The Rudolf Steiner Archive

20. Minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the German Theosophical Society (DTG)

[ 1 ] Dr. Steiner: “A careful examination of the course we have been following has shown me that it is necessary to contribute some clarification regarding the matters raised at that time. That is why I have asked you to attend this General Assembly. I would like to emphasize from the outset that this will not be a matter of interpreting, in any way, the steps that three members of the Executive Committee felt compelled to take as being even remotely directed against anyone. The aim is to bring about clarity through a complete clarification of the situation—a clarity that cannot be achieved in any other way. To make this absolutely clear, I must say a few words about the essentials—namely, the history of the Theosophical Movement since the founding of the German Section—particularly insofar as it concerns members of the Executive Committee who are primarily under consideration.

[ 2 ] When the German Section was to be established at that time, the leaders of the Theosophical Movement—insofar as they belonged to the Adyar Society—had to be persuaded to transfer leadership to others. The individuals involved in continuing the Theosophical work were Miss von Sivers and myself. Just a few months before I was called upon to contribute not only to the Berlin group but also, as General Secretary of the German Section, to the entire movement of the Theosophical Society, I had not yet taken the step of joining the Theosophical Society. I had, however, already given lectures over the course of two winters, specifically at the Berlin branch. Two courses were published, so in a certain sense I am connected to the Theosophical Society in Berlin—but only on a personal level.

[ 3 ] When Count and Countess von Brockdorff left Berlin, I had already been a member of the Theosophical Society for several months, and when other measures failed, it was decided to appoint me as Secretary-General. At the time, I did not refuse the request. I had not yet rendered any service to the Theosophical Society.

[ 4 ] Berlin was regarded as a kind of center in Germany. Berlin was intended to become a sort of parent organization. The German Theosophical Society (DTG) was built upon this foundation. The idea was to lead the Society from Berlin. At that time, Count and Countess Brockdorff went to great lengths to recruit Miss von Sivers, who was in Bologna, for their Berlin lodge. She was quite reluctant to agree to this, even after the requests had been made. Only when the leaders of the Theosophical Society deemed it necessary did Miss von Sivers decide to go to Berlin and, under the circumstances possible at the time, lead the theosophical movement together with me.

[ 5 ] We adapted to the circumstances in a thoroughly conservative manner. The circumstances naturally required that we take the initiative of the German movement into our own hands and strive to bring its intentions to fruition in the proper way. The circumstances in Germany had been such that, in practical terms, it would not have been possible at all without taking the initiative at that time. In addition to this practical theosophical work, there were many other tasks, such as managing the library, which was loosely affiliated with the German Theosophical Society—that is, what later became the Berlin Branch of the Theosophical Society. Managing the library naturally required a certain amount of work at first, which had to be done between other duties. The actual theosophical work could only be carried out during free breaks. I myself could devote myself to this library matter only in an advisory capacity at most. I had more important things to do. Moreover, I had spent two years studying the way the branch had been run, and I had no intention of introducing any kind of change in its external administration. What existed in practical terms was to be preserved.

[ 6 ] It was our aim to make use of the framework and to contribute what we had to offer within the framework of the Theosophical Movement. That was our aim. The fundamental prerequisite for Miss von Sivers to take over the leadership of the various branches of the Theosophical Society in Berlin was, of course, that there was complete trust. In the practical aspect of the Theosophical Movement, nothing at all can be accomplished without this trust. Trust in the practical aspect of the Movement itself is necessary. Administration is a kind of appendage. Since we could not indulge in any particular pedantry, it was only natural that we expected complete trust to prevail among us regarding what is the fundamental prerequisite for cooperation in the theosophical sphere. This trust, it seems, has not been extended to the extent that we would need for the calm and objective management of our affairs. We will simply conclude by referring to the meeting held fourteen days ago and contrasting it with the current situation. That meeting was based on matters that have even been described as gossip; it was based on public appearances. Everything is to be discussed publicly. The fact that there is dissatisfaction was acknowledged at the meeting, and the mere expression of discontent is sufficient in itself to bring about a step such as the one to be taken today. I am—please accept this as an absolutely true interpretation—I am opposed to any aggression, not only because every occultist is, but also based on even more esoteric principles. Any aggression hinders the activity that I am capable of carrying out. Please understand this step as something that arises solely from the principle of not acting aggressively. Everyone must behave in such a way that the wishes of all can be fully expressed. Everyone must suppress their personal wishes so that our work can proceed. Otherwise, the Berlin branch cannot be managed as desired. That is what I wish to bring about. When opposing views exist, it is impossible to work together.

[ 7 ] If we were to work in the manner desired by various parties, I believe we would trivialize the Theosophical Movement; we would reduce it to the level of a club.

[ 8 ] The words spoken at the last meeting must be heard: that I am diametrically opposed to those who wish to live together in a club-like manner. I do not intend to attack anyone. I simply cannot be a part of it. Anyone who considers this carefully will have to admit that this is entirely devoid of any aggressiveness. I would like to set the tone for this matter in this way. This is what I emphasized at the general assembly held in October, where I stressed that I do not conform to this kind of structure, that I cannot fit into a club-like society. Those who wish for the Berlin Branch to be managed differently, so that members interact with one another in a different way, must act accordingly. It is necessary for them to take the matter into their own hands and carry it out for themselves, so that it becomes self-evident that no one can object if their wishes are fulfilled in the manner mentioned. I could not fulfill these wishes. I have always sought to satisfy wishes as best I could. To ensure the smooth continuation of the Theosophical Society’s development, I must take this step. My task is to preserve the continuity of the movement in Germany. It is clear to me that—given our turbulent circumstances in the world—this movement can only be advanced on an occult basis. A movement based on social principles need not be Theosophy; its members may well have ideal aspirations and grow fond of one another, and that need not be Theosophy. But we need a Theosophical movement, and therefore I cannot be a leader under a club-like form of leadership. Please understand that I myself am obligated to carry forward the full depth of the Theosophical movement, which is founded on occultism. Today, the only person truly called to play an active role within the Theosophical Society is one who lives according to the Aristotelian principle: “He who seeks truth must not regard any opinion as sacred.”

[ 9 ] Perhaps I might also find it pleasing to work in a different way. But this is a duty, and that is why I will take this step—because I have this obligation to build the Theosophical Movement on a truly deeper foundation, and in that process, any attempt to run the Society in a club-like manner will lead to a trivialization of its purpose. No one understands better than I do that such things are necessary for some, and my relationship with anyone will not change. Everyone will always be welcome here. I will continue to handle the affairs—insofar as they relate to the substance of Theosophy—in the same manner, so that in the future everything can be found just as it has been found. But that is precisely why I must step back.

[ 10 ] The consequence, of course, lies in the lines of thought I have outlined. I cannot and must not lose sight of the Theosophical Movement anywhere. That is why I have asked those members of our Theosophical Society—all other branches being of a secondary nature—as well as individual members of the Theosophical Society, to hold a meeting with me and have asked them whether they would be willing, together with me, to continue the Theosophical Movement in the manner in which I have led it, despite the discord that has arisen and the dissatisfaction that has been expressed. This had to be done because I must ensure continuity. I will cite just one example from Munich. There is a strictly closed lodge there that admits only those who conform to the collective. But we will now have a second lodge in which everyone else can be admitted. I have endeavored there to draw attention to the conditions of lodge work that are part of a lodge’s daily routine. I also intend to found a Besant Lodge in the near future, for which I will soon ask Annie Besant for permission to use her name. Alongside this will be completely free activity, from which no one can be excluded in the slightest. That is the motive behind this and its consequence: my resignation.”

Below is a list of several members.

[ 11 ] Krojanker: “After these remarks by Dr. Steiner, those who were unable to attend the last meeting will have gained an understanding of what actually caused the discord, as well as the general direction in which the matter is moving—namely, that three members of the executive board felt compelled to take the aforementioned step. There must have been unrest long before those involved knew anything about it. Ever since I’ve known about these matters, it has been impossible for me to get past them. At first, it was impossible for me to understand how these matters could have driven those gentlemen to this conclusion. So what was it, really? The starting point for me was simply the decision by City Councilwoman Eberty and Miss Schwiebs, who had resolved to invite the members to their homes for informal, open discussions. That such conclusions could be drawn from this was, of course, unforeseeable. The suggestion came from Miss von Sivers; the idea was to encourage the members to get to know one another better and to prevent the feeling that they didn’t quite feel at home—so that everyone wouldn’t rush straight home after the presentation. But even with Miss von Sivers, this was noticeable in a certain way. As long as we didn’t have a headquarters, she simply had to make do in other ways—visiting friends and talking with them. These are matters of a purely personal and private nature, which I had asked in the previous meeting not to be brought up. I still hold the same opinion today regarding these matters—namely, that they must not be discussed. The branch had not [yet] been established at the home of the gracious couple who had invited us. A distinction must be made here between association work, association formalities, and theosophical work. But committees are not formed and elected, nor are board members chosen, for nothing—so that they do not concern themselves with the management of the association. They are elected and will therefore also have the authority to discuss business matters and to allow themselves to form an opinion on them. If an autocratic administration [...] were desired, then statutes and the like would not be necessary. If Dr. Steiner had said back then: “We must refrain from such a form,” or had indicated or stated, “Only under these and those conditions is it possible for me to work and participate,” then things would have worked out immediately and quite naturally. Those who would have liked it would have gone along, and the rest would have stayed out. I don’t understand why one would establish an entire administrative apparatus and then take offense when a member of a branch, like myself, takes an interest in it. I mean, it surely cannot be considered a crime to inquire about these matters once in a while. I would like to recommend the creation of wish lists. I must protest the claim that we are being aggressive. We have listened to Dr. Steiner for two years to understand what Theosophy is and what constitutes the Theosophical life. Other ways could certainly have been found to steer the disputes in a different direction. But since matters have now reached this point, the consequences must be faced under all circumstances. This is my mental image of it—though I’m not sure if I’ve understood correctly—that this Berlin branch will continue to exist as a continuation of the Berlin branch of the German Theosophical Society, and that the three board members and the other individuals Dr. Steiner has named will now found a new lodge.

[ 12 ] To carry out this step, further negotiations and consultations will undoubtedly be necessary. The first order of business will be to elect an executive board for the time being, since the Berlin branch currently has neither an executive board nor leadership. A provisional committee will therefore have to be formed to discuss how this should be done. I would like to leave it up to you to submit motions along these lines. In any case, we deeply regret the manner in which the matter has been handled thus far. In fact, when Dr. Steiner speaks of discord and emotional currents, there is nothing to it other than what I know—and perhaps a few personal matters that must never be made into an issue for the Berlin branch.”

[ 13 ] Dr. Steiner: “I myself had good reason to take personal matters into account. At the general meeting, 300 marks were approved for my work last year upon my request. I had already expressed reservations at the time, but shortly thereafter I felt compelled to return those 300 marks to the treasury due to the prevailing atmosphere, because I would not have wanted to work amid ill will. You can see that I have remained silent long enough. ‘I also simply wanted to let this matter pass quietly, in order to bridge the issue through positive work. In the long run, however, that was not possible for good reason. Of course, we are not here to discuss private matters; nor is a discussion of professional life at all appropriate. I have said that, as far as I am concerned, what was requested has been satisfied to a large extent. The request had been made that we hold lectures somewhere other than here or at the Architektenhaus, and I agreed to give lectures at Wilhelmstraße 118 as well. But now we must make a few remarks regarding precisely this matter. Things are not as straightforward as they might initially seem; rather, they are more intricately connected. At the time, I readily agreed to fulfill this request, and in the course of following up on this matter, I asked that an executive committee be formed. I never imagined what would come of it. We still have no branches in the north, south, or east. It had been my intention to work not only in the west but in all parts of the city. When an executive committee was formed in the Berlin branch, the intention was that this committee would take charge of the actual agitation. No one here has ever been prevented from handling administrative matters, but the view is that anyone who wants to do something must make room for themselves. No one could demand anything from us. If someone had come forward with constructive suggestions, we would have considered them. But if it is now claimed that our activities have not been criticized, I would respond by saying that just this week I received a written accusation that we are managing the library in such a way that legal action could be threatened against us. We cannot allow ourselves to be subjected to veiled accusations. We will also hand over the library. Since I have raised these points, you can assume that they rest on the firmest possible foundation. The bylaws and so on could have been adhered to with good will. When discussing business matters, they must be practical. What was done back then was impractical. Three times I spoke in relatively nice halls, but then in a hall that was described as a stable, and finally in a room where speaking was almost impossible. I had to speak while glaziers were hammering behind me and so on. That was not an atmosphere for Theosophy. I had to think about approaching the matter in a practical way. This was the basis for my decision to hold the lectures at the Architektenhaus. Such measures were in the interest of the Berlin branch. Nevertheless, it was held against me: “These are the kinds of lectures we can attend or not attend.” - So you see that this is a silent backhanded compliment. Nothing was done precisely because the different view on business matters—on bylaws and the committee—provided the opportunity to try out how it works. A letter from a Theosophist reads: “I would like the Berlin branch to get up and running. It would please me most if it were to operate effectively.” But then a list of requests was drawn up—can you imagine?—and on that list it said: “The chairperson must be there half an hour before the start.” “That’s what made the situation so difficult.” Ms. Eberty: “Don’t you find this fragmentation very sad?”

[ 14 ] Dr. Steiner: “I have worked against these developments. Whether this will lead to fragmentation remains to be seen. If the members of the Berlin branch understand how to act in a theosophical manner, there will be no need for fragmentation whatsoever. There is no need to speak of a split; I will do nothing to encourage it.”

[ 15 ] Ms. Eberty: “If they had had any objections to the meetings, all they would have had to do was say: There are reasons why the meetings cannot take place. We had the best of intentions in doing this. We did it solely to serve the cause of theosophy. It never even remotely occurred to us that this might be contrary to your intentions, not even when [it] was on the agenda eight days ago, and there were several indications that it might refer to our afternoon gathering.”

[ 16 ] Dr. Steiner: “If the formalities are set aside, there is nothing wrong with private gatherings. What happened as a result of my request? The tea parties at Miss von Sivers’s were discontinued because I did not see any benefit for Theosophy in that kind of tea gathering. It was hard for me that Countess Brockdorff took offense. But I said it anyway. We ourselves could not have handled the matter any differently.”

[ 17 ] Krojanker: “It seems the Executive Committee is destined to become the scapegoat. If you sit on the Executive Committee, productive work is only possible if you are fully informed about the entire business situation. If you have no insight into the situation and find no opportunity to gain such insight, on what basis do you intend to make proposals? The Executive Committee needs this knowledge because it must report to the Board of Directors. I am increasingly lacking the concrete documentation that served as the basis for these matters.

[ 18 ] Now comes the question of the library. A library committee was formed. It is not entirely clear why the members of the branch should be held responsible for this.»

[ 19 ] Mr. Werner: “Dr. Steiner is a person called by a higher power. It is difficult now to convey to us what is necessary for our perfection. If you approach him now with demands and questions, such as: ‘Where did you put the money you raised from your lectures? Tell us what you made from these lectures! Explain to us where these funds have gone. If you say, ‘We’re in charge here, because we have complete freedom to say what you must do,’ then that is not the path to harmonious cooperation. I mean, once you’ve accepted teachings and guidance from someone, your demands and questions must not go so far that they become unbearable in their specifics. Those would be thoughts that have to shy away from the light, and they lead to disharmony. But we can prevent disharmony if we want to. If that is not the case, then we have no right to come here and “pick apart” what has happened.”

[ 20 ] Krojanker: “A distinction must be made between theosophical teachings and the leadership of the Berlin branch. This will ensure that mistrust cannot arise.”

[ 21 ] Dr. Steiner: “Harmony may have to be achieved at the cost of excluding some members. The scheduled lectures were indeed intended for the Berlin branch. It is true that we could not have carried out our work any better. I believe that, for the time being, we have carried out our work as well as we could, since nothing better has been offered to us from other quarters. The moment something better had been offered to us from other quarters, we would not have disregarded it. But I still consider what we have done to be the best so far.”

[ 22 ] Fränkel: “Two meetings have been convened that have caused discord. Accusations have been made on two occasions, leading to disharmony, so that, as it were, a club has been formed, and we consist, so to speak, of two classes of members. There are two ways to proceed here. There is a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. This is a public matter, not a private one. The complaint would therefore have to be brought forward. However, it is not clear what the actual issue is. One point is the tea party with the ladies; the second point is that the executive committee alone took inappropriate measures. The mistake seems to lie in the fact that, at the time of the club’s founding, there was no discussion about how the committee’s affairs should be handled. No real discord has yet arisen—only complaints from a few gentlemen based on objective grounds.”

[ 23 ] Dr. Steiner: “If we had come to reproach anyone, then you could hold something against us. We are returning the leadership to those who have a wish list. The mindset expressed in that wish list is such that it can lead to nothing within the Theosophical Society.”

[ 24 ] Krojanker: “A desire for power arises among those who perhaps believe themselves to be superior. But I have heard from Dr. Steiner that Theosophy submits to no authority.”

[ 25 ] Tessmar: “It’s all far too materialistic. We are members of the Theosophical Society, but the entire Berlin branch can go home if Dr. Steiner says: ‘I will no longer give lectures here.’—Dr. Steiner gives theosophical lectures, not ones on matters concerning speakers. I myself do not want an accountability report; I want to hear Theosophy so that I can make progress. And now there is also this complaint about authority. The Theosophical lectures are my authority. I show my trust by not asking: ‘What is the library doing? What are the six members of the Council of Three who come in here doing?’”

[ 26 ] Krojanker: “I now see where today’s debate is leading us. We have to come to terms with the facts. From Dr. Steiner’s response, I can see that he cannot be persuaded in any way, and that perhaps only time can bring about an understanding of the individual issues. We are faced with the fact that this separation is taking place. What must happen now? Perhaps we should devote another hour to this question.”

[ 27 ] (A motion to close the debate is made and adopted.)

[ 28 ] (This was followed by the resignations of Dr. Steiner, Miss von Sivers, and Mr. Kiem.)

[ 29 ] Dr. Steiner: “My only remaining duty is to recommend that we elect an interim managing director for the time being. The procedure will be as follows: The managing director will be tasked with notifying the other members of my resignation. I myself will also inform the external members that I, for my part, have resigned.” Krojanker: “Can’t a general statement be issued to the members from both sides regarding what has taken place here?”

[ 30 ] (A number of members announce their resignation from the Berlin chapter.)

[ 31 ] Krojanker: Asks what he is being accused of and is told that he does not see eye to eye with management.

[ 32 ] Dr. Steiner: “Why did I do this in general? It was done this way because there was no other option. The Berlin branch can now experiment and so on, and do its own thing.”

[ 33 ] Ms. Eberty: “We invited everyone.”

[ 34 ] Dr. Steiner: “I have invited a few people using my name and with a personal greeting. However, the list is not yet complete.”

[ 35 ] Ms. [Johannesson]: “We felt separated by the tone you used. We felt as if you had drawn a line between us.”

[ 36 ] Miss [Voigt]: “Perhaps the ladies could be asked what topic was discussed? And also about the question Mr. Fränkel raised. That might be of interest.”

[ 37 ] Tessmar: “I’m on Dr. Steiner’s side. I won’t let myself be swayed. Please take note of that. I really feel offended. As an old sailor, I’d choose different words to describe it. I won’t stand for personal attacks.”

[ 38 ] Dr. Steiner: “So a director must be elected for the German Theosophical Society. It would have been impossible for me to continue my work without taking this step. I cannot give intimate lectures in this atmosphere. I had only two choices: to leave Berlin or to take this step. Maintaining continuity—that was the reason for it. When Mrs. Annie Besant saw the atmosphere here, she said I should go to Munich, where the work that Miss von Sivers has been carrying out can be continued. But I will not change my entire attitude in the slightest. This is a matter of outward appearances, not of inner reality.”

[ 39 ] In attendance were approximately 30 members. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 [p.m.].