Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00475)

In the midst of all the discussion about why esoteric groups can and
musn't disclose material about themselves, I received another volume
published by an Anthroposophical  publisher on the history of Steiner's
esoteric school: "A History of the School of Spiritual Science. The First
Class" by Johannes Kiersch (Temple Lodge, London, 2006) - a detailed
history of what began as Steiner's branch of the Adyar ES and developed
into his own school, complete with details of controversies and disputes
and breaks, and full texts of original documents. This supplements "From
the History and Contents of the First Section of the Esoteric School
1904-1914" (1998) and precedes a forthcoming history of Steiner's Masonic
(or quasi-Masonic) group. All prepared with (apparent) support of the
Anthroposophical Society and access to (and use of) materials in all
relevant archives. None of the works thus published gives any indication
of being a "true believer's" version of history, although clearly
published by those who can be desrcibed as "true believers".

I am therefore led to wonder why groups deriving from Steiner seem able
and willing to support, or even produce, scholarly studies of his esoteric
activities, but TS groups appear incapable of rationally discussing their
equivalent activities. Why can't Adyar, for example, publish a history of
the ES, or the ULT produce an equivalent history of the DES? A history
doesn't (necessarily) have to disclose secret teachings or signs and
passwords.

I am impressed by the maturity and transparency shown by Steiner's
contemporary disciples, and, even more, by the quality of scholarship (and
translation) in the works I have seen thus far.

Dr Gregory Tillett