The “Memorandum On The Separation Of The Anthroposophical Society From The Theosophical Society”

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

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

On page 7 of this memorandum – the first one to be considered for the text – Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden writes: “Meanwhile, a new association, ‘the Anthroposophical Society’, has emerged from the members of this earlier German Section. This was a completely natural development of the circumstances, since in the last seven years the attitude and aspirations in the section had become so completely different from the essence and program of the Theosophical Movement. This community followed different spiritual leaders than those in whose spirit the Theosophical Society was founded decades ago and is still led. The meaning and purpose of the Theosophical Society are now fundamentally in question here. However, in Germany, no one is better able to judge this and provide information than the editor of this On pages 73 and 74 of his ‘Denkschrift’ Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has printed the programmatic sentences of an “Undogmatic Association” that he had to found with a task that the final sentences of this program express in the following way: “Its only purpose is to ensure that the original meaning of the Theosophical Society is also expressed again in Germany within the organization as it was created by the founders of the Society.” According to the draft of the program that I have, this “Undogmatic Association” was founded in August 1912 by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mr. J.H. Cordes. The whole situation forces one to assume that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden was of the opinion in August 1912 that the German Section of the Theosophical Society, founded in October 1902, had gradually developed into a body that did not express the “original meaning of the Theosophical Society,” about which no one was better able to provide “information” than he was. On page 8 of the “Denkschrift” published by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, we read: “The following factual material on the prehistory and the course of the present separation of the Anthroposophical Society is given here.” Here, however, the “factual material” given in the “memorandum” must be contrasted with another. It should then be left to the reader to form an opinion about this “memorandum”. He could truly, if he only reads this memorandum, form the opinion that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had to watch how the “German Section of the Theosophical Society”, founded in 1902, thoroughly misunderstood the meaning and purpose of this society, even turning it into its opposite, so that he, who is able to “judge and provide information” about this “meaning and purpose”, felt compelled to take care of this “meaning and purpose” in August 1912 by founding an “Undogmatic Association”; yes, that he even felt compelled to found a better German Section in February 1913, under the presidency of Annie Besant. purpose» by founding an «Undogmatic Association»; yes, that he even felt compelled to join President Annie Besant in February 1913 to found a better German Section, after she had excluded the German Section founded in 1902 from the Theosophical Society because of its conduct, which allegedly went against the purpose of the Theosophical Society. Anyone who formed this opinion could then ask: Why did the German section, founded in 1902, not properly integrate into the Theosophical Society and then continue to act in accordance with the “purpose and meaning” of that society? It would have been enough to ask Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about this “meaning and purpose”, since, according to the quoted statement that he had printed in the “memorandum” that he “published”, he knew it exactly. A reader who might come across this question must undoubtedly be interested to know whether the General Secretary of the German Section had not heard anything from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about the “meaning and purpose” of the Society in 1902, since he had, after all, Hübbe-Schleiden, so thoroughly mismanaged this section that the man who is best qualified to judge the “meaning and purpose” of this in Germany feels compelled to return the matter, which has gone so badly astray, to the right track. Now, I will not object if Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden boasts that he can provide better information than anyone else about the “meaning and purpose” of the Theosophical Society, that he worked with Olcott and Blavatsky and that he “introduced the entire Theosophical movement to Germany” thirty years ago. Well – one should at least believe it – if Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is currently having this printed, then he would have to admit that anyone who, because they were led to do so by the circumstances at the time, became the General Secretary when the German section of this society was founded, would not have acted disloyally towards Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in 1902 if they had turned to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden for such “information”. This “someone” could have been me, for example. Suppose I had asked Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who claimed in 1913 that no one was as capable as he was of providing information about these matters, for this information on various occasions in 1902. At any rate, I received such “information” from him on repeated occasions at the time. I will not talk about verbal information now. I will only cite those that are contained in letters that are still available. On August 15, 1902, a passage in a letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens (who “was almost the only one able to provide information about these matters”) read: “Only now do you feel the awkwardness and even hopelessness of the prospects for the use of our old Theosophical Society within the entire Theosophical movement in Germany. Almost all the human material that we have acquired as members so far is not only useless, but an almost insurmountable obstacle. The spirit of Theosophy, as understood by H.P.B. and Annie Besant, is also (here follows the name of a man who was in the camp of the opponents of the Theosophical Society founded by Olcott and Blavatsky) and his people so completely and adequately represented that we are quite superfluous as “Theosophists” alongside them. Olcott's nature and attitude is essentially that of... and... (here are two names for men who were fierce opponents of Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens); and that is why I have always voted not to found a section of our Theosophical Society alongside the Leipzig movement, but to let the old Theosophical Society here in Germany peter out, since its achievements are spiritually and organizationally incapable. But since no one except... (here is the name of a long-time friend, Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens) and the Munich group so far shares my view, I passively let them do as they please. I myself will hardly ever publicly represent the spiritual movement I serve under the name Theosophy and Theosophical Society. For me, quite different names will arise out of the matter itself. Nevertheless, I am glad to try to serve the Theosophical Movement as it has developed, and in a general way the little pamphlet “Serve the Eternal!” does that. In the Leipzig Society there will be hundreds who will read it and like it. In our Society it will be simply thrown into the corner by... (again the names of the two opponents Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden) and their followers will simply be thrown into the corner. But new interested parties will rather turn to this school of thought if it is not tainted by the bad smell of lies and deception, dishonesty and superficiality, lack of judgment and lack of education... On August 18, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden again writes the following “information”: “I fully agree with you that our Theosophical movement has to go far beyond H.P.B. and Annie Besant. Whether this will still be possible here in Germany under the catchwords Theosophy and Theosophical Society, I doubt very much... On August 21, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gave this “information”: “I can only repeat to you that I consider this section formation to be completely irrelevant. It may provide you personally with a foundation; (here Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden adds the marginal note: “Only from this point of view do I approve the founding of the Section”), but factually and intellectually it is only an obstacle for you. A movement of members, which we can use for spiritual life, is to be made first. Such members must first be found. Whether this will still be possible at all under the slogans Theosophy and Theos. Society? I do not think it is possible. But try it!... On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote the following “information” – which “nobody could provide as well” as he could: “First of all, you (the letter writer meant me, Rudolf Steiner) must be given a free hand and the opportunity to bring together a few communities without the hopelessly compromised buzzwords, with which one might be able to found a section later.” On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden provided the following information: “Moreover, it is my often-expressed opinion that Theosophy, as Mrs. Besant and Leadbeater understand it, is fully and adequately represented by the Hartmannians.... But that is not all, and in any case, these aspects are not even the most important. What I consider most important is the fact that the Theosophical movement, as it is currently practiced, has absolutely no right to exist in modern and future intellectual culture. Not only is there a lack of scientific justification, but what is called Theosophy today is even hostile to any scientific justification. This is the only point of view in which our... (the names of the two opponents Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and associates with... (the names of opponents of the Theosophical Society, to which Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden belonged) and their followers. Any amount of energy that you throw into a movement that calls itself 'Theosophy or 'Theosophical Society is a shameful waste of your (actually I am meant, Rudolf Steiner) living spiritual power. You are thereby committing a sin against the Holy Spirit, because your inner consciousness tells you that what today calls itself 'Theosophy' and 'Theosophical Society' is culturally contrary and hostile. It is the opposite of the spirit that you express in your 'Christianity' (especially p. 1.)... On September 30, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden provided the following “information” (which even “nobody” could not have provided better): “Furthermore, it seems to me from your letter that you actually have the desire or are willing to bind the Section, as it will now be formed, to your legs as a block...” Now, I do not want to talk here about the reasons that led me to believe that the founding of the German Section was both right and necessary at the time. Perhaps I can do so on another occasion. (This can also be found in my previously given descriptions.) I will only add to the above “information” provided by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, who was better qualified to provide it than anyone else, that before the constituent general assembly of the German Section in October 1902, I gave a lecture at the Berlin Giordano Bruno League in which I explained why I believe a Theosophical movement is necessary in our time, what I found insufficient in what is called such a movement, and how I envision this movement. Whether I have ever deviated from what I then characterized as a program to this day, I believe I can expose myself to the strictest judgment of those who understand. What did the man (Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden) write, who, as the “Denkschrift” claims, hardly needed to know, about the message I gave him about this lecture? On October 15, 1902, he wrote: “Your letter of the day before yesterday gave me great pleasure in many ways. Most of all, I am refreshed by your optimistic enthusiasm; if the success of such gatherings had no other purpose than to maintain this enthusiasm and the resulting blossoming of fresh energy, that would be enough. But the success will have a broader impact... Whether or that such successes can uplift our society and bring it better members, I doubt and I also consider quite irrelevant. I remain very decided in my advice - especially at the beginning or even in your program of the Theosophical Society to talk, and I also advise “Theosophy in a very explicit way always only in the sense of Eckhart, James. Böhme and Fichte to use.” And regarding whether I was the appropriate person to carry out the planned work, the man who was better qualified than anyone provided the information (in the same letter dated October 15, 1902): “But you are the instrument now. (I, Rudolf Steiner, am really meant). Your person is the center. Everything must revolve around your person. It is you who now serve publicly, as H.P.B. served, as Annie Besant serves. But just as H.P.B. did not become what she was and achieved through society, so you should first gain an unshakable position in the spiritual life of our German culture. Until then, you cannot do anything for society, and society will only paralyze your progress and your wings. But you know: I wish you all blessings! ... Thus the man who, more than anyone, did not need to know, provided information about the value of the Theosophical Society before the Section was founded. But perhaps someone might object that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden only wanted this to be understood in relation to what was then called “Theosophy” and “Theosophical Society” in Germany. Now, although this objection is already refuted by the content of the above “information”, some unambiguous “information” from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about the entire Theosophical Society will be given here. On April 17, 1903, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden gives the following “information”: “There is nothing more alien and disharmonious to the mystical disposition of the German mind than the Anglo-American advertising with which our movement is conducted in the world...” On September 26, 1902, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had already given me the “information” in a letter about his involvement in the Theosophical Society as a whole up to that time: “For me, I conclude this old period by addressing the three articles ”Unification as a Warning to the Old (English-speaking and thinking) Theosophical Society. Gesellschaft richte. Da der Verhetzungs-Geist unter diesen ebenso groß ist wie bei ... und ... (folgen wieder die Namen der beiden deutschen Gegner Dr. Hübbe-Schleidens), so ist dieser Mahnruf ganz vergeblich. Aber er muss ergehen! Die Leute sollen nicht sagen, sie seien nicht zur rechten Zeit gewarnt worden. The addition (English-speaking and thinking) was made by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, he may provide information about this himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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