# A Letter From Dr. Rudolf Steiner To The Members Of The Theosophical Society

*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.