The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Theosophical Society. German Section.

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

Dear friends!

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

The proceedings will be as follows:

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

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

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

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

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

3. Possible discussion of pending matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Theosophical greeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudolf Steiner.

Edited by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden P.T. General Secretary of the Theosophical Society in Germany.

The fact that this memorandum forces me to write the following saddens me. For I would prefer to respond to the fierce attacks that its “publisher” (sic) has printed against me only with the compassion that I have for their author. There are indeed attacks – and this “memorandum” is truly proof of this – that are so absurd, that lack all documentation, that the matter itself, not just the temperament and attitude of the attacked party, can push all other feelings aside, except that of compassion. In the matter at hand, however, I am not defending my person, but a cause. And this imposes on me the obligation to suppress my personal feelings. It would truly not do them justice to let Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden speak against Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in the way I will have to do. I would have liked to leave the following statements by this man in my archives, where a large number of them have been for several years. One only refers to such things when the attacker forces one to do so, as Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden forces me to do in this case. Forced by him, I must bring the following to the notice.

On page 7 of this memorandum – the first one to be considered for the text – Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “Meanwhile, a new association, ‘the Anthroposophical Society’, has emerged from the members of this earlier German Section. This was a completely natural development of the circumstances, since in the last seven years the attitude and aspirations in the section had become so completely different from the essence and program of the Theosophical Movement. This community followed different spiritual leaders than those in whose spirit the Theosophical Society was founded decades ago and is still led. The meaning and purpose of the Theosophical Society are now fundamentally in question here. However, in Germany, no one is better able to judge this and provide information than the editor of this

On pages 73 and 74 of his ‘Denkschrift’ Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has printed the programmatic sentences of an “Undogmatic Association” that he had to found with a task that the final sentences of this program express in the following way: “Its only purpose is to ensure that the original meaning of the Theosophical Society is also expressed again in Germany within the organization as it was created by the founders of the Society.” According to the draft of the program that I have, this “Undogmatic Association” was founded in August 1912 by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mr. J.H. Cordes.

The whole situation forces one to assume that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden was of the opinion in August 1912 that the German Section of the Theosophical Society, founded in October 1902, had gradually developed into a body that did not express the “original meaning of the Theosophical Society,” about which no one was better able to provide “information” than he was.

On page 8 of the “Denkschrift” published by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, we read: “The following factual material on the prehistory and the course of the present separation of the Anthroposophical Society is given here.” Here, however, the “factual material” given in the “memorandum” must be contrasted with another. It should then be left to the reader to form an opinion about this “memorandum”. He could truly, if he only reads this memorandum, form the opinion that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had to watch how the “German Section of the Theosophical Society”, founded in 1902, thoroughly misunderstood the meaning and purpose of this society, even turning it into its opposite, so that he, who is able to “judge and provide information” about this “meaning and purpose”, felt compelled to take care of this “meaning and purpose” in August 1912 by founding an “Undogmatic Association”; yes, that he even felt compelled to found a better German Section in February 1913, under the presidency of Annie Besant. purpose» by founding an «Undogmatic Association»; yes, that he even felt compelled to join President Annie Besant in February 1913 to found a better German Section, after she had excluded the German Section founded in 1902 from the Theosophical Society because of its conduct, which allegedly went against the purpose of the Theosophical Society. Anyone who formed this opinion could then ask: Why did the German section, founded in 1902, not properly integrate into the Theosophical Society and then continue to act in accordance with the “purpose and meaning” of that society? It would have been enough to ask Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about this “meaning and purpose”, since, according to the quoted statement that he had printed in the “memorandum” that he “published”, he knew it exactly. A reader who might come across this question must undoubtedly be interested to know whether the General Secretary of the German Section had not heard anything from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about the “meaning and purpose” of the Society in 1902, since he had, after all, Hübbe-Schleiden, so thoroughly mismanaged this section that the man who is best qualified to judge the “meaning and purpose” of this in Germany feels compelled to return the matter, which has gone so badly astray, to the right track.

Now, I will not object if Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden boasts that he can provide better information than anyone else about the “meaning and purpose” of the Theosophical Society, that he worked with Olcott and Blavatsky and that he “introduced the entire Theosophical movement to Germany” thirty years ago. Well – one should at least believe it – if Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is currently having this printed, then he would have to admit that anyone who, because they were led to do so by the circumstances at the time, became the General Secretary when the German section of this society was founded, would not have acted disloyally towards Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in 1902 if they had turned to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden for such “information”. This “someone” could have been me, for example. Suppose I had asked Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who claimed in 1913 that no one was as capable as he was of providing information about these matters, for this information on various occasions in 1902. At any rate, I received such “information” from him on repeated occasions at the time. I will not talk about verbal information now. I will only cite those that are contained in letters that are still available.

On August 15, 1902, a passage in a letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens (who “was almost the only one able to provide information about these matters”) read: “Only now do you feel the awkwardness and even hopelessness of the prospects for the use of our old Theosophical Society within the entire Theosophical movement in Germany. Almost all the human material that we have acquired as members so far is not only useless, but an almost insurmountable obstacle. The spirit of Theosophy, as understood by H.P.B. and Annie Besant, is also (here follows the name of a man who was in the camp of the opponents of the Theosophical Society founded by Olcott and Blavatsky) and his people so completely and adequately represented that we are quite superfluous as “Theosophists” alongside them. Olcott's nature and attitude is essentially that of... and... (here are two names for men who were fierce opponents of Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens); and that is why I have always voted not to found a section of our Theosophical Society alongside the Leipzig movement, but to let the old Theosophical Society here in Germany peter out, since its achievements are spiritually and organizationally incapable.

But since no one except... (here is the name of a long-time friend, Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens) and the Munich group so far shares my view, I passively let them do as they please. I myself will hardly ever publicly represent the spiritual movement I serve under the name Theosophy and Theosophical Society. For me, quite different names will arise out of the matter itself. Nevertheless, I am glad to try to serve the Theosophical Movement as it has developed, and in a general way the little pamphlet “Serve the Eternal!” does that. In the Leipzig Society there will be hundreds who will read it and like it. In our Society it will be simply thrown into the corner by... (again the names of the two opponents Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden) and their followers will simply be thrown into the corner. But new interested parties will rather turn to this school of thought if it is not tainted by the bad smell of lies and deception, dishonesty and superficiality, lack of judgment and lack of education...

On August 18, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden again writes the following “information”: “I fully agree with you that our Theosophical movement has to go far beyond H.P.B. and Annie Besant. Whether this will still be possible here in Germany under the catchwords Theosophy and Theosophical Society, I doubt very much...

On August 21, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gave this “information”: “I can only repeat to you that I consider this section formation to be completely irrelevant. It may provide you personally with a foundation; (here Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden adds the marginal note: “Only from this point of view do I approve the founding of the Section”), but factually and intellectually it is only an obstacle for you. A movement of members, which we can use for spiritual life, is to be made first. Such members must first be found. Whether this will still be possible at all under the slogans Theosophy and Theos. Society? I do not think it is possible. But try it!...

On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote the following “information” – which “nobody could provide as well” as he could: “First of all, you (the letter writer meant me, Rudolf Steiner) must be given a free hand and the opportunity to bring together a few communities without the hopelessly compromised buzzwords, with which one might be able to found a section later.”

On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden provided the following information: “Moreover, it is my often-expressed opinion that Theosophy, as Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater understand it, is fully and adequately represented by the Hartmannians.... But that is not all, and in any case, these aspects are not even the most important. What I consider most important is the fact that the Theosophical movement, as it is currently practiced, has absolutely no right to exist in modern and future intellectual culture. Not only is there a lack of scientific justification, but what is called Theosophy today is even hostile to any scientific justification. This is the only point of view in which our... (the names of the two opponents Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and associates with... (the names of opponents of the Theosophical Society, to which Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden belonged) and their followers. Any amount of energy that you throw into a movement that calls itself 'Theosophy or 'Theosophical Society is a shameful waste of your (actually I am meant, Rudolf Steiner) living spiritual power. You are thereby committing a sin against the Holy Spirit, because your inner consciousness tells you that what today calls itself 'Theosophy' and 'Theosophical Society' is culturally contrary and hostile. It is the opposite of the spirit that you express in your 'Christianity' (especially p. 1.)...

On September 30, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden provided the following “information” (which even “nobody” could not have provided better): “Furthermore, it seems to me from your letter that you actually have the desire or are willing to bind the Section, as it will now be formed, to your legs as a block...”

Now, I do not want to talk here about the reasons that led me to believe that the founding of the German Section was both right and necessary at the time. Perhaps I can do so on another occasion. (This can also be found in my previously given descriptions.) I will only add to the above “information” provided by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who was better qualified to provide it than anyone else, that before the constituent general assembly of the German Section in October 1902, I gave a lecture at the Berlin Giordano Bruno League in which I explained why I believe a Theosophical movement is necessary in our time, what I found insufficient in what is called such a movement, and how I envision this movement. Whether I have ever deviated from what I then characterized as a program to this day, I believe I can expose myself to the strictest judgment of those who understand.

What did the man (Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden) write, who, as the “Denkschrift” claims, hardly needed to know, about the message I gave him about this lecture? On October 15, 1902, he wrote: “Your letter of the day before yesterday gave me great pleasure in many ways. Most of all, I am refreshed by your optimistic enthusiasm; if the success of such gatherings had no other purpose than to maintain this enthusiasm and the resulting blossoming of fresh energy, that would be enough. But the success will have a broader impact... Whether or that such successes can uplift our society and bring it better members, I doubt and I also consider quite irrelevant. I remain very decided in my advice - especially at the beginning or even in your program of the Theosophical Society to talk, and I also advise “Theosophy in a very explicit way always only in the sense of Eckhart, James. Böhme and Fichte to use.”

And regarding whether I was the appropriate person to carry out the planned work, the man who was better qualified than anyone provided the information (in the same letter dated October 15, 1902): “But you are the instrument now. (I, Rudolf Steiner, am really meant). Your person is the center. Everything must revolve around your person. It is you who now serve publicly, as H.P.B. served, as Annie Besant serves. But just as H.P.B. did not become what she was and achieved through society, so you should first gain an unshakable position in the spiritual life of our German culture. Until then, you cannot do anything for society, and society will only paralyze your progress and your wings. But you know: I wish you all blessings! ...

Thus the man who, more than anyone, did not need to know, provided information about the value of the Theosophical Society before the Section was founded. But perhaps someone might object that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden only wanted this to be understood in relation to what was then called “Theosophy” and “Theosophical Society” in Germany. Now, although this objection is already refuted by the content of the above “information”, some unambiguous “information” from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about the entire Theosophical Society will be given here.

On April 17, 1903, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gives the following “information”: “There is nothing more alien and disharmonious to the mystical disposition of the German mind than the Anglo-American advertising with which our movement is conducted in the world...”

On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had already given me the “information” in a letter about his involvement in the Theosophical Society as a whole up to that time: “For me, I conclude this old period by addressing the three articles ”Unification as a Warning to the Old (English-speaking and thinking) Theosophical Society. Gesellschaft richte. Da der Verhetzungs-Geist unter diesen ebenso groß ist wie bei ... und ... (folgen wieder die Namen der beiden deutschen Gegner Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens), so ist dieser Mahnruf ganz vergeblich. Aber er muss ergehen! Die Leute sollen nicht sagen, sie seien nicht zur rechten Zeit gewarnt worden.

On page 63 of the “Denkschrift” Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “When Dr. Steiner was General Secretary. Dr. Steiner has proceeded thoroughly in his complaints. He has also reached very far back. How Dr. Steiner can answer to his conscience (according to the protocol on page 5) for saying that I “caused him difficulties at the beginning of the founding of the section” is incomprehensible to me. Does Dr. Steiner really believe that he could have become General Secretary without my help? Does he no longer remember that Mr. Rich. Bresch suggested the founding of the section and was to become General Secretary, that there were also two other candidates in succession, and that when this proved impossible, it was I who proposed Dr. Steiner for the post? Was he not still an opponent of the Theosophical Society in January 1902? Even in this, his pre-Theosophical period, Dr. Steiner was repeatedly my guest in Döhren near Hannover. I knew that he had a very low opinion of the Theosophical Society at the time; persuasion is not my thing.

I still remember quite well that these sentences turn things around, as they happened at the time; but this time I want to refrain from memories of oral conversations and limit myself to what can be proven in writing.

Perhaps it will be understandable to some people that in February 1913 I was able to say that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden “had already experienced difficulties at the beginning of the founding of the Section,” if they consider the above-mentioned “information.” I also leave it to others to judge whether the “very low opinion” that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had of the Theosophical Society at the time - according to the above “information” - could easily be surpassed by someone. But let me quote a few more reflections on the way Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden viewed the founding of the Section at the time, so that everyone can judge how right I was to speak of such 'difficulties'.

On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “We cannot establish a section now. I will not travel to Berlin to found a section in which somehow the spirit of... can have its say. (The names of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's two German opponents are again given.) Hopefully Mrs. A.B. (Annie Besant is meant) does not...»

On September 30, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: «Well, that the section can be founded if we want it at all costs, that is almost self-evident. So then I resign with my opinion and, as always, I am of course happy to help. But I will not take responsibility for anything. I believe I have done my duty by advising against it.

In a letter dated September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens adds the following opinion: “I consider it... foolishness – no, a lie – to found a German Section. With four people, as... you cannot establish a section alone, but even less so when we are confronted by a whole mass of unjudicious and hateful brawlers. Any community, whatever it may call itself, in which elements like... come into play, even if only incidentally, will always be the opposite of what I consider Theosophy.

Well, perhaps some people do find that these sentences express some of what is meant by the “difficulties that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden caused even before the constituent assembly of the German Section”. On October 20, 1902, the Section was formally founded; and the quoted sentences by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden reflect the events of September 1902.

Now, as for my opposition to Theosophy at that time! “In January 1902,” the “Denkschrift” writes, Dr. Steiner was “an opponent of the Theosophical Society”. There is one person who was very close to the circle, and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's words in the memorandum are well-founded: “The Count and Countess of Brockdorff deserve credit for regularly hosting evenings where all spiritually-inclined groups could express themselves.” (Denkschrift p. 9. I fully subscribe to this). This personality wrote me the following on February 1, 1902, from Colombo – that is, at the time when the “Denkschrift” places my opposition: “I have just read a very appreciative article by Bertram Keightley in the January 15 issue of the Theosophical Review about your new book 'Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life', etc. It is on pages 45f.... I am so pleased that the English (meaning the English Theosophists of the time) are emphasizing your book appreciatively, and especially that they are doing it in this way, they who otherwise always say, “Germany is not yet ripe” or “what good can come from Germany”. In my opinion, you have really shown the English that you are not only ready, but that you, or let's rather say, the German mystics, and you with your understanding of them, are far ahead of the English (meaning the English theosophists of the time). I myself was present at the birth of your book. At first you spoke to us as a teacher speaks to his pupils, and I felt far more sympathy and understanding in what you said than in the erudition in Adyar. The hours we spent with you in the library were of more profit to me than the artful, learned Mrs. Besants, whose skill and knowledge I admired in amazement, but my heart has only found its rightful place with you; and true knowledge, intuition, has its seat in the heart and only from there does it affect the brain. All the others want to affect heart and mind from the brain...

There are many more members of the Theosophical Society here, and indeed learned members, but I believe that the Society as such has outlived itself; the best comes from people who are not members on paper, but who, without a diploma from Adyar or London, are far closer to the truth...

Now I must also ask the reader to compare the “information” provided by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden before the section justification with the sentence that he $. 64 of the “Denkschrift”: “But did I not also work intensively for Dr. Steiner before the section was founded? Was not my ‘Diene dem Ewigen’ written in complete harmony with him?”

But I would like to add the following to this: Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is the author of the book “Diene dem Ewigen”. I do not know what the sentence is supposed to mean: “Was not my ‘Diene dem Ewigen’ written entirely in harmony with him,” if this sentence in the “Denkschrift” follows on from the other: “But did I not also work intensively for Dr. Steiner before the Section was founded?” Let the reader judge who worked for whom at that time, since it was not I, but Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden who published the writing 'Diene dem Ewigen' (Serve the Eternal).

On August 14, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes to me: 'Today I am returning to the correction sent to you. Since I would like to make every sentence in the writing (Serve the Eternal!) easy for you to understand in terms of form and content, I am giving you here the changes to the appendix of the last paragraph of the introduction, in which I finally quote Julius Sturm as an example (because verses are better than prose at this point). I am writing this new version on the attached sheet. If you have already sent me the beginning of the correction when you receive this letter, I would ask you to send me your objections to this addition on a postcard, for example, in case you do not agree with it or with any of the details.

In the same letter, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “We have agreed that you will send your galley proofs to me here, not directly to the printers.”

On August 18, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes to me with reference to “Diene dem Ewigen” (Serve the Eternal): “I fully agree with everything you wrote to me on the 15th and 16th. I gratefully accept your corrections of my text and have included them almost word for word; I consider them to be very valuable.

Now all this could have remained dormant in my archive if the “Denkschrift” had not forced me to bring the matter to light. For it shows what happened at that time. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote a paper; I read the corrections and made “improvements” - so he says - which he finds “very valuable” - so he says. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden calls this, he says, he worked “intensively for Dr. Steiner”.

Now someone might still think that the “information” that no one could provide as well as Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden only related to external matters of the Society; but he would have had reservations about my direction regarding the “meaning and purpose” of the inner life of the Theosophical movement even then.

Again, he may provide information about this himself.

On August 18, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “We should anxiously avoid the appearance of being associated with phenomenal spiritualism. In fact, this is the case with Besant and Leadbeater, as well as with HPB and the whole TS. However, I am particularly unsympathetic to occultism and even more so to spiritualism. We should cut the ties that bind us.” (Of course, this refers to what Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden understood by occultism at the time.)

If anyone might think that I was critical of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden because of my position on Haeckel, then he too may be heard on the matter. In the same letter of August 18, 1902, he wrote to me: “And now, above all, my warmest thanks for the dedication of your Haeckel writing! (What is meant is my writing ‘Haeckel and his opponents’)... it is very dear to me to own the writing. It must be cited at the end of note 8 of our (sic. meant is “Serve the Eternal) writing behind Prof. Dr. Raph. v. Koebers like-minded writing ‘Faeckel no materialist’. I myself have always had the greatest sympathy and admiration for Haeckel. After 100 years, no one will remember Virchow, and the same will be true of Haeckel after 1000 years, and even more so of Darwin (unless German intellectual culture were to perish completely, which is not unlikely).” This comment comes from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden himself.

And on September 26, 1902 (24 days before the formal founding of the German Section), Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “With this - meaning my ‘Christianity as Mystical Fact’ - you - meaning me, Rudolf Steiner - have created a program with which you can pave the way for a broad, very broad future. In this direction, very broad and clear perspectives have since been opened up for me as well. ... Your 'Christianity' is the beginning of a new epoch for us. My 'Serve the Eternal' is nothing but a superfluous and almost worthless conclusion to an old period that we have overcome. It is completely unusable because it contains the keywords 'Theosophy' and 'Theosophical Society'. No serious, truly educated person today can take anything seriously that is associated with what is called in Germany today and will be called in the future."

On page 11 of the “memorandum” published by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, we read: “Dr. Steiner's followers usually object to the statements made in this ‘memorandum’: ‘But Dr. Steiner says the opposite!’ But that is precisely the point. It is not necessary here to recall the well-known after-effects of mental suggestion and to point out its authoritative power. Nor is it the question here to discuss in more detail whether only one human will is at work. No amount of factual material will help anyone who believes in human infallibility. But everyone can judge for themselves what the facts really are by honestly and thoroughly examining the information from both sides. Audiatur et altera pars!” Now, in the case of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, it truly seems that the “other part” can be heard on its own, for one could believe that even without Dr. Steiner saying “the opposite”, any unbiased reader could form an unbiased judgment without the “known after-effects of psychic suggestion”.

Once again, I have to add a few comments here. The German Section was founded in 1902 for reasons that would take us too far afield to discuss today, despite the “information” provided by the man who “introduced the entire Theosophical movement to Germany”. However, I, who was asked to take over the General Secretariat, had to take this introduction as a given fact at the time. For it was and is my opinion that in similar cases one must always reckon with such presuppositions. Among these presuppositions was the fact that a number of persons who were then closely connected with the Theosophical movement looked upon Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden as the man he is characterized as being again on pages 7 and 8 of his “Denkschrift.” I behaved towards him in accordance with this assumption. Yes, at first I completely suppressed my own opinion of him and allowed a feeling to speak within me that one might have towards the initiator of the Theosophical movement in Germany. Even today, people who could know about it are still able to tell of how I spoke out on his behalf and to quote me as saying so. And even if there are those who might reproach me for having overestimated Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, I will not go into that further. What I can assert, however, is that I never based my actions and measures within the Theosophical movement on Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's judgment. This can be seen from the fact that I allowed myself to be made General Secretary of the section to be founded, despite Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's “information”.

But how he judged the reasons for my relationship to the Theosophical movement may be seen from his own words. On April 17, 1903, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “I only differ from you in opinion with regard to the intention and purpose of the Theosophical movement. You and all the other present-day representatives want to derive spiritual advantage and benefit from this movement for themselves and as many other individuals as possible. I consider this to be very good and very justified, but only as a secondary benefit. I consider the main task of our movement to be making our worldview a factor in the intellectual life of our European culture, so that in 3000 years, when we are involved again, we can succeed in replacing today's “Christian” worldview with ours. In place of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's letter, in which this saying of his appears, I wrote a few words (in pencil) at the time. Today, reading these words of mine, I can see from them again how far Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden was then from understanding what I had in mind. I wrote in the margin: “This is precisely the fundamentally false premise that causes all misunderstandings. Not benefit and not advantage, but necessary fulfillment of a clearly recognized karma!!! For me, the difference was clear when I saw that my insinuations to that effect in Berlin fell on no fertile soil and were understood only by... (followed by the name of a person close to me). First of all, we should also serve those readers who, without 'the well-known after-effects of psychic suggestion', want to form an independent opinion on the question of whether Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's opinion of Dr. Steiner's leadership of the German Section of the Theosophical Society changed very soon after this man, who is in a better position than almost anyone else to judge, saw how the General Secretary perceives the movement. It could be, one might say, that the rehashing of old letters says nothing in the face of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's thoroughly changed opinion, based on his experience with Dr. Steiner. And if one reads on page 65 of the Hübbe-Schleiden's “memoir” the following words, it could indeed seem that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had soon changed his opinion about Steiner, after he had realized the impossible attitude of the latter. These words are found on page 65 of the “Denkschrift” and read: “I resigned (namely from the board of the German Section, Dr. H.-Schl. means) because I no longer wanted to be responsible for the school of thought represented in the Section.” Someone might now believe that this “school of thought” represented in the Section refers to a deviation from the meaning and purpose of the Society, for which Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had to stand up for again through the “memorandum” he “published”, because page 12 of this “memorandum” reads: “The statutes created for the section in 1902 were fully in line with the constitution of the entire society. In the early years, the section also worked entirely in line with the program of the society.”

Now on January 1, 1906, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “On this New Year's Day, I cannot refrain from expressing to you with all my heart... our most sincere wishes for the greatest possible success of our movement during this year. This is naturally combined with the warmest wishes for you personally and for your success in leading this our movement. You know, of course, that in my opinion the success for our school of thought, which we all desire as much as you do, can only be found in a slightly different approach than the one I have been pursuing for 22 years in this endeavor, and which you have been trying for three years now.” Let others judge the way I proceed; let Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's description of his approach be compared with the statements in the “Denkschrift” without prejudice.

On February 28, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote in a letter to me: “In the interest of our Theosophical movement, everything must, of course, be done in agreement with you.” This sentence refers to a specific project, but it seems to me that it applies all the more, since there would have been nothing wrong with this particular project being handled without any “agreement” with me.

On July 4, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “Mrs. Besant has appointed me as the representative of the Order of the Star in the East for Germany, without first asking me (side note from Dr. H.-Schls: ‘When I applied for membership, it was of course understood that I was willing to help’). After considering the enormous difficulties of all kinds that this entails for me, I have accepted responsibility for this task. ... The reason why I had applied for membership of the order is that the attitude and organization expressed in its prospectus correspond exactly to my entire preliminary development... since my association with the Theosophical Society in 1884. The minimal organization avoids all the drawbacks that have always been a hindrance to me in this society; and it essentially corresponds to the establishment of my 'Theosophical Association' 1892-94 in Berlin. ... As soon as I read the first mention of the order in Vollrath's 'Theosophy', it seemed to me an imminent danger that this movement, which exists alongside the Theosophical Society, could be turned by other parties against the Theosophical Society that you so masterfully lead in Germany, against you and against the Rosicrucians. You would probably feel neither affected nor impaired by this, any more than you would by the Hartmann Society or the Tingley Society. But it seemed and seems certain to me that if I had refused the office conferred upon me, Dr. Franz Hartmann would have been put in my place. Then the witch hunt in Germany would come to a boil again; and – whatever you may think about it – this seems very undesirable to me, and I would not want to bear the responsibility for it by avoiding taking on this very difficult, embarrassing office. The 'brotherhood' of the Theosophical Society in Germany already has too bad a reputation for personal squabbling.” At a later point in this letter, it says: “This acceptance of all forms of religion, with full equality for each cultural form or race for which it was given, is the fundamental purpose of the Theosophical Society. This is what particularly appealed to me when I joined the Society 27 years ago, and it is something I find congenial. In this, there can be no difference between you and Mrs. Besant. You have often spoken of this breadth of mind, and you would not otherwise lead the Theosophical Society."

It will surely not be an invocation of the “well-known after-effect of psychic suggestion” if the date of this passage by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is referred to again. It is July 4, 1911. Compare this with what Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden said in his lecture “The Message of Peace,” delivered in Hanover on June 19, 1912 (the lecture was published in print). In it he says: “It is not tolerant, it is un-Theosophical, to think: 'The other person may believe what he wants; I will not get involved with him in discussing the differences of opinion. He may accept my views if he wants to know the truth; but he must accept my views on trust. All his counter-arguments have no value for me; I regard them a priori as errors. I am not concerned with research; I follow only a ready-made revelation and only my present understanding of this revelation.” If someone were to say that these sentences do not apply to Dr. Steiner at all, then the thought must be considered whether a reader of the “Message of Peace” will not apply them to him, who reads on page 11 of this “Message of Peace”: “These are all appropriate, tried and tested measures; and they actually fulfill the purpose in our 'German Section', as well as in every church or sect, to protect their wisdom...” “The result is also that in Germany there are hardly any branch societies of our section left in which other widely held views can be presented that are not exactly these peculiar 'spiritual treasures'. All this, of course, contradicts the first compelling principle of the theosophical movement and the general statutes of our society."

Thus spoke Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden on June 19, 1912, not even a year after he had written to me (on July 4, 1911): “It seemed to me an impending danger... that this movement, existing alongside the Theosophical Society, could be turned by other hands against the Theosophical movement so masterfully directed by you in Germany, against you and against Rosicrucianism. And after he paid me the compliment on the same day (July 4, 1911): “You have often expressed this breadth of mind, and otherwise you would not lead the Theosophical Society,” he says - not quite a year later - the above sentences of his “Message of Peace.” —

In connection with all this, it must be discussed what Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, in a spirit of love and brotherhood, had printed on $. 72 of the “memorandum” he “published”. There we read: “Dr. Steiner continued his fierce accusations in the following sentences (protocol $. 7 and 8): Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden circulated a document as propaganda for an “Undogmatic Association”. This document is full of accusations that are plucked out of thin air. We had here not only a member of the “Star in the East” before us, but a man who fought us at every turn, who wanted nothing more than to fight us.” And further: “Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had sent around his messages attacking the German Section in the most vehement way via the ‘Undogmatic Association’”. I actually said all that. Now - does Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden dare to have the following words printed in his “Denkschrift” (memoir), following on from this? ($. 72.): “For this purpose, the prospectus of this association itself is printed here in full. Nothing else has ever been published about the association. The reader can see for himself that not a single word more is said in it than any association working in the spirit of the Theosophical Society must recognize, not a single word more.” And then Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had “the brochure” printed, which contains not a word of all that I said according to the protocol. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden dares nothing less than to claim that I simply lied with my assertion. Because I would have done that if what Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had printed were true. Now I want to give the reader the opportunity to “convince himself” of who has told the truth. In November 1912, a printed “appeal” signed by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and John. H. Cordes was “sent around” about the “Undogmatic Federation”. (This is the title it explicitly bears: Undogmatic Federation.) It also bore the stamp: “Recording Secretary. Theosophical Society. Adyar. Madras.” The following sentences, among others, appear in this writing: “The Society expects from them (namely, its members) that they shall be perfectly able to justify their beliefs rationally (reasonably) and without having recourse to authoritative protection. It is the German Section alone which makes an exception... The Council of the Section corresponds therefore with the concilium of Cardinals and the Church Council of State; the lodge-president finds a parallel in the bishop or ordained priest who celebrates the confirmation; and the course of preparation is the equivalent for the instructions preceding confirmation. — This divergence of the General Section from the fundamental objects of the Society has been silently borne so far by the Presidential Leitung»... (The above should read German Section instead of General Section). In English this would read: “The Society expects of them (its members) that they will prove capable of judging their faith rationally and will claim no authoritative protection for it. In the German Section alone, an exception is made... The board of the section therefore corresponds to a council of cardinals and a church council of the state; the president of a lodge finds his parallel in a bishop or an ordained priest who solemnly performs the confirmation; and a preparatory course finds its equivalent in the instruction that precedes the confirmation. This deviation of the German section from the basic laws of the Society has so far been tacitly tolerated by the presidential leadership."

According to the method admitted or followed by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in his ‘Denkschrift’ – on the title page it says ‘published’ – it is still necessary to say the following. If Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, in view of the fact that is being recorded here, were to say that in his opinion everything contained in the pamphlet he sent around was correct, then it must be replied that this is not the point with regard to what has been said here, but rather that it is literally true that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden sent around such a pamphlet, and that he dares to say in his “Denkschrift”: “The prospectus of this association itself is printed in full here. Nothing else has ever been published about the association.” — I would like to point out that I have expressed myself exactly and precisely, right down to the word “sent around”. I have presented a verifiably true fact; and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden accuses me – in brotherly love – of nothing less than lying. I leave this case, without the “well-known after-effects of psychological suggestion”, to the readers' judgment.

I will, as I have done so far, despite Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens' outrageous challenge, limit myself to citing only those of his omissions that have nothing to do with any matter in which he might say that he has confided in his letters to me in the belief that letters are not used in publications. I will avoid mentioning anything that refers to the truly personal and the like, and only cite what contains Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's judgments about the meaning and purpose of society, about the spirit of the theosophical worldview and the like.

On page 32 of the “Message of Peace”, which the “Memorandum” on page 5 refers to as its continuation, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden says: “Many of us, in whose spiritual sphere to date this vision of the future - meaning the return of a world teacher - has shone like a ray of sunshine of hopeful joy, of beauty and bliss, we feel as if we have been awakened from a heavy nightmare. The old colors, which were previously the symbols of religious life, deep black and blood red, are no longer relevant to us. What elevates us to the divine are bright golden sunshine and sky blue, the color of infinity, plus the silver-white of starlight.” I do not wish to claim that with these words the Rosicrucians were meant to be the symbolum of those who were interested in what I had presented. In any case, however, this symbolum is: “the red roses on a black cross background”. On June 19, 1912, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden stated that these colors were “done away with” for him and his people. On August 9, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is no essential contradiction between the aims of Rosicrucianism and those of the Theosophical Society. The latter has no objection to Rosicrucianism becoming the religion of the sixth cultural epoch. At least as far as I am concerned, my desire and will do not stand in the way of this.” I would like to explicitly note here that I always objected to hearing my research referred to as Rosicrucianism, especially in the speeches I gave in Stuttgart at the opening of the new lodge there. But I cannot expect Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden to understand what I have to say; so I must accept that he seems to regard my intentions as “only” Rosicrucian.

Regarding the scope of Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's judgments, and thus also for the value of his “memorandum”, the following may also be significant to the reader. On July 4, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “Indeed, Mrs. Besant has a somewhat different position towards the Mystery of Golgotha than you do. This is due to the fact that in her younger years... everything connected with the Christian Church thoroughly disgusted her. But even if it may be a shortcoming on Mrs. Besant's part that she could not make the Rosicrucianism her own, she still recognizes the Christ spirit, the Logos as the great teacher (Mahaguru)... On August 9, 1911, the same Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes to me: “Mrs. Besant is indeed familiar with the Rosicrucian conception of the ‘Spirit of Christ as having been manifested in Jesus’ body. But she decisively rejects this conception; she does not recognize it.”

On July 4, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes to me: “In any case, Mrs. Besant does not understand the task of the coming adept as what the ‘Mystery of Golgotha’ is according to the Rosicrucian view. The adept should not merely lend his body to the embodiment of the “great teacher,” as Jesus did, but should work as an adept himself, full of the spirit of Mahaguru, just as every other adept does, only not secretly but openly.

In his “memoir,” Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “We even have your main goal - he means the Rosicrucian one - in common with you, the goal that should unite us just as actively as it actually separates us; I mean complete devotion to the Christ-Spirit, the Christ, who through Jesus once at Golgotha presented to humanity the only greatest symbol of self-sacrifice."

On August 9, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “Mrs. Besant uses the word ‹Christ› only in the sense of an Indian theology. She understands it to mean precisely the Bodhisattva of Maitreya Buddha. According to Mrs. Besant, the Christ who worked through Jesus' body was nothing other than this Bodhisattva. According to Rosicrucian terminology, one could probably say 'archangel' or even 'fire spirit' for this in German.

On page 68 of the “memorandum” “edited” by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, we read: “Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is said to have demanded (according to the protocol on page 6, column 2, above) that Dr. Steiner avoid the word ‘Christ’ because Mrs. Besant uses this word for Bodhisattva. In addition, sentences from July 4, 1911 to Dr. Steiner are inserted into the protocol. - This letter contains nothing about a suggestion regarding the use of Dr. Steiner's brand new concept of Christ. But at the end of a letter dated August 9, 1911, I did warn against causing misunderstandings by applying the designation to new concepts that have been in use for a long time.

What is the point of the sentence in the memorandum: “This letter contains nothing about a proposal for the use of the Christ concept that Dr. Steiner has recently formulated.” Read the protocol and you will find that I only quote the words from the letter of July 4, 1911 that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote in this letter: “That a 14- to 15-year-old boy can survive such a test as the Krishnamurti is now going through, is incomprehensible to me. She parades him before the world as the coming Adept. Since the cultured world does not associate this with anything at all, Besant tells her ecclesiastical listeners in abbreviated form: “The coming Christ as the type of the divine adept.” But anyone who has read the thirty past lives of Krishnamurti, which she and Leadbeater published in Theosophist, knows that she does not mean Jesus with that. Since the memorandum says, “This letter contains nothing about a proposal for the use of the term ‘Christ’”, the reader might think that I had ever claimed that this letter contained anything about it. I did not claim that. But I did say (according to the protocol on page 6): “One day, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden appeared... He also explained the following: since there was a contradiction between what Mrs. Besant teaches and what Dr. Steiner teaches, I should in future arrange my teaching in such a way that my listeners could not construct contradictions. It was even said that I should avoid the word 'Christ', because it could only lead to misunderstandings. The reason given was that Mrs. Besant needed this word for Bodhisattva because in Europe the word Bodhisattva would not be understood. Of course, these words have their basis in the letter that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden addressed to me on August 9, 1911. The “Denkschrift” “edited” by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden pretends to be quite innocent by saying: “However, at the end of a letter dated August 9, 1911, I did warn against causing misunderstandings by applying the designation for old, traditional concepts to new ones.” And in order to lend some emphasis to this “innocent” sentence in front of his readers, the author of the “Denkschrift” writes on page 70: “The letters in question will be presented to anyone who comes to me after the announcement for inspection...” Now I want to spare the readers of these “messages” the trip to Göttingen and write the passage here that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden so “innocently” characterizes as a warning “at the end”. Incidentally, I note that the words that, in my opinion, are most important, are not at the “end” of the letter, but on the first and second pages of the eight-page letter. They read: “... In doing so, you then warn against the error of another spiritual circle that now hopes for the return of Christ in the physical body of an earthly man... It is not known to me what exactly you are referring to with your warning. But your students all understand it as if it were directed against the views and intentions of Mrs. Besant and now also against the Sternbund founded by her. But since this warning of yours does not apply to Mrs. Besant and the Star Federation at all, I would like to suggest to you either to dispense with this remark or to phrase it in such a way that your students will no longer be able to understand it as directed against the Star Federation.” And in §7 of the same letter, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “The danger of misunderstanding is avoided, by the way, if only for the Rosicrucian conception of Christ another word would be retained. The choice is great. The whole of the rest of the cultural world can at most rise to the (third) unclear concept that theology connects with the word ”Christ. This does not even come close to that of the Bodhisattva or the Archangel.” Are these sentences - assuming that one wants to find any meaning in them at all - to be understood differently, as that for the so-called Rosicrucian concept of Christ, ‘another word should be retained’? It is even pointed out that ‘there is a wide selection’ here. In the same letter, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, however, also precedes this with a piece of instruction. He says: “Not so much through the different concepts as through the designation of the different concepts with the same word ‘becoming Christ’ endless confusion is conjured up. For the different concepts, this same expression is quite unnecessary for anyone who understands, since the three different concepts of the point at issue could be sufficiently described with many other words. For example, it is quite sufficient if we - Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden means the members of the Star Federation - speak only of the Bodhisattva or the Archangel of Maitreya Buddha.” In all other respects, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden may be fully conceded that he set himself the example of avoiding misunderstanding with regard to the name of the Christ. For he writes in the same letter: “But misunderstandings through the use of the same word for different concepts can and should be avoided. Since here alone the Greek word “Christ” is disputed, I will henceforth endeavor never to pronounce this ambiguous word of discord again...” How well Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has succeeded in keeping this promise can be seen in the ‘Message of Peace’ and in the ‘Memorandum’ he ‘published’.

Now, in view of the fact that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden makes a certain - albeit absurd - comment in his “Message of Peace”, readers of these “messages” might also be interested in the fact that there is another rather curious omission in the letter dated August 9, 1911. With reference to those personalities who are interested in the spiritual scientific research I have presented, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden makes the following comment on page 41 of the “Message of Peace”: “The Catholic Church also felt that its rights had been violated when Luther came on the scene and demanded the right to independent thought, open research into the truth and freedom of thought, and only wanted to protect and defend itself against ignorance and encroachment. But the church felt that its autocratic rule over consciences and minds was being severely compromised.” On August 9, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden - as already mentioned - that it was not contrary to his wishes and will if Rosicrucianism became the religion of the next 6th cultural epoch; and he then continues in his letter of August 9, 1911: “Admittedly, it is not easy to imagine the possibility of such circumstances. But two possibilities would be conceivable. One would be that the Christian churches would be destroyed by their own disintegration and state opposition, as in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. But that is not likely; Macanlay was right in predicting that the Catholic Church, at least, would be resilient. Therefore, the other possibility could more likely come true, namely that some cardinals would later become Rosicrucians, and that one of them would then become Pope. Since he would then be an “initiate himself and have knowledge of higher worlds, the requirement of the desirable theocracy would be approximately realized for the followers of such a church. - Such an arrangement of circumstances seems to me to correspond entirely to the ideal that the Theosophical Society and the Star Federation have formed. What they want is something that goes even further; but it is very compatible with it."

In the same letter of August 9, 1911, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden also writes something to me that is suitable to be compared with the omissions of the ‘Denkschrift’. It is the following: “Incidentally, if the disciple in whom the Maitreya Buddha is to reveal himself in the future has progressed so far, and if the white brotherhood and the occult hierarchy then see that he can still learn something from the Rosicrucians, they will certainly send him to you (I am really meant, Rudolf Steiner) to be trained. After all, Jesus is said to have learned something from the Essenes as well.

The above explanations had to be provided so that the readers of the Mitteilungen can form an unbiased opinion about the value of the “memoir” published by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden based on the factual material. There are many things that could be added to help assess this value. For example, on pages 47-50, this “memorandum” deals with why Mr. Hubo should not have allowed himself to be used to write all sorts of confidential messages about the German Section to Adyar, and why Mr. Hubo indignantly rejected such an imposition. Perhaps it is understandable that a discussion with Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about such a matter is quite impossible when it is considered that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden — to whom Dr. Vollrath was assigned as representative of the Star of the East — made the following demand on July 4, 1911: He (Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden) writes: “Would you perhaps have the opportunity and kindness to be able to point out someone to me in Leipzig whom I can approach with the request to check Dr. Vollrath in our interest in a friendly manner and to keep me informed about him, so that I can then, if necessary, inhibit him in good time. I certainly can't mention this to our dear Mrs. Wolfram, who is very dear to me. She has already had too much trouble with Vollrath. But perhaps you can name another personality to me who is willing to make the sacrifice."

On pages 61 and 62 of the “Denkschrift” the following passage can be found: “Dr. Steiner particularly ‘complains’ that Mrs. Besant has expressed the suspicion that he was educated by Jesuits and is therefore dogmatically one-sided. Dr. Steiner and his followers (protocol pages 11 and 13) reject this with great indignation. Why this indignation?” Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden cannot find a reason for this rejection. It does not occur to him that one can reject something because it is not true.

Mrs. Besant has stated in an excellent place, not only as a supposition, but with absolute certainty: Dr. Steiner was educated by Jesuits. This assertion is an objective untruth. And when there is talk of “indignation”, it refers to the fact that the President can make such an untrue assertion at the General Assembly of the entire Theosophical Society. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden does not feel this at all. In his memorandum he really does write the words: “Why this indignation, actually? Probably only because of the mental confusion of the Jesuit order with the accusation of Jesuitism.” It is therefore possible – really possible – that a representative of the Society, which wants to place “truth” higher than any confession, allows these words to be printed! In view of the fact that it is an objective untruth that Steiner was educated by Jesuits – in view of this fact, it is possible that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has printed in his “memorandum”: “And would Dr. Steiner be willing to take an oath in court that none of his teachers ever belonged to the Jesuit order?” This is actually written on page 62 of the memoir, which also refers on page 11 to the well-known “after-effects of mental suggestion”.

After this sample of the way in which the “factual material” praised on p. 3 is presented in this memorandum, I ask the reader to put aside all “known after-effects of psychological suggestions” and to answer the question for himself whether the “facts” I have presented here are sufficient to form an opinion about the value of the “memorandum” published by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden “published” “memorandum”? - I had the duty to present “facts” first, which are less accessible to others. What the memorandum presents about the last events regarding the former German section of the “Theosophical Society” may be discussed by others. I know that I have done everything in full agreement with the leadership of this section. The leadership knows everything that is necessary to form an opinion regarding the external facts.

Elsewhere in this communication, the “suppressions and omissions” on pages 55 ff. are addressed from the other side. Now Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who had got to know this part of the Adyar brotherhood in the Berlin branch of the Anthroposophical Society, wrote how he, without the “known after-effects of psychic suggestion”, had nevertheless acted “brotherly” in this case by making the Memorial Book the depository for this little piece of Adyar. In response to this communication, he wrote to me on June 21, 1913: “I am sincerely sorry to have unintentionally exacerbated what was said on this side. Therefore, I ask you to forgive this mistake immediately.” - Now

however, the “well-known after-effects of mental suggestion” aside, should we get sentimental? The man has made a “mistake”, he asks for “pardon”. But let us hear the further words of the man who asks for “pardon” for his “mistake”. Indeed, he has to admit that the claim of the omission is objectively untrue - and then, following the above-mentioned request for forgiveness, he continues: “Objectively, of course, only the intentionality that I suspected in the keeping of the minutes is thereby invalidated, not the reproach itself, which is at issue here and which, moreover, is of less importance than what is further stated and the other aspects in my 'Denkschrift'. So, it is possible that someone accuses another: “you did this on purpose”. It turns out that it is not true that he did this; the accuser replies: “you did not do on purpose what you did not do”.

I must confess that I really do not want to use sentimental phrases here. But I must still say that I thought long and hard about whether I should write the above. For I have compassion for the man who is the subject of this discussion. And if it were about him, I would not have written anything. But what this man has said in print, and which is contrary to the matter I have to deal with, urgently requires the above information. When things are said, as Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden said them in his “Denkschrift”, then these things, after they have been said, are no longer connected with the one who said them. They then have an independent existence. The above is written to characterize these things. I feel sorry for Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. But however I looked at the matter, no matter how much I was overwhelmed by the feeling: to say what I have said, I am obliged.

The colored booklet of the Waldorf-Astoria, Stuttgart, no year, no. 29 [1918]; also in: Through the spirit to the realization of the reality of the human riddle, Berlin, no year.

The following fairy-tale pictures came about when I felt compelled in my dramas to have characters say things that, as experiences of the soul, would immediately lose their essence if they were to be expressed in any other way than in such pictures. It seems to me that they can be taken out of the dramas and accepted as such pictures in their own right. For what is painted in these pictures can occur as an inner experience in every human soul. I have found people who found the fairy tales “difficult to understand”. I believe that they only feel this way if they lack the childlikeness of mind that a soul should retain through all ages in order to experience in certain hours that which “no mind of the reasonable” can experience in its true form. But I also believe that anyone who wants to interpret them rationally does not understand what is meant in the pictures. I myself, as they were presented to my soul, felt nothing but the content of the pictures in my soul. It was far from my mind to embody a “deeper meaning” that should be understood as something different from what the pictures say through them. But I do believe that certain secrets, which are contained in the life of nature and the human world, reveal themselves to the soul only when the soul has the sense to behold them in such images. Such secrets elude the human mind when it seeks to capture them in concepts. But they surrender to the intuitive perception that comes to life in the image.

Rudolf Steiner.

The colored booklet of the Waldorf-Astoria, Stuttgart n.d. [1918], No. 31; also in: Through the Spirit to the Realization of the Human Mystery, Berlin [1918]

The following two scenes belong to the last of four interrelated dramas that depict the experiences of people undergoing an inner psychological development. These four dramas are: 1. The Portal of Initiation; 2. The Test of the Soul; 3. The Guardian of the Threshold; 4. The Awakening of the Soul (all published by Philosophisch-anthroposophischen Verlag, Berlin W., Motzstr. 17). This development should lead them to a living insight into the spiritual world and to permeating their will with the ideals of this world. The experiences they undergo on the way to this goal are manifold. Among these experiences, there are also those in which they see in pictures people from earlier ages of culture striving towards the same goal under different circumstances. These are people in whom they recognize their own being, their soul qualities, and the direction of their will. They can recognize from the destinies of these people the difficulties and obstacles that such striving encounters. By recognizing themselves in these people, they find the strength to continue on their path. They feel integrated with the whole spiritual development of humanity through their own being. They can see how that which is currently working in their soul has worked in other times. They learn to understand how it must reveal itself now, by becoming a repetition and consequence of what was revealed in times gone by. The two dramatic pictures printed here present the souls looking back to an earlier cultural age. The Egyptian cultural age, already in decline, is to be visualized. The 'sacrificer' who appears recognizes that a new era must dawn. The other guides at the wisdom site insist on the traditional forms. They want to introduce a disciple to the experience of the spiritual world in the sense of these forms. It does not matter to them whether this disciple is truly mature, but rather that their forms should live on. The “sacrificial way” thwarts their efforts by revealing the immaturity of the disciple through his behavior, which is guided by higher goals. In doing so, he brings about a pictorial event that shows how the doomed culture must be replaced by a new one.

Rudolf Steiner.

for eurythmic performances for pianoforte for two hands, composed by Leopold van der Pals, Berlin 1918

Mr. van der Pals conceived the musical “preludes”, which are presented in the following pages, as accompaniments to a particular type of eurythmic performance. This type of eurythmy is initially cultivated within a closed circle, but it is expanding. It originated from the fact that several years ago a lady (Mrs. Smits) asked me whether a more serious form of dance art could be realized. Something developed from the kindness of this request, which, however, has little to do with what one is accustomed to calling “dance art”. What the aforementioned circle practices as eurythmy can perhaps be characterized in the following way. In human speech, the larynx and its neighboring organs are in motion, which can be grasped through intuitive knowledge. Those who have truly penetrated Goethe's metamorphic view can attempt to transfer it from the realm of forms to that of the organism's movements. According to this view, an organ or organ context is the result of the transformation of another organ or organ context. But an entire organism can also be thought of as the metamorphosis of one of its members. Extended to the movements of the human organism, this view results in such movements that embody a spoken or musical thought through the whole human being, just as word and tone are artistically embodied through the larynx and its neighboring organs. When such a eurythmy is practised, one is dealing with an art of movement in the human organism that leaves aside all pantomime, all mere gestures and movements, and replaces them with a natural context that has been elevated to an artistic one. Through this art of movement, the whole human being accomplishes what, in the natural order, the larynx and the organs that unite with it to form words and sounds accomplish. Anyone who takes Ernst's view of Goethe, as expressed in the sentence, “Style is based on the deepest foundations of knowledge, on the essence of things, insofar as we are allowed to recognize it in visible and tangible forms,” will come to the possibility of seeking art in this way. When attempting to realize a very limited field of art, one should certainly not refer directly to a comprehensive idea for its characterization; but one may perhaps point out that the feelings that guide such an attempt are in line with those that Goethe asserted for artistic creation. Goethe saw art as a continuation of nature, “for in that man is placed at the summit of nature, he sees himself again as a whole nature, which in turn has to produce a summit. To do this, he rises to the level of permeating himself with all perfection and virtue, invoking choice, order, harmony and meaning, and finally rising to the production of the work of art (Goethe in the book on Winckelmann).

The eurythmy described here is based on such perceptions. What can be intuitively recognized as the impulse of the larynx and the organs that work together with it is transferred in a lawful way to the movements of the whole human organism. In addition, there are forms of movement of this organism in space, and forms that arise through the interaction of a number of people. These movements are a spatial image of everything that animates the formation of words and sounds as emotional content, rhythm, verse construction, etc. If everything that is striven for in this way is only just beginning to be present in the circle mentioned, it may perhaps be seen as the beginning of a movement art based on possible sensations, which promises a fruitful continuation.

On the one hand, this eurythmy is connected to the art of recitation. What resounds in recitation — not the content of the thoughts as such, but the artistic content — comes to manifestation through the changing movements of the human organism and through group forms and group movements in space. From the basic view, it follows that this manifestation is not an arbitrary visualization, but should work in the sense of a work of art that has its own inherent laws, like a musical work of art. In the field of a kind of collaboration between the art of movement and recitation, Marie Steiner has taken over the direction of what has been attempted within the circle mentioned above.

Another aspect, the mood and other musical elements that permeate the performances, are embodied in the following compositions by Mr. van der Pals. The composer has fully adapted to the artistic laws of eurythmy. At the beginning, in the course of certain parts, at the end of a eurythmy piece, these 'preludes' are performed in connection with movements that correspond to the music as well as to the recitation that follows or precedes it. It may well be said that the personalities involved in eurythmy know that they owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. van der Pals. For through his musical assistance, he has had a most significant stimulating and invigorating effect on the art of eurythmy. It is therefore with great satisfaction that this group of individuals is undertaking the publication of van der Pals' compositions. They will give an idea of how this eurythmy will be connected to music in the future. So far, more has been done with a connection after the recitation of the beginning. But there is the possibility to bring the intended art of movement to the musical as closely as to the art of recitation.

Rudolf Steiner.

A contribution to the history of the world war and to an understanding of true Freemasonry, Basel 1919.

The insights that lead to an understanding of the great world catastrophe that befell us in 1914 must be sought in the most diverse areas of international and human life. The area that was considered to be the actual political area until that point in time contains only one of the currents that converged to bring about the devastating event. The thoughts that led to the confusion of July 1914 were joined by many other thoughts that had been seething for a long time, thoughts that poured in the forces that divided humanity. This book describes only one of the currents in question. The reader may decide to what extent it is important to direct the searching gaze to this current, to whom in the following, some factual material is to be presented, which can prove how certain secret societies of the Entente countries and their lodges turned an originally good and necessary cause into the service of national egoism and the selfish interests of individual groups of people. A cause that should serve all of humanity, without distinction of race or interest, turns from a good one to a bad one when it becomes the basis of power for certain groups of people. The foundations of certain insights were used by secret societies of the Entente countries to drive a political ideology and influence world events, preparing the world for catastrophe. It would be one-sided not to take into account that many other things have emerged from the places of origin of such attitudes and influences. The book that is hereby presented to the public does not comprehensively deal with the “guilt of world war”; but it wants to draw attention to things in which the one who wants to find this “guilt” must also look. And anyone who does this will have to combine what he finds here with many other things. But it should follow from the factual reports presented that anyone who, when searching for this “guilt”, which should better be called a search for determining causes, does not direct his attention in the direction indicated below, will ignore an important aspect.

Zurich, October 10, 1918.

on Vladimir Solovyov: Twelve lectures on the God-humanity, Stuttgart 1921

Anyone approaching Solovyov with Western or Central European concepts of the world and humanity and wanting to relive his worldview will feel as if they are in unsafe emotional waters. They have to find their way into ideas and contexts that are foreign to them. Ideas that discussions of worldviews with which he is familiar do not lead him to. You only need to let some of Solovyov's ideas approach you, and you will immediately experience this. Take the ideas of “grace,” “sin,” and the way the Russian thinker talks about the “experience of Christ.”

But Solovyov speaks in the terms of a philosopher educated on Kant, Schelling, Hegel, the modern positivists and natural science. He not only speaks differently in these terms than Western and Central European thinkers; he also talks about different things.

This otherness can be found by reading Scotus Erigena. The content and state of mind of this ninth-century thinker lives on in Solovyov. And in Solovyov it is steeped in an inner warmth that is no longer found in Scotus Erigena, but must have been present in his predecessors. And so, when reading Solovyov, one can feel transported back to the time of the development of the Christian worldview from the fourth to the eighth century. The spirit of modern European concepts is spread over everything that Solovyov's soul experience becomes for the reader as a result of this development.

In Western and Central Europe, too, one can still find thinkers of Solovyov's soul condition. Anyone who reads Willmann's important “History of Idealism” will feel this. But with such a thinker, something else prevails. He is burdened with all the nuances of concepts that arise from the rejection of Locke-Hume and Kantian-Protestant thinking. His soul is burdened by the intellectual experiences that Europe has undergone since the tenth century. This is not the case with Solovyov. He uses modern philosophical ideas as a tool of thought, but he lives untouched by those experiences of thought in the state of mind that still resonates with Scotus Erigena, but which in his case has already passed over into the coldness of abstract thought.

Ideas such as “sin”, “grace” and the “experience of Christ” appear in both Solovyov and Scotus. As a result, his idea of “nature” is also similar to that of the ancient philosopher. His concept of “nature” is different from that of Western and Central European thinkers. For them, “nature” is a much more comprehensive concept that is based on the results of observation, experiment and intellectual consideration. Everything that is thought about man and his relationship to the world must be incorporated into this concept. By reflecting on human soul experiences, one arrives at ideas about the way in which nature continues to develop in man. But one cannot arrive at the concepts of “grace” and “sin” through straight-line progressive thinking. If one wants to speak of these, then one must seek their origin in the purely ideal sphere of human consciousness. And if one wants to ascribe an objective meaning to them, then one must seek it in a world of which one is convinced in a different way than of the natural world. One must resort to a belief in addition to the knowledge of natural knowledge. From the knowledge one can form ideas about “perceiving”, “sensing”, “comprehending”; one can speak of a causation of “will” through thoughts; but one cannot say that “grace effects” take place in the human soul life. For these presuppose that, in addition to the natural world, there is an objective spiritual world in which man knows himself to be as in the world of air or weather.

Nor can the concept of “sin” be found in the series of concepts of nature. For, objectively conceived, “sin” is man's submergence in the natural order. In avoiding sin, man breaks away from the natural order, not merely to fit into an ideal order, but to fit into an objective spiritual order.

In Solovyov there lives a concept of nature that makes the ascent to such spiritual concepts possible. In Scotus too, the concepts of grace and sin are such that there is no gaping abyss between them and the concept of nature.

With the “Christ experience”, however, one enters a different realm. But in relation to Solovyov's attitude to the European state of mind, a similar thing applies. Within the Western and Central European view of life, the human being can sense within himself a spiritual foundation of the world order. He can say to himself: I am pointed to a divine in all of nature. This divine is then that which is called the “Father” in the religious creeds. But modern religious life does not provide any inner motives for progressing from this Father principle to the Christ. People who speak of the inner Christ experience on the basis of this experience actually only have the Father experience. They then relate the sense of the divine to the Jesus of historical tradition or dogma. But the actual inner experience they have in doing so cannot be distinguished from the experience of the general Deity, the Father-God. For such Christians, any possibility of gaining an understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son through knowledge is lost. It is quite understandable that modern theology has arrived at the point of seeing Jesus only as the bearer of the doctrine of the Father, that it takes the Gospel as a revelation about the Father through Jesus, no longer as a message about the nature of the Son. For Solovyov these things are quite different. For him there is a Christ experience so strictly separated from the Father experience that he, like the Christian Fathers of old, can philosophize about whether the Son has an essence with the Father or not. Such philosophical discussions are not in line with the path that leads from the newer philosophical worldviews into the realm of the spiritual world. In Solovyov's work, the philosopher speaks about these things in the conceptual language of the nineteenth century.

What lives in the human community through Christ is for Solovyov just as much an objective reality as what lives through gravity. In his state of mind, the power of Christ is no different than gravity. This is something else that can still be found in Western Europe in Scotus, but which can no longer be viewed in this way. For Soloviev, the Christ is a Being directly present in the whole of humanity. What He speaks in human souls must become the starting point for social structures. These structures have a right to exist only if Christ lives in them as the invisible ruler.

The historical development of Christian culture comes to life in the soul when a Westerner or Central European studies Solovyov. In him, the first centuries of Christianity come to life in a contemporary who is also philosophically at the height of the nineteenth century. And his world view radiates a wonderful warmth of soul. Philosophy has the effect of religious contemplation; religion has the effect of philosophy experienced in the soul. Russia and Europe in the nineteenth century appear in Solovyov's works as in a mirror of the mind. In Solovyov one feels a spiritual light that shone in earlier centuries and that has faded for Europe. One senses how the first Christian impulses were preserved in the East and how they progressed in the West, but at the same time fell into abstract coldness. One must think about how the thinking of the East and West can mutually enrich each other, and how something higher can arise from this enrichment in relation to both.

Solovyov, as a man of the East, speaks in terms that are more flexible and alive than those of a Western thinker. But at the same time he points the way to greater flexibility of thought. For he is a modern philosopher, but at the same time a sage in terms of ancient concepts.

In all this there is something that makes Solovyov a highly important personality for our present time in the West and in Central Europe.

With these remarks I did not want to give an exhaustive characterization of Solovyov; nothing that claims to treat him as a “thinker”. I only wanted to say what I felt about the treatises that I was able to get to know from him. How little it can be exhaustive, how much it is a very personal judgment, I feel from the fact that he has written a lot that I could not get to know.

Rudolf Steiner.

Two-part report in: Das Goetheanum, vol. 1, no. 39 and 40

Rudolf Steiner

I. In Holland

From April 7th to 12th we held an “anthroposophical-scientific” course in The Hague. The following people were among those who organized the course (F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven, physician, H. Droogleever Fortuyn, P.J. de Haan, G. Schubert Knobel, litt. stud. Leiden, M.H. Ekker, techn. stud. Delft, M. van Deventer, med. cand. Utrecht, M.L. Stiebe, jur. cand. Leiden, F.C.J. Los, litt. stud. Amsterdam) a number of teachers from the Stuttgart Waldorf School, other representatives of the anthroposophical worldview from Stuttgart, Dr. E. Vreede from Dornach and myself.

This course had a specific task. It was to show students at the Dutch universities how the anthroposophical method of research is based on a fully-fledged scientific foundation, how it can have a fruitful effect on the most diverse fields of knowledge and life, and how the insights it can provide really meet the demands of those who are serious about contemporary civilization.

Of course, it is only possible for me to describe the impressions I have received from my personal point of view as a co-lecturer. And I ask the reader to accept the following as a sum of subjective perceptions.

The first lecture was held by Dr. W. Stein on “Goethe's significance in the development of humanity as a whole”, after a warm welcome by G. Schubert Knobel, for which we all had to be grateful. Dr. Stein has grown into an inner affinity with the anthroposophical way of thinking and research from an early age as a matter of course, through an inner disposition. He is a keen thinker and courageously presents anthroposophy as well as the self-revelation of his own personality. His comprehensive overview of the anthroposophical results already available today helps him to gather evidence, justifications and explanations from the most diverse corners for the topic he is discussing. And so there is something about his lecture that I believe should have a stimulating effect on many serious listeners. They should come to the conviction that anthroposophy is a conscientiously reasoned matter of knowledge and life.

Dr. Stein then sat with me before he gave his further lecture: “The Connection of Epistemology with Organic Science”. He felt the need to talk to me about many things before this lecture. I said to him: “As a young man, you naturally grew into anthroposophy; in the future you will face difficult personal tasks of knowledge precisely because you have mastered so much and work so flexibly in your thinking. But you can use it to give your audience the most beautiful thing in addition to your many other gifts: your whole, unique humanity.

Dr. Karl Heyer offered a completely different nuance with his lectures. He shows that he comes from the world of contemporary science. He has thoroughly absorbed the contemporary character of jurisprudence and history. Of course, this is not really any of the public's business. But this foundation runs through all of Heyer's statements like a thread. He shows: this is what science is like now; and because it is like this, it must lead to anthroposophical research. Dr. Stein speaks, Dr. Heyer lectures; but it is necessary that there is also lecturing within our ranks. Dr. Heyer can be convincing precisely because he lectures his way from the recognized into the anthroposophical, and thus brilliantly guides his listeners from the known into the unknown.

Ernst Uehli comes across quite differently from the two of them. He has given two lectures on completely different subjects. One was about the “Threefold Social Organism” and the other about the “Egyptian Sphinx as a phylogenetic development problem”. But even when he talks about such diverse subjects, a unifying impulse prevails in his heart. Uehli has an artistic view of the world. He also allows the artistic to prevail in him when he observes social life. But the artistic in him is transformed into a cognitive impulse by the seriousness of his soul mood and by a sense of reality that seems to come from his heart. That is why warmth of soul flows through his arguments, and a noble emotion pulses through his assertions in a certain even tone. Uehli has humor, but it is stronger in his inner being than in the revelation of speech. A humor that sometimes dries on the lips. All this ultimately gives a distinct personality, carried by enthusiasm for anthroposophy.

Dr. H. von Baravalle is an important mathematical mind. In his doctoral dissertation, published by Kommenden-Tag-Verlag, he has delivered a fundamental work on certain mathematical-physical concepts and on spatial forms. He is able to bring a thinking rooted in natural reality into mathematical-physical formulas. One is tempted to say: Usually the formula arises as something that embraces the natural process from the outside; Dr. Baravalle makes it something that lives in the process. This was particularly noticeable during his Hague discussions. The most stimulating discussions were related to these discussions. Dead formulas, borne by the accustomed scientific way of thinking, rubbed interestingly against the lively but still unfamiliar Baravalles.

Dr. E. Vreede is tireless in her efforts to introduce anthroposophy into the field of mathematical natural science. Her Hague lecture was on astronomy. The task is difficult. In everything Dr. Vreede does in this direction, she must first point out a necessary methodological reorientation. She succeeds in doing this with anyone who first wants to be made aware of the essentials. This is because she combines thorough anthroposophical insight with an excellent clarity about how anthroposophy is to be introduced into the individual sciences.

Dr. von Heydebrand had to speak in The Hague about education. She is a born educator. The educational mission lives in each of her sentences, as it lives in her actions at the Stuttgart Waldorf School. Its foundation is anthroposophical knowledge of the human being, its effective impulse is insight-based love for people and especially for children. You can also hear from her lectures that the children must love her. It seems to me that sensible listeners must have the thought with her: I would like to have my children educated and taught by this woman.

Personalities such as Dr. med. He spoke in The Hague about biological and chemical problems and also about “Free spiritual life through Anthroposophy”. In Kolisko, scientific phenomenalism has a champion who develops this side of Anthroposophical thinking objectively and from unbiased factual knowledge. In Kolisko's work, one never has the feeling that he brings anthroposophy into his world knowledge from the outset, but rather that he gains the anthroposophical view from the concrete problems in an appropriate but intimate way of thinking. In the process, he is intimately entwined with his problems as a personality, so that, in my opinion, he comes across as a thoroughly scientifically convincing personality. When I hear him speak, as he did this time about “free spiritual life”, I have the feeling that he speaks truthfully to the heart; and in this truth he lives out completely.

Dr. Herbert Hahn is in the process of comprehensively and internally penetrating the linguistic results of the recent past and present in order to perfect them into an anthroposophically oriented science. His fresh and vigorous approach to his tasks, and his loving devotion as a teacher and researcher, have led him to valuable results as a scientist and to fruitful effectiveness as a teacher. His lecture in The Hague on 'Consciousness Change in the Mirror of Linguistic History' was likely to have a surprising effect due to the research results gathered from all possible sides and due to the emphasis placed on the linguistic phenomena that emerge in the life of nations in order to understand the moral-inner life that expresses itself in the linguistic-external of the life of nations. One would hope that Hahn's approach would find many followers among people trained in philology, linguistics and history, for his life's work requires the collaboration of many.

For many years, Dr. Carl Unger has been the most enthusiastic and dedicated co-worker in the anthroposophical movement. In The Hague, he spoke as a technician and as a philosopher about “The Social Tasks of Technology and Technicians” and “On the Philosophical Foundations of Anthroposophy”. Dr. Unger saw early on that anthroposophy requires, above all, a rigorous epistemological foundation. With deep understanding, he took up what I myself was able to give many years ago in my writings “Epistemology”, “Truth and Science” and “Philosophy of Freedom”. He independently developed the suggestions further. His keen intellectual powers were directed towards understanding the nature of the human cognitive process in a clear and illuminating analysis and synthesizing this understanding into a true picture of cognition. Unger is not a dialectician but an observer of the empirical facts of knowledge. And that is why he has been able to provide particularly valuable work over the years in the sense that the process of knowledge of ordinary consciousness drives the impulses for anthroposophical research out of itself everywhere. Unger's thinking is trained on the technical problems, is thereby free of any subjective fuzziness, and therefore his scientific contribution to anthroposophy is the most meaningful conceivable. He has grown steadily over the years in his thinking, research and technical as well as anthroposophical work. In his two Hague lectures, he offered ripe fruits of this growth. In his first lecture, he showed how the technician in particular is challenged to develop social understanding in the present; in the second, he showed how philosophy, from its own historical development, must flow into anthroposophy in the present.

Dr. Friedrich Husemann spoke about the medical field. His topic was “New Paths to Rational Therapy.” The suggestions that can come from anthroposophy for the healing arts require, in order to be accepted by science, the closest connection to existing medical schools of thought. One could prove to them that they only understand themselves and take themselves to their logical conclusions if they look for anthroposophical supplementation. To work in this direction is not difficult under the present circumstances. It is also not as difficult in medicine as it is in education, for example. For the teachings that one receives from illness cannot be so easily had from the development of a more or less healthy person. Illness speaks a clear language. One needs only scant suggestions from the side of intuitive insight in order to conscientiously work through the clearly speaking symptom complexes to the point where pathology and therapy converge into a rational medical art. Exploitation of solid scientific education, prudence in the observation of patients will lead to the goal. So far, I only hear the problems from public lectures in this field. Here too, it must be emphasized that anthroposophy is not a theory, but a practice of life. A single case, properly characterized from beginning to end, would speak louder than any theoretical discussion. Theory is of no use in and of itself, except insofar as it allows us to believe in the coherence of phenomena. This can be learned from Goethe. I have described the individual voices that came together in a chorus in The Hague to form a whole. I myself had the task, in six evening lectures, of characterizing the significance of anthroposophy in contemporary spiritual life, its scientific character, its particular research methods, research results, and its relationship to art and to the scientific agnosticism of the present day. My aim is to present the anthroposophical results from ever new angles, so that one can see how they mutually support each other. However, anyone who fails to recognize that the moment the sciences flow into anthroposophy, one must come to this mutual support and bearing of truths, will not find the path to genuine knowledge. The heavy things on earth must lie on the ground so as not to fall; the world bodies support each other. The empirical sciences rest on sense perception; anthroposophical knowledge must be mutually supportive. To demand of it the same conditions as for the usual foundation of science is like demanding a support for the earth in space. It does not fall without support, and neither does anthroposophy, even if it is founded differently than the usual science.

I will not be asked to speak about the impressions that the audience has received. Others must judge about that. But I may say that we, the participants, must all feel a heartfelt thank you towards the organizers, whose devotion to the matter was evident from every action and every word they spoke.

After the course in The Hague ended, I went to England. I had lectures in London and at the Shakespeare festival in Stratford-upon-Avon. In Holland, my experience was working with colleagues and friends. In their work I lived with them. In England I was given tasks that had a different outward character. But these tasks came from the same source. How I understood them, how I tried to solve them, and how I was helped by understanding helpers, is what I will talk about in the next issue of this journal.

II. In England

My journey to England grew out of the course I gave at Christmas on educating and teaching on the basis of anthroposophical knowledge of the human being. This course was inspired by Prof. M. Mackenzie, who attended the last summer course at the Goetheanum with her husband, Prof. Mackenzie. In the summer, the workers at the Goetheanum got to know two personalities in Prof. and Mrs. Mackenzie, whose visit had to fill all of these workers with deep satisfaction from the point of view of the anthroposophical movement. Prof. Mackenzie is a personality who expresses a significant note in English philosophical life. His constructive philosophy is not only independent in outlook and content from other contemporary trends in this field, but, above all, it is so independent that it seizes with the certainty of an intuitive grasp of reality on a field that brings the true philosophical sense of the human being into activity. I would like to say: Mackenzie's constructive philosophy begins where it needs to begin if the metaphysical, psychological and epistemological fields, which are fluctuating all around, are to be given a firm foundation again. In doing so, his literary and philosophical work covers many fields of cultural history, social and educational issues. His books on humanism and on social life bear witness to this.

Prof. Mackenzie, who was herself also a university teacher (Prof. of Education, University College, Cardiff), presented me with her extremely interesting book, 'Hegels educational Theory and Practice', during her summer stay here in Dornach. This book reveals the comprehensive work of this spirited and practical woman in literary form. Hegel is easily misunderstood. In his books, he seems abstract. But the peculiar thing about him is that behind his abstractions stands a man who grasped reality with a firm hand. His thoughts are basically the life-awakening, only seemingly abstract expression of a passionate life practice. Mrs. Mackenzie has seen this as clearly as possible: “I believe that these two philosophers (Plato and Hegel) were constantly striving not only to see the truth, as other philosophers did, but also to fathom how it can be achieved and appropriated by a mind that is far removed from its essence; and both believed that this could be done through the dialectical method.” Thus she says in the preface to her book, and it is now her aim to show how this philosophical self-education thinks about the education of the child and the young person. With regard to Hegel, she comes to the view: “I dare to claim that Hegel, more than any other educator (more than Herbart, because his educational ideas are grounded in a deeper philosophy), offers us precisely those things that we need most today and also in our country.”

What can be seen in her relationship to Hegel, and what is fully confirmed when one gets to know Prof. Mackenzie better, is that she is a person of great intellectual depth, combining philosophical insight with a wide range of interests in educational and social issues of humanity.

It is thanks to this personality that the pedagogical Christmas course described by Albert Steffen in this weekly magazine has come about. Prof. Mackenzie invited teachers from England to this course. Among those who attended was Miss Cross, headmistress of Kings Langley Priory, a school and boarding school near London. Even then, the idea arose among the English visitors to bring the spirit into this school, from which I held my Christmas course.

Thanks to a few of the participants in that course, after some time I received an invitation from the “New Ideals in Education” committee to participate in the festivities they organized around Shakespeare's birthday (from April 17 to 24) by giving lectures. This invitation was followed by another from friends of the anthroposophical worldview (including Mrs. Drury-Lavin and Mr. Collison) to give a few lectures in London for those interested in anthroposophical endeavors.

So I was able to give two lectures in London on April 14 and 15. The first was on “Cognition and Initiation”. My aim was to show how knowledge of the supersensible world can be attained through the development of abilities that are not used in ordinary life and ordinary science. I called the supersensible vision that comes about in this way “exact clairvoyance” because it is my conviction that the processes of the soul life through which man comes to this vision are experienced with the same clarity of consciousness as the solution of a problem in exact science. If science is exact in its treatment of the objective world, then anthroposophy is exact in the development of supersensible cognitive abilities, through which the vision of the spiritual world then arises, through which man grasps the eternal nature of his being. Our time, which everywhere shows the strong need of thinking people to ascend from the sensual to the supersensible, can demand such “exact clairvoyance”, not a nebulous mysticism or an unscientific occultism.

I only want to give my subjective impressions in all modesty here. And that is how it should be meant when I say: the sight of my audience in London gave me deep satisfaction. For I felt I could sense that the need I mentioned was also present here.

On the following day, it was my turn to describe the mystery of the Christ-life on the basis of anthroposophical knowledge. Anthroposophy certainly does not want to found a sect or even a new religious community. It only wants to say what arises from “exact clairvoyance” about the mystery of Golgotha. This is what the modern human being demands. Through centuries of development in the field of external knowledge of nature, he has been brought into a state of soul that must progress from mere belief to the cognitive grasp of religious content. Religious belief is not touched by this, but rather deepened and strengthened. Again, in all modesty, I would like to say that after my second lecture in London, I had the impression that this need to consolidate religious mysteries is an international one. On such occasions, one can gain the conviction that in the search for the supersensible, the peoples of the civilized world can come together in harmony out of discord.

After these two lectures, I had to give another one in the narrower circle of personalities who have been in the anthroposophical movement for many years. On the same day, I was able to accept an invitation from Miss Cross to show us her school in Kings Langley. Again, the idea arose to adapt this school to the spirit in which I must think I have developed the art of education. Among those with whom I was able to discuss this matter was Prof. Mackenzie.

I may mention here that a group of people around Prof. Mackenzie and Miss Cross has set itself the goal of helping to make this idea a reality in England. This opens up the prospect that the educational basis, which was held in the spirit of the Dornach Goetheanum and on which the Waldorf School in Stuttgart is based, will be understood and cultivated in England.

On April 18, the Shakespeare festivities began in Stratford-upon-Avon. A long line of personalities expressed their reverence for the poetic creations, which are among the greatest of humanity, by offering what they have to say about art, poetry and education. One was presented with an impressive cross-section of contemporary English intellectual life. Powerful speeches on artistic contemporary interests, such as those offered by Lena Ashwell in a lecture on “Drama and National Life” and Cicely Hamilton in her remarks on “Tendencies of Modern Drama,” alternated with charmingly and ingeniously expressed longings for the permeation of education with the artistic spirit. John Masefield spoke about playwriting from the point of view of an artist who feels he is part of the lively world of art and artistic endeavor and who wants to say what art needs if it is to fulfill its task.

It is not my intention here to criticize certain aspects with which I cannot agree, especially in the area of the cultivation of art in schools. But more important at this moment in time is that one can only look with satisfaction at the basic tendency of the whole event. Shakespeare's figure was to some extent only in the background. From the glance up to him, the impulse went out to discuss the question of education from all sides. The education of children, of the people, of humanity in general; these were the questions that turned the interest of speakers and listeners alike. And so the most important thing for the present day was placed at the center of the intellectual work of these festivities. It was clear from the attitude of this assembly that it had a sense of these civilizational hardships. Miss Ashwell's words on the decline of the dramatic and theatrical arts and on the necessity of providing the forces for an ascent were essential. A personality full of fire, but also full of inner understanding for the matter, stood on the podium in Miss Ashwell. And in beautiful addition to this was what Miss Hamilton said about the decline and the necessity of raising artistic taste.

In this context, I was able to present my anthroposophical views on Shakespeare, on education and on the demands of spiritual life for the present day. The educational power of Shakespeare's art stands in the developmental history of humanity through the influence it had on Goethe. One must ask oneself: on what is this tremendous influence based? Asking myself this question, a fact of supersensible experience presents itself to me.

Those who are able to immerse themselves in a Shakespearean drama and then carry the experience over into the world that is spread out before 'exact clairvoyance' can find that Shakespeare's figures present themselves in the supersensible realm as more alive to the soul, while the newer naturalistic dramas either transform themselves completely into puppets or freeze during this process. The Shakespearean figures live on in the imagination. They do not perform the same actions as in the drama, but they act in transformed situations and with a different course of events. I believe that through this fact the deep rootedness of Shakespeare's characters in the spiritual world can be found; and that Goethe unconsciously experienced this rootedness in his devotion to Shakespeare's plays. He felt as if he himself had been seized by facts of the spiritual world when he turned to Shakespeare.

I had this experience in the background when I was able to speak in Stratford about Shakespeare, Goethe and education in three lectures. In particular, the conviction that arose from this lived in my heart when I had to speak about “Shakespeare and the New Ideals” on April 23, the actual Shakespeare Day.

The events of the committee for “New Ideals in Education” were accompanied by performances of Shakespearean plays in the Shakespeare Memorial Theater. We were able to see: “Othello”, “Julius Caesar”, “The Taming of the Shrew”, “The Twelfth Night”, “All's Well That Ends Well”, “Much Ado About Nothing”. I found the performances of the comedies satisfying for my feelings. But I imagine the right way to present the tragedies differently.

On April 24, I was able to give a lecture in London to the English friends of the anthroposophical movement. It was intended to show how anthroposophy relates to the spiritual development of humanity in general and to the Christ impulse in particular. I tried to show how a figure such as Cardinal Newman, out of his perception of the religious needs of the time, sought a basis for knowledge of the supersensible, but how this can be found not on the paths he took, but only on the anthroposophical path.

Special thanks are due to George Kaufmann, who took on the difficult task of translating all my lectures for the audience after merely listening to them in sections.

On April 25, I left England, filled with the thought that there are people in England who see the cultivation and representation of the anthroposophical cause as part of their life's work and work energetically in this direction. I have to think of them when I feel gratitude in my soul when I find people who intervene helpfully for this cause. That I was able to find this help in this day and age as a German in London and Stratford, I may well express as a satisfying final thought of this subjective travelogue.

Memorandum

1. With regard to the outer constitution of the Free Anthroposophical Society, the aim should be to work towards this Society corresponding to the “Draft Statutes”. This makes it possible to unite people in a Society in which they can feel completely free individually without the Society being in constant danger of disintegration. Anyone who truly understands the 'Draft' in the right sense will have to find all this fulfilled in it.

2. First of all, it is necessary to bring together all those individuals who are already members of the Anthroposophical Society and who, in the opinion of the formed committee, have taken the points of view that legitimately necessitate the separation into two groups of the overall Society. Mere dissatisfaction with the old leadership is not enough; what is needed is a positive orientation towards an anthroposophical goal that must be assumed to be unattainable by the old leadership.

3. First of all, the circle of the Free Anthroposophical Society formed in this way is to appoint trusted individuals who are recognized by the committee. One should only appoint trusted individuals who have an interest in giving anthroposophy to contemporary civilization. Then, in addition to the personalities already in the Anthroposophical Society, there will be those who are only being accepted. But it is precisely with these that care must be taken to ensure that they have made the positive of the anthroposophical the basic direction of their own lives. People who have only a general social interest, without an intensive anthroposophical impact, should not be appointed as trusted personalities, even if they are accepted into the Society with the idea that they will grow into real anthroposophists.

4. For the admission itself, a certain degree of immersion in the anthroposophical worldview should be decisive. However, for the time being, a spirit of broad-mindedness must prevail in the Free Association. Strictness should only come into play when forming the narrower communities.

5. The Free Inc. should become a tool for spreading anthroposophy throughout the world. The lecture and other dissemination work would have to come from its bosom, and institutes and other organizations would also have to be formed from it.

6. Another is the general Free Society, and another is the communities to be formed within it. These - whether exoteric or esoteric - would bring together people who feel they belong together inwardly and who want to experience the spirit together. In addition to such communities, it is quite possible that branch life in the sense of the “Draft” will develop. The branches would then be groups of the Free AG in general. However, it is entirely possible for members of the Free Anthroposophical Society to join the branches of the AG and work together with the members of the latter.

7. The work in the life communities will be of a kind that is contained within them. It is directed towards the spiritual perfection of the united community. What a member of such a community does externally, he does as a representative of the general Free Company. Of course, such a community can still engage in a specific external activity; but it remains desirable that its individual members then act as representatives of the general Free Company. This does not, of course, require a bureaucratic administration of the association's activities, but can be a completely free fact of consciousness on the part of the individuals.

8. A committee of trust would be established for each of the two committees, one for the AG and one for the Freie AG. These two committees are responsible for the common affairs of the entire Anthroposophical Society.

9. All institutions of the overall Anthroposophical Society should fall within the sphere of interest of both the Anthroposophical and the Free Anthroposophical Societies. This can be very good if a central administrative office is created to manage the affairs of the overall Society on behalf of the two committees (mediated by their committees of trust). The division into two groups should not lead to a situation in which an anthroposophical institution, especially one that already exists, is regarded as the concern of only one group. Quotas of membership fees, to be determined by the committees, should be paid into the central fund so that the affairs of the whole society can be adequately provided for.

10. It should be understood that the two groups have come into being only because there are two distinct departments among the members, who both want the same anthroposophy but want to experience it in different ways. If this is properly understood, the relative separation cannot lead to a split, but to a harmony that would not be possible without the separation.

11. No attempt should be made by the Free A.G. to destroy the historical developmental forces of the Anthroposophical Society. Those who want freedom for themselves should leave the freedom of others completely untouched. The fact that there are imperfections in the old AG should not lead to further feuding of the latter, but to the formation of a Free Anthroposophical Society, which, in the opinion of the leading personalities, avoids these imperfections.

12. The separation means that all the conditions are in place for young people in particular to feel at home in the Free AG. This is because the life communities will be free groups of understanding people; and this will be able to form the basis for ensuring that no one in the general Free AG feels restricted in their freedom.