by no means mistaken; spiritual science fully confirms the accuracy of this feeling. God reveals Himself not only in the free, thinking human spirit, but also in the organs of procreation. The wisdom of Foerster, “that sex itself is a street urchin,” is vigorously rejected by modern spiritual research. In his journal “Lucifer - Gnosis,” issue 23 “From the Akasha Chronicle,” Steiner comments on this as follows:

And now you shall see what it is capable of when we let all those into our circles who brutally and dirtyly exploit everything for themselves.

His (the human being's) entire lower half – that which is often called the lower nature – has now come under the intellectually shaping influence of the higher beings (the Jehovah-Elohims)... One can also say that those noble spiritual powers... have now descended to unfold their power in the area of reproduction. In fact, noble divine powers have a regulating and organizing effect in this area.

But all this is done in such a way that the reader thinks that Dr. Steiner said it.

And with that, an important sentence from The Secret Doctrine is expressed, which reads: The higher, noble divine powers are related to the seemingly lower powers of human nature.

And so on:

12) To supplement this thought, read Steiner: “The Secret Doctrine”, $. 65 to 75. There is talk of a “hidden spiritual” that “works in the revelations of the body”. Because “in everything that the senses perceive, they also receive a spiritual... The lowest pleasures can be revelations of the spirit. The satisfaction that the hungry being gets from eating is a revelation of the spirit. For through the intake of food, that is brought about, without which the spiritual could not find its development in a certain respect... Sensual pleasures the I must have as long as it lives in the body, even insofar as it is spiritual. For in the sensual the spirit reveals itself; and the I enjoys nothing but the spirit when it surrenders to the light of the spirit in the sensual world... This sensual world is a revelation of the spiritual hidden behind it. The ego could never enjoy the spirit in the form in which it can only reveal itself through the bodily senses if it did not want to use these senses to enjoy the spiritual in the sensual.

And what does Boldt make of it? He reinterprets everything in a sexual way!

As long as a person is moderate in his enjoyment, “sensual enjoyment as an expression of the spirit means elevation, development of the ego”; on the other hand, if “reasoned enjoyment increases to excess and debauchery,” it has an impoverishing, desolating and destructive effect on the ego.

What has been said here regarding the satisfaction that the hungry being derives from ingesting food also applies to the pleasure that loving beings experience through sexual union; for hunger and love grow on the same wood, as Schiller also indicates in his poem “The World Sages”.

The reader can find more details about enjoyment in “Lucifer - Gnosis”, issue 13 (“How to Know Higher Worlds?”), as well as in “Theosophy” (“The Path of Knowledge”).

There are still some passages that mean an increase.

The assembly has expressed its will to refrain from further reading!

Mrs. Wolfram, continuing: What do we have here? You cannot make even more unscrupulous use of another person's intellectual property! If Mr. Boldt had read the book thoroughly, he would no longer be in our ranks.

And now I would like to make an appeal to you, after first adding something to what I said earlier: that there are many Boldtes, and that this one is just a typical case. Unfortunately, there is a view among far too many people that our movement is there to support all those who do not want to help themselves. Our society would be such a large aid institution, and one would be obliged, if one is the head of a branch, to support such and such a person in his outer life. In short, the greatest demands are placed on society. Those who now enter society with a state of mind like Mr. Boldt, for example, and who believe that they can do everything with their heads, although they can do nothing at all, these only form a choir of the discontented. It was people like that who could not play a role; they have now done what they could - which then led to their exclusion from our society.

In order to give you a proper foundation, I would like to read a few words from No. 7/8, Volume IV, 1914 of Theosophy, edited by Dr. Vollrath, part of which is edited by Casimir Zawadzki. A year ago, he wrote me a letter asking me to do whatever I could to restore the old, good relationship between him, Dr. Steiner and the Society. This Zawadzki was a member of our Society for a while, and not a very comfortable member at that. I did what I could until he plagiarized Dr. Steiner's work in an outrageous manner, until he was expelled and threw himself into the arms of Dr. Vollrath, where he still is. He then thought that since he is Polish, it would be nice if he could perhaps become Secretary General in Warsaw. But when he realized that under Besant's aegis the matter was becoming shaky, he thought he would do better if he could work under Dr. Steiner again. And now I would like to point out how really not that much is needed to know whether someone fits into our society or not. Sometimes something like an impotence of logical thinking manifests itself in a single word. The letter reads:

Leipzig, January 31, 1913.

Dear Madam!

I must thank you most sincerely for the friendly welcome you gave me last Sunday and at the same time I would like to kindly request you once more to talk to Dr. Steiner about my matter and then give me news. As I said, I would like to be a disinterested co-worker in Dr. Steiner's work, because I have never stopped deeply admiring him.

My separation from Dr. Vollrath is imminent, I will hasten the matter myself as best I can. Perhaps Dr. Steiner will be so kind as to grant me an interview, through which the old good relationship between him and me, for which I long so much, can be restored. First of all, I definitely want to become a member of the German Section, which is under Dr. Steiner's leadership, but then I want to start work in Poland in line with Dr. Steiner's thinking. ... I would like to become a member of the lodge again, also without any interest, just for the sake of the cause and unity in the spirit, if I am to remain in Leipzig for some time. ...

Anyone who can write this has not just lost their marbles, they have lost several screws!

It is completely hopeless to believe that someone who is capable of writing such a thing can deserve to be taught by us. He lacks any possibility of correct thinking when he writes this in a letter in which he wants to present himself in the best possible light. This gentleman then launched a sensational advertisement about a teaching course – again about sexual matters. I then wrote in reply to his letter that it was not acceptable, and the matter was dropped. Now Zawadzki is writing an article in No. 7/8 of Theosophy that is linked to No. III of the Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft (Communications for the Members of the Anthroposophical Society). So it is possible that a person like that could have had this No. III!

This number must be judged with a sense of history. It has value for the literary historian. Today's common sense has no way of verifying the facts stated here. Only those who have been able to distill the events that are documented in it through their own sense of truth would be able to criticize; the way in which they would do so would show their attitude. Today's educated person, who has risen above domestic morality and ethics, already regards his neighbor's private life as something sacred, untouchable, as a legal sphere that is none of his business, as a circle whose author is responsible for its weal and woe.

This is now attributed to Dr. Steiner because he published the letters of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

Even higher than this person is the educated man who has gone through the training of some theosophical system of stories or is still in it. For him, not only the private but also the public duties of his neighbor are something untouchable, something sacred.

Can you understand this? I can't! And I would like to point out that there must be no confusion where it is not possible to see at first glance what is important. It continues:

Dr. Steiner settles the score with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. He has changed his style in a gratifying way since earlier. He used to get his words from the language of the servant when he couldn't find reasons.

He goes on to discuss Dr. Steiner's “servant manner” and the complete lack of feeling for human dignity and reverence, talks about Dr. Unger and Mrs. von Reden, and then talks about the “Esoteric Section”:

It was precisely this strange thing that Dr. Steiner did that made him unpopular in the Theosophical Society. Now at last people recognize the poison of this institution; they recognize the tremendous moral dangers associated with such a theosophical circle. One must distinguish between the abuse of the Esoteric Section and the institution itself. Institutions are neither good nor bad.

Now he is slobbering again, something is going around in his mind, and so is Mr. Boldt.

It is only use that falls under the law of karma and makes them bad and good tools. Mrs. Wolfram in Leipzig has often emphasized that Dr. Steiner, as head of the Esoteric School, should be given the vow of obedience by handshake. Now the “Mitteilungen” make the following statements about the Esoteric School: “The vow of unconditional and immediate obedience, as required in the Esoteric School, is a sign of a degenerate mind. It is self-aggrandizing presumptuousness towards God and man. An act that calls down the wrath of the God within man. ...

There is no other way to say this about the Besant institutions. — Another gentleman also wrote to me, saying that I should do everything I could to help him meet Dr. Steiner again; but in the same issue of Vollrath's Theosophy, he is at it again.

And now I would like to say the following. Everything must be done to counter the infiltration of certain elements by nurturing certain attitudes and feelings. There is a concept of tolerance within our society, of course we should be tolerant; but what do we mean by that?

That we have recognized that there is an unspeakably valuable teaching material that can be handed down to us, and for which we feel a responsibility. We can still be tolerant of those who appear beautiful, but not of those for whom the sensation of what is true or untrue, what is beautiful or hypocritical, is no longer there in the brain. Observe what is first presented in the cases of Fidus, Hübbe-Schleiden, Prellwitz and others, and then how it is said, “That is not at all so,” and then they still write, “... with deepest reverence,” and so on. It is not true that we are a hospital. And by this I mean that we want to make a little front against the intrusion of such elements into us! Because that means being tolerant of what is most precious to us! The lodge boards could be granted more rights – which is only right and proper vis-à-vis a lodge board. There is so much debate about what a lodge board can and cannot do, but nothing is said about the rights it should have. I do not see a lodge committee as a “jack of all trades” who only has to ensure that the lodge rooms are clean, that lectures are available – and has nothing further to say. I think that a lodge committee should above all have the freedom for the waste paper basket once they have been trusted by being elected. The patronage of all possible products of the various Theosophical members must stop. In ordinary life, I am not legally obliged to read or buy something that someone sends me; and yet the lodge boards are supposed to be obliged to display something in the lodge rooms if someone has produced it, and you get a cold if you don't do it? In this regard, every lodge board must be able to ensure the most meticulous cleanliness of the atmosphere. If he can ensure the cleanliness of the lodge rooms, he must also be able to do the other. And it is really not that difficult to know who belongs to our ranks and who does not. If only we could get rid of the eternal judging according to emotional values, according to what someone “says”! A person is not what he says – he may believe it of himself; a person is what he does. And if he has done this or that on the physical plane as an expression of his being, then I judge by his deed. If a Hübbe-Schleiden, a Boldt and so on have done this or that, I know what they have done. And if he wants to be taken up again, he must bring forth a different deed as a metamorphosis of his being.

The various lodge boards and the general board must at least have one resolution in the soul of each of them: from now on, everything must be done to ensure that the kind of people we have heard about today are the very last of their kind among us. If that were possible, then the matter could have been dealt with at our board meeting. If the Executive Council of the Anthroposophical Society is so sure of the trust that is so often mentioned, then it would be a matter of course that such documents as the Boldt case, when they arrive, are simply consigned to the wastepaper basket!

I would like to propose that the board be given the right, on the basis of the trust placed in it by the election, to dispose of such matters as it sees fit, so that we do not waste our time on such things, as is the case now.

Dr. Steiner: Perhaps something else would happen if the “concession Schulze in the disguise of the superman” would dare to stand up for Mr. Boldt's book. If I were to be as bold as Mr. Boldt wants me to be and recommend his book to the 75 percent of our members who are lagging behind, what would happen then? On page 14 of his brochure, Mr. Boldt says:

The probable consequence of this would be that in a few weeks the most tender friendships with an erotic touch could be seen developing among Theosophists of both sexes. Of course, the tendency towards this has always been present, and not exactly weakly, and here and there many an immoral yearning has found satisfaction – as it also happens in other circles; for nature is always true and life is always right. But the situation would only become embarrassing if those living in free love could invoke the authority of Dr. Steiner. Like Ellen Key in Sweden, he would be held responsible in Germany for every illegitimate Theosophist offspring. This could have the most disastrous consequences and seriously endanger the living conditions of the Theosophical Society.

This is just an appetizer. And now I ask you to enjoy the other dishes as fully as possible!

The meeting is suspended for tea; the negotiations will be continued on Monday, January 19, 1914.

The continuation of the protocol will be published in the following issue of Mitteilungen.