The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Dear friends!

To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to point out from the outset that I do not consider this letter to be an official one from the Secretary General, but rather a private statement that I feel obliged to make because a number of members of our section would like to hear my opinion on the following matter.

Our Stuttgart I branch has expressed in a circular letter to the German branches of the TG that it does not agree with the arguments of “Vâhan”, of which Mr. Richard Bresch is the editor, insofar as these refer to individual events in the society. This circular also contains proposals for a settlement between Vâhan and the German section. So far, the Leipzig and Besant branches in Berlin have commented on the rally of our Stuttgart I lodge in circulars.

I would now like to say the following about this:

I respect every foreign opinion as justified, provided that it is based on the principle of serving the truth; and I also seek to understand an opinion that I personally must consider wrong if it does not arise from the above principle. This is demanded by the theosophical tolerance, and such is also made quite clear to us by the true law of karma. It is not intended to cast the slightest doubt on Mr. Bresch's desire to serve the truth with his remarks. And I certainly do not want to criticize his view. I just want to put my opinion alongside his.

Regarding the Fuente bequest, I believe that Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have handled it so well that it could not have been done better. The sum has been used for Theosophical purposes in the most eminent sense. And the Theosophical Society has not only the task of spreading Theosophical dogmas and teachings, but also of serving the culture of the world through Theosophical life. The two things that the legacy is used for, however, are foundations of the most beautiful theosophical kind. In any case, if there had been a general vote on the matter in the TG, I would not have voted in favor of a different use. So the only remaining objection is that such a vote should have taken place. But I am of the opinion – another person is entitled to a different opinion – that in the TG much cannot be based on formalities, but on the trust we have in the proven personalities. And Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have done so much for the TG that I think they can be given trust in such a matter.

But even if one does not hold the matter in such a way, I am of the opinion that one should take a different path to change certain circumstances than through a magazine that - even if it is Theosophical - is still published publicly. Otherwise we will end up introducing the less than pleasant newspaper style into our society as well. And that would be a fatal mistake. I agree with many people that some aspects of the TG, especially the way the congresses are organized, need to be improved. But I think that this should be treated as an internal matter and that we should work towards improvement by working personally on it. I can only assure our esteemed friends that I spoke with many personalities at the last London Congress and found much understanding in this regard. It seems to me that the same approach should be taken with regard to the number of lodges. An exchange of ideas by letter with Colonel Olcott would have been quite sufficient. I do not believe I need address the matter of the publication of books in luxury editions. Besides the motives asserted by Mr. Bresch, artistic motives also come into consideration. And how far one goes is a matter of taste. But no one should set themselves up as the arbiter of taste for the whole world. We can only hope that our judgment will be given some consideration if the judgment of others is also allowed and one's own is not considered infallible.

With the kind of criticism that Mr. Bresch practices, it is all too easy to run the risk of violating the empirical law that “something always sticks” when it comes to accusations made by strangers. And whatever Mr. Bresch's opinion may be, I cannot admit its relative justification, but I will not quibble with it any further. I hope he will not claim that Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have ill will in any of their actions. If I cannot assume that, then it would be impossible for me to take the critical tone that he does.

Regarding the proposal of the Stuttgart Lodge I to regulate the relationship of Vâhan to the section, I would just like to say that I, too, like Mr. Bresch, consider it impossible for an editor to be dependent on the Society. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot edit according to votes, such a thing is technically unfeasible. The situation is different with a newsletter, which can be discussed at the General Assembly in October.

I will soon be sending a circular letter to the branches about the proceedings of the London Congress and some other Society matters.

With brotherly Theosophical greetings,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Theosophical Society
(Adyar Madras Headquarters)
Besant Branch Berlin

The Besant branch of the Theosophical Society discussed the position of the German “Vâhan” in its meeting of July 24, 1905 regarding the attitude of the German “Vâhan” in matters concerning the Theosophical movement and the criticism that is practiced in this journal on individual measures within the Theosophical Society. With regard to the two circulars received in this matter from the Stuttgart I and

Leipzig Besant Branches, the following resolution was unanimously adopted.

1) The assembled members declare that they do not agree with the attitude of the German “Vâhan” in the indicated direction.

2) The meeting also disagrees with the nature of the criticism that the German “Vâhan” exercises on prominent members of the Theosophical Society, especially on those members for whom this branch - as already expressed in its name (Besant-Branch) - has a full, of course free of all personality cult, admiration.

The Besant Branch leaves everything else to the General Assembly of this year, which may take a position on the matter in the way that can be justified in the statutes.

On behalf of the Secretary:
Marie v. Sivers.

and the Chairman of the Besant Branch:
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Dear Friends,

The President-Founder of the Theosophical Society has sent the following executive note to me as the General Secretary of the German Section, asking me to communicate its contents to the members.

"Serious accusations made by the Executive Committee of the American Section of the Theosophical Society against Mr. C. Leadbeater have prompted the President-Founder to convene a meeting on May 16 in London, at which the entire Executive Committee of the British Section and delegates from the American and French Sections were present. It was to be discussed with the President what measures should be taken.

After careful consideration of the accusations, and after Mr. Leadbeater's verbal statement had been taken into account, the following resolution was adopted:

“Having considered the charges preferred against Mr. C.W. Leadbeater and having heard his defense, the Committee unanimously recommends to the President the acceptance of Leadbeater's resignation, which he had already tendered prior to any action of the Committee.”

Mr. Leadbeater's membership of the Theosophical Society thus ceases, as does his mandate as a presidential delegate.

H.S. Olcott President T.S.

Dear Friends!

The above document contains an important message for the members of the Theosophical Society, which is somewhat brief. Mr. Leadbeater is not only a member of the Society; he is one of the most outstanding propagators of the Theosophical worldview. His books have become a guide to Theosophy and a guide within it for many. He has numerous disciples who follow his direction. He has just completed a long lecture tour, during which he achieved significant things for the Theosophical movement in America and Australia. And now, immediately afterwards, “serious accusations” are being made by the American section, the section within which he had just been working so energetically.

In view of this situation, I must concede to the members of the German Section the right to demand an explanation from me as General Secretary regarding these facts. It is indeed repeatedly emphasized from many sides that the Theosophical Society in its aims and tasks should not be confused with the achievements of some of its members. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that the Society's overall activity is composed of the work of its individual members, and that it cannot be unimportant if trust in outstanding work must suffer a severe shock from facts of the kind communicated in the President's circular. For with this trust in the workers, surely that in their achievements also falls away. And these achievements form the true living content of the Society. They are the means by which the Society is to fulfill a great task, from which its members want to draw spiritual nourishment. The Society certainly cannot live on the ever-recurring enumeration of the “three basic goals” that are supposed to stand higher than any achievement of individuals.

But there are reasons for not talking in a circular about the things about which some of our American members have made serious accusations against Mr. Leadbeater, and because of which the members of the Executive Committee of the British Section and some delegates of the French and American Sections felt obliged to give their consent to the acceptance of Mr. Leadbeater's resignation.

I myself can now speak all the more impartially about this case of Leadbeater's, because from the point of view of occultism, which I have to represent, I have always had to reject the methods by which Mr. Leadbeater comes to his occult knowledge and which he also recommends as useful methods for others. I am not saying anything for or against the correctness of what Leadbeater presents as occult truths in his books. It is the case in occultism that someone can come to some correct insights, even though the methods he uses are dangerous and can easily lead astray. So I have to trace the Leadbeater case back to much deeper grounds. At the same time, however, I have to explain that there is almost no guarantee for anyone not to fall into a disastrous aberration if they apply the methods underlying Leadbeater's work. Therefore, because I take this point of view, the Leadbeater case was no surprise to me. But I do not think that anyone who agrees with the methodological basis of Leadbeater's occult research now has any reason to condemn him. Either the circular sent to the members should have clearly stated that the accusations concern matters that have nothing at all to do with occultism, or else Leadbeater's entire occult system falls with him. I am quite clear about the latter; that is why I have explained my point of view to the members of the German Section here instead of making an official statement that is not included in the executive note.

As for the assessment of Mr. Leadbeater as a person, which might be important to some, it may be stated that he has always emphasized the good intention he had in all of this, of which he is accused. And no one has any reasonable grounds for doubting this assertion by Leadbeater. It should also be considered in this matter that a large number of American members of the Theosophical Society have just sent out a circular letter in which they vigorously protest against the action taken against Mr. Leadbeater and in which they strongly demand his reinstatement in all his rights. From this, it could also be concluded that the allegations against Leadbeater can be viewed differently than the American Executive Committee views them, and differently than those who simply adopt the opinion of this committee as their own. ¹

I ask the esteemed members of the German Section not to be unsettled in their commitment to the Theosophical cause, regardless of the consequences of the Leadbeater case; and with that I send warm Theosophical greetings to all our friends.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner,
General Secretary of the German Section.

• 1. For further oral clarification of the matter, I am happy to be of service to any member should the opportunity arise.

We have heard Olcott's last earthly wish in a letter that he recently sent to the secretaries general of the sections. He has proposed our much-admired Mrs. Besant as his successor.

The General Secretary of the German Section will now take the necessary steps in accordance with the statutes in good time to ensure that the election process in our section proceeds in accordance with the regulations.

All members will receive the relevant documents.

With theosophical greetings
Dr. Rudolf Steiner

Dear Friends!

Certain events that are currently taking place within the Theosophical Society make it necessary for the following lines to be addressed to the members of the German Section. These events have not played a role within the German Section so far, and rightly so. Now, however, they are stirring up a lot of dust within other sections – unfortunately to the detriment of the Society – and it is inevitable that the matter will also be brought into our section from outside and will disturb minds here. That is why this letter is necessary.

The relevant procedures relate to the election of a successor to our dear and revered President-Founder H.S. Olcott. According to the statutes of our Society, the election of a new President could have been the easiest, smoothest thing in the world.

Now it is being made confusing for no good reason.

The statutes state:

“The President-Founder, Colonel H.S. Olcott, holds the office of President for life and has the right to propose his successor. This proposal is subject to the approval of the Society. The vote shall be taken in the manner provided.”

“The President shall be elected for seven years.”

"Six months before the expiry of the term of office of a President, his successor shall be proposed by the General Council at a meeting to be held by the latter. And the proposal shall be communicated to the General Secretaries and the General Secretary of the Society. Each General Secretary shall collect the votes of his Section in accordance with its statutes. The General Secretary shall collect those of the other members of the Society. A two-thirds majority of the votes cast shall be required for the election.

It is clear from this that the president-founder was granted special rights, which will no longer apply in the future.

We must now vote in accordance with these rights. This means that the Secretary General of a section must announce to the members which proposal the President-Founder has made regarding his successor. Furthermore, the Secretary General must hand over or send a ballot paper to each member of his section, which the member fills out at his or her own discretion.

Of course, no member is obliged to follow the proposal of the President-Founder, but may put the name of his or her choice on the ballot paper. The completed ballot paper is then to be returned to the Secretary General.

For the German section, everything necessary in terms of the statutes has basically already been done, except for the election itself. And this must be done in accordance with the instructions of the Vice-President, who is to perform all the functions of the President until a new President takes office. The current Vice-President is Mr. Sinnett. The election in our Section will be carried out properly at the right time.

So far, then, everything is in perfect order.

But disorder is brought into the matter by the following.

Before his passing away, our revered President-Founder sent to the General Secretaries and to others all kinds of circulars in which he announced that he had received instructions from higher worlds to appoint a certain personality, namely Mrs. Besant, as his successor.

The president-founder claims that certain masters, who are referred to in Theosophical circles as M. and K.H., appeared to him and gave him the aforementioned instructions.

Whether or not these instructions are genuine is a matter for esotericism. It would have been necessary to completely ignore this whole matter in the administration. For it is no one's business but Olcott's from whom Olcott accepts advice regarding his successor. It does not matter whether Olcott has taken advice from an ordinary person or a supernatural power.

One can be of the opinion that Olcott should not have communicated the whole thing. But this communication can be attributed to a weakness of his last seriously ill times. It is also due to this weakness that he said, contrary to the statutes, that he was appointing his successor. Because the statutes do not give him the right to appoint, but only the right to propose.

It would therefore have been right to extract the right thing from Olcott's circular and ignore everything else.

This has not been done in various sections.

There is a lot of discussion about what does not belong to the election matter. This carries the risk that a purely administrative matter will be mixed up with esoteric matters. Especially if one takes the correct esoteric point of view that our teachings go back to supersensible sources, then one should carefully avoid bringing a purely social matter like the presidential election into any connection with supersensible powers. It would contradict all esoteric principles to draw the supersensible into the discussion, which can always arise in a presidential election. It should be emphasized here that it would not actually be necessary in principle to say the following, and that it is only said here to prevent misunderstandings that may be caused by discussions in which the leadership of the German Section is innocent, but which have unfortunately arisen.

None of the individualities that we can recognize in supersensible vision will ever interfere in a matter such as the current presidential election. That would be to bind our will, but these individualities want to free our will through the way they relate to us, so that it can make the right decision in each individual case. That is why currents of spiritual life never come to us from them in a form that could impair our free choice. I am saying something that goes beyond the powers of the General Secretary, but I must say it as a friend of the members.

There will also come a time when I will be able to say how the statements made by Adyar are actually worded. It would not be appropriate for me to talk about this now.

I would just like to ask the members, especially at the present time, to carefully distinguish between official statements and unofficial ones. A completely private message, for example, is the one Mr. Mead has now sent to the branches. It is to be understood as nothing other than Mr. Mead's personal view. All official communications to the members can only come through the General Secretary of a section. The Deputy President, Mr. Sinnett, will also only pass on all communications to me, and I will duly pass everything on to the members.

This is to clarify the situation.

Other matters as soon as possible.

With theosophical greetings,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary of the German Section
of the Theosophical Society.

For your information.

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

From the circulars that I recently sent to the chairpersons of the branches of the German Section, it can be seen that the election of the president must take place in May. It can be assumed that the members are now aware of the aforementioned circular.

I am now enclosing the ballot paper. I request that you write either “For Mrs. Besant” or “Not for Mrs. Besant” in the space marked “vote cast”. Please sign your name in the “signature” space. If you do not wish to add your name, you may omit it. I request that all members immediately return the completed ballot to the following address (in a sealed envelope):

Dr. Rudolf Steiner,
private address of Countess Kalckreuth
Munich
Adalbertstr. 55.

(Please use this exact address). Those who do not wish to vote for or against Mrs. Besant can also return an unmarked ballot paper.

Ballots returned after May 23 cannot be considered valid.

With theosophical greetings,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear Theosophical friends.

Due to recent events, the series of lectures by Dr. Rudolf Steiner that was announced in our May 1911 newsletter will not take place in Helsinki at this time, but will be postponed to a later period.

The exact dates for the lecture cycle planned for Munich (starting on 13 August), which will again be linked to a festival performance, and for other lectures, will be announced in the near future.

Berlin, April 1911
Dr. Rudolf Steiner

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For quite a number of years now Education has been one of those branches of civilised, cultural activity which we foster within the Anthroposophical Movement, and, as will appear from these lectures, we may perhaps just in this sphere look back with a certain satisfaction on what we have been able to do. Our schools have existed only a few years, so I cannot speak of an achievement, but only of the beginning of something which, even outside the Anthroposophical Movement, has already made a certain impression on circles interested in the spiritual life of the cultural world of today. Looking back on our educational activity it gives me real joy, particularly here in Holland, where many years ago I had the opportunity of lecturing on subjects connected with anthroposophical spiritual science, to speak once more on this closely related theme.

Anthroposophical education and teaching is based on that knowledge of man which is only to be gained on the basis of spiritual science; it works out of a knowledge of the whole human being, body, soul and spirit. At first such a statement may be regarded as obvious. It will be said that of course the whole man must be taken into consideration when it is a question of educational practice, of education as an art; that neither should the spiritual be neglected in favour of the physical, nor the physical in favour of the spiritual. But it will very soon be seen how the matter stands when we become aware of the practical results which ensue when any branch of human activity is based on anthroposophical spiritual science. Here in Holland, in the Hague, a small school has been founded on the basis of an anthroposophical knowledge of man, a daughter school, if I may call it so, of our Waldorf School in Stuttgart. And I believe that whoever gets to know such a school, whether from merely hearing about the way it is run, or through a more intimate knowledge, will find in the actual way it deals with teaching and education, something arising from its anthroposophical foundation which differs essentially from the usual run of schools in our present civilisation. The reason for this is that wherever we look today we find a gulf between what people think, or devise theoretically, and what they actually carry out in practice. For in our present civilisation theory and practice have become two widely separated spheres. However paradoxical it may sound, the separation may be observed, perhaps most of all in the most practical of all occupations in life, in the business world, in the economic sphere. Here all sorts of things are learnt theoretically. For instance, people think out details of administration in economic affairs. They form intentions. But these intentions cannot be carried out in actual practice. However carefully they are thought out, they do not meet the actual conditions of life. I should like to express myself still more clearly, so that we may understand one another. For example, a man who wishes to set up a business concern thinks out some sort of business project. He thinks over all that is connected with this business and organises it according to his intentions.

His theories and abstract thoughts are then put into effect, but, when actually carried out, they everywhere come up against reality. Certainly things are done, thought-out ideas are even put into practice, but these thoughts do not fit into real life. In actual fact something is carried over into real life which does not correspond with what is real. Now a business that is conducted in this way can continue for some time and its inaugurator will consider himself to be a tremendously practical fellow. For whoever goes into business and from the outset has learnt absolutely nothing outside customary practice will consider himself a “practical” man.

Today we can hear how really practical people speak about such a theorist. He enters into business life and with a heavy hand introduces his thought-out ideas. If sufficient capital is available, he may even be able to carry on for a time, after a while, however, the concern collapses, or it may be absorbed into some more established business. Usually when this happens very little heed is paid to how much genuine, vital effort has been wasted, how many lives ruined, how many people injured or impaired in their way of life. It has come about solely because something has been thought out—thought out by a so-called “practical” man. In such a case however the person in question is not practical through his insight but by the use of his elbows. He has introduced something into reality without considering the conditions of reality.

Few people notice it, but this kind of thing has become rampant in the cultural life of today. At the present time the only sphere where such things are understood, where it is recognised that such a procedure does not work, is in the application of mechanical natural science to life. When the decision is made to build a bridge it is essential to make use of a knowledge of mechanics to ensure that the bridge will stand up to what is required of it; otherwise the first train that passes over it will be plunged into the water. Such things have already happened, and even at the present time we have seen the results of faulty mechanical construction. Speaking generally, however, this sphere is the only one in practical life in which it can be stated unequivocally that the conditions of reality have or have not been foreseen.

If we take the sphere of medicine we shall see at once that it is not so evident whether or not the conditions of reality have been taken into account. Here too the procedure is the same; something is thought out theoretically and then applied as a means of healing. Whether in this case there has been a cure, whether it was somebody's destiny to die, or whether perhaps he has been “cured to death,” this indeed is difficult to perceive. The bridge collapses when there are faults in its construction; but whether the sick person gets worse, whether he has been cured by the treatment, or has died of it, is not so easy to discover.

In the same way, in the sphere of education it is not always possible to see whether the growing child is being educated in accordance with his needs, or whether fanciful methods are being used which can certainly be worked out by experimental psychology. In this latter case the child is examined by external means and the following questions arise: what sort of memory has he, what are his intellectual capacities, his ability to form judgments and so on? Educational aims are frequently found in this way. But how are they carried into life? They sit firmly in the head, that is where they are. In his head the teacher knows that a child must be taught arithmetic like this, geography like that, and so it goes on. Now the intentions are to be put into practice. The teacher considers all he has learnt, and remembers that according to the precepts of scientific educational method he must set about things in such and such a way. He is now faced with putting his knowledge into practice, he remembers these theoretical principles and applies them quite externally. Whoever has the gift for observing such things can experience how sometimes teachers who have thoroughly mastered educational theories, who can recount admirably everything they had to know for their examination, or had to learn in practice class-teaching, nevertheless remain utterly removed from life when they come face to face with the children they have to teach. What has happened to such a teacher is what, daily and hourly, we are forced to observe with sorrowing heart, the fact that people pass one another by in life, that they have no sense for getting to know one another. This is a common state of affairs. It is the fundamental evil which underlies all social disturbances which are so widespread in the cultural life of today: the lack of paying heed to others, the lack of interest which every man should have for others. In everyday civilised life we must perforce accept such a state of affairs; it is the destiny of modern humanity at the present time. But the peak of such aloofness is reached when the teacher of the child or the educator of the youth stands at a distance from his pupil, quite separated from him, and employs in a completely external way methods obtained by external science. We can see that the laws of mechanics have been wrongly applied when a bridge collapses, but wrong educational methods are not so obvious. A clear proof of the fact that human beings today are only at home when it comes to a mechanical way of thinking, which can always determine whether things have been rightly or wrongly thought out, and which has produced the most brilliant triumphs in the life of modern civilisation—a proof of this is that humanity today has confidence only in mechanical thought. And if this mechanical thinking is carried into education, if, for instance, the child is asked to write down disconnected words and then repeat them quickly, so that a record can be made of his power of assimilation, if this is the procedure in education it is a sign that there is no longer any natural gift for approaching the child himself. We experiment with the child because we can no longer approach his heart and soul.

In saying all this it might seem as though one had the inclination or desire only to criticise and reprove in a superior sort of way. It is of course always easier to criticise than to build something up constructively. But as a matter of fact what I have said does not arise out of any such inclination or desire; it arises out of a direct observation of life. This direct observation of life must proceed from something which is usually completely excluded from knowledge today. What sort of person must one be today if one wishes to pursue some calling based on knowledge—for instance on the knowledge of man? One must be objective! This is to be heard all over the place today, in every hole and corner. Of course one must be objective, but the question is whether or not this objectivity is based on a lack of paying due heed to what is essential in any particular situation.

Now for the most part people have the idea that love is far more subjective than anything else in life, and that it would be utterly impossible for anyone who loves to be objective. For this reason when knowledge is spoken about today love is never mentioned seriously. True, it is deemed fitting, when a young man is applying himself to acquire knowledge, to exhort him to do so with love, but this mostly happens when the whole way in which knowledge is presented is not at all likely to develop love in anybody But the essence of love, the giving of oneself to the world and its phenomena, is in any case not regarded as knowledge. Nevertheless for real life love is the greatest power of knowledge. And without this love it is utterly impossible to attain to a knowledge of man which could form the basis of a true art of education. Let us try to picture this love, and see how it can work in the special sphere of an education founded on a knowledge of man drawn from spiritual science, from anthroposophy.

The child is entrusted to us to be educated, to be taught. If our thinking in regard to education is founded on anthroposophy we do not represent the child to ourselves as something we must help to develop so that he approaches nearer and nearer to some social human ideal, or whatever it may be. For this human ideal can be completely abstract. And today such a human ideal has already become something which can assume as many forms as there are political, social and other parties. Human ideals change according to whether one swears by liberalism, conservatism, or by some other programme, and so the child is led slowly in some particular direction in order to become what is held to be right for mankind. This is carried to extreme lengths in present-day Russia. Generally speaking, however, it is more or less how people think today, though perhaps somewhat less radically.

This is no starting point for the teacher who wants to educate and teach on the basis of anthroposophy. He does not make an “idol” of his opinions. For an abstract picture of man, towards which the child shall be led, is an idol, it is in no sense a reality. The only reality which could exist in this field would be at most if the teacher were to consider himself as an ideal and were to say that every child must become like him. Then one would at least have touched on some sort of reality, but the absurdity of saying such a thing would at once be obvious.

What we really have before us in this young child is a being who has not yet begun his physical existence, but has brought down his spirit and soul from pre-earthly worlds, and has plunged into a physical body bestowed on him by parents and ancestors. We look upon this child as he lies there before us in the first days of his life with indeterminate features and with unorganised, undirected movements. We follow day by day, week by week how the features grow more and more defined, and become the expression of what is working to the surface from the inner life of soul. We observe further how the whole life and movements of the child become more consequent and directed, how something of the nature of spirit and soul is working its way to the surface from the inmost depths of his being. Then, filled with holy awe and reverence, we ask: “What is it that is here working its way to the surface?” And so with heart and mind we are led back to the human being himself, when as soul and spirit he dwelt in the soul-spiritual pre-earthly world from which he has descended into the physical world, and we say: “Little child, now that you have entered through birth into earthly existence you are among human beings, but previously you were among spiritual, divine beings.” What once lived among spiritual-divine beings has descended in order to live among men. We see the divine made manifest in the child. We feel as though standing before an altar. There is however one difference. In religious communities it is customary for human beings to bring their sacrificial offerings to the altars, so that these offerings may ascend into the spiritual world; now we feel ourselves standing as it were before an altar turned the other way; now the gods allow their grace to stream down in the form of divine-spiritual beings, so that these beings, acting as messengers of the gods, may unfold what is essentially human on the altar of physical life. We behold in every child the unfolding of cosmic laws of a divine-spiritual nature; we see how God creates in the world. In its highest, most significant form this is revealed in the child. Hence every single child becomes for us a sacred riddle, for every single child embodies this great question—not, how is he to be educated so that he approaches some “idol” which has been thought out.—But, how shall we foster what the gods have sent down to us into the earthly world. We learn to know ourselves as helpers of the divine-spiritual world, and above all we learn to ask: What may be the result if we approach education with this attitude of mind?

Education in the true sense proceeds out of just such an attitude. What matters is that we should develop our education and teaching on the basis of such thoughts as these. Knowledge of man can only be won if love for mankind—in this case love for the child—becomes the mainspring of our work. If this is so, then the teacher's calling becomes a priestly calling, for then the educator becomes the steward of what it is the will of the gods to carry out with man.

Here again it might appear as though something obvious is being said in rather different words. But it is not so. As a matter of fact in today's unsocial world-order, which only wears an outer semblance of being social, the very opposite occurs. Educationists pursue an “idol” for mankind, not seeing themselves as nurturers of something they must first learn to know when actually face to face with the child.

An attitude of mind such as I have described cannot work in an abstract way, it must work spiritually, while always keeping the practical in view. Such an attitude however can never be acquired by accepting theories quite unrelated and alien to life, it can only be gained if one has a feeling, a sense for every expression of life, and can enter with love into all its manifestations.

Today there is a great deal of talk about educational reform. Since the war there has been talk of a revolution in education. We have experienced this. Every possible approach to a new education is thought out, and pretty well everybody is concerned in some way or other with how this reform is to be brought about. Either one approaches some institution about to be founded with one's proposals or at the very least one suggests this or that as one's idea of how education should take shape. And so it goes on. There is a great deal of talk about methods of education; but do you see what kind of impression all this makes when one surveys, quite without prejudice, what the various societies for the reform of education, down to the most radical, put forward today in their educational programmes? I do not know whether many people take into account what kind of impression is made when one is faced with so many programmes issuing from associations and societies for educational reform. One gets the impression: Good heavens, how clever people are today! For indeed everything which comes about like this is frightfully clever. I do not mean this ironically, but quite seriously. There has never been a time when there was so much cleverness as there is in our era.

There we have it, all set out. Paragraph 1. How shall we educate so that the forces of the child may be developed naturally? Paragraph 2 ... Paragraph 3 ... and so on. People today of any profession or occupation, and of any social class can sit down together and work out such programmes; everything we get in this way in paragraphs 1 to 30 will be delightfully clever, for today one knows just how to formulate everything theoretically. People have never been so skilful in formulating things as they are today. Then such a programme, a number of programmes can be submitted to a committee or to Parliament. This again is very clever. Now something may perhaps be deleted or added according to party opinion, and something extremely clever emerges, even if at times strongly coloured by “party.” Nothing can be done with it, however, for all this is quite beside the point.

Waldorf School education never started off with such a programme. I have no wish to boast, but naturally, had this been our purpose, we could also have produced some kind of programme no less clever than those of many an association for educational reform. The fact that we should have to reckon with reality might perhaps prove a hindrance and then the result would be more stupid. With us however there was never any question of a programme. From the outset we were never interested in principles of educational method which might later on be somehow incorporated in a legalised educational system. What did interest us was reality, absolute true reality. What was this reality? To begin with here were children, a number of child-individualities with varying characteristics. One had to learn what these were, one had to get to know what was inherent in these children, what they had brought down with them, what was expressed through their physical bodies. First and foremost then there were the children. And then there were teachers. You can stand up as strongly as you like for the principle that the child must be educated in accordance with his individuality—that stands in all the programmes of reform—but nothing whatever will come of it. For on the other hand, besides the children, there are a number of teachers, and the point is to know what these teachers can accomplish in relation to these children. The school must be run in such a way that one does not set up an abstract ideal, but allows the school to develop out of the teachers and out of the pupils. And these teachers and pupils are not present in an abstract kind of way, but are quite concrete, individual human beings. That is the gist of the matter. Then we are led by virtue of necessity to build up a true education based on a real knowledge of man. We cease to be theoretical and become practical in every detail.

Waldorf School education, the first manifestation of an education based on anthroposophy, is actually the practice of education as an art, and is therefore able to give only indications of what can be done in this or that case. We have no great interest in general theories, but so much the greater is our interest in impulses coming from anthroposophy which can give us a true knowledge of man, beginning, as here of course it must do, with the child. But today our crude observation completely ignores what is most characteristic in the progressive stages of life. I would say that some measure of inspiration must be drawn from spiritual science if today we are to develop a right sense for what should be brought to the child.

At the present time people know extraordinarily little about man and mankind. They imagine that our present state of existence is the same as it was in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, and indeed as it has always been. They picture the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians as being very similar to the man of today. And if we go back still further, according to the views of present-day natural science, history becomes enveloped in mist until those beings emerge which are half ape, half man. No interest is taken, however, in penetrating into the great differences which exist between the historical and pre-historical epochs of mankind.

Let us study the human being as he appears to us today, beginning with the child up to the change of teeth. We see quite clearly that his physical development runs parallel with his development of soul and spirit. Everything that manifests as soul and spirit has its exact counterpart in the physical—both appear together, both develop out of the child together. Then, when the child has come through the change of teeth, we see how the soul is already freeing itself from the body. On the one side we shall be able to follow a development of soul and spirit in the child, and on the other side his physical development. The two sides however are not as yet clearly separated. If we continue to follow the development further into the time between puberty and about the 21st year the separation becomes much more defined and then when we come to the 27th or 28th year—speaking now of present-day humanity—nothing more can be seen of the way in which the soul-spiritual is connected with the physical body. What a man does at this age can be perceived on the one hand in the soul-spiritual life and on the other hand in the physical life, but the two cannot be brought into any sort of connection. At the end of the twenties, man in his soul and spirit has separated himself completely from what is physical, and so it goes on up to the end of his life.

Yet it was not always so. One only believes it to have been so. Spiritual science, studied anthroposophically, shows us clearly and distinctly that what we see in the child today, at the present stage of human evolution—namely, that in his being of soul and spirit the child is completely dependent on his physical bodily nature and his physical bodily nature is completely dependent on his being of soul and spirit—this condition persisted right on into extreme old age—a fact that has simply not been noticed. If we go very far back into those times which gave rise to the conception of the patriarchs and ask ourselves what kind of a man such a patriarch really was, the answer must be somewhat as follows: Such a man, in growing old, changed in respect of his bodily nature, but right into extreme old age he continued to feel as only quite young people can feel today. Even in old age he felt his being of soul and spirit to be dependent on his physical body.

Today we no longer feel our physical body to be dependent upon what we think and feel. A dependence of this kind was however felt in the more ancient epochs of civilisation. But people also felt after a certain age of life that their bones became harder and their muscles contained certain foreign substances which brought about a sclerotic condition. They felt the waning of their life forces, but they also felt with this physical decline an increase of spiritual forces, actually brought about by the breaking up of the physical. “The soul is becoming free from the physical body.” So they said when this process of physical decline began. At the age of the patriarchs, when the body was already breaking up, the soul was most able to wrest itself free from the body, so that it was no longer within it. This is why people looked up to the patriarchs with such devotion and reverence, saying: “O, how will it be with me one day, when I am so old? For in old age one can know things, understand things, penetrate into the heart of things in a way that I cannot do now, because I am still building up my physical body.” At that time man could still look into a world order that was both physical and spiritual. This however was in a very remote past. Then came a time when man felt this interdependence of the physical and the soul-spiritual only until about the 50th year. The Greek age followed. What gives the Greek epoch its special value rests on the fact that the Greeks were still able to feel the harmony between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily. The Greek still felt this harmony until the 30th or 40th year. He still experienced in the circulation of the blood what brought the soul into a unity with the physical. The wonderful culture and art of the Greeks was founded on this unity, which transformed everything theoretical into art, and at the same time enfilled art with wisdom.

In those times the sculptor worked in such a way that he needed no model, for in his own organisation he was aware of the forces permeating the arm or the leg, giving them their form. This was learned, for instance, in the festival games; but today when such games are imitated they have no meaning whatever.

If however we have such a sense for the development of mankind then we know what has actually taken place in human evolution. We know too that today we only have a parallelism between the physical-bodily and the soul-spiritual until about the 27th or 28th year, to give a quite exact description. (Most people observe this parallelism only up to the age of puberty.) And so we know how the divine-spiritual springs up and grows out of the developing human being. Then we feel the necessary reverence for our task of developing what comes to meet us in the child, that is to say, of developing what is given to us and not developing those abstract ideas that have been thought out.

Thus our thoughts are directed to a knowledge of man based on what is individual in the soul. And if we have absorbed such universal, great historical aspects, we shall also be able to approach every educational task in an appropriate manner. Then quite another life will be brought into the class when the teacher enters it, for he will carry the world into it, the physical world and the world of soul and spirit. Then he will be surrounded by an atmosphere of reality, of a real and actual conception of the world, not one which is merely thought out and intellectual. Then he will be surrounded by a world imbued with feeling. Now if we consider what has just been put forward we shall realise a remarkable fact. We shall see that we are founding an education which, by degrees, will come to represent in many respects the very opposite of the characteristic impulse in education at the present time. All manner of humorists with some aptitude for caricature often choose the so-called “schoolmaster” as an object which can serve their purpose well and on whom they can let loose their derision. Well, if a schoolmaster is endowed with the necessary humour he can turn the tables on those who have caricatured him before the world. But the real point is something altogether different; for if the teacher, versed in present-day educational methods, carries these into school with him, and has therefore no means of learning to know the child, while nevertheless having to deal with the child, how can he be anything other than a stranger to the world? With the school system as it is today, he cannot become anything else; he is torn right out of the world. So we are faced with a truly remarkable situation. Teachers who are strangers to the world are expected to train human beings so that they may get on and prosper in the world.

Let us imagine however that the things about which we have been speaking today become an accepted point of view. Then the relation of the teacher to the children is such that in each individual child a whole world is revealed to him, and not only a human world, but a divine-spiritual world manifested on earth. In other words the teacher perceives as many aspects of the world as he has children in his charge. Through every child he looks into the wide world. His education becomes art. It is imbued with the consciousness that what is done has a direct effect on the evolution of the world. Teaching in the sense meant here leads the teacher, in his task of educating, of developing human beings, to a lofty conception of the world. Such a teacher is one who becomes able to play a leading part in the great questions that face civilisation. The pupil will never outgrow such a teacher, as is so often the case today. The following situation may arise in a school. Let us suppose that the teacher has to educate according to some idea, some picture of man which he can set before himself. Let us think that he might have 30 children in his class, and among these, led by destiny, were two, who in their inborn capacity, were far more gifted than the teacher himself. What would he want to do in such a case? He would want to form them in accordance with his educational ideal; nothing else would be possible. But how does this work out? Reality does not permit it, and the pupils then outgrow their teacher.

If on the other hand we educate in accordance with reality, if we foster all that manifests in the child as qualities of soul and spirit, we are in the same situation as the gardener is in relation to his plants. Do you think that the gardener knows all these secrets of the plants which he tends? O, these plants contain many, many more secrets than the gardener understands; but he can tend them, and perhaps succeed best in caring for those which he does not yet know. His knowledge rests on practical experience, he has “green fingers.” In the same way it is possible for a teacher who practises an art of education based on reality to stand as educator before children who have genius, even though he himself is certainly no genius. For he knows that he has not to lead his pupils towards some abstract ideal, but that in the child the Divine is working in man, is working right through his physical-bodily nature. If the teacher has this attitude of mind he can actually achieve what has just been said. He achieves it by an outpouring love which permeates his work as educator. It is his attitude of mind which is so essential.

With these words, offered as a kind of greeting, I wanted to give you today some idea of what is to be the content of this course of lectures. They will deal with the educational value of a knowledge of man and the cultural value of education.

To the Members of the Theosophical Society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.