BULLETIN

OF THE RUDOLF STEI NER-NACH LASSVERWALTUNG

Special Number Dornach July 1954
A Summary
OF THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN
THE RUDOLF STEINER - NACHLASSVER W AL TUNG
AND THE GENERAL ANTHROPOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
AND THE MOST IMPORT ANT QUESTIONS
RELATED TO IT
FOR ENGLISH-SPEAKING MEMBERS
OF THE GENERAL ANTHROPOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
IN ANSWER TO INQUIRIES RECEIVED
PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE
RUDOLF STEINER - NACHLASSVERWALTUNG
BY
ELISABETH H. CHAMBERS
"Only indolence of heart can accept the easy belief that it
is impossible in this matter or that - for instance in the
Nachlass-question - to form one's own judgment. The truth
can be found in all matters if one has the will to find it. And
it must be found. One needs only to let the facts speak and to
. take care not to project one's own opinions and personal likes
and dislikes into that which Rudolf Steiner actually said and wrote
and into the arrangements he actually made, as well as into
that which has actually taken place in the Society since his
death." Emil Leinhas in "Mitteilungen" April 1954.
Prefatory Note .
Notes on Translation
CONTENTS
SECTION I
Why didthe Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung bring a lawsuit against the
General Anthroposophical .
What was the argument which the Nachlassverwaltung placed before the
court?
."
The Vorstand of the Society maintains, however, that the Society and not
Frau Dr. Steiner owned the author's rights to the works of Rudolf Steiner.
On what is this assertion based? .
What is the basis for the claim that Dr. Steiner gave to or incorporated his
page
9
10
11
13
14
author's rights into the Society at the Christmas Foundation Meeting?". 15
What weight did the court give to the arguments in support of the claim
that Dr. Steiner gave his author's rights to the Society? .
\Vhen did the idea first arise in the Society that there was a contradiction
between Dr. Steiner's testament and the Christmas Foundation Meeting
and that the latter, at least to some extent, Sltperseded and invalidated his
testament?
What was the attitude of the Vorstand and of the other members of the
16
18
Society to this claim at that time? 18
What are the facts concerning the claim that Frau Dr. Steiner transferred"" ,."
or sold the Nachlass to the Society in August 1925, some months after she
inherited it? . 19
5
SECTION II
Paragraphs IV and V of the "Decision" handed down by the Upper Court
of the Canton of Solothurn, June 17., 1952. (Somewhat condensed) .
SECTION III
Why do the "Goetheanum", the "Nachrichtenblatt" and the "Anthropo-
sophic News Sheet" no longer contain lectures by Dr. Steiner? Is it because
the Nachlassverwalttmg forbids their publication? .
Why does the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House no longer
publish works by Rudolf Steiner? Is it because the NachlassverwaltHng does
not allow it to do so?
What was the attitude of the members of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlass-
verwaltung after they won the lawsuit? Would they still have been willing
to have Dr. Steiner's books published by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Publishing House in Dornach? .
It is maintained by some that the N achlassverwaltung is publishing in-
accurate, corrupted texts and that they, therefore, should not be purchased.
What are the facts in this matter? .
It is sometimes said that members of the Nachlassverwalwng are personally
profiting from the sale of Dr. Steiner's books which they publish. Is this
the case?
Concluding Remarks
6
page
20
32
32
33
35
37
38
SU
I) Testament 01
II) Last Testamc
III) Documents \
verwaltung ,
General And
a) January
Dr. Wac
1
ing the l'
b) June 16
Steiner- t,
leal Pub!
c) January
of the "
d) Februan
Anthrop
at-the "
e) June 28.
_Member
IV) Concerning
Index of Docur
Bibliography
)age
!O
..
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS, ETC.
, I) Testament of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, 1907
II) Last Testament of Dr. Rudolf Steiner
III) Documents which show the attitude of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlass-
verwaltung toward the publication of Rudolf Steiner's works qy the
General Anthroposophical Society:
a) January 7., 1949. Letter of the N achlassverwaltung to Herr Steffen,
Dr. Wachsmuth and the General Anthroposophical Society, follow-
ing the death of Frau Marie Steiner on December 27., 1948 ..
b) June 16. - July 9., 1949. Correspondence between the Rudolf
Steiner-N achlassverwal tung and the Philosophical-Anthroposoph-
ical Publishing House.
c) January 4., 1950. Letter of the Nachlassverwaltung to the editor
of the "Go'etheanum" and "Nachrichtenblatt".
d) February 26., 1950. Proposed agreement between the General
Anthroposophical Society and the Nachhssverwaltung arrived at
at the conference in Constance ..
e) June 28., 1952. Open Letter from the Nachlassverwaltung to All
Members of the Anthroposophical Movement ..
IV) Concerning the Egger Pamphlet.'
Index of Documents in text.
Bibliography
p:tge
43
44
47
49
55
56
57
59
66
67
7
,
,.
!!
i
I I
I
!
..
"
I
,.-.-.... - ~ .
PREFA TORY NOTE
In accordance with requests received by the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlass-
verwaltung from membe,rs in various countries the following "Summary"
has been prepared for the information of English-speaking readers. An
attempt has been made to bring together' in as condensed a form as
possible the most pertinent facts and documents bearing upon the lawsuit
and questions related to it. A large part consists in translations from the
written "Decision" handed down by the Upper Court of the Canton of
Solothurn, June 17., 1952. In as much as the position taken by the Vor-
stand of the Society has found expression in the "Nachrichtenblatt" and
the "Anthroposophic News Sheet", it can be assumed that readers are
familiar with this position. It has, therefore, seemed unnecessary to consider
it here in detail. The emphasis has rather been placed on the facts sup-
porting the position taken by the Nachlassverwaltung, which are less
known and which were decisive for the outcome of the lawsuit.
The form of questions and answers has been chosen in order to make
it somewhat easier for the reader to find his way through the complicated .
material and also in the hope of giving answers to questions which have
arisen regarding the situation which now exists in the Society.
Dornach, April 1954.
9
NOTES ON TRANSLATION
The Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung has sometimes been called the Rudolf
Steiner Nachlassverein. In order to avoid confusion the term "Nachlassvcr-
waltung" has been used in the text throughout, even in quotations where the
term "Verein" appears.
Rights, Copyrights (Autorrechte, Urheberrechte).
Publishing Rights, Publisher's Rights, Rights of Publication (Verlagsrechte): These
are the rights which a publishing house acquires by means of a specific
contract with an author or the owner of the author's rights, regarding the
publication of one or more works in one or more editions. It is specified by
law that when no written contract exists the publishing house has the
publishing rights for only one edition. The publication of a new edition must
then be authorized by the author or the owner of the author's rights. The
works of Rudolf Steiner were, in general, published under such verbal
contract with the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House during
his lifetime as well as later, when Frau Marie Steiner owned the author's
rights. The Christmas Foundation Meeting caused no change in this usage.
There is one exeption to this general rule. Some months after the Christmas
Meeting the 1;hilosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House took over the
contract which Dr. Steiner had made with the Kommenden Tag Publishing
House in Stuttgart. This contract gives the Publishing House the publishing
fights for all editions of some few works. .
/- Nachlass (estate, inheritance)
Verlag (Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House)
A.A.C. (Allgemeine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft; General Anthroposophical
Society)
Condensations within quotations are designated as such with round brackets ( ).
They are included within quotation marks.
Remarks of the Translator are designated with square brackets [].
10
Q.
A.
Why did t)
the General
In Septem
,
Steiner belor
time had
a'
however, th
to her. It fl1
Nachlass by
rights.
the Society
rights, ne'"
publishing
verwaltung
The reSt
the NachL
for its ad!
Contract (
lass, and,
waltung c
"Th
of the
worb
is not
"Tl
camp
way'
"Ir
into
Stei r.
"f
exte;
togel
of lectures, which belong together, are published together, as far as possible
in chronological order.
"The books which Rudolf Steiner himself' wrote, and which have appeared
in book form, should, if at all possible, be brought out in a beautiful complete
\ edition. The work of Rudolf Steiner which is contained in lectures and notes
should be brought together as a whole and arranged chronologically and
according to topics. This should be published as a second category in the
complete edition of Rudolf Steiner's works, and should also be as fine and
handsome an edition as possible. Further' categories would be, first, the
material in the Dornach archive: not yet published, abbreviated longhand
notes of lectures, and further, notes of lectures during the years 1902-1912.
"Every member of the Nachlassverwaltung is to sign this Contract of
Transfer, thereby signifying most earnestly a solemn avowal that he will -
in unwavering loyalty to Rudolf Steiner's lifework - endeavour most
diligently and faithfully to carry out and to fulfill the directives and the
tasks stated above."
It is clear that the members of the Nachlassverwaltung could not dis-
regard the responsibility which had been placed upon them, even though
the Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society - of which they
were all active and devoted members - decided to dispute their rights
."w the Nachlass. The publication of the above mentioned cycles by the
\ Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House therefore forced the
\members of the Nachlassverwaltung, against their will, to take the question
'of the ownership of the Nachlass to court.
It is of interest that Frau Dr. Steiner was also once placed in a position
~ where it was necessary for her to defend her ownership of the author's
rights before the court. The French General Secretary, Mlle Sauerwein,
maintained, incorrectly, that she had the exclusive rights for French trans-
lations of Dr. Steiner's works, sent an officer of the court to collect
damages at a eurythmy performance when a text translated by someone
else was recited, brought out two translations without requesting Frau
Dr. Steiner's permission and finally brought a lawsuit because of the
publication of a French translation made by someone else. This trans-
lation had been authorized by Frau Marie Steiner and it became necessary
for her, as the owner of the author's rights, to have these rights defended
by her lawyer before the court in Paris. The "Sauerwein case" led to
many important discussions, resolutions and declarations at meetings of
12
the Society d 1
in the present
complete sup,
members of t i
in translation
Q. lVhat W,,3
the court?
A. It was a
ownership.
of the "Dec;
"As pi
of Dr. S'
of, his Ill.
to the f.
accordin
and furtl
rights \\;
which ri:
decided
which ....
they w(
in her I
House, :1
reprodt-"
member.
testamc.,
during Ii.
In conn
all deta,
hadinhl
to all m,
which d.
was the
correspc.
Vorstan
the Society during the years 1928 to 1931. These played a significant part
in the present lawsuit in that they show that frau Marie Steiner was given
complete support as recognized owner 0/ the author's rights by the other
members of the Vorstand and by the Society. This material follows later
in translation. (See Section II, Paragraph IV).
Q. What was the argument which the N achlassverwaltttng placed be/ore
the court?
A. It was a review of the historical facts concerning the Nachlass and its
ownership. A summary of their argument is contained in Paragraph II
of the "Decision" of the court in Solothurn. The judges write as follows:
(
"As proof of their rightful ownership of the author's rights tei the works
of Dr. Steiner and therefore their ownership of, and right to make disposition
of, his literary and artistic estate, the Nachlassverwaltung first calls attention
to the fact that these rights passed into the hands of Frau Marie Steiner,
according to the testament of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, at the time of his death;
and further that, as a consequence of this, Frau Marie Steiner exercised all
rights which grew out of this inheritance up to the time of her death, -
which rights were, for 20 years, never questioned. Frau Marie Steiner alone
decided which of Dr. Steiner's works were to be printed, and all editions
which were not brought out by her personally contained the notice that
they were published with her permission; publishing contracts were made
in her personal name and the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing
House, as well as other publishing houses, paid all royalties for printed or
reproduced works to her personally. Scattered attempts, made by some few
members, to question her rights on the basis of the argument that Dr; Steiner's
testament stood in contradiction to the Christmas Foundation Meeting were,
during many years, rejected with indignation [bytheVorstand and the Society].
In connection with the Sauerwein case in 1931 it was expressly declared that
all detailed rights belonged as a matter of course to Frau Dr. Steiner, in that she
had inherited Dr. Steiner's author's rights. ThisDeclaration was made available
to all members. Also in the 'Memorandum 1925-1935', with the publishing of
which the Vorstand was in full agreement, it is stated that Frau Marie Steiner
was the sole owner of Dr. Steiner's author's rights. Not even in the first
correspondence between Frau Dr. Steiner and the other members of the
Vorstimd, [early in 1945] after she had announced the founding of the Nach-
13
, I
, I
: !
f
c
"
SECTION I
Q. . Why did the RudolfSteiner-Nachlassverwaltung bring a lawsuit against
the General Anthroposophical Society?
A./ In September 1945,the claim was made that the Nachlass of Dr. Rudolf
[, Steiner belonged to the Society and not to Frau Dr. Steiner, as up to that
I.time had always been recognized. During Frau Dr. Steiner's lifetime,
however, the Society continued to act as though the Nachlass belonged
to her. It made no attempt, for instance, to make use of its claim to the
Nachlass by publishing books as though it were the owner of the author's
(, rights. This it did, however, during the year following her death. In 1949
ithe Society printed, without communicating with the owner of the author's
i rights, new editions of five lecture cycles by Dr. Steiner for which its
'publishing house did not have the publishing rights. Had the N achlass-
verwaltung not then taken action it would have lost its rights by default.
The responsibility for the Nachlass had been given to the members of .
the Nachlassverwaltung by Frau Dr. Steiner, to whom the responsibility
for its administration had been given by Rudolf Steiner himself. The
Contract of Transfer, in which Frau Marie Steiner transferred the Nach-
lass, and with it the author's rights, to the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassver-
waltung contains the following description ot the duties of its members:
i
\
"The members of the Nachlassverwaltung are pledged to see, to the best
of their knowledge and ablility, that the publication of Rudolf Steiner's
works follows in accordance with his intentions, that their spiritual content
is not plagiarized and that his work remainS connected with his name.
"The still unpublished works of Rudolf Steiner are to be published as
completely as possible before the copyright expires, which will be the best
way to hinder the publica'tion of false or adulterated texts.
"Incomplete or inaccurate transcriptions must by worked over and brought
into better form, because just such transcriptions can do damage to Rudolf
Steiner's name as a sty list.
"A further task exists. Rudolf Steiner's work has appeared to a great
extent piecemeal in various magazines. This material is to be gathered
together, so that single lectures appear in pamphlet form and so that a series
11
!
lassverwaltung was her ownership of the author's rights questioned. (It
was also not questioned at the General Meeting which followed). Dr. Poppel-
baum, a present member of the Vorstand, wrote in his 'Declarations and
Remarks to the General Assembly on April 7., 1947', that he expressly
disapproved of the attempts to contest Frau Dr. Steiner's rights to the
Nachlass: the Society had never done so before and could not now do so.
"The plaintiff points to these facts to show that the defendant himself
recognized and acknowledged, up to the time when the Nachlassverwaltung
was founded and even some time afterward, Frau Marie Steiner's ownership
of Dr. Steiner's author's rights". A transference to the Society of the rights
to the Nachlass. could in no way be demonstrated. (They were not trans-
ferred to the Society by Dr. Steiner either during his lifetime or in his
testament; . nor were they transferred to the Publishing House by Frau Dr.
Steiner; nor did the so-called agreement of August 31, 1925 - which was
not signed by Frau Dr. Steiner - constitute a transference of the Nachlass,
in as much as this agreement refers only to the Publishing House and states
its real value, which was much more than the sale price. This 'agreement'
was a rough draft for the transference of the Publishing House to the Society,
which took place when the final contract of sale was signed in the following
December.)"
Q. The Vorstand 0/ the Society maintains, however, that the Society and
not Frau Dr. Steiner owned the author's rights to the works of Rudolf
Steiner. On what is this assertion based?
A. There are two claims. One is that Dr. Steiner incorporated not only the
Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House and its publishing rights
but also his author's rights (copyrights) into the Society at the Christmas
Foundation Meeting in 1923, and that, therefore, a contradiction exists
between the Christmas Meeting and his previously dated testament which
names Frau Dr. Steiner as his sole heir. The Christmas Meeting would,
then, supersede and invalidate, at least to some extent, his testament.
/. * [It was in September 1945, about 9 months after the announcement of the founding
of the Nachlassverwaltung that Frau Dr. Steiner's rights to the Nachlass were first
\ contested by the Society, i. e. more than 20 years after she had inherited the Nachlass.)
i
I
I
I
I
The other
to the SOCiCI'
from Dr. Stl
Q. What is tl
his author's )
A. There are
One is an .:
(Prinzipien) .
rection of Dr
and contains
cycles, which
as well as mCI,
"Prin.ted in I:
Science", t h ~ I
by Dr. Stei\1l';
Another lin
which, it is 11:
Day, emploY"
Society held
pp. 25-26): '
greater signifi.
testament" ..
works, the Sci
bution - the I
of inheritance
doesn't exist ~ - .
lawsuit, a kin
The other claim is that Frau Dr. Steiner transferred or sold her rights
to the Society in August 1925, some months after she had inherited them
from Dr. Steiner, according to his testament.
Q. What is the basis for the claim that Dr. Steiner gave to or incorporated
his author's rights into the Society at the Christmas Foundation Meeting?
A. There are two chief lines of reasoning.
One is an attempt to interpret in this manner Paragraph 8 of the Statutes
(Prinzipien) of the Society, which has to do with the inner spiritual pro-
tection of Dr. Steiner's lectures against uninformed or malicious criticism
and contains the notice which, as protection, was to be placed in his lecture
cycles, which from then on were to be made available to all, non-members
as well as members. The conclusion is drawn from the words of this notice,
"Printed in manuscript for the members only of the School of Spiritual
Science", that the author's rights belong to the Society and were placed
by Dr. Steiner in its care.
Another line of reasoning is based on the hypothesis of "mystery rights"
which, it is maintained, supersede "worldly" rights. In the words of Karl
Day, employee in the office of the secretary, at a meeting of the Swiss
Society held on the 3rd of December, 1950 (quoted in the "Decision",
pp. 25-26): "That is an event to which I personally must attach a much
greater significance - a world historical significance - than to any earthly
testament" .. , "that Rudolf Steiner melted together into one, author,
works, the School of Spiritual Science, yes, even. the instrument of distri-
bution - the Publishing House itself". Herr Day said further that "a kind
of inheritance-right" was being placed in opposition "to something, which
doesn't exist as yet, but which perhaps can begin just by means of this
lawsuit, a kind of mystery-right (Mysterien-Recht)".
15
'1
11
'l:
,
Q. What weight did the court give to the arguments in support of the
claim that Dr. Steiner gave his author's rights to the Society?
A. . As a starting point, the judges stressed the fact that the author's fights
or copyrights must not be confused with the fights of publication (Verbgs-
rechte). At the Christmas Meeting the Publishing House (which was
i founded by Marie Steiner, belonged to her and was run by her) was in-
corporated into the Society. This Publishing House was later officially sold
\ .
by Marie Steiner to the Society (December 1925). Any publishing rights
which belonged to the Publishing House then passed as a of course
. into the possession of the General Anthroposophical Society. But that is
a question apart from the rights. The Publishing House had
belonged to Marie Steiner since the day when it was founded; the Nach-
lass, and with it the author's rights, she inherited from Dr. Steiner. These
never belonged to the Publishing House.':-
The judges quote from various testaments of Dr. Steiner, - in each one
of which he bequeathed his Nachlass specifically, exclusively and in detail
to Frau Dr. Steiner. (For excerpts see Section II). They write:
"The Christmas Foundation Meeting and the statutes changed nothing in
regard to the above question of inheritance .... After the death of Dr. Rudolf
Steiner on March 30th, 1925 the official inventory of his estate was made
in Dornach and Frau Marie Steiner, as heir, took over the author's and the
translation rights for published and unpublished works". ("Decision", p. 16).
The fact of Dr. Steiner's testament and the fact that Frau Dr. Steiner
in 1925 actually inherited Dr. Steiner's Nachlass was for the decision
handed down by the court in Solothurn, of course, of great significance;
as was also the fact that Frau Dr. Steiner was considered by the Society,
throughout the years, as being the owner of the N achlass - to which
many documents and minutes of meetings testify. (Seebclow). Never-
theless, the assertion of the Vorstand of the Society:
* [See Notes on Translation: Publishing Rights. The Contract between Dr. Steiner and
the Kommenden Tag Publishing House which was taken over by the Philosophical-
Anthroposophical Publishing House after the Christmas Meeting (because the Kommenden
Tag found itself in financial difficulties) specifies that Dr. Steiner was to receive as
royalties 20 % of the sale price of paper-bound copies and that the translation rights
remained with the author. Dr. Steiner made no change in this contract when it was taken
over by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House.]
16
"that, a
A.A.G.
compler(
the SOCil
was taken b
sidered carl'
inner spiritt
outer "wor!.
"This
the dcci'
and Wl)'
After a t1
the argunwi
however, Il'
the Societ::
"mystery ri
nated by J'
Concerni!I
(p.26):
"The
'Printed
Goethe,1'
the cor;
itself or
prelimi];
Dr. Rut!
way IS
It should
graph 8 of
Dr. Steiner!
ably that L
.. As summ
"that, according to Dr. Steiner's basic conception at the founding of the
A. A. G. at the Christmas Meeting of 1923, he had inseparably bound his
complete literary and artistic works with the Society and had given it into
the Society's care" "
was taken by the court into very careful consideration. The judges also con-
sidered carefully the argument concerning "mystery rights", concerning
inner spiritual rights of the Society which, it was maintained, superseded
outer "worldly rights", and write (p.25):
"This must also be taken into consideration in coming to a decision, since
the decision otherwise would constitute an injustice in its last consequences
and would be false".
After a thorough study of the Minutes of the Foundation Meeting and
the arguments brought by the Vorstand of the Society the court found,
however, no indication that Dr. Steiner had given his author's rights to
the Society or incorporated them into it in any way. It found the term
"mystery right" an unfortunate one; and a term, moreover, "not origi-
nated by Dr. Rudolf Steiner". (For further details see Section II).
Concerning Paragraph 8 of the Statutes of the Society the judges write
(p.26):
"The publications of the School of Spiritual Science contain the notice
'Printed in manuscript for the members of the School of Spiritual Science,
Goetheanum, Class ... No person is held qualified to form a judgment on
the coment of these works, who has not acquired - through the School
itself or in an equivalent manner recognized by the School -, the requisite
preliminary knowledge'. Whether the author's rights arc in the possession of
Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Frau Marie Steiner or of the Nachlassverwaltung, in no
way is a change necessary in the meaning and wording of this notice".
It should be mentioned at this point that in the discussion about Para-
graph 8 of the Statutes at the Christmas Meeting on December 28th, 1923
\ Dr. Steiner mentioned the author's rights in a way which shows unquestion-
\ ably that he considered them as belonging to him - not to the Society.
* As summarized by the court in the "Decision" p. 13.
17
: ~ . " ,
,:.
:i
t

Ii
H
!Ii'
'1 ~
d'
II
,ll
,jl
il
H
r
If
!;:
II"
I'
t:
iI,
Iii
r;
'll
ii'
If
,i i
"oj
jl,
.. \!
Ill'
Ii,
{I:
(-'
'I'
I ~ ~
r' .. jl
iii
r
ii
" :ii
i ; ~
i;/
(1
)J
i
Ii
II
I' ,j
h
ii
I':
(
"
Ii
:j
I'
;1
II
I,
I
i.
"
1:
Q.. When did the idea first awe In the Society that there was a contra-
diction between Dr. Steiner's testament and the Christmas Foundation
Meeting and that the latter, at least to some extent, superseded and in-
validated his testament?
A. Shortly after the death of Dr. Steiner, at a Delegates Meeting in Feb-
ruary 1926, a few members, led by Dr. Walter Johannes Stein, made this
claim. At the General Meeting of the A.A. G., February 25./26., 1928,
Dr. Stein expressed this point of view again and said:
"I should like ... to point out that Dr. Steiner's testament is not the
expression of his List will, but that the date of his testament is very
important, and that there are some contradictions between the testament
and that which Dr. Steiner s:tid :tt the Christm:ts Foundation Meeting".
Q. What was the attitude of the Vorstand and of the other members of
the Society to this claim at thdt time?
A. It was repudiated almost unanimously. Albert Steffen said at this same
General Meeting, February 25./26., 1928:
"I declare herewith the following: I, as President of the Anthroposophical
Society, say that I recognize that this was the will of Dr. Steiner, that he
laid his works completely in Frau Dr. Steiner's hands, and that I,can continue
in the presidency only under these conditions".
Dr. Stein wished to argue his standpoint again at the Delegates Meeting
in Dornach the following October (October 8., 1928). He was so radically
opposed that he was excluded from the further course of the meeting.
In the stenographic minutes of this meeting one can read the following:
18
"Dr. W. Joh. Stein again spoke about Dr. Steiner's testament. FrauDr. Steiner
then left the room.
Dr. Unger: 'The meeting has been broken up. Those attending must be
invited again'.
Herr Steffen: 'The meeting has been broken up because Frau Dr. Steiner
has been insulted by you, Herr Dr. Stein!'
Herr Steff,
said here th.,
Christmas Fl)
And you sail]
did just the 1
sible to let }
Herr. Stef j.
The testamcl,
to discussio,
Frau Dr. Stv:
Q. What are tl
ferred or sold 1
after she inhc
A. This claim j.
a paper of so I!
Dr. Steiner h:t,
the Vorstand i:
General Meetj,
ment which WJ
was made to c
tailed consider;.
mary of the C'
~ See footnote
...
HerrSte/fen (in answer to a question by Dr. Stein): 'You have already
said here that some aspects of the testament stand in contradiction to the
Christmas Foundation Meeting. Now, that is really an insult to Frau Dr. Steiner.
And you said, that you wanted to repeat that again today, and Frau Dr. Steiner
did just the right thing when she left the room, for it is completely impos-
sible to let you say this over and over again'.
HerrSte/fen: 'It is completely impossible to discuss this matter further.
,/ The testament is recognized and accepted by the Vorstand and is not open
to discussion. It is my opinion that the only thing we can do is to say to
" ,Frau Dr. Steiner: In the future the testament will never again be discussed'."
Q. What are the facts concerning the claim that Frau Dr. Steiner trans-
ferred or sold the Nachlass tothe Society in August 1925, some months
after she inherited it?
A. This claim is based on the so-called "agreement" of August 31., 1925 ~
a paper of so little importance that its existence was forgotten until Frau
Dr. Steiner happened to mention it in a letter to the other members of
the Vorstand in February 1945. It was officially denied at the following
General Meeting that this "agreement" was of any significance: a state-
ment which was disputed by no one.':' It was months later th:n the attempt
was made to exploit it as a transfer of the Nachlass to the Society, A de-
tailed consideration of this "agreement" is to be found in the court sum-
mary of the case, which follows .
.. See footnote ** p. 22.
19
;.;
"
Ai.
0,*
SECTION II
Paragraphs IV and Vof the "Decision" handed down by the Upper
Court of the Canton of Solothurn June 17., 1952 (Somewhat condensed).*
Paragraph IV
"In forming a decision in the case which lies before us it is necessary
to distinguish most clearly between the right of publication and the author's
rights. It has not been, and cannot be, questioned or disputcd that the de-
fendant owns the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House and
its publishing rights ....
"The mahar's rights were not mentioned with even a single word at the
Christmas Foundation Meeting':":', no'r were they mentioned in the Statutes
and By-laws of the Society (Prinzipien und Statuten) .... In an earlier
testament, written in his own hand and dated August 22., 1914, Rudolf
Steiner wrote as follows:
'The undersigned appoints, in case of his death, Frl. Marie v. Sivers,
Berlin W., Motzstr.17 (living at present in Dornach, Canton Solothurn,
Switzerland) as his literary executor, that is to say, the owner's rights to all
of his books and papers, whether printed, mimeographed, in any other way
reproduced or in manuscript go to Frl. von Sivers. She shall have the right
to bring out new editions, to publish unpublished material as she sees fit
and to receive all royalties'.
" .... The mutual testament, dated March 18., 1915, is the last and
definitive testament and contains the following:
'1. Each of us designates the other as his heir and 4. should one marriage
partner live longer than the other then he or she inherits absolutely from
* [The COUrt consisted of five judges, whose verdict was unanimous.]
** [This is not quite accurate. On the 28th of December, in answer to various questions
about Paragraph 8 (p, 120 and p. 122 in the German text), Dr. Steiner mentioned thc
author's rights; and in a way which shows clearly that he considered not the Society but
himself as the owncr. We suggest that these passages be read in context in the Minutes of
the Christmas Foundation Meeting.]
20
the other and :.
testament wh,'
Nachlass) ... "
"The Christma
in regard to the
not mentioned ev
brought into the
reimbursement.
"After the dc,
inventory of his
heir, took over
unpublished bOG
vertrag), dated
her rights to Dr
scripts, lecture'
verwaltung, wh
it to have the
sibility therefor
ring her lifetil'
Rudolf Steiner
"If, therefo
over to them
inherited thcl'
waltung then
must be uphrL
must be reject
to Art. 8 ZGE
lies before us
ference of th,:
of August 31
by Frau Dr.
and Dr. WJ'
'This t.
over as s
value l,f
" [See foot
...
the other and shall have full freedom to designate in his or her last will and
testament what shall be done with the complete -inheritance (gesamten
Nachlass) ... .'
"The Christmas Foundation Meeting and the statutes changed nothing _
in regard to the above question of inheritance. The author's rights were
not mentioned even with a single w o r d j : ~ only the Publishing House was
brought into the Society. . .. For- this, Frau Dr. Steiner should receive
reimbursement.
"After the death of Dr. Rudolf Steiner on March 30., 1925, the official
inventory of his estate was made in Dornach and Frau Marie Steiner, as
heir, took over the author's and the translation rights for published and
unpublished books and lectures. In a Contract of Transfer (Obereignungs-
vertrag), dated December 1., 1947, Frau Marie Steiner transferred all of
her rights to Dr. Steiner's literary and artistic estate, as well as the manu-
scripts, lectures, letters, notebooks etc. which formed it, to the Nachlass-
verwaltung, which she had founded [and of which she was a member] -
it to have the ownership thereof, the right of disposition and the respon-
sibility therefore. She had reserved for herself all rights of disposition du-
ring her lifetime. In the directives which she gave she stressed that Dr.
Rudolf Steiner's work must remain connected with his name.
"If, therefore, the A.A.G. cannot show that the author's rights passed
over to them at some time between the time when Frau Dr. Steiner
inherited them and the date of their transference to the Nachlassver-
waltung then the daim (Klage) [brought by the Nac:hlassverwaltung]
must be upheld and the cross-claim (Widerklage) [brought by the Society J
must be rejected. The full burden of proof in this matter lies, according
to Art. 8 ZGB, with the A.A.G., The only document in the evidence which
lies before us which can come into question at all as con,stituting a trans-
ference of the assets of the author's rights [to the A.A.G.] is the agreement
of August 31., 1925. In addition to this there is extant a written remark
by Frau Dr. Steiner in her letter of February 8., 1945, to Albert Steffen
and Dr. Wachsmuth, which is as follows:
'This matter [the payment for the Publishing House] should be talked
over as soon as possible, for a second contract exists, which states the real
value of the Publishing House, which is much larger than the sale price,
>t [See footnote >t .. page 20.]
21
, I
which I voluntarily kept low.'f It is signed by Herr Albert Steffen and Prau
Dr. Wegman. I am of course willing to cancel it'.
"In spite of the fact that Frau Marie Steiner speaks of a second con-
tract in this letter of February 8., 1945, the agreement of August 31.,
1925 is not a contract signed by both parties. (The A. A. G. was not able
to produce another copy of the agreement signed by Frau Dr. Steiner.r-':
The [agreement of August 31.,1925] must be considered to be a written
offer made by two members of the Vorstand, Albert Steffen and Frau
Dr. Wegman to pay up to 720,000.- Francs for the Publishing House.
Two documents, Nr. 15 and 16, from the hand of Johanna Mucke show
that the sum of 720,000.- Francs referred only to the Publishing House.
The undated document Nr. 16, designates the real value of the Publishing
House as 720,000.- Francs: 'The A.A.G. certifies herewith that it owes
Frau Marie Steiner the sum of 720,000.- Francs for the transfer of the
Publishing House in March 1925', Document 15 gives the details as to
how this sum was arrived at.
.* [That this was really the case is proved by the fact that the Publishing House has paid
for itself several times over in net profits since it was taken over by the Society in December
1948. Sale price 180,000.- Fr.]
** [The only known copy was in the possession of Frau Dr. Steiner. She' was the first
to mention it in 20 years (February 8.,1945). The next mention of the document dated
August 31., 1925 was at the General Meeting of the Society March 25., 1945. Herr Hausler,
the auditor for the Society, spoke of the Publishing House and the Christmas Meeting. He
said, "Then in 1925 two contracts [for the taking over of the Publishing House by the
Society] were drawn up between Frau Dr. Steiner and the other members of the Vorstand.
One of these contracts [August 31., 1925] is invalid because its conditions were never
fulfilled. The other contract [the December Contract of Sale) is valid and binding."
This statement at the General Meeting of the invalidity of the "agreement" of August
31.,1925 was questioned by no
This so-called "agreement" stated that Frau Dr. Steiner was to be credited on the books
of the Society with the sum of 720,000.- Fr. This was never done, which is what Herr
Hausler meant when he said that the conditions of the agreement were never fulfilled.
It was nearly 6 months later that the Frankl-Aisenpreis Memorandum, etc. tried to
interpret the "agreement" as a transfer of the ownership of the Nachlass to the Society:
Its third mention in the history of the A.A.G.]
22
"The evidcl
1. It is not p'
a binding c
fer of the 1
2. Dr. Rudolf
plicitly bel
hand and
3. At the inv
widow, Fr
made no (
clear situ3.
1
made the
4. Frau Maril
its publish!
discussion
5. Frau Mari.
cluding th(
the Nachl
ment.
"The defen
in the form
individual an
official inven
any counter-e
brought by tl
"It has bee
royal ties wer.
(The "Goeth
Frau Marie
The Publishil
to argue that
between 1925
only the righ
* ["The righ
without
I
_.
"The evidence leads necessarily to the following conclusions:
1. It is not possible to recognize the agreement [of August 31., 1925] as
a binding contract, but only as a maximum offer for the internal trans-
fer of the Publishing House and its publishing rights ....
2. Dr. Rudolf Steiner and Frau Marie Steiner always differentiated ex-
plicitly between Publishing House and publishing rights on the one
hand and author's rights (copyrights) on the other.
3. At the inventory of Dr. Steiner's estate his whole Nachlass went to his
widow, Frau Marie Steiner, and remained with her in so far as she
made no disposition of it during her lifetime. That was a perfectly
clear situation, a perfectly clear legal inheritance; and that must be
made the starting point for further considerations.
4. Frau Marie Steiner made disposition only of the Publishing House and
its publishing rights to the A.A.G.; these formed also the only topic of
discussion at the Christmas Foundation Meeting ....
5. Frau Marie Steiner first made disposition of her other inheritance, in-
cluding the author's rights, at the time of the Contract of Transfer to
the Nachlassverwaltung. This transfer was confirmed by her testa-
ment.
"The defendant has not been able to present any counter-evidence, either
in the form of documents or witnesses; and besides the evidence of
individual and mutual testaments, as well as the Canton of Solothurn's
official inventory (of Dr. Steiner's estate] forms a high standard which
any counter-evidence would have to meet. On the other hand the evidence
brought by the plaintiff confirms and strengthens this evidence.
"It has been acknowledged that after the death of Dr. Steiner the same
royalties were paid to Frau Marie Steiner as had before been paid to him.
(The "Goetheanum", edited by Albert Steffen, always paid royalties to
Frau Marie Steiner for the lectures by Rudolf Steiner which it printed.
The Publishing House also always paid royalties to her.) It is impossible
to argue that the royalties paid to Frau Marie Steiner by the defendant
between 1925 and 1948 were the result of an error or that they represented
only the right of usufruct':- (Nutzniessungsleistung). There is no question
.. ["The right of using the property of another and of drawing the profits it produces
without wasting its substance." Webster.]
23

:
I
h.
r
r
i
I
I:;
I':
I
I.,
.: '.
,
,.
1
I
I,
!"
t'
i';
:1
j.:
" ,.
1
"
,
;:
1':1
";;:.
,-
i!
"
n
I;:.
I,
j:,
: i
,
I::
Ii.
I;{
I:'
'":
\
I:
11'
L
but that they are legitimate royalties due Frau Marie Steiner because of
her ownership of the author's rights.
"The attitude of the defendant in the Sauerwein case leads to the same
conclusion. Mlle Sauerwein, the French General Secretary, maintained
that she had received from Dr. Steiner the exclusive right to transhte his
works into French. When a eurythmy performance was given in which
a text by Dr. Steiner [translated by someone else] was performed she sent
an officer of the court to collect damages .... This gave rise at a meeting
on October 8., 1928 of the Vorstand with the General Secretaries and
officers of the various national groups to the following Declaration .... :
'1. In as much as Frau Dr. Steiner inherited Dr. Steiner's author's rights
it is a matter of course that all particular rights arising from her inheritance
also belong to her, especially the right to give general or specified permission
for translations and also to make modifications in such permission.
'2. The only interpretation which Mlle Sauerwein can give to the docu-
ment which she received from Dr. Steiner is that she has the right to trans-
late and publish works by Dr. Steiner in French, but not that she has the
only right ... for this would be an encroachment upon Frau Dr. Steiner's
rights ... .'
"The same position was taken by the Extraordinary General Assembly
of the A.A.G., held in Dornach, December 27.-29., 1930, which adopted
the following Resolution:
..
'The General Assembly supports the standpoint taken in the letter from
the Vorstand of the A. A. G. and the Financial Committee of February 5.,
1930 ,'- and declares that the way in which Mile Alice Sauerwein acted in the
[GOETHEANUM 5. February, 1930
Freie Hochschule flir Geisteswissenschaft
Sekretariat : Dornach b. Easel (Schwciz)
Fr!. Alice Sauerwein, Paris.
Sehr geehrtes Fraulein Sauerwein,
It has come to our knowledge that two French translations of works by Dr. Steiner
have recently been published by you for which you had not asked the permission of Frau
Marie Steiner, who is the heir to Dr. Steiner's author's rights. Up till now you have always
24
question of ,
to Frau 1L
anthroposor
The Vorstar,
you as an (.
(This Resoluti.
five members (
cerning the for
outdo the otht"
was also state,
as to the mean
these dec1arati
followed on1 \
an outer shO\',
situation. Th
clear designatl
had not been
of the author'
"That the
also from m:u'
bers on the I;
"The p r e ~ ,
the Resolutiu,
assume that :
opposing po:"
Footnote CPI
first requested I
also always pa '
We state her.
the legal sima t;
ceipt of Frau I
question of the auth0r's rights to the works of Rudolf Steiner, which belong
to Frau Marie Steiner as his only heir, was not in accordance with an
anthroposophical attitude and is not perrnissable in an officer of the Society.
The Vorstand informs you that, for these reasons, it can no longer consider
you as an officer of our Society (i. e. also not as General Secretary),.
(This Resolution wa; sent to Mile Sauerwein in a letter signed by all
five members of the Vorstand). The minutes of this General Meeting, con-
cerning the formulation of this Resolution, show that one member tried to
outdo the other in sharply stressing Frau Dr. Steiner's rights. This position
was also stated in various publications. If, therefore, there were a doubt
as to the meaning and the content of the document dated August 31., 1925
these declarations would resolve it completely. Declaration and Resolution
followed only a few years later. It cannot be argued that this was only
an outer show of solidarity which had no bearing on the internal rights
situation. There would be no explanation for this intensive reaction and
clear designation of the rights situation if, at that time, Frau Dr. Steiner
had not been considered to be, and had not been recognized as, the owner
of the author's rights in the full legal sense ....
"That the standpoint taken by the plaintiff is the correct one follows
also from many personal confirmations by individual, representative mem-
bers on the defendant's side.
"The present president of the A.A.G., Albert Steffen, himself signed
the Resolution which was sent to Mlle Sauerwein and it is impossible to
assume that he at that time was in error or that he actually supported the
opposing position.
Footnote cont. from p. 24.
first requested permission and this permission has always been granted to you. You have
also always plid Frau Dr. Steiner the royalties due her from the sale of books.
We state herewith that we consider your present way of action not in accordance with
the legal situation, since every publication in a foreign language is dependant on the re-
ceipt of Frau Dr. Steiner's permission.
Mit vorzuglicher Hochachtung
The members of the
financial commitee:
signed: J. van Leer
R. Geering-Christ
Dr. E. Grosheintz
Leinhas
signed: Marie Steiner
Albert Steffen
Dr. I. \Vegman
Dr. Gunther Wachsmuth
E. Vreede 1
25
I
l'
"Frau Dr. W"egman, at that time member of the Vorstand of the A.A.G.,
requested in her letter of May 13., 1931, Frau Marie Steiner's permission
to print two lectures by Dr. Steiner dealing with medical questions in the
magazine "Natura".
"Gunther Schubert . .. who was called as witness, confirmed that Frau
Dr. Wegman in a meeting in 1926 questioned Frau Marie Steiner's owner-
ship of the author's rights. In the report which he wrote of this incident
Frau Marie Steiner's ownership is unequivocally recognized. The rough
draft of this text bears corrections in the handwriting of Albert Steffen,
which shows that he agreed with the report. The witness also confirmed
that thereafter Frau Marie Steiner's rights were recognized by Frau Dr.
Wegman. He confirmed further that the "Memorandum 1925-35" was
shown Herr Steffen in manuscript form and also in proof and that the
changes which he wished were made. He confirmed that Herr Steffen
approved of the publication of this "Memorandum" in which it is stressed
that the author's rights belong to Frau Marie Steiner ....
"Dr. Wachsmuth (said at the General Meeting, March 25., 1945, that
Frau Marie Steiner had previously said that she would leave everything
in her testament to Herr Steffen and him.) He, therefore, saw in the trans-
ference of the rights to the Nachlassverwaltung not a usurption by Frau
Marie Steiner of rights which did not belong to her, but only a change in
the plans which she had previously made ....
"Herr Dr. Poppelbaum, a member of the present Vorstand, wrote in a
statement to the General Meeting of April 7., 1947:
'I expressly disapprove of the attempts to contest Frau Dr. Steiner's
rights to the Nachlass. The Society never did that before a ~ d can therefore
not do so now, no matter how much the use which she has made of these
rights may displease many members. The Memorandum Frankl-Aisenpreis
contains arbitrary constructions; I have the' impression that the authors
missed the mark completely.'
"Frau Dr. Grosheintz ... testified that she remembered that during
the discussion of the Sauerwein case at the General Meeting [December
27.-29., 1930] the question was raised whether the Vorstand could handle
the lawsuit against Mlle Sauerwein in order to relieve Frau Dr. Steiner
26
of this. Dr.
order to do 0
but these bel,
"In that the
evidence the l
the same rea
jected."
Paragraph ~ .
"The dek
lassverwaltu! .
it existed, \ ..
the Society (i'
to the Soci,
the [author'
the Society :
in to considc i
would com!.
In spite of I
judge cam)!
decision on
here consick
defendant."
is here qUO!
inheri tance-,
does not 0
this lawsuit.
continues a,
"The ten
in any case.
Steiner.
* [The stell
I
of this. Dr. Wachsmuth had answered that this was not possible; in
. order to do so the Vorstand would have to own the [author's] rights,
but these belonged to Frau Marie Steiner .... '}
"In that the defendant has failed all along the line to bring any counter-
evidence the claim [of the Nachlassverwaltung] shall be approved .... For
the same reason the cross-claim [of the Society] shall be completely re-
jected."
Paragraph V
"The defendant has taken the standpoint that the claim [of the Nach-
lassverwaltung] could not be upheld even if formal legal grounds for
it existed, because Dr. Steiner's Nachlass belonged, without doubt, to
the Society on the basis of inner connections and because of its importance
to the Society; and that, therefore, Frau Marie Steiner's transference of
the [author's] rights to the Nachlassverwaltung, which exists outside
the Society, represents an injustice to the Society. This must also be taken
into consideration in coming to a decision, since the decision otherwise
wOllld constitute an injustice in its last consequence and would be false ..
In spite of the fact that in consideration of the existing legal norms the
judge cannot agree with this interpretation and must hand down his
decision on the basis of the existing laws ... it shall, nevertheless, be
.. here considered whether the decision really represents an injustice to the
defendant." (The standpoint of the Society as formulated by Karl Day
is here quoted at length. After the words of Herr Day that 'a kind of
inheritance-right' was being placed in opposition 'to something which
does not exist as yet, but which, perhaps, can begin just by means of
this lawsuit, a kind of mystery-right (Mysterien-Recht), the 'Decision'
continues as follows):
"The term mystery-right is an unfortunate word-construction and,
in any case, this word or this concept was not originated by Dr. Rudolf
Steiner .
.. [The stenographic minutes of this meeting confirm Frau Dr. Grosheintz' testimony.]
27
"The publications of the School of Spiritual Science contain the notice:
'Printed in manuscript for the members of the School of Spiritual Science,
Goetheanum, Class ... No person is held qualified to form a judgment
on the content of these works, who has not acquired - through the
School itself or in an equivalent manner recognized by the School - the
requisite preliminary knowledge'. Whether the author's rights are in the
possession of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Frau Marie Steiner or of the Nach-
lassverwaltung, in no way is a change necessary in the meaning and
wording of this notice.
"It will be impossible for any judge to give a pronouncement on the
basis of a mystery right which does not yet exist and' which is not as
corpus juris anthroposophiae a statute, with definite maxims, of the
A.A. G. - similar to church law for christian religious groups. But even
in case of a conflict between the codified church law and the state law,
the statelaw is decisive. (This situation is considered in detail with ex-
amples). Not even the assertion of a breach of faith toward a special
non-civil system of rights ... - or, on the other hand, the misuse of
an appeal to state law in conflict with the rights of the Society could
bring about a change in the decision .... In addition, no such misuse
exists in the case under consideration and no breach of faith [on the
part of Frau Dr. Steiner], as the defendant has often verbally and in.
writing maintained.
" .... Neither Frau Marie Steiner nor the Nachlassverwaltung had the
intention of grasping power. Both respected the freedom of the School
of Spiritual Science ....
"Dr. Steiner gave great care to the creation of clear, down-to-earth
legal situations. (This is exemplified by a consideration of Dr. Steiner's
plans for the Vorstand when he said that seven was a minimum number;
that with five or three members, only an apparent and not a real
( majority could exist. After Dr. Steiner's death there were only five members
in the Vorstand and great tensions developed. After Frau Dr. Wegman
and Frl. Dr. Vreede were excluded from the Vorstand there were only
three members in it and here difficulties also soon developed). I ' " ~
"The death and secession of the first great spiritual chiefs of staff of
the Anthroposophical Movement, the sense of her own approaching end,
the question what the development of the Vorstand, the Society and the
28
Movement woule'
apparently filled
The problem of ~
or administration
Frau Marie Steil
of the Nachlass\
the A.A.G. the'
larger groups, 011
ing to Nr. 13 ('
statutes, which I
the A.A.G. FrJ
basis, apparentl)
given in the SU'
"Now the me
stand, believe t
patible with the
it exists outside
externally and
is outside the :.
is a question of
tual bearing of
In 'What are ti
'It (the
within the ~
task which
responsible .
for its comi,
and ability
painful exp
standing i,
anyone m t
Dr. Steiner
"Frau Mar'
ment. In a k
1925, 33 day.
to Frau Maric
tlce:
:nce,
nent
the
the
the
lch-
and
the
as
the
""
'en
.w,
!x-
ial
of
Id
se
le
h
s
,.
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
!
(
Movement would be under the direction of Steffen and Wachsmuth
apparently filled Frau Marie Steiner with great and justified anxieties.
The problem of the creation of a special commission, or working group,
or administration exists for every significant artistic and literary estate.
Frau Marie Steiner mentions this in her pamphlet, 'What are the Tasks
of the Nachlassverwaltung' .... According to Nr. 11 of the statutes of
the A. A. G. the members of the Society may join together in smaller or
larger groups, on any geographical or relevant basis of activity. Accord-'
ing to Nr. 13 of the Statutes each working group formulates its own
statutes, which however must not be incompatible with the Statutes of
the A.A.G. Frau Marie Steiner founded the Nachlassverwaltung on the
basis, apparently, of these considerations and according to the directives
given in the Statutes.
"Now the members of the A.A.G., who congregate around the Vor-
stand, believe that the Nachlassverwaltung with its statutes is incom-
patible with the Statutes of the A.A.G., especially with Nr. 11, because
it exists outside of the Society. From the legal point of view, and purely
externally and formally, ... every organisation with its own by-laws
( is out,side the A.A.G .. Whether or not it is de facto outside the Society
is a question of inner attitude, in amhroposophical language, of the spiri-
tual bearing of its members. With this in mind Frau Dr. Steiner wrote
In 'What are the tasks of the Nachlassverwaltung' [July 1945]:
'It (the Nachlassverwaltung) does not stand outside but completely
within the Society owing to the lives and activities of its members and the
task which has been intrusted to them'. 'He (Dr. Rudolf Steiner) left this
responsible work to me personally and also placed on me the responsibility
for its continuance after my death .... According to the best of my knowledge
I and ability and with conscientious consideration - based also on wide and
,painful experience - individuals have now been chosen who have under-
I standing for Dr. Steiner's intentions .... Nothing will be taken away from
anyone in the Society because of this; on the contrary, in accordance with
Dr. Steiner's sacrificial will, more and more will be given ... .'
"Frau Marie Steiner had a completely unique position in the Move-
ment. In a letter, which has not been contested, dated February 27.,
1925, 33 days before his death on March 30., 1925, Dr. Steiner wrote
to Frau Marie Steiner concerning his connection with her the following
29
i ')
SECTION III
Q. Why do the "Goetheanum",. the "Nachrichtenblatt" and the "Anthro-
posophic News Sheet" no longer contain lectures by Dr. Steiner? Is it
because the N achlassverwaltung forbids their publication?
A. Immediately after the provisional decree of the court in December 1949
prohibiting the publication of Dr. Steiner's books and lectures by the
Anthroposophical Society and its institutions unless permission was ob-
tained from the Nachlassverwaltung, the members of the Nachlassver-
waltung wrote to the editor of the "Goetheanum" and "Nachrichtenblatt"
as follows:
" .... we wish to Jet you know that already printed lectures by Rudolf
Steiner may, as before, be printed again in the 'Goetheanum' completely
according to your desire and that we will send you also unprinted lectures
if you will let us know which ones you wish. We also hold in readiness
all unprinted lectures which are wished for publication in the 'Nachrichten-
blatt'." , ~
This offer was never accepted.
Q. Why does the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House no lon-
ger publish works by Rudolf Steiner? Is it because the N achlassverwal-
tung does not allow it to do so?
A. Shortly after the death of Frau Dr. Steiner the Nachlassverwaltung
wrote a letter to the Members of the Vorstand and of the General
Anthroposophical Society in which it is stated:
"The basic relationship between the N achlassverwaltung and the Philo-
sophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House is clear. A simple understanding
will take care of the practical details."
A few months later, in June 1949, the Nachlassverwaltung wrote to
the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House offering it 9 works
* For the full text. of this letter sec p.55.
32
I'
I
I
i
!
I
I
by Dr. Steiner, campi
other documents whic
tung in this matter ~ ,
The divergent attiu
of the Vorstand of t1
by Rudolf Steiner thl
House is shown by ,:
In 1951, during
Publishing House art
decree of December -
out in German a ne'.\
Attainment", which
of course, impossibl
took the matter up
The N achlassverwa:
notice as before: "A!
the author". That
Philosophical-Anthr.
the Nachlassverwalt
and expressly stated
ultimate decision 0:
Jenny, representing
court. The lawyer :
the agreement. Til.
rather to forego p\
to sign an agreemc
waltllng.
Q. What was the ar
verwaltung after t
to have Dr. Steint
phical Publishing
l-
it
9
,e
.-
:-
>"-
If
y
~ s
S5
\-
1-
1-
19
at
to
ks
t
, l
I
,
1 .
I
!
1
,
f
. t
I
I
!

I
!
1
!
1
l
t
I Q.
f
I
f
!
!
,
I
,
I
L
by Dr. Steiner, compmmg 47 lectures, for publication. (For these and
other documents which clearly show the attitude of the Nachlassverwal-
tung in this matter see pp. 47-57). This offer was never accepted.
The divergent attitudes of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung and
of the Vorstand of the Society in the matter of the publication of works
by Rudolf Steiner through the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing
House is shown by the following incident .
I ~ 1951, during the. law-suit, the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Publishing House applied to the court, asking it to cancel the provisional
. decree of December 28., 1949, so that the Publishing House could bring
out in German a new edition of "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its
Attainment", which was nearly out of print. Such a cancellation was,
of course, impossible; but the court, wishing to be helpful, nevertheless
took the matter up and suggested an agreement between the parties.
The Nachlassverwaltung consented to a new edition containing the same
notice as before: "All rights, in particular translation rights, reserved by
the author". That is,' the edition could have been brought out by the
Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House without mention of
the Nachlassverwaltung.The court drew up an agreement in this matter
and expressly stated that this agreement would in no way prejudice the
ultimate decision of the court. The agreement was signed by Dr. Paul
Jenny, representing the Nachlassverwaltung and by the officers of the
court. The lawyer for the Society, Dr. Fromer, however, refused to sign
the agreement. The explanation given was that the Society preferred '.
rather to forego publication of "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds" than
to sign an agreement which bore also the signature of the Nachlassver-
waltung.
What was the attitude of the members of the Rudolf Steiner-N achlass-
verwaltung after they Won the lawmit? Would they still have been willing
to have Dr. Steiner's books published by the Philosophical-Anthroposo-
phical Publishing House in Dornach?
33
words: 'Only with you can I think and feel together in my judgments
and only your judgment has for me il!ner competence.' The court reserved,
as always, the right to see the original documents if necessary. In order
to find out whether this was a casual remark, a polite compliment only,
or whether this passage bore the weight which was placed upon it by
the plaintiff the original letter of February 27., 1925 was requested. In
connection with the original letter which was placed before the court
it must by confirmed that the formulation is deeply serious and deeply
sincere, and that it was not without intention that Dr. Rudolf Steiner
wrote in this manner on his last birthday to her who was his life-
companion and the closest comrade in his work ....
"According tb Schubert's report (Manuscripts 17 and 18) it is to be
seen from various documents that Dr. Rudolf Steiner always considered
Frau Marie Steiner to be the one who had so thoroughly understood
him that that which would be done by her after his death should be
considered as bein'g done in his name.':' These two documents are dated
after the Christmas Foundation Meeting; they form actually a confirm-
ation of Dr. Steiner's previously dated testament ....
"Considering these facts it is impossible to raise an objection to the
December 1., 1947 Contract of Transfer to the Nachlassverwaltung and,
Frau Marie Steiner's personal testament of September 11., 1948 by
claiming that they constitute a breach of .faith or an abuse of her legal
rights.
"With a little good will and some mutual understanding it should still
be possible for the two sides to find each other again. Dr. Rudolf Steiner
said at the Christmas Meeting: .... 'Where Anthroposophy finds hearts
, which really understand it, there these hearts will be able to beat together,
without the heads knocking together' .... No matter how earthly, state
justice - with its difficult demands - decides, the realists pointed out
in their Declaration at the General Meeting of April 16., 1949 (which
was supported by about 1500 members of the A.A. G.) the only possible
course of action, a course of action which even today would make it
possible to overcome all differences:
.. [See also Dr. Steiner's testament, dated February 19., 1907, the text of which is to be
found on p.43.]
30
I
I
. I
I
'As long as L
or criticism abo
Steiner's Nachl
Steiner herself d
certain conditi,\,
of Spiritual SCIL
'With the de;):
of a change in '
situation. Her t,
become her he!
which have no\\
by the Anthro;
if it did not do
the respect whi,
for her last wIi'
the legal situati,
is accepted fru
Society is entin.
1. The General j\
such as the Philo
publish works of
permission from 1
owner of the autl-:
works. The only
institutions maya.
2. (The Publishi;
waltung as were .1-'.
3. This decision
periodicals: (a. "1;
sophic News She("
lts
:d,
.cr
.y,
by
In
be
'cd
Q,d
bc
:cd
m-
the
nd
by
gal
till
ner
Lrts
Icr,
ate
Dut
ich
bIc
! it
o be

I
j
,
.j
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
i
i
"
f
I
I
'As long as Frau Dr. Steiner lived, the possibility existed to express regret
or criticism about the provisions made in her testament in regard to Dr.
Steiner's Nachlass; it was also possible to make suggestions .... Frau Dr.
Steiner herself during the summer of 1946 said that she was willing, under
certain conditions, to incorporate the Nachlass into the Goetheanum School
of Spiritual Science and repeated this offer in the spring of 1948 ....
'With the death of Frau Dr. Steiner on December 27., 1948 the possibility
of a change in her testament carne to an end. That has given rise to a new
situation. Her testament has gone into effect. The Nachlassverwaltung has
become her heir. We consider it a matter of course that her last wishes,
which have now gone legally into effect, should be recognized and accepted
by the Anthroposophical Society. Leaving aside the fact that the Society,
if it did not do so, would place itself in a completely untenable legal position,
the respect which is due to the dead demands, as a matter of course, respect
for her last will and testament. More than this, we are convinced that when
the legal situation which has been created by the death of Frau Dr. Steiner
is accepted fruitful cooperation between the Nachlassverwaltung and the
Society is entirely possible'.
recognized
1. The General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach and its institutions,
such as the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House may not
publish works of Dr. Rudolf Steiner (in any form) without express
permission from the Rudolf Stciner-Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, the
owner of the author's rights to Dr. Rudolf Steiner's literary and artistic
works. The only exception forms the rights which the A.A.G. or its
institutions may already have for new editions (of some works).
2. (The Publishing House shall pay the same royalties to the Nachlassver-
waltung as were paid to Frau Marie Steiner, beginning] anuary 1., 1949).
3. This decision ... shall be printed without comment in the following
periodicals: (a. "The Goetheanum", b. "Nachrichtenblatt", c. "Anthropo-
sophic News Sheet';.)
In the name of the Upper Court
of the Canton of Solothurn:
The Court Secretary
(signed ) Hartmann"
31
A. Yes. The Nachlassverwaltung wrote on the 28th of June, 1952, a few
days after winning the case, in a circular letter, addressed to All Members
of the Anthroposophical Movement, the following:
"The Rudolf Stcincr-Nachlassvcrwaltung is still ready and willing to
work together with all in the task of editing and publishing Dr. Steiner's
works. From the beginning we have in word and deed expressed our
willingness to work together with the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Publishing House, which was not only founded and built up but also directed
by Marie Steiner for forty years and which published most of Dr. Steiner's
books and lectures; but we can force no one to a cooperative work which
would only be in the interest of the Anthroposophical Movement, nor do
we wish to do so.
"The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung will continue its work in ac-
cordance with the intentions and the interests of the Anthroposophical
Movement". , ~
The situation in regard to the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing
House has been changed since then, however, because of the publi-
cation - amid great acclaim - by the Vorstand through this Publishing
House. of the legal opinion in the matter of the ownership of the Nach-
lass, "Die Wege der richterlichen Rechtsfindung" by Dr. A. Egger (a non-
member). This pamphlet not only contains constructions contrary to fact,
using an incomplete passage from the "Memorandum 1925-1935" in an
attempt to prove the opposite of what this passage means in its proper
context (this misquotation is one of Prof. Egger's chief supports for his
argument - without it it collapses like a house of cards)""; it also contains
a characterization of Frau Marie Steiner so untrue and so bordering on
libel that the publication of this pamphlet by the Vorstand through the
Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House can only be considered
as one of the darkest moments in the history of the Anthroposophical
Movement.
In Dr. Egger's pamphlet one can read, for example (pp. 75-77):
{ "We know her [Frau Dr. Steiner's] complete absorption (Versessensein)
34
in the question of her rights." "In later life her idea of her rights was greatly.
magnified; in this she will have fallen a prey to the tricks of old age; but
* For the full text of this Jetter see p. 57.
** For this passage and Egger's use of it see pp. 63, 64.
"'-------_._. __ .... _ .. _. -_.- _ .. - .....
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
!
I
I
Q.
A.
this was
work ea:
the A.P,
"The w(,
[for Ru.
in the Sl
The true
life to Dr.
Movement
testifies. T;
the last is 1
of her lifl
including 1
Clinic of \
In contr
reading 0 1
Life", in
Movement
can call th
because ti'
It is m
inaccuratt
chased. lr
Dr. Str
long hanel
into accej.-
Frau D
tung?", al
* For nl
1 few
mbers
ng. to
.
:i our
phical
rected
einer's
which
01 do
in ac-
phical
Lshing
Jubli-
ishing
"lach-
. non-
I fact,
10 an
troper
:>r his
rltains
ng on
;h the
.dered
?hical
:nsein)
;reatly
ej but
i
I
"'
I
'f
i
this was nevertheless in accordance with a personality trait which was at
work earlier". "So she founded the Nachlassverwaltung, without regard for
the A.A.G. and the consequences for the Anthroposophical Movement".
"The worst is, however: it is impossible to recognize that these arrangements
. [for Rudolf Steiner's Nachlass] are in accordance with the intentions and
in the spirit of him whose work and fame are in
"The true fact is that no one ever more selflessly devoted her whole
life to Dr. Steiner's work and the furtherance of the Anthroposophical
Movement and Society than did Marie Steiner, to which her work itself
testifies. That she was in full. possession of her spiritual faculties up to ,
the last is known by all who had dealings with her during the last years
of her life and has, in addition, been attested to by several physicians,
including Dr. F. Husemann, head of the anthroposophical psychiatrical I
Clinic of Wiesneck near Freiburg.
In contrast to the above statements by Dr. Egger we suggest the re-
reading of Chapters 31 through 38 of Rudolf Steiner's "Story of My
Life", in which he writes of the early days of the Anthroposophical
Movement and speaks of himself and Frau Dr. Steiner as "those who
can call themselves the central representatives (Trager) of the Movement,
because they are its founders".
Q. It is maintained by some that the Nachlassverwaltung is publishing
inaccurate, corrupted texts and that they, should not be pur-
chased. What are the facts in this matter?
A. Dr. Steiner gave specific instructions that stenographic transcripts or
long hand notes of his lectures should be corrected, revised and brought
into acceptable literary form before their publication.
Frau Dr. Steiner writes in "What are the Tasks of the Nachlassverwal-
tung?", about this task as follows:
.. For more about the Egger Pamphlet see pp. 59-65.
35
,e'>.
"(Transcripts of lectures) were - originally against Dr. Steiner's wishes -
privately reproduced and handed around behind his back, and often COllt- ,
ained such nonsense that Dr. Steiner ... saw himself forced to name the'
stenographers himself and to 'take over with me the editorship. In this way the
large cycles and the festival lectures originated as private publications. He,
himself, did not have time to correct them and it caused him suffering because ,
he considered the spoken word not appropriate for printing. He was
by the inaccuracies which are inevitable when the overworked stenographer,',.
cannot keep up with that which is spoken in the fire of spiritual experience".;
And again: "The correction of transcripts must first be learned, the necessary
courage must first be found and it demands constant practice to find an
approach to this work .... I shall never fall prey to the illusion that the
transcripts which I have corrected do not need improvement. They all should i
be looked through again and one should have much more time ... for f
this .... But at least the worst errors have been eliminated .... "
The Contract of Transfer to the Nachlassverwaltung [see pp. 11-12]
contains the following:
"Incomplete or inaccurate transcriptions must be worked over and brought
into better form, because just such transcriptions can do damage to Rudolf
Steiner's name as a stylist".
At the first hearing before the court in Solothurn on December 28.,
1949 the judge referred to this passage, but misquoted it, saying that
the Rudolf Steiner Nachbssverwaltung had the task of protecting Dr.
Steiner's name as a "journalist". This remark was brought to the attention)
of the delegates meeting of the A.A. G. which opened the next day. This
was presumably the starting point of the assertion that the Nachlassver-
waltung gives out "changed" or "popularised" texts. That has gradually.'
grown to the assertion that the texts are "corrupted".
How varied the problems are and how exacting and difficult the
work is of preparing stenographic transcripts or longhand notes for
publication, only those can know who have actually done the work.
There exists no transcript of which it is possible to say with certainty,
"This is just as Dr. Steiner spoke it". The stenographer sometimes heard>\
incorrectly, it was sometimes impossible to keep up with the spoken
word, so that there are gaps in the manuscript; and sometimes texts were
transcribed incorrectly from the stenographic notes. Also a lecturer speaks
no punctuation. The original transcripts are often falsely punctuated,
changing the ill
problems which
Those who al
agreement and I
verwaltung and
in a position to
Nachlassverwah
responsibility to
Q. I t is some tim
personally pro fi
publish. Is this
A. It is a statute
are to paid to
contribute their
sale of books
ler's wishes -
.d often cont-
to name .the
n this way the
,Ii cations. He,
fering because
[e was pained
stenographer
[ experience".
the necessary
e to find an
sion that the
ley all should
nme .. , 'for
~ p . 11-12]
arid brought
;e to Rudolf
:ember 28.,
;aying that
tecting Dr .
. e attention
: day, This
achlassver-
gradually
fficult the
notes for
the work.
certainty,
mes heard
le spoken
texts were
rer speaks
lflctuated,
changing the meaning seriously. These are only a few. examples of the
problems which must be met when a lecture is prepared for publication.
Those who are familiar with Dr. Steiner's works will find a spiritual
agreement and harmony between the lectures published by the Nachlass-
. verwaltung and Dr.' Steiner's other lectures and books; and they are thus
. ! in a position to judge for themselves whether or not the members of the
. 1 Nachlassverwaltung are carrying out their work with a feeling of serious
responsibility toward Dr. Steiner.
I
i
I
!
I
I
. ,
i
. I
1
I
I
I
!
,Q. It is sometimes said that the members of the Nachlassverwaltung are
personally profiting from the sale of Dr. Steiner's books which they
publish. Is this the case?
A. It is a statute of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung that no salaries
are to paid to the members of the board of directors. They not only
contribute their work but pay their own expenses. All income from the
sale of books is used for further publication.
: : , - , , ~ .
37
L_
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In consideration of the fact that the Vorstand of the Society has taken
the position that the court decision constitutes an injustice to the Society
and is not in accordance with Dr. Steiner's real intentions, it is necessary
to consider this question here further.
Dr. Steiner's own very clearly expressed intentions, as contained in
his testament, were that Frau Dr. Steiner should inherit his Nachlass
and make whatever further provisions for it she, out of her individual
free responsibility - the basis of all esotericism - found right and
proper. Any other formulation of Dr. Steiner's "intentions", even though
supposedly based on the Christmas Foundation Meeting, can be at best
only an hypothesis; - and, moreover, an hypothesis which is diametric-
\ ally opposed to Dr. Steiner's own statement of his intentions. This hypo-
thesis is, however, often treated as though it were an undeniable fact
and as though "loyalty to the Christmas Meeting" demanded its un-
questioned acceptance. M. Fliieler and H. Brons, signing for the Philo-
sophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, expressed this standpoint
,when they wrote that an acceptance of the validity of the directives which
Dr. Steiner left for his Nachlass in his testament seemed to them "to
" place in question the integrity of Dr. Steiner's personality and to bring
the creator of Anthoposophy into miscredit before posterity".':' This seems
about as far as it is possible to go in this direction and necessitates a
closer examination of thc hypothesis that Dr. Steincr's int.cntions at the
Christmas Meeting invalidated his testament or contradicted it in any
way. We must see whether this hypothesis - even as hypothesis - is
at all acceptable.
First of all, we know Rudolf Steiner as a spiritual leader who gave
the greatest care and consideration to all earthly or practical matters
* "The Nachlassverwaltung deduces its right to existence from Rudolf Steiner's testament,
which dates from long before the Christmas Meeting .... The conception which forms the
existence-basis of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung seems to us to place in question
the integrity of Rudolf Steiner's personality and to bring the creator of Anthroposophy
into miscredit before posterity". ("Mitteilungsblatt" of the Society, edited by Albert Steffen,
October 18., 1953).
38
and stressed in :
the Statutes (Pr
with what greal
exactly what h
it be considere('
of thought thar
and administrat
Christmas Meet
of the Society?
Steiner have t:r'
Meeting, to ck
Meeting called
have attended
during the la,r
his autobiogra:
We must be,
in any way,
previously dar
Rudolf Steint
simply unmel!
legally bindi!
on the basis 01
of the court
Dr. Steiner's i:
to maintain tl
testament, h:',
"a spiritual,
But of wb
- which mit
Christmas M l
testament? D
of Rudolf ~
could have Ie-
.mas Meeting,
taken
JClety
essary
.ed in
chi ass
I"\idual
t and
hough
.t best
1etric-
hypo-
e fact
ts un-
Philo-
dpoint
which
m "to
bring
; seems
:ates a
at the
many
; - 1S
o gave
natters
stament,
orms the
question
'posophy
: Steffen,
I
i
I
I
(
I
!
I
f
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
and stressed in his lectures the necessity for doing so. The discussion of
the Statutes (Prinzipien) of the Society at the Christmas Meeting shows
with what great care Dr. Steiner formed each word in order to express
exactly what he intended. The question must, therefore, be raised: can
it be considered in keeping with Dr. Steiner's character and clearness"
of thought that he could have left the question of the future ownership
and administration of his artistic and literary estate unmentioned at the
Christmas Meeting if this matter had been, in any way, the direct concern,
of the Society? The further question must also be raised: did not Rudolf
Steiner have time, d u r i ~ g the fifteen months of his life after the Christmas ~
Meeting, to change his testament, in case his intentions at the Christmas
Meeting called for such a change? Is it in character that he would not
,
have attended to this matter - had a change been indicated - at least ':
during the last six months of his illness - the period in which he wrote
his autobiography and many of the Letters to Members?
We must be perfectly clear that the assertion that the Christmas Meeting,
in any way, superseded, contradicted or invalidated Rudolf Steiner's
previously dated testament rests with necessity on the assumption that
Rudolf Steiner left an important matter of great esoteric significance
simply unmentioned and unattended to; and, moreover, that he left a
legally binding testament incompatible with his own intentions. Only
on the basis of this assumption is it possible to maintain that the decision
of the court in Solothurn was unfair to the Society and contrary to
Dr. Steiner's intentions. Only on the basis of this assumption is it possible
to maintain that the Vorstand of the Society, by disregarding Dr. Steiner's
testament, has "kept faith with the Christmas Meeting" and won
"a spiritual victory" for the Society in spite of the loss 9f the lawsuit.
But of what nature is "a spiritual victory" based on stich an assumption
- which must be made when it is stated, even as hypothesis, that the
Christmas Meeting in any way contradicted or invalidated Dr. Steiner's
testament? Does not just this assumption "place in question the integrity
of Rudolf Steiner's personality"? Was Rudolf Steiner a person who
could have left a legally binding testament incompatible with the Christ-
mas Meeting and his own intentions?
39
In consideration of Rudolf Steiner's unequalled spiritual consciousness
and leadership must we not, rather, assume that he left his testament
unchanged after the Christmas Meeting with fHll knowledge and intention?
Did he not write in the last weeks of his life of himself and Marie Steiner
as "those who can call themselves the central representatives of the Move-
ment, because they arc its founders"? Did he not write to Marie Steiner,
only a month before his death, the words, "Only with you can I think
and feel together in my judgments and only your judgment has for me
inner competence"? Are such words not in full accordance with those con-
tained in Rudolf Steiner's testament, from 1907:
"Marie von Sivers shall have the right after my death to act in my
name. What she so does, shall be considered as being done in my name ....
"Marie von Sivers herself will, however, always be with me. Our
union remains
author's rights for the Society was not primarily a problem of rights,
although it was necessary to take the way which led through the courts.
Their problem was primarily the task of defending the freedom of spiritual
life. For the attempt was made to interfere in the sphere of Rudolf
Steiner's and Marie Steiner's freedom, in the sphere of their indi-
vidual responsibilities, in their spiritual autonomy - called their
"last will". The Nachlassverwaltung had to protect Rudolf Steiner and ..
Marie Steiner against this interference. The members of the Nachlass-
verwaltung and the judges of the Upper Court of the Canton of Solo-
thurn have, in regard to this question, secured freedom in the spiritual
life for the Anthroposophical Movement. It now lies with the members
of the General Anthroposophical Society whether they have the will to
secure this freedom of the spiritual life for the Society as well, by re-
cognizing the spiritual as well as the legal validity of Rudolf Steiner's
and Marie Steiner's testaments.
40
su
lsness
ment
tion?
einer
\
t
ove- \
"I
lnet', '"
link
I
me
on-
IllY
)ur
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS, ETC.
\
19
ld
s,
5.
d
f
i
I
\
r
I
I
I
.
I
I
j
I
/
I
Testament of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, I907
"Nach meinem Tode solI Fraulein Marie von Sivers das Recht haben,
in meinem Namen zu verfiigen. Was sie so thut, soU in meinem Namen
gethan sein. Das wenige, was ich besitze, geht aUes in ihre Hande iiber;
sie soIl aile Verfiigungen treffen. Insbesondere soU sie an meine Eltern
und Geschwister in Horn denken.
Sie selbst soll meinen Tod als im Sinne hoherer Machte ansehen und
ihn ja nicht als ein Ratsel ansehen; Die Dinge haben einen Zusammenhang,
den man ehren muss, auch wenn man ihn noch nicht versteht.
Marie von Sivers selbst wird aber immer bei mir sein. Unsere Einigung
bleibt unlOslich.
Dr. Rudolf Steiner"
Berlin, 19. Februar 1907.
"Marie von Sivers shall have the right after my death to act in my
name. What she so does, shall be considered as being done in my name.
The little which I own all goes to her; she shall make all arrangements.
Especially should she remember my parents and brothers and sisters in
Horn.
She herself shall regard my death as being according" to the intentions
of higher powers and not as an enigma. Things have a connection with
each other which must be respected even when one does not yet under-
stand the connection.
Marie von Sivers herself will, however, always be with me. Our union
remains indissoluble.
Dr. Rudolf Steiner"
Berlin, February 19., 1907.
43
~ . " ' .
II
Last Testament of Dr. Rudolf Steiner
(being a joint will made by Dr. Rudolf Steiner and Frau Marie Steiner)
"Charlottenburg, March 18., 1915.
In the presence of the undersigned notary public, ... Leopold Bischofs-
werder, and the following two witnesses:
a) Emil Muller ...
b) Anna Tonsor Muller ... who, as well as the notary public, were present
during the whole proceedings, appeared today the following persons,
known to the notary public:
1. The writer Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17,
2. his wife, Marie von Sivers Steiner, of the same address.
The above declare that they wish to make a joint will. After consultation
about the details both Dr. and Frau Dr. Rudolf Steiner verbally declare
the following to be their last joint will and testament:
1. Each of us designates the other as his heir.
2. I, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, request my wife, in case she should live longer
than I, to support my relatives - my mother Franziska Steiner, my
sister, Leopoldine Steiner and my brother, Gustav Steiner, all living
in Horn, Nieder-Oesterreich - as I have supported then up to now.
This is not meant as a legal obligation but as that which I expect of
my wife.
3. In case we should both die at the same time (we name Miss Marie
Elisabeth Waller as our heir).
4. Should one marriage partner live longer than the other then he or
she inherits absolutely from the other and shall have full freedom to
designate In his or her last will and testament what shall be done
44
with the con:
which are ni
cancelled; Ot
marriage pa;
in this Para,
5. In case one
being able t
graph 3 s h ~
That is all \1
is then read al
signed Dr. Ru.
signed Emil 1\1
signed Leopol.
"Charlotte'
In the pre,
werder, and
a)
Emil Mij\
b)
Anna T,
present
persons,
L
The wn'
2. his wife.
The abo\
will. After
Steiner ver;
testament:
In case
named as '
*
ner)
ofs-
sent
ons,
tion
:I are
nger
my
vmg
lOW.
-t of
farie
e or
n to
jone
;
-I -
I
i
I'
I
f
f
I
.
I
,-
I
,
I-
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
f
,
I
.' with the complete inheritance (gesamten Nachlass); only the bequests,
which are made to various relatives in this Paragraph 4 cannot be
cancelled; or rather, the heir cannot cancel the bequests which the other
marriage partner has made. The bequests to his own relatives, named
in this Paragraph 4, can be cancelled by him.
5. .In case one of us should die, after inheriting from the other, before
being able to make a testament then the arrangements made in Para-
graph 3 shall be followed ....
That is all which we have to declare. We have no children. The text
is then read aloud, agreed to and signed by each.
signed Dr. Rudolf Steiner
signed Emil Muller
signed Leopold Bischofswerder,
signed Marie v. Sivers Steiner
signed Anna Tonsor Muller
notary public"
Codicil to the above Testament
"Charlottenburg, June 12., 1915.
In the presence of the undersigned notary public, ... Leopold Bischofs-
werder, and the following two witnesses:
a) Emil Muller ..
b) Anna Tonsor Muller ... who, as well as the notary public, were
present during the whole proceedings, appeared today the following
persons, known to the notary public:
1. The writer Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17,
2. his wife, Marie von Sivers Steiner, of the same address.
The above declare that they wish to make a joint codi.cil to their joint
will. After consultation about the details both Dr. and Frau Dr. Rudolf
Steiner verbally declare the following to be their joint last will and
testament:
We make the following codicil to our testament of March 18., 1915:
. In case Miss Marie Elisabeth Waller, Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17,
named as our heir, should, for any reason, not be able to take over the
45
inheritance we name as substitutes Mr. Kurt Walther and his wife, Clara
Selling Walther, both living in Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17, share and
share alike. Mr. and Mrs. Walther will each substitute for the other as
heir.
No other change is to be made in our previous testament. In case this
substitution is not necessary, Miss Waller is to be our heir, according to
our testament of March 18., 1915 - not Mr. and Mrs. Walther.
signed Emil Muller Anna Muller
signed Leopold Bischofswerder, notary public
The text is then read aloud, agreed to and signed by each.
Marie von Sivers Steiner
Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Emil Muller
46
Anna Tonsor Miiller
Leopold Bischofswerder,
notary public"
a)
of
toww
In
Letter of
and the Gel
Marie Stein,
Verei
des literari,
Nachlasses
To the mc"
to the Gen.
Since, ac
Nachlass 0;
of the Lit.
therefore,
call the fo
!, Clara
are and
ther as
ise this
:ling to
...
a)
l
,
I
I
I
r
I
!
,
i
III
Documents which show the attitude
of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
toward the publication of Rudolf Steiner's works
by the General Anthroposophical Society:
Letter of the Nachlassverwaltung to Herr Steffen, Dr. Wachsmuth
and the General Anthroposophical Society, following the death of Frau
Marie Steiner on December 27., 1948.
Verein zur Verwalttmg
des literarischen und kiinstlerischen
Nachlasses von Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Dornach (Schweiz), January 7., 1949
Rudolf Steiner-Halde
To the members of the Vorstand Herr Albert Steffen and
Herr Dr. Gi.inther Wachsmuth and
to the General Anthroposophical Society, Do rna c h
Since, according to the will of Frau Marie Steiner, the rights to the
Nachlass of Rudolf Steiner belong to the Association for the Administration
of the Literary and Artistic Estate of Dr. Rudolf Steiner and have,
therefore, been placed in our care, it seems to us that we should
call the following to the attention of the Anthroposophical Society.
47
L We will make every effort, in accordance with the duties which we
have taken over, to continue to make the Nachlass of Dr. Rudolf
Steiner available to all, in compliance with Frau Marie Steiner's inten-
tions and directives: specifically regarding mimeographing, printing,
reproduction, etc.
2. That which Rudolf Steiner gave, scientifically and artistically, will
stand, as before, completely at the disposal of the members of the
School of Spiritual Science and the Anthroposophical Society for their
work. Rudolf Steiner made regulations for the First Class. This
question need not be touched upon here.
3. The payment of 180,000.- Francs for the Philosophical-Anthropo-
sophical Verlag, which is now due, should not, according to our wishes
- which accord with that which Frau Marie Steiner often repeated
- bring the Anthroposophical Society into financial difficulties. We
think that this sum could be paid gradually through the income of
the Publishing House. This matter could be talked over and definite
arrangements reached. Also the payment of the other sums owing to
Frau Marie Steiner, which she willed to the Nachlassverein, can be
arranged in accordance with the existing conditions.
4. The basic relationship between the Nachlassverein and the Philo-
sophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House is clear. A simple under-
standing will take care of the practical details.
Recognition of and respect for the rights of Frau Marie Steiner, which,
according to arrangements made by her, have now gone over to the
Nachlassverein is a matter of course. It is our duty to expect from the
Anthroposophical Society recognition of and respect for these rights of
Frau Marie Steiner, as well as an administration of the Verlag's business
in continual accordance with the spirit and impulses of Rudolf Steiner.
Cooperative work between the Nachlassverein and_ the Anthroposoph-
ical Society is entirely possible if the conditions which have been stated
are fulfilled by all. We, for our part, declare, because of our concern
for the welfare of the Anthroposophical Movement, our willingness to
do our part.
We are conscious of the fact that a larger circle of workers is necessary
in order to fulfill the tasks which have been allotted to us and that an
48
uninterrupted cor.
is necessary for I:
The present mt:
Literary and Art;
Dr. Ch. von Stei,
Dr. H. W. Zbimi
Dr. Paul Jenny
Dr. Ernst Weidn:
Frau Prof. Lucie
Frau 1. de Jaagt:
b) Correspondenc,
the Philosophical
Rudolf Steiner-N
To the Philosoph
We wish to let
are ready for pri
are already set u
ies which we
Dr. Rudolf
. ,.
emer s mten-
ng, printing,
sticall y, will
1bers of the
ety for their
Class. This
l-Anthropo-
) our wishes
en repeated
iculties. We
: income of
md definite
lS owing to
ein, can be
the Philo-
Iple under-
l1er, which,
ver to the
t from the
~ rights of
;'s business
,u Steiner.
Iroposoph-
een stated
Ir concern
mgness to
necessary
d that an
1
,
i
uninterrupted continuation of the work on the Nachlass and its publication
is necessary for the effectiveness of the Society.
With anthroposophical greeting,
signed Dr. med. Hans Zbinden
signed Dr. Paul Jenny
The present members of the Association for the Administration of the
Literary and Artistic Estate of Dr. Rudolf Steiner are:
Dr. Ch. von Steiger
Dr. H. W. Zbinden
Dr. Paul Jenny
Dr. Ernst Weidmann
Frau Prof. Lucie Burgi
Frau L dejaager
Fraulein Marie Groddeck
Edwin Frobose
<- H. R. Niederhauser
<: Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer
, ~ Gunther Schubert
Werner Teichert
Joh. Waeger
b) Correspondence between the Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung and
the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House (Verlag).
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung
Dornach (Switzerland), June 16., 1949
Rudolf Steinerhalde
To the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag, Dornach (Sol.).
We wish to let you know that the following lectures by Rudolf Steiner
are ready for print; some of them, because they appeared in periodicals,
are already set up in type:
49
, ~
1. Four lectures: \\'lie kommt man zum Schauen der geistigen Welt?
(28. Juni bis 18. Juli 1923)
2. Three lectures: Rhythmen im Kosmos und im Menschen.
(20. bis 28. Juli 1923)
3. One lecture: Dber den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Kulte.
(10. September 1923)
4. One lecture: Ernahrungsfragen.
(22. September 1923)
5. Six lectures: Mensch und Welt.
(8. bis 31.0ktober 1923)
6. Ten lectures: Geisteswissensch af tliche .. Erkenn tnisse tiber Natur
und Mensch.
(7. Januar bis 27. Februar 1924)
7. Eight lectures: Ober die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Welt-
anschauung cler Kulturvolker .
8. Six lectures: . Die neue Geistigkeit und das Christuserlebnis.
(Oktober 1920)
9. Eight lectilres: Padagogischer Kurs Stuttgart.
(Juni 1921)
We write to ask whether you wish these lectures for the Verlag.
In case you wish to accept them we will send you our suggestions for
a contract in this matter.
We will expect your answer by June 30. In case we do not receive
an acceptance by then we will assume that you do not wish to publish
these lectures by Rudolf Steiner in your Verlag.
Very truly yours,
Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
signed: Dr. von Steiger Dr. Zbinden
Registered letter
50
Philosophisch-
am G
Kt. :-
. Registered let
Herrn Dr. C.
We ackno,
16. Frau Flu,
until July 4.
presumably, :
after her ren;
Rudolf Sf,
Dornach (Sell
To the Phil0
We have l
Considering I
of this year,
;tigen Welt?
:n.
der Kulte.
jber Natur
::l die Welt-
rlebnis.
rlag.
for
rIot receive
to publish

r: Zbinden
:
Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag
am Goetheanum Dornach Dornach, June 21., 1949
Kt. Solothurn, Schweiz
Registered letter
Herrn Dr. C. von Steiger, Auf der Hohe, Arlesheim
We acknowledge the receipt of your and Dr. Zbinden's letter of the
16. Frau Fliieler is away at present and does not return to the Verlag
until July 4. We have forwarded the letter to her; she will, however,
presumably, not be able to express her standpoint in this matter until
after her return.
Yours very truly,
Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag
am Goetheanum Dornach (Schweiz
i. A. signed M. Herrmann
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung
Dornach (Schweiz), Rudolf Steiner-Halde July 2., 1949
To the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag, Dornach
We have heard that Frau Fliieler will be absent until July 4., 1949.
Considering this fact we will expect your answer to our letter of June 16.
of this year, which we herewith confirm, by July 9.
Yours very truly,
Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung"
signed Dr. Zbinden Dr. Weidmann
51
Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag
am Goetheanum Dornach pornach, July 4.,1949
Herm Dr. C. von Steiger, Auf der Hahe, Arlesheim
Concerning the registered letter of June 16. of this year signed by you and
Herr Dr. Zbinden.
A decision about the publishing of the lectures which are ready for print
and those which are already set up in type cannot be made until we know
your suggestions for a contract, mentioned in your letter of June 16. We
therefore request that you send us your contract suggestions for our
consideration.
Yours very truly,
for the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag
signed M. Fliieler
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung
Dornach (Schweiz), Rudolf Steiner-Hal de
Registered letter
To the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag
at the Goetheanum Dornach
July 9., 1949
In fulfillment of our duty and in the interests of the Anthroposophical
Movement and the members of the General Anthroposophical Society we."
wish the continued publication of Rudolf Steiner's works. \Y/e, therefore,
although you have again not addressed your correspondence to the Rudolf
Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, send you the suggested contract, containing
the usual conditions, for the lectures offered you in our letter of June 16.
We wish to let you know, however, that in the future we must treat
52
I
\
I
\
letters which ar,
waltung, insrea,j
had not been rL
A special caDI
answer by J ul y
offer unless we
enclosure
between the }{
and the Philu
department (,;
1. The Ruc1,
Steiner all
"Rudolf ~
Anthropu-
blishing r:
Steiner:
a) Lectul
b) Lectur
c) LectUl
The i
Steiner-l'
I
) .
...
''I
letters which are addressed to individual members of the Nachlassver-
waltung, instead of to the Nachlassverwaltung itself, as though they
had not been received.
A special contract should be made for each work. We will expect your
answer by July 16. and will take it for granted that you turn down our
offer unless we receive a positive answer from you by then.
Yours very truly,
Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
signed Dr. Zbinden Dr. Weidmann
enclosure
Suggested Publishing Contract
between the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
and the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag,
department of the General Anthroposophical Society, Dornach.
1. The Rudolf .Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, legal heir of Dr. Rudolf
Steiner and Frau Marie Steiner-von Sivers (called in the following
"Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung") consigns to the Philosophical-
Anthroposophical Verlag (called in the following "Verlag") the pu-
blishing rights for one edition each of the following lectures by Rudolf
Steiner:
a) Lectures dated ... in one edition of .... copies with preface by ...
b) Lectures dated In one etc.
c) Lectures dated .... in one ... etc.
The books are to contain the notice "Edited on behalf of the Rudolf
Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung by .... "
53
I
2. The publishing rights may not be handed on to a third party. All
author's rights which are not included in this contract, such as the
rights of translation, remain with the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwal-
tung.
3. The Verlag publishes the above named editions at its own expense.
The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung submits a manuscript ready
for printing or, when available, type which has. already been set.
Proofreading will be done by the one who has prepared the manuscript.
4. The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung reserves the right of consent
as to form and typography, especially with reference to a complete
edition.
5. The sale price will be established by the Verlag with the approval
of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung.
6. The Verlag promises to pay to the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
for each copy sold 15 % of the sale price of paper bound copies.
Settlements are to be made on July 1., and December 31., the first
settlement six months after publication. Ten free copies are to be
presented to the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung for every 1000
copies of the edition.
7. The contract expires for any works named in 1.) which are not
published within a year after receipt of the manuscript. Delay due
to acts of God, war or strikes will, of course, permit the extention
of this period.
No. of copies
Dornach, date
Author's representative: The PublisBer:
[This was the end of the correspondence in this matter.]
54
c) Letter 0/
"Goetheamt
Rudolf Stei
Dor
To the edir.
of the wed
the Nachri,
Dornach
Since, af
of the Cal:
the presen
by Rudolf
completely
printed lel;
We alsu
publicatio,.
tions are
and whid
decree ml
We wi!.
Marie St.,
we have .
letters of
All
the
ral-
lse.
tdy
;et.
pt.
~ n t
...
ete
ral
ng
es.
~ s t
be
)0
or
c) Letter of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung to the editor of the
"Goetheanum" and "Nachrichtenblatt".
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung
Dornach (Schweiz)
To the editor
January 4., 1950
of the weekly, the "Goetheanum" and
the Nachrichtenblatt for the Members of the Anthroposophical Society,
Dornach
Since, after the provisional decree of the president of the Upper Court
of the Canton of Solothurn of December 28., 1949, the situation is for
the present clear we wish to let you know that already printed lectures
by Rudolf Steiner may, as before, be printed again in the "Goethe anum"
completely according to your desire and that we will send you also un-
printed lectures if you will let us know which ones you wish.
We also hold in readiness all unprinted lectures which are wished for
publication in the "Nachrichtenblatt". For both publications the condi-
tions are the usual ones followed during Frau Marie Steiner's lifetime
and which at present are to be followed according to the provisional
decree mentioned above.
We will send you within the next few days the lectures which Frau
Marie Steiner herself prepared for the "Nachrichtenblatt" and which
we have already offered you for publication. We refer, herewith, to the
letters of the Nachlassverwaltung of May 25. and June 17., 1949.
Yours very truly,
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung
signed Dr. Jenny Dr. Zbinden
55
d). Proposed agreement between the General Anthroposophical Society
and the N achlassverwaltrmg arrived at at the conference in Constance on
February 26., 1950 (Prominent members of the German Society requested
a conference with the Nachlassverwaltung in an attempt to put an end
to the law-suit. Herr GoUe, Dr. Friedrich Husemann, Dr. Schwebsch and
Herr Weissert met with members of the Nachlassverwaltung in Constance
and worked out the following proposed agreement.):
1. The Nachlassverwaltung approves the modus vivendi of the General
Anthroposophical Society and the School of Spiritual Science in the past
pertaining to the use of Rudolf 'Steiner's works for lectures, programs,
artistic performances, especially the Mystery Plays, use of the Archive,
eurythmy forms, pictures, sketches etc.
To this belongs that texts out of the works. of Rudolf Steiner will be
printed as up to now in the "Goetheanum" and the "Nachrichtenblatt".
2. The General Anthroposophical Society recognizes that the author's
fights to Rudolf Steiner's literary-artistic Nachlass belong to the Rudolf
Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, having been transferred to them by Frau
Marie Steiner.
3. The Nachlassverwaltung after the above recognition will withdraw
their lawsuit.
4. The Nachlassverwaltung is willing to form a Commission which
would have the task of preparing works of Rudolf Steiner for publi-
cation; - this Commission to be composed equally of members of the
Nachlassverwaltung and other members of the General Anthroposophical
Society, appointed by the Society, who have the necessary prerequisites.
This Commission will, as far as possible, takl'! into account and further
the wishes of the Vorstand, the Sections of the School of Spiritual Science,
special groups and members as regards publication.
The material which Rudolf Steiner gave for the 1. Class of the School
of Spiritual Science is subject only to its own inner spiritual rules, and
can, therefore, not be an object of this agreement.
5. The works of Rudolf Steiner should, in principle, be published, as
far as possible, by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag. The same
applies to new editions of works which have already been published by
56
e)
the Phi'
be p r e s ~
are nee,
sultatio.
Verlag.
publish'
6. TJ,
The N:
of such
To :'
We
agamsl
tested
Steiner
has 1
com
that
At T
Genep
The
We,
firmat;
the au!
Society
ana on
'quested
an end
sch and
Instance
General
past
ograms,
\rchive,
will be
nblatt".
author's
Rudolf
)y Frau
ithdraw
1 which
r publi-
; of the
sophical
'quisites.
further
Science,
e School
lIes, and
shed, as
'he same
ished by
e)
the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag. The question of the text will
be presented to the Commission before each new edition. Contracts which
are necessary with other publishing houses will be made only after con-
sultation with the Commission and the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Verlag, exclusive of contracts which have already been made with other
publishing houses.
6. The royalties due the Nachlassverwaltung will be established at 15 %.
The Nachlassverwaltung will give a public accounting of the use made
of such royalties.
Open Letter
Dornach, June 28., 1952
To All Members of the Anthroposophical Movement
We wish to let you know that the lawsuit which we had to bring
against that part of the General Anthroposophical Society which con-
tested Marie Steiner's rights and therewith also the rights of the Rudolf
Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, as her legal heir,
has been decided by the Upper Court in Solothurn
completely and unanimously in favour of Frau Marie Steiner,
that is, also in favour of the Rudolf
At the same time the cross-claim, brought by the Vorstand of the
General Anthroposophical Society, was completely rejected.
The text of the verbal decision is enclosed.
We may point out that that which the court recognized is only a con-
firmation of that which has always been known by all: that is, that
the author's rights always belonged to Frau Marie Steiner and that this
57
fact was expressly and continually recognized for twenty years by all
participants.
A more complete orientation about the lawsuit will follow.
The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung is still ready and willing to
work together with all in the task of editing and publishing Dr. Steiner's
works. From the beginning we have in word and deed expressed our
willingness to work together with the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Publishing House, which W<J,S not only founded a?d built up but also
directed by Marie Steiner for forty' years and which published most of
Dr. Steiner's books and lectures; but we can force no one to a cooperative
work which would only be in the interest of the Anthroposophical Move-
ment, nor do we wish to do so.
The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung will continue its work, in ac-
cordance with the intentions and the interests of the Anthroposophical
Movement.
enclosure
58
With friendly greetings
Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung
Two
phlet, -
of its F
They a
Philoso
Herma:
W.Zbi
cannot
cations
a few
Dr. E ~
Rechts
Dr. F.
ting OJ
ye
lIT
W
ar
I
p'
MediI
..
v
b
g
IV
Concerning the Egger Pamphlet
Two works have appeared in German which consider the Egger pam-
J'hlet, - the methods it employs, the "truth" of its contents and the fact
of its publication in the name of the General Anthroposophical Society.
They are "Zur Herausgabe des Gutachtens von Prof. Dr. A. Egger im
Philosophisch-Anthroposophischen Verlag am Goetheanum, Dornach" by
Hermann Eichenberger and "Zu einem Rechts-Gutachten" by Dr. Hans
W. Zbinden, - the latter a detailed study of 70 pages. This matter
cannot be handled exhaustively in a paper of this length. A few indi-
cations, quotations and comments must suffice: - first a translation of
a few of the medical opinions enclosed in a letter by Dr. Zbinden to
Dr. Egger, January 15., 1953 and printed in Dr. Zbinden's "Zu einem
Rechts-Gutach ten".
Dr. F. Husemann, Wiesneck by Freiburg, Minutes of the Delegates Mee-
ting of the General Anthroposophical Society, March 25., 1948:
"I had the privilege of taking part in the discussion with Frau Dr. Steiner
yesterday. And I consider it my duty to give you, at least briefly, my
impression. Herr Schubert has already said that Frau Dr. S t e i n e ~ consulted
with us for four hours that morning. And that shows that she has an
amazing ability to work (tiber eine erstaunliche Arbeitskraft verftigt). And
I must say: when I heard how much other work she gets done in one day I,
personally, am shamed when I compare it with that which I accomplish .... "
Medical report by Fri. Dr. A. j. Zehnder, Ascona:
"In September 1948, 3 months before Frau Dr. Steiner's death, I was able to
. visit and speak with Frau Dr. Steiner twice. In a slightly darkened room -
because of her trouble with her eyes - sat the very pale, upright figure and
greeted her visitor with a clear voice and a direct look of recognition. Frau
59
i
I
I
...
I
L
i
i
Marie Steiner took up at once the matter at hand, grasped it quickly, spoke
with penetrating understanding and reached a solution factually, without
wanderings or unnecessary repetition. - In a- second and last conversation,
some days later, about another subject, the memory of Frau Dr. Steiner was
especially taxed, and did not fail once, - not even when she quoted from
various documents. Frau Dr. Steiner's power of judgment showed itself to
be completely clear and in no way impaired also during this last visit,
3 months before her death."
signed A. J. Zehnder.
Certificate by Dr. Werner Belart, Koniz-Bern:
"The undersigned attests herewith, that Frau Marie Steiner in her old
age did not fall piey to delusions and errors as Herr Prof. Dr. A. Egger
in his legal opinion, 'Die Wege der richterlichen Rechtsfindung' maintains
on pages 30 arid 40.
"It is not permissable that this misjudgment remain before the public.
That would be an injustice and would cause more harm.
"I met Frau Dr. Steiner personally for the first time at the signing of
her testament on September 11., 1948. When we entered her room she sat
up very straight in her chair and greeted each one personally. She spoke to
each one with lively attention. She showed an active interest in manifold
questions which concerned, in part, the persons present, in part, the signing
of her testament .... At no time did I have the impression that this woman
was over 80 years old. She seemed much younger. She understood all
questions which were put to her at once and answered them clearly, with
deliberation and in a clear voice. She had no trouble to find the right words.
"So I was able to testify conscientiously as a physician thilt Frau Marie
Steiner was perfectly clear in her mind and had complete power of
judgment .... "
signed, Belart.
Medical report by Dr. Walter Bopp, head physician of the Carl Unger-
Clinic, Stuttgart:
60
"From February 1946 until shortly before her death I visited Frau Marie
Steiner at short intervals in order to discuss with her the publication of
Rudolf Steiner's works in Germany as well as general matters of a spiritual
and cultural nature. I had known Frau Marie Steiner since 1918. When I
first visited her after the war in February 1946 I was astonished to find the
same mental freshness (Geistesfrische) which I had experienced before. Frau
Mar:
not (
year,
weal
"1
aph:-
Her
cult;
Froll
the!
frofL
Voices J
the Mi.':
Society,
lungen'
"The"
Opinion
of Mar
by the
the Leg.
Anthror
Anthrot'
lishing I
life-wo.
to Mari.
Cancer:.
("Zu e;
"(Th'
Publish I
2
ly, spoke
, without
versation,
,:mer was
)ted from
; itself to
last visit,
Zehnder.
her old
\. Egger
llaintains
~ public.
~ n i n g of
. 1 she sat
,poke to
,nanifold
" slgnmg
, woman
,tood all
dy, with
11t words .
IU Marie
ower of
" Belart.
; Unger-
au Marie
'_ltion of
spiritual
When I
. find the
.)re. Frau
Marie Steiner remembered with amazing accuracy the details of events, -
not only those which had taken place a long tin)e before but also in recent
years ... , Also .after a discussion of 'several hours she showed no signs of
weariness or a lessening of her intellectual grasp.
"I report these observations not only as one who was her visitor but as
a physician .... In no way did Frau Marie Steiner show any signs of sclerosis.
Her circulatory system was weakened, which made physical exertion diffi- ,
cult; but there were absolutely no symptoms of old-age weakness of mind.
From the point of view of medical judgment there can be no question of
the fact that any other judgment derives from complete dilettantism or
from malevolent rumor."
signed Dr. Bopp, head physician.
Voices from Germany about the Egger pamphlet: from a report based on
the Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the German Anthroposophical
Society, October 31. and November 1., 1953 by Emil Leinhas ("Mittei-
lungen", April 1954) .
"There were strong expressions of disapproval of Prof. Egger's Legal
Opinion, - especially disapproval of the disparagement of the personality
of Marie Steiner which it contains. The most indignation was aroused
by the shameful fact that the Vorstand at the Goetheanum published
the Legal Opinion by Prof. Egger as a pamphlet through the Philosophical-
Anthroposophical Publishing House and gave it a preface signed "General
Anthroposophical Society" (no name signed) - through just that Pub-
lishing House which itself constitutes an important part of Marie Steiner's
life-work and for the valuable ownership of which the Society is indepted
to Marie Steiner personally."
Concerning the publication of the Egger Pamphlet, by Dr. H. W. Zbinden.
(ceZu einem Rechts-Gutachten", pp. 3-4).
"(The Egger pamphlet appeared in the Philosophical-Anthroposophical
Publishing House in the fall of 1952). The General Anthroposophical
61
Society signs as publisher or editor. There is no personal signature. Here
we must call to mind that the members of the General Anthroposophical
Society were not consulted concerning the publication of this pamphlet.
Therefore the present Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society
is responsible for the publication. It is necessary to be clear about this
matter because very many members of the Society have reacted to this
pamphlet with abhorrence and protest. They, therefore, cannot be made
responsible for the fact that through its printing and publication through
the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House so much of an
objectively untrue and disparaging nature has been publicly circulated in
the world about Frau Marie von Sivers Steiner .... Aside from this,
through the dissemination of this pamphlet, which carries the name of
the General Anthroposophical Society, the opinion must arise that its
method of attaining arid stating knowledge, as well as the attitude toward
this task, are in conformity with the impuls of Rudolf Steiner's Anthropo-
sophy. The method and attitude, however, are in direct opposition to
those which can be attained by means of Anthroposophy .... There is
room in Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy for only a completely accurate
statement of facts in full accordance with reality. Because the pamphlet
by Prof. Egger contains so many objective untruths its dissemination
by the institutions of the General Anthroposophical Society has not only
. nothing to do with, but stands in complete contradiction to the spiritual
attitude and striving of Dr. Rudolf Steiner and Frau Marie von Sivers
Steiner - the original representatives of the anthroposophical impuls ... "
62
A passage Jr,
MemorandlJ
p. 22 in the (
21 in the En
"But in s.
bers, meetinc
held to discu
manuscripts
Philosophic- .
blishing HOt!
were treated
thing, and tJ
the confusio!
fere
tical
llet.
iety
this
this
ade
ugh
an
l ~ n '
his,
of
its
lrd
)0-
to
IS
ate
let
on
tly
tal
!rs
"
I
..
i
A passage /romthe "Memorandum 1925-35" versus Dr. Egger's use 0/ it.
"Memorandum 1925-1935"
p. 22 in the German text,
21 in the English text.
"But in some groups of mem-
bers, meetings were already being
held to discuss the question of the .
manuscripts (Nachlass) and of the
Philosophic-Anthroposophical Pu-
blishing House. These two matters
were treated as one and the same
thing, and this fact only added to
the confusion."
Egger pp. 14-15.
"Also immediately after the
death of Dr. Steiner conferences
began about the Nachlass and the
Publishing House in which both
matters were considered as one and
the same, as the 'Memorandum
1925-1935' itself states, p. 22."
Egger p. 20.
"In the negotiations after the
death of Dr. Steiner the 'Nach-
lass' and the Publishing H o ~ s e
constituted the joint topic of the
negotiations, 'Memorandum 1925
-1935' loco cit."
Egger p. 26.
"Where were ... Rudolf Stei-
ner's author's rights which, more
than anything else, must be of con-
cern to the A.A. G. [General An-
throposophical Society]? Had it
put them aside, with non-exampled
resignation renounced them, con-
sidering the fact that actually the
fate of the Publishing House and
the author's rights had always
been considered' and discussed
together?"
63
I
,
i
1

j


t
,
I
I
I
\
I
t
A comment by Dr. Zbinden to this misconstrued passage from the
"Memorandum ("Zu einem Rechtsgutachten", p.29).
"But in some groups of members, meetings were already
being held to discuss the question of the manuscripts (Nachlass)
and of the Philosophic-Anthroposophical Publishing House.
These two matters were treated as one and the same thing, and
this fact only added to the confusion."
(Memorandum 1925-1935, p. 21)
"A confusion existed already, then, and it was added to by the fact
that Nachlass and Publishing House were considered together. In addition,
the 'but' points to something which stood in opposition to these discussions.
What was that? It is to. be found in the 'Memorandum 1925-1935',
heginning on p. 21 [po 20 in the English text], immediately preceeding
the passage which has ben quoted:. the testament which Rudolf Steiner
had made concerning his Nachlass. And the attack on this testament and
matters connected with this attack caused the confusion."
An appreczatLOn of Dr. Zbinden's Commentary to Prof. Egger's Legal
Opinion by Dr. A. Hornberger ("Mitteilungen", April 19.54).
"The more time went by after the publication of Prof. A. Egger's
Legal Opinion, 'Die Wege der richterlichen Rechtsfindung', in the question
of the ownership of Rudolf Steiner's Nachlass, the more one was oppressed
as by a nightmare. This was caused, on the one hand, by the fact that
Egger's presentation of the history of the General Anthroposophical Society
\
and the situations in it - which is the absolute opposite of the reality - /
had not yet been exhaustively corrected, and, on the other hand, by the
fact that no one had confronted Dr. Egger's picture of Frau Marie
Steiner - which is falsified with so shamefully ignoble traits - with I
a true characterization of her as she really was. The general rejection of
Dr. Egger's thought-processes by the Solothurn Decision sufficed to
make the legal situation clear. One's wounded sense of truth, however,
demanded a more detailed consideration and correction of the Egger
64
pamphl(
himself
knowled
inexoral-
by mean
events,
tries to
Frau 1-L
even th(
11$
pamphlet. Dr. Zbinden has rendered a servIce by taking this task upon
himself and executing it with thoroughness and an unsurpassable special
knowledge of this subject. He follows the writer of the Legal Opinion
inexorably on all of his paths and by-paths and shows how he -
by means of repeated covert intimations which he combines with far-lying
events, at the same time ignoring more apparent or pertinent events -
tries to create a climate in which his construction can thrive. Texts by
Frau Marie Steiner, printed at the end of Dr. Zbinden's pamphlet, show
even those who never knew her, who she really was."
65
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS IN TEXT
Testaments of Dr. Rudolf Steiner .
Marie Steiner, Contract of Transfer to the Nachlassverwaltung .
Marie Steiner, "What are the Tasks of the Nachlassverwaltung?"
Documents concerning Dr. Stein's contention of Rudolf Steiner's
testament .
Documents concerning MIle Sauerwein's infringement of Frau Dr.
Steiner's rights as Dr. Steiner's heir
Documents concerning the "agreement" of August 31.,1925.
66
pages
20-21,40
11-12, 36
29, 36
18-19
24-25
21-22
Mi
Mi
M;
Gi
RI
I
I
BIB L lOG RA P HY
Minutes of General and Extraordinary Meetings of the A. A. G.
Minutes of Delegates Meetings of the A. A. G.
Marie Steiner: "Welches sind die Aufgaben des Nachlassvereins?"
("What are the tasks of the Nachlassverein"?)
Gunther Schubert: "Zur Beuneilung der Nachlassfrage".
(containing many reports and documents)
Rudolf Steiner-N achlassverwaltung:
"Nachrichten" Nr. 1, March 1949 (Letter from the Nachlassverwaltung of
January 7., 1949, etc.)
"Nachrichten" Nr. 2, November 1949 (Correspondence with the Philosoph-
ical-Anthroposophical Publishing House, etc.)
"Nachrichten" Nr. 3, April 1950 (Excerpts from the Minutes of the Meetings
of October 8., 1928 and December 27.-29., 1930; the letter from the Vor-
stand to Mile Sauerwein, February 5., 1930; the Resolution concerning Mile
Sauerwein, December 27.-29., 1930 etc.)
"Nachrichten" Nr.4, October 1952, "Zur Prozessangelegenheit".
(Containing Dr. Steiner's various Testaments; the Contract of Transfer;
Excerpts from the Minutes of the Meetings of 'February 25.126., 1928,
October 8., 1928 and December 27.-29., 1930; the Circular Letter from the
Nachlassverwaltung, June 28., 1952, etc.)
"Nachrichten" Nr.5, March 1953, "Wege und Ergebnis emer sachlichen
richterlichen Rechtsfindung".
(Containing the written Decision of the Court in Solothurn from June 17th,
1952 and other documents.)
Dr. A. Egger: "Die Wcge der richterlichen Rechtsfindung".
Hermann Eichenberger: "Zur Herausgabe des Gutachtens von Prof. Dr. A. Egger
im Philosophisch-Anthroposophischen Verlag am Goetheanum, Dornach".
Dr. H. W. Zbinden: "Zu einem Rechts-Gutachten".
"Mitteilungen fur die Mitglieder der Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft,
herausgegeben von der Anthroposophischen Vereinigung in der Schweiz".
67