# To the Members of the General Council of the Theosophical Society

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.