1954 lawsuit

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1954-lawsuit 1/64

BULLETINOF THE RUDOLF STEI NER-NACH LASSVERWALTUNG

Special Number Dornach July 1954

A Summary

OF THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN

THE RUDOLF STEINER - NACHLASSVER WALTUNG

AND THE GENERAL ANTHROPOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT 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

BYELISABETH H. CHAMBERS

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"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 no t 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.

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


Prefatory Note .

Notes on Translation

CONTENTS

SECTION I

Wh y didthe Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung bring a lawsuit against the

General Anthroposophical S o c i e t y ~ .

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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


SECTION II

Paragraphs IV an d 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

no t allow it to do so?

What was the attitude of the members of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlass

verwaltung after they wo n 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

I) Testame

II ) Last Tes

III) Docume

verwaltu

General

a) Janu

Dr. W

ing t

b) June

Stein

leal

c) Janu

of th

d) Febr

Anth

at-th

e) June

_Mem

IV) Concern

Index of Do

Bibliography

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 II

!

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"

,.-.-.... - ~ .

PREFA T O R Y 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 thewritten "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. I t 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


NOTES ON TRANSLATION

The Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung 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.

A u ~ h o r ' s 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 bylaw 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.

Wh

the G

In

Steine

time

howe

to he

Nach

rights

the S

right

publ

verw

Th

the

fo r

Con

lass,

wal

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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."

I t is clear that the members of the Nachlassverwaltung could no t 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. Th e 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

'o f the ownership of the Nachlass to court.

I t 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. Th e French General Secretary, Mlle Sauerwein,

maintained, incorrectly, that she ha d 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

fo r her, as the owner of the author's rights, to have these rights defended

by her lawyer before the court in Paris. Th e "Sauerwein case" led to

many important discussions, resolutions an d declarations at meetings of

12

the Society d

in the presen

complete sup

members of

in translatio

Q. lVhat W,

the court?

A. It was a

ownership.

of the "De

"As

of Dr .

of, his

to the

accord

and fu

rights

whichdecide

which

they

in he

House

reprod

memb

testam

durin

In co

all de

hadi

to all

whic

was

corre

Vors

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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. I t 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. No t 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

: !

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 th e 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 an d so that a series

11

!

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


lassverwaltung was her ownership of the author's rights questioned. (I t

was also no t 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 no t 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 an d 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 wa y be demonstrated. (They were not trans

ferred to the Society by Dr. Steiner either during his lifetime or in his

testament; .no r were they transferred to the Publishing House by Frau Dr.

Steiner; nor did the so-called agreement of August 31, 1925 - which was

no t 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

no t 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

bu t 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.

/ . * [I t was in September 1945, about 9 months after the announcement of the foundingof 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

III

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 ~ Iby 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 tw o 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 Pub lishing 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, bu t which perhaps can begin just by means of this

lawsuit, a kind of mystery-right (Mysterien-Recht)".

15

'111

'l:,

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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). An y publishing rights

which belonged to the Publishing House then passed as a ~ a t t e r of course. into the possession of the General Anthroposophical Society. But that is

a question apart from the a ~ ~ h . o r ' s rights. Th e Publishing House had

belonged to Marie Steiner since the da y 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.':-

Th e 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 madein 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 fo r 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 Nachlass - 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 asroyalties 20 % of the sale price of paper-bound copies and that the translation rightsremained 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.G

compl

the SO

was taken

sidered c

inner spi

outer "w

"T

the d

and

After

the argu

however

the Socie

"myster

nated by

Conce

(p.26):

"T

'PrinGoe

the

itsel

prel

Dr.

way

I t sh

graph 8

Dr. Ste

ably th

.. As

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"that, according to Dr. Steiner's basic conception at the founding of the

A. A. G. at the Christmas Meeting of 1923, he ha d inseparably bound his

complete literary and artistic works with the Society and had given it intothe Society's care" "

was taken by the court into very careful consideration. Th e 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", an d 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. I t 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 -, he requisite

preliminary knowledge'. Whether the author's rights arc in the possession ofDr. Rudolf Steiner, Frau Marie Steiner or of the Nachlassverwaltung, in no

wa y 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

: ~ . " ,

,:.

: t·

IiH!Ii'

'1

d'

IIll

,j lilHrf

!;:

II"I':iI,Iii

;

'llii'Ifi i"oj

jl,.. \!Ill'Ii,{I:(- '

'I '

Ir'. jl

iii

ri"iiii;/(1)J

iIiIII'j

hiiI':(Ii:jI';1III,

Ii.

":

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 S

said here

Christma

And you

did just t

sible to l

Herr. S

The testa

to discus

Frau Dr.

Q. What are

ferred or so

after she in

A. This claim

a paper of

Dr . Steinerthe Vorstan

General Me

ment which

was made t

tailed consi

mary of the

See foot

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 Found ation Meeting. Now, that is really an insult to FrauDr. 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: 'I t 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 ofthe 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.':' I t 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.

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


S EC T ION II

Paragraphs IV an d Vof the "Decision" handed down by the Upper

Court of th e 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. I t has no t 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 no t mentioned with even a single word at the

Christmas Foundation Meeting':":', no'r were they mentioned in the Statutes

an d 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 questionsabout Paragraph 8 (p, 120 and p. 122 in the German text), Dr. Steiner mentioned thcauthor's rights; and in a way which shows clearly that he considered no t 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

no t mentioned ev

brought into the

reimbursement.

"After the dc,

inventory of his

heir, took over

unpublished bO G

vertrag), dated

he r rights to Dr

scripts, lecture'

verwaltung, wh

it to have the

sibility therefor

ring he r 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 .

an d Dr . WJ'

'This t.

over as s·

value l, f

" [See foot·

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 andunpublished 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. Steinerinherited 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 SocietyJmust 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


which I voluntarily kept low.'f I t is signed by Herr Albert Steffen and Prau

Dr. Wegman. I am of course willing to cancel it'.

"I n 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 firstto 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 theSociety] 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 O l l ~ . 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 tointerpret 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

1. I t is

a bin

fer o

2. Dr. R

plicit

hand

3. At th

wido

made

clear

made

4. Frau

its p

discu

5. Frau

clud

the

men

"Thein the

individ

official

any co

brough

" I t

royal t

(The "

Frau M

The P

to argbetwee

only t

* ["

withou

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"The evidence leads necessarily to the following conclusions:

1. I t is not possible to recognize the agreement [o f August 31., 1925] as

a binding contract, bu t 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 no t 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'sofficial inventory (o f 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.) I t 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 produceswithout wasting its substance." Webster.]

23

. ~ " ;

:Ih.

rr

i

I·

I:;I':I

I.,.: ',,.

·1

II,!"

t' ·i';

:1

j.:",.1

" ,;:

1':1";;:.,-

i!"

nI;:.I·,j:,:,I::

Ii.;{

I:'":

\

I:

11'L

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 he 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 al l 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 no t 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 wa y 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. Steinerhave 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 Ialso always pa '

We state her.the legal sima t;

ceipt of Frau I

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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). Th e minutes of this General Meeting, con-

cerning the formulation of this Resolution, show that one member tried to

outdo the other in sharp ly 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 signedthe 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

AlbertSteffenDr. I. \Vegman

Dr. Gunther Wachsmuth

E. Vreede 1

25

I

l'

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"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. Th e rough

draft of this text bears corrections in the handwriting of Albert Steffen,

which shows that he agreed with the report. Th e 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 no t a usurption by Frau

Marie Steiner of rights which did no t 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 ma y 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

but these bel

"In that th

evidence the

the same rea

jected."

Paragraph

"The d ek

lassverwaltu

it existed,

the Society

to the Soci

the [autho

the Society

in to consid

would com

In spite of

judge cam)

decision on

here consi

defendant.

is here qUO

inheri tance

does not

this lawsu

continues

"The t

in any cas

Steiner.

* [The s

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"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 no t 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 wa y 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 no t 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 la w 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

an d 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

th e Anthroposophical Movement, the sense of her own approaching end,

the question what the development of the Vorstand, the Society and the

28

Movement wouleapparently 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 th e

it exists outside

externally and

is outside the :.

is a question of

tual bearing of

In 'What are ti

'I t (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 k1925, 33 day.

to Frau Maric

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


,.

I

i

I

I

I

It

1!

(

Movement would be under the direction of Steffen and Wachsmuth

apparently filled Frau Marie Steiner with great and justified anxieties.

Th e 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 no t be incompatible with the Statutes of

the A.A.G. Frau Marie Steiner founded the Nachlassverwaltung on thebasis, 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 bu t completely

within the Society owing to the lives and activities of its members and the

task which has been intrusted to them'. 'H e (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 Movement. 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 ')

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


SECT ION I I I

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 rel ationship 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

Ii!I

I

by Dr. Steiner, camp

other documents whic

tung in this matter

The divergent atti

of the Vorstand of t1

by Rudolf Steiner th

House is shown by ,

In 1951, during

Publishing House ar

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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


t,I

1I!

1,

f. t

II!•I!

1

!1

lt

I.

fI

f!

!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

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-Nachlassverwaltung 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 fo r the two sides to find each other again. Dr. Rudolf Steiner

said at the Christmas Meeting: . . . . 'Where Anthroposophy finds hearts

, which really unders tand 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 befound on p.43.]

30

IIII

'As long as Lor criticism ab

Steiner's Nachl

Steiner herself

certain conditi,\

of Spiritual SCI

'With the de;

of a change in

situation. He r

become her he!

which have no\

by the Anthro

if it did not do

the respect whi

for her last wI

the legal situat

is accepted fru

Society is enti

1.The General

such as the Philo

publish works o

permission from

owner of the autlworks. The only

institutions maya

2. (The Publish

waltung as were

3. This decision

periodicals: (a. "1

sophic News She

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


•j,.j

I

I

,

I1Ii

"fI

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. He r 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 . Steineris 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 no t

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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 fo r 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 ca n read, fo r 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; bu t

* 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

IIIIIII

I!

II

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

ca n call th

because ti'

It is m

inaccuratt

chased. lr

Dr. Str

long hanel

into accej.-

Frau Dtung?", al

* For nl·

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


to

.

our

do

an

his

on

e

t

iI

"'I'fi

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 q u e s t i o n " . ' ~

"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. I t is maintained by some that the Nachlassverwaltung is publishing

inaccurate, corrupted texts and that they, t h e r e f o r e ~ 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'>.

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


"(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 p a i n e d " ' . ~ ' 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 ibe looked through again and one should have much more time . . . for fthis . . . . 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 ou t "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,

"Thisis

justas

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

problems whic

Those who

agreement and

verwaltung an

in a position

Nachlassverw

responsibility

Q. I t is some

personally p

publish. Is th

A. I t is a stat

are to paid

contribute t

sale of book

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


wishes -

way the

becausepained

an

that theall should. . , 'for

11-12]

brought

that

Dr

This

for

work.

heard

spoken

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.

IiI!II

.,i. I

1III!

,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. I t 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_

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


CONCLUD ING 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 Nachlassand make whatever further provisions fo r 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 whichDr . 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 th is hypothes is - 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 theexistence-basis of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung seems to us to place in questionthe 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

an d 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·,

Bu t of w b

- which mit

Christmas M

testament? D

of Rudolf

could have Ie-

.mas Meeting,

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


and

-

o

e

1S

Ii

III!I

fI

I!

III

IIIII,

and stressed in his lectures the necessity for doing so. Th e 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. Th e 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? Th e 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 no t 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


In consideration of Rudolf Steiner's unequalled spiritual consciousness

and leadership must we not, rather, assume that he left his testamentunchanged after the Christmas Meeting with fHll knowledge and intention?

Did he no t 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. Ourunion remains i n d i s s o l u l l ~ . " ?

author's rights for the Society was no t 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". Th e 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. I t 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


\

t

\"I

'"

I

SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS, ETC.

\

i

I\r

II

I

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


j

I

/

I

Testament ofDr. 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 To d als im Sinne hoherer Machte ansehen und

ihn ja nicht als ein Ratsel ansehen; Die Dinge haben einen Zusammenhang,

den ma n ehren muss, auch wenn man ihn noch nicht versteht.

Marie vo n 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. Ou r union

remains indissoluble.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner"

Berlin, February 19., 1907.

43

~ . " ' .

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


I I

Last Testament ofDr. 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 tw o 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. Th e writer Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17,

2. his wife, Marie von Sivers Steiner, of the same address.

Th e 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 an d my brother, Gustav Steiner, all living

in Horn, Nieder-Oesterreich - as I have supported then up to now.

This is no t meant as a legal obligation bu t as that which I expect of

my wife.

3. In case we shouldboth

die atthe

same time (wename

MissMarie

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

isthen 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 Th e wn'

2. his wife.

Th e abo\

will. After

Steiner ver;

testament:

In case

named as '

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


*

;

-I -I

iI '

I·ffI.I-

I

I-I

I

I

IIIf,

.' 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. Th e textis then read aloud, agreed to and signed by each.

signed Dr. Rudolf Steiner

signed Emil Muller

signed Leopold Bischofswerder,

signed Mar ie 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. Th e writer Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Charlottenburg, Motzstrasse 17,

2. his wife, Marie von Sivers Steiner, of the same address.

Th e 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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)

tow

Letter

and the

Marie St

Ve

des liter

Nachlass

To the

to the G

Since

Nachlas

of the

therefo

call the

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


and

as

this

to

a)

l

II

II!i

III

Documents which show the attitude

of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung

toward the publication ofRudolf 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 no t 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 an d 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 concernfor the welfare of the Anthroposophical Movement, ou r 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

uninterrupte

is necessary

The pres

Literary an

Dr.· Ch. vo

Dr . H. W.

Dr. Paul J

Dr. Ernst

Frau Prof.

Frau 1. de

b) Corresp

the Philos

Rudolf St

To the P

We wi

are ready

are alrea

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


which we

. Rudolf,.

mten-

y, will

of thefor their

This

r wishes

repeated

We

of

to

be

Philo

under-

which,

to the

of

business

Steiner.

stated

concern

to

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-Nachlassverwaltung and

the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House (Verlag).

Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung

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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


1. Four lectures: \\'lie kommt man zum Schauen der geistigen Welt?

(28. Juni bis 18. Jul i 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: Geisteswissenschaf liche .. Erkenn nisse 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,


signed: Dr. von Steiger Dr. Zbinden

Registered letter

50

Philosop

. Register

Herrn D

We a

16. Fra

until Ju

presum

after he

Rud

Dorna

To the

We

Consid

of this

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


Natur

Welt-

for

receive

:

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,


am Goetheanum Dornach (Schweiz

i. A. signed M. Herrmann


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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit



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


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 membersof

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

waltung, insr

had not been

A special c

answer by Juoffer unless w

enclosure

between the

and the Phi

department

1. The Ruc

Steiner

"Rudolf

Anthrop

blishing

Steiner:

a) Lectu

b) Lect

c) LectU

The

Steiner-

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


· '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,


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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


· 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 1000copies 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'srepresentative: The PublisBer:

[This was the end of the correspondence in this matter.]

54

c) Lette

"Goethe

Rudolf

To the

of the

the Na

Dornac

Sinc

of the

the pre

by Rud

comple

printed

We

public

tions

and w

decree

We

Marie

we ha

letters

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


c) Letter of the Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung to the editor of the

"Goetheanum" and "Nachrichtenblatt".


Dornach (Schweiz)

To the editor

January 4., 1950

of the weekly, the "Goetheanum" and

th e 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 fo r

the present clear we wish to let· 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 un

printed lectures if yo u will le t us know which ones yo u wish.

We also hold in readiness al l unprinted lectures which are wished fo r

publication in the "Nachrichtenblatt". Fo r both publications the condi

tions are the usual ones followed during Frau Marie Steiner's lifetime

an d 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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. Th e 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. Th e General Anthroposophical Society recognizes that the author'sfights to Rudolf Steiner's literary-artistic Nachlass belong to the Rudolf

Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, having been transferred to them by Frau

Marie Steiner.

3. Th e Nachlassverwaltung after the above recognition will withdraw

their lawsuit.

4. Th e 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 fa r 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.

Th e 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, no t be an object of this agreement.

5. The works of Rudolf Steiner should, in principle, be published, as

fa r as possible, by the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Verlag. Th e 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,

Th e N:of such

To :'

We

agamsl

tested

Steiner

has 1

com

that

At T

Genep

Th e

W e,

firmat;

the au!

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


a on

end

and

past

be

Frau

the

and

as

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 %.

Th e 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 S t e i n e r ~ N a c h l a s s v e r w a l t u n g .

At the same time the cross-claim, brought by the Vorstand of theGeneral 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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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


8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


IV

Concerning the Egger Pamphlet

Tw o works have appeared in German which consider the Egger pam

- the methods it employs, the "truth" of its contents and the fact

it s publication in the name of the General Anthroposophical Society.

are "Zur Herausgabe des Gutachtens von· Prof. Dr. A. Egger im

Dornach" by

Eichenberger and "Z u einem Rechts-Gutachten" by Dr . Hans

. Zbinden, - the latter a detailed study of 70 pages. This matter

be handled exhaustively in a paper of this length. A few indi

and comments must suffice: - first a translation of

of the medical opinions enclosed in a letter by Dr. Zbinden to

. Egger, January 15., 1953 and printed in Dr. Zbinden's "Z u einem

ten".

. F. Husemann, Wiesneck by Freiburg, Minutes of the Delegates Mee-

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 . . . ."

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

iII

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


IL

ii

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 pu t 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

"1aph:Her

cult;

Frol

the

frofL

Voices J

the Mi.'

Society,lungen'

"The"

Opinion

of Mar

by the

the Leg

Anthro

Anthro

lishing

life-woto Mar

Cancer

("Zu e

"(Th

Publish

2

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


spoke

without

was

to

r old

. Egger

public.

of

she sat

to

all

, with

words

Marie

of

Marie

of

I

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.

He r 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

th e 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 LegalOpinion, - 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). Th e General Anthroposophical

61

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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 no t consulted concerning the publication of this pamphlet.

Therefore the present Vorstand of the General Anthroposophical Society

is responsible for the publication. I t is necessary to be clear about thismatter 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 vo n 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!

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


'

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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


Ii1•

j

tI

II

\I

t

A comment by Dr. Zbinden to this misconstrued passage from the

"Memorandum 1 9 2 5 ~ 1 9 3 5 " . ("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, andthis 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? I t 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 ("Mittei lungen", 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

pamp

himse

know

inexor

by me

event

tries

Frau

even

11

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


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

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit


BI B L lO G 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-Nachlassverwaltung:

"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 MileSauerwein, 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".

"Mitte ilungen fur die Mitglieder der Allgemeinen Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft,

herausgegeben von der Anthroposophischen Vereinigung in der Schweiz".

67

8/6/2019 1954 Lawsuit
