The Rudolf Steiner Archive

23. General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

Berlin, October 22, 1905, Motzstr. 17 Report in the “Communications for the Members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society (Headquarters: Adyar), published by Mathilde Scholl,” No. 1/1905

[ 1 ] At around half past ten, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Secretary General of the German Section, opened the third regular general assembly and welcomed the representatives of the foreign branches and all other guests.

[ 2 ] Following the reading and approval of the minutes of the General Meeting held on October 30, 1904, the number of votes cast by the various branches was determined, with the following results:

	Members	Votes
Besant Branch	83	5
Berlin Branch	18	2
Charlottenburg Branch	5	2
Weimar Branch	11	2
Munich Branch	33	2
Stuttgart I Branch	9	2
Stuttgart II Branch	11	2
Stuttgart III Branch	11	2
Freiburg i.Br. Branch	10	2
Lugano Branch	9	2
Karlsruhe Branch	9	2
Cologne Branch	22	2
Düsseldorf Branch	15	2
Hamburg Branch	21	2
Hanover Branch	25	2
Leipzig Branch	26	2
Dresden Branch	9	2
Nuremberg Branch	18	2
		41

[ 3 ] Absolute majority: 21 votes
Two-thirds majority: 28 votes.

[ 4 ] Mr. Hubo submitted the following motion of procedure: The General Assembly should resolve to grant the right to publish information about the General Assembly exclusively to the Secretary General; any other publication, however, should be declared inadmissible. After a lengthy debate, in which Dr. Löhnis, Ahner, Krojanker, Arenson, Stübing, Kieser, Dr. Paulus, and Dr. Steiner participated, the debate concluded, and upon a motion by Wagner, Hubo’s motion was adopted as follows, with all in favor and two against:

[ 5 ] “The report on the General Assembly shall be reproduced by the Secretary-General and sent confidentially to all members; it may not otherwise be published or distributed.”

[ 6 ] Regarding the first item on the agenda—the Secretary-General’s report—Dr. Rudolf Steiner made the following remarks:

[ 7 ] “The Theosophical Movement has spread extensively and deeply throughout Germany and Switzerland. Theosophical ideas seem to be gaining a wider understanding. During my visits to Munich, Nuremberg, Regensburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt am Main, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Weimar, Zurich, Basel, Kassel, and so on, it has become clear that a deep longing for spiritual enrichment is rooted in people’s hearts. In these cities, we either already have branches or are planning to establish them. Branches have thus been established in Freiburg im Breisgau and Karlsruhe, and in other cities—such as St. Gallen, Frankfurt am Main, and so on—such branches are likely to be established soon. In Basel and Heidelberg, conditions are more difficult; there, we must first foster an understanding that the high spirit, which was sent into the world thirty years ago, flows through our Society. There is still much misunderstanding to be cleared up there, which has been caused by the splinter theosophical movements.

[ 8 ] This longing should give us strength. It all depends on our cultivating not merely Theosophical teachings, but a Theosophical way of life. Only when Theosophy radiates from art, science, and all other branches of life—only then will it have fully embraced its mission. The significance of the Theosophical Movement was beautifully demonstrated once again at the Congress of the Federation of European Sections in London. One may object to such congresses as one pleases; perfection did not fall from the sky; but what matters here are intentions. We must set ourselves the ideal of improving what needs improvement, of working together, and of refraining from criticism.

[ 9 ] Before I move on to the congress report, I would like to mention a fact that relates to certain recent events. On the eve of the congress, Mrs. Besant spoke at the Blavatsky Lodge about the needs of the discipleship in connection with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. All who were present at that time will agree with me when I say that this was an hour of heartfelt Theosophical fellowship, from which one could take away a lasting impression on both heart and mind. I have rarely heard Mrs. Besant speak in such a sincere and heartfelt manner. Some time earlier, the English edition of *Vâhan* had suggested that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s character traits were at odds with discipleship, and the question had been raised: Can someone possess such qualities and yet not be free from faults such as smoking, occasional passionate outbursts, and so on? Mrs. Besant took up this remark from *Vâhan* and said that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky had been a personality who was, for her, the bringer of light; it was she who had led her out of darkness toward the light. Well, yes, it is true that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky smoked and lost her temper; but do those who ask such questions know what it means to endure the storms and struggles that one must face until one has worked one’s way up to this level of knowledge? Even the sun has sunspots, but we should not judge it by these spots, but rather as the bringer of light and warmth. The younger members should first seek to understand the older members—whose greatness they cannot yet recognize—before they begin to criticize them.

[ 10 ] Let us take this opportunity to say a few words about the cult of personality and blind faith in authority, since such matters have also been discussed in our section. It might seem that I myself am now attempting to promote such a cult of personality and blind faith in authority with regard to Mrs. Besant. In the time before I knew Mrs. Besant, I was as far removed as possible from engaging in a cult of personality; I was more inclined to continue searching the world over for the truth. Then I met Mrs. Besant. It was not out of a cult of personality, but rather based on the spiritual substance of her personality, that I became convinced that within her lives that which leads to the higher spiritual worlds. Fifteen years ago, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was still a mystery to me, but through Mrs. Besant I also found my way to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Mrs. Besant is the last person to demand a cult of personality; nothing is more distasteful to her than that. Mrs. Besant has never demanded the slightest bit of a cult of personality from me.

[ 11 ] A scene unfolded at the Congress that seemed to symbolically express the global mission of the Theosophical Society. In addition to Mrs. Besant, representatives from various sections and countries were present. Everyone spoke in their native language. There, in the languages of the most diverse peoples of the earth, one could hear the idea of Theosophy common to all; Dutch, English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Indian. The course of the congress followed the usual pattern. There was an exhibition, particularly of arts and crafts by our members. Among the German exhibitors, I would like to highlight Lauweriks (Düsseldorf), Seydewitz (Munich), Boyer (Düsseldorf), Miss Stinde (Munich), and Miss Schmidt (Stuttgart). Worth mentioning are the paintings by the Irish artist Russell, who attempted to express inner astral life through the atmosphere and symbolism in his landscapes and figures. Mrs. Besant also pointed out that anyone seeking Theosophy in art could find it, for example, in the work of Richard Wagner. Reference was also made to the sculptural work of a sculptor named Ezekiel, who lives in Italy. Mrs. Besant remarked that it well reflects the mental image a Theosophist might have of Christ.

[ 12 ] It is also worth mentioning Ms. Besant’s lecture on Sunday evening about occult research, its methods, and its dangers. No one should accept anything claimed by occult research on the basis of good faith or authority, but should instead regard it initially only as a point of inspiration. What comes to light in this field is explored through difficult means. Therefore, those who conduct such research should aim only to inspire.

[ 13 ] I myself was given the opportunity to give a lecture on the occult foundations of Goethe's works.

[ 14 ] Regarding last year’s Federation Yearbook, I note that it was completed in early July, with the exception of the index, which should likely be finished in the next few days.

[ 15 ] This time, the yearbook should be completed in less time.

[ 16 ] The 1906 convention will be held in Paris. It is expected to take place in May.

[ 17 ] This concludes the factual remarks. However, I would like these remarks to be taken as intended, and I hope that these statements are understood to mean that all theosophical teachings, dogmas, and ideas have value only when they are integrated into everyday life.

[ 18 ] Those who join the Theosophical Society should know that everyone sitting there should be a source of spiritual energy. We are clear about the living interweaving and life of the Spirit. We do not wish to spread the teachings through mere words on the physical plane. We know that the Spirit flows out like the current from an electrical power source. Where Theosophists gather, there should be such a power source. Then those who receive these waves will also be found. One should feel like a member of a spiritual community.”

The following is the financial report from the treasurer, Mr. Seiler:

Total revenue for the past
fiscal year amounted to 1,462 marks
Total expenses were 936.67 marks
resulting in a surplus of 525.33 marks

[ 19 ] In addition, there are 1,000 marks in the bank, bringing the total cash assets to 1,525.33 marks.

[ 20 ] In this regard, Dr. Steiner reported that Countess Wachtmeister had made 50 pounds available to him for theosophical work in Germany. He requested that these funds be used exclusively for propaganda and that he be permitted to administer them jointly with Miss von Sivers. The General Assembly approved this request.

[ 21 ] Miss von Sivers, as secretary of the German Section, provides the following report on the course of theosophical life over the past year:

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

Total number of members: 377, compared to 256 the previous year; an increase of 121.
Resigned: 8.
Deceased: 3.
New members: 132, compared to 121 the previous year.

Members in the individual branches:
Besant Branch [newly founded] 83
Berlin Branch [DTG] 18
Charlottenburg 5
Weimar 11 Munich 33
Stuttgart I 9
Stuttgart II (Kerning Lodge) 11
Stuttgart III 11
Freiburg im Breisgau 10
Lugano 9
Karlsruhe 9
Cologne on the Rhine 22
Düsseldorf 15
Hamburg 21
Hanover 25
Leipzig 26
Dresden 9
Nuremberg 18

Section members 22

[ 23 ] Reports from the individual branches:

[ 24 ] Mr. Ahner reports from Dresden that there has been much strife within the Theosophical Movement there, particularly with the Secession. These circumstances led to the founding of an Adyar Lodge, which, however, is finding it very difficult to maintain its membership, as funds are very limited. Work could therefore only be carried out within a smaller circle. Mr. Ahner concludes with a general appeal to the generosity of the well-to-do members. Mr. Hubo urges that such voluntary contributions be made immediately following the General Assembly.

[ 25 ] According to the report by the treasury auditor, Mr. Krojanker, the treasurer is granted discharge, as are the other members of the board thereafter.

[ 26 ] The next item on the agenda is the election of the Executive Board:

[ 27 ] Regarding the election of the Secretary-General, Mr. Bresch takes the floor and says something to the following effect: He is opposed to Dr. Steiner’s reelection. Three years ago, he himself had urged Dr. Steiner to accept the position. At that time, Dr. Steiner was regarded as a scholar. Since then, however, he has been acting as an occultist, and it must be said that such individuals are not suited for administrative positions. Dr. Steiner would be better able to perform his duties as a teacher if he were not burdened with the position of Secretary-General. Furthermore, it is dangerous to have people with occult pretensions in such positions. The Judge case proved this. An occult lifestyle is all too easily associated with fraud, imposture, deception, and so on. Mr. Bresch would therefore like to ask Dr. Steiner to voluntarily decline re-election.

[ 28 ] Dr. Steiner first notes that no motion for reelection has even been filed yet. He acknowledges Mr. Bresch’s reasons to a certain extent; however, as things stand today, he feels obligated to accept the election should he be elected.

[ 29 ] Arenson's motion: Dr. Steiner should be reelected as Secretary-General.

[ 30 ] For the duration of this election, Dr. Steiner will hand over the chairmanship to Miss Scholl.

[ 31 ] Mr. Stübing asks whether it might be possible for Dr. Steiner to devote his work entirely to propaganda.

[ 32 ] Dr. Steiner replies that this has long been his wish, but given the current circumstances, he would be failing in his duty to the Theosophical Movement if he did not accept the election.

[ 33 ] Mr. Hubo proposes a middle ground: to re-elect Dr. Steiner, but to relieve him of mechanical tasks by providing him with paid assistants. On a point of order, Dr. Steiner requests that these motions be considered separately. After a lengthy debate, in which Messrs. Ahner, Dr. Paulus, and Arenson participate, a motion to close the debate is made, and Dr. Steiner is reelected by a roll call vote with all in favor and two against.

[ 34 ] He once again assumes the chair.

[ 35 ] Next, the remaining twelve members of the Executive Board will be elected; they will be elected individually by roll call.

The election results are as follows:

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

[ 36 ] This is followed by the election of the treasurer. At the request of Mr. Wagner, Mr. Seiler is reelected. Since Mr. Krojanker declines reelection, Miss Motzkus and Mr. Tessmar are nominated and elected as auditors. Motion by the Secretary General: For reasons of fairness, the section members—of whom we currently have 22 in Germany and who do not belong to any branch—should also have representation in the General Assembly. On behalf of the Executive Board, he proposes that they be treated collectively as a single branch; that is, in addition to one joint delegate, they should each have one additional delegate for every 25 members (with fractions of 25 counting as a full 25). The motion is accepted.

[ 37 ] Dr. Steiner requests permission to greet the general secretaries of the other sections on behalf of the General Assembly. Approved.

[ 38 ] Motion by Bresch and Dr. Löhnis regarding the Fuente affair, Leipzig, August 30, 1905: Motion: The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society be resolved as follows:

[ 39 ] 1. The President of the Theosophical Society, Mr. H. 8. Olcott, the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society express their displeasure because he permitted Mrs. Besant to use half of the estate of Don Salvador de la Fuente for the purposes of the Central Hindu College, even though, according to the arbitral award, this is not mentioned in the deceased’s papers, but rather states that the bequest was to be used for the purposes of the Theosophical Society.

[ 40 ] 2. The President of the Theosophical Society is further criticized for responding to factually substantiated complaints from individual members with personal insults (“impertinences” and “selfishness,” according to *The Theosophist*, July 1905, p. 622).

[ 41 ] 3. The President of the Theosophical Society is requested to transfer to the Theosophical Society itself the endowments and bequests in his possession—which were entrusted to him as the Society’s representative—since the Theosophical Society has now obtained corporate status.

[ 42 ] 4. The President is further requested to always obtain the prior approval of the Central Executive Committee when utilizing foundations and bequests intended for the purposes of the Theosophical Society, since, according to Paragraph 11 of the Bylaws of the Theosophical Society, he himself acts only as a co-administrator, not as the sole administrator, of the Society’s property.

[ 43 ] 5. The displeasure of the members of the German Section is expressed to the Vice President and the Secretaries-General of the various sections, as members of the Central Executive Committee, because they failed to object to the unlawful conduct of Mr. Olcott and Mrs. Besant in the matter of the Fuente bequest.

[ 44 ] 6. The Central Executive Committee is requested to have the President present the documents pertaining to the Fuente estate and to resolve this matter properly through the regular courts.

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

[ 46 ] Richard Bresch, Dr. F. Löhnis

[ 47 ] Dr. Steiner reports that the following is available on this subject:

[ 48 ] 1. Counter-motion by the Munich Lodge and several other lodges: “To the Secretary-General of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.” In Issue 3 of *Vâhan*, Volume VII, Mr. Bresch published a motion to the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, according to which the Assembly was to resolve: To express the displeasure of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society to the President, the Vice President, and the General Secretaries of the various sections of the Theosophical Society, because they permitted—or, respectively, raised no objection to—Mrs. Besant’s use of half of the Central Hindu College.

[ 49 ] Although the arbitrator, Sir Subramania Iyer, acknowledged in his award: “that Mrs. Besant is entitled to half of the estate bequeathed to her by Colonel Olcott, although, on the other hand, Mr. Bresch has already had to acknowledge that a charge he once brought against President Olcott and Mrs. Besant in this matter was groundless and invalid (‘Vâhan’ No. 12, Vol. VI, p. 280)), Mr. Bresch and his friends nevertheless wish to take Mrs. Besant to court because Mr. Bresch wants the money distributed, and because Mr. Bresch and his friends have no trust in any leader of our movement. Dr. F. Löhnis, a co-signatory of the aforementioned motion, accuses Mr. McAd of dishonesty, Mr. Olcott of partiality, Mrs. Besant of pride, and the majority of the members of servility in an article preceding the justification for this motion (“Vâhan” No. 3, Vol. VII). The undersigned members of the Theosophical Society consider the motion by Mr. Bresch and his friends to be unjustified and view Dr. Löhnis’s line of argument as an unwarranted insult to the highly respected leaders of our movement and to the majority of the members of the Theosophical Society. To express the confidence of the members of the German Section in the revered leaders of the movement, the undersigned members request that the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society reject the aforementioned motion and adopt the following resolution:

[ 50 ] Motion: “The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society expresses to Mr. H. S. Olcott and Mrs. Besant, in grateful recognition of the great services they have rendered to the Society, the fullest confidence of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society. The General Assembly expresses its conviction that Mrs. Besant acted with full authority in using half of the estate bequeathed to Colonel Olcott and her by Don Salvador de la Fuente.”

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

[ 51 ] 2. Motion by the Hanover Branch: Hanover, October 12, 1905. Regarding the motion by Bresch and comrades. Contrary to the motion submitted by Mr. Bresch and his comrades (published in *Vâhan* in September of this year), the Hanover Branch resolved at its meeting on October 9 of this year to submit the following motion to the General Assembly on October 22 of this year:

[ 52 ] Motion: “Regarding the motion submitted by the Leipzig branch—specifically by Mr. Bresch and his colleagues—as reported in *Vâhan* in September of this year, the Hanover branch moves to remove this item from the agenda on the grounds that—quite apart from the question of whether the individual complaints are objectively justified or not— —it is formally entirely inappropriate to discuss such matters of the Society in a public publication and, moreover, to have them represented by a branch. This must damage the reputation of our Society and impair the influence of our movement. Such expressions of opinion should only be made personally and privately, based on expert investigation rather than mere formal judgment, and they should never be addressed in public but, at most, settled in closed-door discussions among the parties involved.” The Executive Committee of the Hanover Branch of the Theosophical Society.

[ 53 ] Wilhelm Eggers.

[ 54 ] The Secretary-General reports that the following branches have endorsed the Munich proposal:

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

[ 55 ] The delegates Bauer (Nuremberg), Mücke (Besant Branch), Lübke (Weimar), and Arenson (Branch III, Stuttgart) then reported the resolutions of their respective branches: to support the motion from Hanover to move on to the agenda. This motion, being the most far-reaching, is addressed first.

[ 56 ] Messrs. Krojanker, Jahn, and Stübing spoke against the motion, with the latter two emphasizing that Messrs. Bresch and Löhnis had been misunderstood. Furthermore, a new motion had already been drafted in a less harsh form; in the interest of fairness, the gentlemen should be allowed to speak. It would be intolerant and un-theosophical to adopt the Hanover motion. Delegates Arenson, Bauer, Huchthausen, Hubo, and von Sivers spoke in favor of the motion, which they described as well-thought-out. There could be no question of intolerance. A debate would hardly bring anything new to light, and the assembly had better things to do than listen once again to everything that had been said along these lines in recent weeks. The form and content of Bresch’s motion were so deeply offensive that, even taking into account what had come to light at the Executive Committee meeting, the adoption of the Hanover motion was the only dignified course of action.

[ 57 ] After a motion to close the debate was adopted, the Hanover motion was approved by an overwhelming majority, whereupon Messrs. Bresch and Löhnis and one of their supporters demonstratively left the assembly.

[ 58 ] A letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mr. Deinhard regarding the pamphlet by Dr. Hensoldt, which has been distributed from Leipzig in recent weeks, is now read aloud; it reads as follows:

“To the Annual Meeting of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in Berlin, on October 22, 1905. Regarding the motions submitted by Mr. Bresch and his colleagues concerning the use of the De la Fuente bequest, the undersigned request permission to express their personal views: We have in our possession a pamphlet by Dr. Heinrich Hensoldt titled “Annie Besant, a Peculiar Saint,” which was sent to us from Leipzig. We cannot help but suspect that this pamphlet was the catalyst for the agitation originating there against the leaders of our Society. This pamphlet serves the sole purpose of combating and suppressing our Society. It contains inaccurate statements of fact mixed with a malicious distortion of the actual circumstances. The description of the character and aspirations of Mrs. Besant and Colonel Olcott (page 42 and following) is, for the most part, the exact opposite of reality. The picture they paint contradicts the judgment held by all those closest to them regarding their moral and intellectual worth; and to be able to make a sound assessment of such personalities, one must have known them for decades. The same requirement applies to the assessment of the factual circumstances.

As for the use of de Ia Fuente’s bequest in particular, it was carried out in accordance with the testator’s wishes. Dr. Hensoldt objects (page 46) only to the allocation to the great Adyar Library. Undoubtedly, however, this is precisely the most significant achievement of our movement. Therefore, support for it had to be given top priority. Under the overall direction of Dr. Otto Schrader, an outstanding German scholar of Sanskrit and Pali, this collection of rare books and unique manuscripts is now on the verge of developing into a world-class library of the highest order. The capital contribution from that bequest serves as a necessary prerequisite for this. Even if this had not been the testator’s own wish, his bequest could not have been put to a more beneficial use. Incidentally, we older members are familiar with the fact that our Society tends to go through a crisis every ten years, during which the very same objections are always raised against it. It was founded in [1875], the Coulomb crisis occurred in 1885, the Judge crisis in [1895], and the current crisis in 1905: The effect of all these crises, however, has always been that all those who judge the nature of our society purely intellectually fall away from it, because they lack the necessary intuition to sense the spirit that is at work through the leaders of our society.”

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

[ 59 ] Dr. Steiner describes the brochure as a terrible pamphlet and states that Mr. Bresch said at the board meeting that he had provided Mr. Hensoldt with printing materials and mailing lists.

[ 60 ] As a representative of the Leipzig Lodge, Mr. Jahn objects to this. He believes that the condemnation of Messrs. Bresch and Löhnis goes too far. Although he himself opposes the attacks made in the “Vâhan,” he feels compelled to defend these gentlemen, as he believes that while Mr. Bresch may be a fanatic, he is not driven by malicious motives. He asks that he be judged from this perspective.

[ 61 ] Dr. Steiner notes in this regard that no one should be denied the [subjective] feeling of fighting for the truth. However, there is a complete lack of any sense of the factual basis of the truth here. This is demonstrated by the way the “Vâhan” behaved toward eyewitnesses of true facts, which it had distorted. Their conduct toward Miss Scholl, Mrs. Lübke, and Dr. Vollrath clearly demonstrates that Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis simply lacked any sense of the necessary factual basis for truth.

[ 62 ] Dr. Paulus moves to proceed with the agenda, as it is truly not worth engaging in any further lengthy debates over such a lengthy treatise by a non-member. Mr. Stübing notes that the brochure should not be viewed in connection with Bresch-Löhnis’s motion.

[ 63 ] Mr. Ahner disagrees. Anyone who reads *Vâhan* and the brochure will see the connection. Hensoldt is, in a sense, held up as a model in *Vâhan*.

[ 64 ] After Miss von Sivers spoke out against Ms. Stübing’s view and Mrs. Lübke, Privy Councilor, announced that Mr. Bresch had stated at the board meeting that he was indebted to Mr. Hensoldt for the unveiling, the motion to proceed with the agenda was approved.

[ 65 ] This is followed by a motion from Dr. Paulus on behalf of the Stuttgart I branch. The proposer refers to the circular from the Stuttgart branch dated June 27 of this year and moves to establish a “newsletter” for the German Section in the following form:

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

[ 66 ] A further motion is being filed in this regard:

“To ask a member to take charge of publishing this newsletter. The costs for this, however, are to be covered by voluntary contributions.”

[ 67 ] Mr. Hubo, Miss Stinde, Mr. Bauer, and Dr. Paulus are participating in the debate.

[ 68 ] Dr. Steiner proposes “to publish the newsletter officially and to send it to every member separately from *Luzifer*, on a mandatory basis and free of charge.”

[ 69 ] Following further discussion among members Ahner, Peipers, Bauer, Hubo, Arenson, and von Sivers, it was deemed appropriate to entrust the entire matter to a suitable member, who may proceed as he or she sees fit.

[ 70 ] The following motion is made: Miss Scholl would like to begin by working on the publication of a newsletter and to contact individuals she deems suitable for this purpose. The motion is approved.

[ 71 ] Motion by the Leipzig Lodge:

“The General Assembly resolved: ‘All motions received by the deadline for sending out invitations to the General Assembly shall be sent to all members along with this invitation.’”

[ 72 ] The motion is approved.

[ 73 ] Scholl's motion:

“The General Assembly resolves: To request that Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis resign from the company.”

[ 74 ] Mr. Jahn responds by saying that the two gentlemen should not be treated equally in this assessment, since they are certainly acting on different motives.

[ 75 ] Messrs. Engel, Stübing, Krojanker, and Feldner oppose this motion. Mr. Ahner asks Miss Scholl to withdraw this motion. Miss Scholl remarks that she has given the matter careful consideration and cannot possibly comply with this request.

[ 76 ] Mr. Stübing moved: “To move on to the agenda following Mr. Scholl’s motion.”

[ 77 ] This motion is denied.

[ 78 ] Scholl's motion is denied.

[ 79 ] A motion is now being made to transfer the “Theosophical Library”—which has thus far been under the management of the “Berlin Branch” and in the possession of several private individuals—to the management of the German Section. The General Assembly generally expresses its approval of this motion.

[ 80 ] The Executive Board is tasked with the preparatory work for the congress of European sections, which may take place in Germany.

[ 81 ] The Munich branch has once again raised the request, already made last year, to relocate the General Secretariat to Munich. The matter has been noted once again.

[ 82 ] At half past three, Dr. Steiner concluded the business portion of the meeting and invited the members to attend the substantive portion of the General Assembly at half past four. With regard to a report on the General Assembly of the German Section contained in the November 1905 issue of *Vâhan*, we note that it is impossible—and also entirely pointless—to engage in a polemic with people who have made this style of combat their own. We want to work, not argue. We merely wish to note here the “objective untruths” that are all too prevalent:

[ 83 ] 1. Dr. Löhnis writes: “Instead of the factual annual report that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to submit, Dr. Steiner presented his devoted followers with a glittering glorification of Mrs. Besant, and he further enhanced his own aura by declaring that for a long time he had been associating “on higher planes” with Madame Blavatsky, the “great teacher to whom all who ‘know’ look up with true insight.”

[ 84 ] This is objectively untrue. The truth is rather that the report was given in its entirety, partly by Dr. Steiner and partly by Miss von Sivers, and that the alleged “apotheosis” was a necessary part of this factual report on the congress of European sections. Regarding Mrs. Blavatsky, Dr. Steiner merely said that Mrs. Besant had helped him come to understand her. Nothing was said about “higher plans.”

[ 85 ] 2. Dr. Löhnis writes, using all sorts of fanciful combinations that are of no concern to us here, that Countess Wachtmeister “had donated a substantial amount to promote the Theosophical Movement in Germany. It was deemed unnecessary to provide more precise details regarding the amount. All that was disclosed was that approximately 1,000 marks are available annually.”

[ 86 ] This is yet another objective falsehood. It was specifically stated that Countess Wachtmeister had given 1,000 marks on one occasion (not annually).

[ 87 ] 3. It is also objectively untrue that Dr. Steiner himself advocated for his election as General Secretary; following Mr. Bresch’s speech opposing this election, he merely remarked in a few words that he would accept the position if elected, because he still considered it his duty at this time.

[ 88 ] 4. It is objectively untrue that Miss Scholl made a motion to expel Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis. Rather, the truth is that the motion called for requesting the aforementioned gentlemen to resign. Enough said; anyone who illustrates the principle “No law stands above the truth” with such “objective untruths” is indeed justified in constantly repeating it or letting it flow from their pen!!!

[ 89 ] have announced their resignation from the Theosophical Society:

[ 90 ] Mr. Richard Bresch, Dr. Löhnis, Mr. Haase, Mr. Heyne, Mr. Emil Hubricht.

[ 91 ] New members include:

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