# The History of the German Section of the Theosophical Society 1902-1913

## GA 250 — 30 October 1904, Berlin

### 15. Protocol of the Second General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

At half past ten o'clock, Dr. Steiner, as General Secretary of the German Section, opened the second regular General Assembly, greeted the guests and representatives of the foreign branches, and then gave a short introductory address in which the following points were touched upon.

First, he drew attention to the importance of the Theosophical Society, then pointed out the task that members have to fulfill in the development of humanity, then showed the relationship in which the Theosophical Society stands to the occult movement on which it is based, and emphasized that our entire organization must place itself at the service of those forces that are active on the hidden planes. Failure, hostility, obstacles of any kind, none of this will or should deter him.

He then recalled Mrs. Annie Besant's visit and lectures, from which a ray of upliftment and light emanated, and spoke of the importance of the mystical spiritual life slumbering in Central Europe for the progress of Theosophy.

Finally, he also mentioned his visit to the Theosophical Congress in Dresden, which was organized by the so-called Secessionist societies. Because this point is of fundamental importance, the remarks may be followed in almost literal reproduction:

"Before we move on to the more specific reports, I would like to briefly justify my participation in the Theosophical Congress in Dresden and explain how I understand the matter. What motivated me as a Theosophist to speak in Dresden is something for which I cannot give an external account, and for which I also believe I am not obliged to give an immediate account. Under no circumstances could I have undone this participation. But what can be demanded is a justification of this fact of participation as General Secretary of the German Section.

I understand our position on the so-called secessionist movement to be that we must always emphasize to this movement that the absolute right to use the name of the Theosophical Society, to use the seal of our Society and to assert continuity with the foundation belongs to our Society and to no other. No other society has the right to claim it for itself. But now the question arises: How should we relate to those Theosophists who use this title without authorization? What is the reason for their use of it? It is an error; for whoever justifies or rather seeks to justify this is in error. Whether this error is more or less conscious, whether it is to be judged morally or intellectually, is not our concern. The members of such societies are therefore in the same relationship to us as any other person in the world. We have to help them, we have to benefit them with our Theosophical work, we have to behave towards them as if we did not even know that they bear the title If anyone comes to us and demands help that must be given in the spirit of our society, then we must behave in absolute brotherhood towards the members of that society and do everything we would do for any other human being. Regardless of what we do, we will thereby best bring them to gradually convince them of their error. I understood my participation in this sense. I gave the lecture in such a way that it could have been given in any other society, be it a cyclists' federation or a smoking club or any other society. Whatever anyone seeks in me as a person, I will do at any time. But it is another matter whether we actively participate in the organizations. That is a completely different question, and I ask that we make a clear distinction here. If we were to participate in their work, we would be taking the view that we were collaborating with the other powers in what they are organizing against our organization. Therefore, in line with this view, I did not participate in anything, even though I was present at the entire congress in Dresden. I wrote that I would arrive in Dresden in the morning, but I did not participate in the business negotiations. In my opinion, this view is the only way to achieve clarity in this matter. If something is required for the progress and well-being of humanity, we selflessly cooperate. But if we are supposed to work against our own organization, so to speak, we logically cannot participate. That is my principled position and how I behaved in Dresden. Representation of the branches: The question has been raised as to whether a branch with, for example, three votes can transfer them to one person or whether each individual vote must be cast by one person. The discussion resulted in two proposals: First proposal Hubo: “The branches are obliged to cast the votes in one hand.” Second proposal [Löhnis]: “It is left to the branches to place their votes in one hand or to send several representatives to exercise the votes.” Proposal two, [Löhnis], is adopted. Determining the number of members, votes and representatives. Berlin 89 5 Kiem, Krojanker, Seiler Charlottenburg 7 2 Engel Dresden 8 2 Dr. Löhnis Düsseldorf 8 2 von Rosen Hamburg 20 2 Hubo Hannover 24 2 Deinhard Cologne 16 2 Scholl, Dr. Wegeler Leipzig 30 3 Bernsdorf, Judge Lugano 8 2 Mrs. Dr. Braun, Deinhard Nuremberg 8 2 Seiler Munich 19 2 Gräfin Kalckreuth, von Sivers Stuttgart 14 2 Arenson Weimar 12 2 Lübke, Wolfart 263 30 absolute majority = 16 votes  
2/3 majority = 21 votes Fräulein von Sivers (Secretary) then reported on the membership trend. Number of members in 1902: 108.  
Admitted in 1903: 34.  
Admitted in 1904: 21.  
Admitted in 1903, 1904 combined: 55.  
Total membership: 263.  
Resigned in 1904: 7  
Remaining as of August 31, 1904: 256. Cash:  
Cash balance 1903: Marks  
Income 1904: Marks  
Expenses 1904: Marks  
(Figures missing)  
Results in cash balance on August 31, 1904: 999.96 Marks. In response to Mr. Hubo's question as to why no voluntary contributions appeared in the accounts, Ms. von Sivers replied that these funds did not go to the section treasury but to the treasury of a subcommittee, which was accountable. Report of the auditors: Motzkus, Seiler. Mr. Seiler reported that the entries had been compared with the receipts and checked mathematically, that the books and cash had been found to be in order and that the auditors would request a discharge. The request was granted and the treasurer and the board were discharged. Mr. Hubo noticed that no rent was included in the statement, whereupon Ms. von Sivers pointed out that the same would be paid from the library's funds, to the amount of 300 marks per year. Elections: Treasurer: Mr. Seiler is elected to replace the treasurer, Mrs. von Holten, who has resigned from office, specifically to keep the books. However, for the sake of simplicity, all remittances should be addressed to the Secretary General, Dr. Steiner. Additions to the Executive Council: First: Mr. Arenson is proposed and elected to replace Mr. Oppel in Stuttgart, who has resigned. Secondly: In place of Dr. Noll, the following are proposed: 1. Dr. Löhnis, Leipzig and  
2. Miss Stinde in Munich. In view of the fact that Leipzig is already represented on the board, but Munich is not, Miss Stinde is elected. Auditors for 1905: The vacant office of auditor is transferred to Mr. Krojanker and accepted by him, so that for next year Miss Motzkus and Mr. Krojanker will have to carry out the audit. The elections have now come to an end.  
Dr. Steiner then reads the telegrams received on the occasion of the anniversary. from Konzertmeister [Rösel], Weimar  
Hennifn]g, Weimar  
[No information given], Düsseldorf  
Michael Bauer, Nuremberg  
Consul [Franken], Lugano  
Feldner, Regensburg  
[no information given], Düsseldorf  
Vollrath  
Frau von Lichtenberg  
Brockdorff, Meran. Reports from the representatives of the individual branches: Hanover (Deinhard): Number of members at the end of 1903: 25. The activities include meetings in a small circle every Monday. The bookkeeper has made his apartment available for this purpose. Members are to educate themselves through free speech. In addition, there is a public meeting every month. December 15: Adalbert von Hanstein: God and Immortality (response to Ladenburg's speech in Kassel).  
[Wöbcken], Bremen: Help  
May 16, 1904: Dr. Steiner: Birth and Death in the Life of the Soul.  
July 27, 1904: The here and now reaches into the hereafter.  
October 18, 1904: What joys await us in the hereafter?  
October 24, 1904: Deinhard: On the groundbreaking research results in England. Every four weeks, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden answered questions of a theosophical nature. Munich (Deinhard): Founded in 1901 as the first real lodge, Munich had to struggle with great difficulties at the time, but nevertheless lasted for two years. Then came the turmoil of the Judge/Hartmann movement. Hartmann often came over from Salzburg. From there, a stream of zealous influence came through the secessionist movement, so that the people of Munich no longer knew where to turn. This evil has been decisively stopped by the intervention of our General Secretary and by the visit of Mrs. Annie Besant, who took the opportunity to inaugurate the newly founded lodge. Hamburg (Hubo): In addition to the general meetings, four public meetings were held. Between 50 and 120 people attended each of the lectures. First of all, a large meeting was convened with free admission. Due to the contentious elements, instead of discussion, question and answer sessions were introduced and an entrance fee was charged. Topics: 1. Truth of the theosophical worldview  
2. Esoteric Christianity  
3. Dr. Steiner  
4. What can we expect in the afterlife?  
5. How did religions come about? (Hubo) Annie Besant's lecture was attended by 300 people. The newspapers have taken up the reports, some in full and some in abridged form. Dr. Steiner will come to Hamburg every month to speak in a smaller group and thus be able to offer more than in a public lecture. Stuttgart (Arenson): Except for the lectures by Dr. Steiner and Annie Besant, no public lectures. Greetings to the General Assembly and thanks to Dr. Steiner. Weimar (Lübke): Lectures by Dr. Steiner. Meetings every week. Study. Lugano: Meet several times a month under the chairmanship of Günther Wagner. Study of theosophical writings. The big event of the year was the visit of Dr. Steiner. Berlin: Every Monday, a meeting of members and close friends who may take a greater interest in the movement. Well attended (often 50 people). Lectures by Dr. Steiner. Monday evenings are to become discussion evenings for members; introductory lectures by Dr. Steiner: lectures on old and new apocalypses. Every Thursday public lecture: basic concepts of theosophy, theosophy and Darwin, theosophy and Tolstoy, theosophy and Haeckel. Proposals: First motion by Löhnis: I move that a vote be taken on whether a decree from President Olcott should be obtained through the Secretary-General, allowing members of the Theosophical Society to participate in the preparatory work for the General Theosophical Congress in Nuremberg. The motion is based on a resolution of the General Theosophical Congress in Dresden. Since a gentleman was excluded from participating because he belonged to our society, Dr. Löhnis has declared the next congress to be open to all Theosophists without exception. The question now is whether members of our society will also be allowed to participate in the preparatory work in Nuremberg. A request to this effect will undoubtedly be issued. Of course, participation as a “lodge” cannot be considered; it can only involve the participation of individuals. Mr. Bresch has now published an old decree by President Olcott and pointed out that according to it, our members are not allowed to belong to any other theosophical organization. Mr. B[resch] also regards working with another organization as an alliance. But I think we should let this congress run its course, participate in it, not publicly as an organization, but each member privately. Most people do not know the cause of the split. Their lack of knowledge and misconceptions can best be cleared up in a personal meeting. For some members of the Secession, it is undoubtedly not a misconception but a conscious act of opposition to our Society. A resolution of the General Meeting would concern participation as an organization, but since organizational matters may not be touched upon, no resolution may be passed. The Congress is supposed to be independent of any organization. So only the decree of the president remains." Hubo: “I find Dr. Steiner's behavior at the congress in Dresden very proper. In such a tactful way, Dr. Steiner's participation cannot do any harm, only good. Regarding Dr. Löhnis' motion, the general participation of the members is considered.” [Hubo gives] a characteristic account of the Secession's approach and the Theosophical involvement. “When we had founded the Hamburg branch, Edwin Böhme came to Hamburg, gave a lecture, but without mentioning that he did not belong to our organization. This caused great confusion, and they then fished in troubled waters. People do not have the right to use the name, seal and motto of the society. This obscures the fact that the organizations are different. I recommend reading Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden's booklet 'Eckige Kreise'. One way of showing people where theosophy is expressed, where originality is found and where plagiarism is found, is to look at Dr. Steiner's lectures. Perhaps it would be good if Mr. Bresch were to tone down the harsh language in 'Vâhan' a little.' Deinhard: “Everything essential regarding our relationship with the Secession has already been said in *Angular Circles*. Bresch has also brought some good things in *Vâhan*. That should be enough. I think we should ask Mr. Bresch to rein himself in when it comes to this topic. My opinion is that Olcott is not sufficiently informed about conditions in Germany. Long correspondence would be necessary. It would probably be best to leave the president out of it altogether. Bresch: “Some things may be said too harshly in ‘Vâhan’; but anyone who, like me, has had to experience first-hand how the secessionists work, how they exploit sentimentality, how they use the brotherhood as a pretext to fish in troubled waters, cannot help but speak out. “Vâhan” was not written for the Secessionists, it is meant to represent the interests of the Theosophical Society. The Danzig Lodge wanted to cancel as a result of an article. I said: ”Please. I represent the interests of the Theosophical Society. As long as Hartmann and Rudolph are in charge, nothing substantial can be done. In the article in question, I only wanted to express that there is a danger on the advance. We can help in the theosophical field, yes; but we cannot get involved in anything organizational. Even at the first congress, there was a tendency to found an organization. I advise everyone to reject any sentimentality on this point; we must not let ourselves be led and baited, nor be afraid when it is said that we are being unbrotherly and untheosophical. We should not care about that. Our Society is the solid core that must be held fast. Our circumstances in Germany are probably unknown to the President, and also to the English. But we should keep in touch with our President. It seems to me to be a kind of duplicity if our lodges or their members participate in the joint convening of a foreign congress. Deinhard: “We can choose no other way than that of participating in the Congress in order to engage with them. But this is specifically a German matter.” Dr. Löhnis: “The distinction must be strictly maintained. What belongs to our organization is Theosophical Society; what is outside is not Theosophical Society. But it also depends on the Theosophical cause, and there we should emphasize more the points that unite us and not those that divide us. We want to keep open the possibility that we can deal with each other in a factual way. Hubo: “A new thought has occurred to me. The organization of these congresses is a countermove against ours. What position will our section be in if we host all the representatives of the sections here in a few years? Should we invite them then as well? There is definitely a plan behind this approach. Our participation in their congress puts us in conflict with our own behavior when we hold a congress.” Engel: “If no organizational issues are discussed, we can participate, otherwise not. There are malicious forces at work in the Secession, but also good ones that could unite with us. Secessionism is not only found in the Theosophical Society, but is, so to speak, a disease of the times. Bresch: “I would like to leave it to Dr. Steiner to perhaps contact Mr. Bauer in Nuremberg in this regard.” Krojanker: “I believe that secession must be fought in any case.” Hubo: “Not fight it, but ignore it organizationally. Do not be aggressive.” Bresch: “The question is not whether individual members of our association participate, but whether they should help to convene the congress. Dr. Steiner: “The legal position is definitively set out in *The Square Circles*. I would like to emphasize one more thing: the organization of a congress is in itself an act of organization. Those who organize a congress are organizing. If we participate, it contradicts our own position, because as members of the Theosophical Society, we can logically only advocate for it and its events. The right to organize Theosophical congresses can only be accorded to our Theosophical Society, and we would be violating our duty as members if we did not emphasize our society at a Theosophical congress. The measure of not talking about the organization is in direct contradiction to the duties of a member of the Theosophical Society. You cannot possibly assume that these congresses are being organized to benefit our society. Nevertheless, we have a duty to accommodate people in every way. But there is no similar effort on the other (Secessionist) side. The Secession may talk about Theosophy all it likes, but it is not acting in a Theosophical way. It is wrong to say and spread falsehoods. The way in which we have to behave here is a matter of prudence. A false step in fighting or in accommodating them is a significant step backwards. It is a matter of not allowing falsehood, which I would call error, to prevail. We do not always need to emphasize this, we just have to take this position in our actions. We do not hold it against the others that they have unlawfully taken our name, seal and motto, but it is not right of them to do so, since the possibility is open to them to bear these things lawfully. We ourselves run the risk of falling for it at any moment in this story, because the people over there also use the words that the audience then falls for. The success of the German Secession so far is no proof of its legitimacy. As soon as we take the position that we are in cahoots, we give up on the society, because they do not want our society to exist. If they did, we would be able to unite with them at any moment. That is not possible because they want our society to fail. We have to work from this point of view, we have to be constantly on our guard. This must be clear to everyone and must be emphasized over and over again. We cannot put this in the hands of the president either, but must keep our eyes open ourselves. We would be leaving the field wide open for the Nuremberg Congress if we gave them the opportunity to say that the Adyar Society is excluding itself. On the other hand, we must not overlook the tendency to absorb us in the background and in public through large congresses. Do not make any binding decision, do not set out a line of action that ties the actions of individuals. What Mr. Bauer does as a private person is by no means our concern. However, it is imperative that we ensure that Mr. Bauer does not suffer the reputation of having staged the event of an unauthorized theosophical congress with his lodge, thus acting illogically. It would be unwise for us to get involved as individual participants, but it would be highly unwise for the lodge to participate as a whole. I knew beforehand that the Dresden Congress would not be interpreted in such a way as to say: We have seen that you are also good Theosophists, but that it would be exploited in the sense of the other movement. So let us behave in such a way that we are not the ones who have fallen into it under any circumstances.” Hubo: ‘I would like these matters to be brought to the lodges so that they are informed.’ Bresch: “It is questionable how it is to be understood when members are invited by the president of a lodge to attend the congress.” Dr. Löhnis: “The president of a lodge may not, under any circumstances, invite participation.” Dr. Steiner: “I believe that we cannot get past this matter unless we make a very specific decision, and I propose that we decide: ”The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society of October 30, 1904, decides not to participate in any undertakings originating from other so-called Theosophical Societies and considers it the duty of each branch to act in the same way. Any participation by individual members can therefore only be of a purely private nature. This gives everyone absolute freedom, but at the same time expresses that the section as such cannot participate. The motion is unanimously adopted. Second proposal by Dr. Löhnis: “The decrees of President Olcott and the Central Executive Committee that are still in force should be made available to members, lodges or branches respectively. After a debate, Dr. Steiner explained that the decrees still in force would be made available to the individual branches. Transfer of the General Secretariat to Munich: Countess Kalckreuth expressed the wish of the Munich branch that the General Secretariat be transferred to Munich. After a short discussion, it was decided to note the request in the minutes. Invitation of the branches to the General Assembly: Mr. Hubo points out that the proposals received should be communicated to the branches in writing. Any proposals should therefore be submitted to the Secretary General four weeks in advance so that he can send them with the invitation to the General Assembly. Amendment of the statutes: Dr. Löhnis believes that it is desirable that some things be changed in the statutes. He therefore expresses the wish that all those who wish to see changes should prepare proposals for the next General Assembly. Estimate for the coming financial year: Hubo: “It is necessary to be as clear as possible in advance about next year's expenses so that their coverage can be arranged in good time, which is why I recommend that a budget be drawn up in the future.” Voluntary contributions: Mr. Hubo suggests also collecting voluntary contributions and seeking to sign up for regular incoming voluntary annual contributions. Dr. Löhnis notes that these voluntary contributions should not be collected by the Section, but by the branches. Dr. Steiner replies that neither the Section nor the branch should be assigned the task of collecting. It is only a matter of designating a person to carry out the collection. The board is instructed to initiate such a collection. This concluded the first part of the general assembly. Dr. Steiner asked those gathered to reconvene at four o'clock for the purpose of hearing the lectures by Mr. Bresch and Dr. Steiner, and thus closed this year's proceedings. Closing time: half past two.