The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Documents

For a discussion and historical classification of these documents, see Renatus Ziegler, Geist und Buchstabe: Rudolf Steiner als Herausgeber von Goethes naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften (Basel: Rudolf Steiner Verlag, 2017).

Abbreviations:

GSA Goethe and Schiller Archive, Weimar
GOEA Goetheanum Archive, Dornach (Switzerland)
RSA Rudolf Steiner Archive, Dornach (Switzerland)

1. Rudolf Steiner: Handwritten curriculum vitae for the Goethe and Schiller Archive

Original: GSA 150 / A95, 3; handwritten by Steiner

First published: GA 38, after p. 204, facsimile between pp. 204 and 205.

Rudolf Steiner

born in Kraljevec, Hungary, on February 27, 1861, responsible for Geras in Lower Austria, studied at the Landes-Mittelschule in W[iene]r Neustadt and then attended philosophy lectures at the University of Vienna and lectures on natural sciences, mechanics, and mechanical engineering at the Technical University from 1879 -1883, received his doctorate with a thesis on “the fundamentals of epistemology,” then worked on the publication of Goethe's scientific writings for “Kürschner's German National Literature,” and authored: “Epistemology of Goethe's Worldview” (1886), “Goethe as the Father of a New Aesthetics” (1889), “Truth and Science” (1892). From July 24 to August 17, 1889, and from September 30, 1890, to the present, he has been busy at the Goethe Archive with the publication of Goethe's morphological and geological works, as well as his general scientific works.

In the winter of 1891-92, Steiner gave a lecture at the Goethe Society in Vienna: “On the Mystery in Goethe's Enigmatic Fairy Tales (in The Emigrants)” and two lectures in Weimar: 1. “Imagination as a Product of Nature and Creator of Culture,” 2. “Weimar at the Center of German Intellectual Life.”

presented Nov. 1892

Comment: This document precisely dates Steiner's only stay in Weimar before he began work on October 1, 1890. Steiner's employment lasted until March 1896. - The first lecture is not further documented, but a report on the second lecture appeared in the Weimarische Zeitung No. 48 of February 26, 1892 (in GA 68c) .

2. Rudolf Steiner: Memorandum on color theory (undated and unsigned)

Original: GSA 150 / A 543, 3; handwritten by Steiner

First published in: Kurt Franz David: Biographical contribution to Rudolf Steiner's work on Goethe. Das Goetheanum 1971, Volume 50, p. 282. [At the top of the page in Suphan's handwriting: Abth II, 3.4.5 (Paralipomena) For oral discussion with Dr. Kalischer]

The comments, sketches, diagrams, etc. in the archive on the historical part of the Theory of Colors are so closely related in content to the individual chapters of Volumes 3 and 4 that it seems appropriate to print them in Volume 4 as “Paralipomena” to the historical part of the Theory of Colors. The same applies to the already printed essay on Bernardinus Telesius (Hempel's edition, ed. Kalischer, Vol. 36, p. 546ff.) . Less closely related to individual chapters is all the material belonging to the didactic part of the theory of colors that has not yet been printed in the edition, so that this can very well be placed separately in the 5th volume as “Paralipomena” to the entire theory of colors. Much of this has been published by Goethe himself as an addendum to the theory of colors in the notebooks “Zur Naturwissenschaft” (On Natural Science). However, as far as the Paralipomena relating to the historical part are concerned, they are of such a nature that they can only be useful to the reader if he can read them immediately after the chapter to which they belong. They are also such that, according to the structure of the Weimar edition, they must be placed in the volume containing the corresponding text.

Rudolf Steiner

Comment: This undated sheet probably dates from 1889. During his first stay in Weimar from July 24 to August 17, August 1889, Steiner apparently also looked through the manuscripts of the Theory of Colors, the results of which he communicated to Suphan for further discussion with the physicist Salomon Kalischer (1844-1924), the designated editor of the Theory of Colors in the Weimar edition (WA II 1 to 5). Kalischer was also the editor of all scientific writings in the Goethe edition published by Hempel in Berlin, which he completed before Steiner's Kürschner edition (1877-1879). It also contained introductions and commentary on passages.

3. Rudolf Steiner: Draft outline from August 2, 1889

Original: GOEA E01.008; handwritten by Steiner

First published as a facsimile: Johannes Hemleben: Rudolf Steiner in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Reinbek/Hamburg 1963, 5.43

Transcription: Kurt Franz David: Rudolf Steiner's appointment to Weimar and his work in the Goethe and Schiller Archive. Das Goetheanum 1971, Volume 50, p. 136.

Natural Science Section

After examining the available manuscript material, it seems to me that the subject matter of the Natural Science Section should be arranged in the following manner, in accordance with Goethe's last will and testament:

I. Morphology.

1. Everything related to botany.

(Formation and transformation of organic nature, metamorphosis, history of botanical studies, reports on preliminary and follow-up work, reviews. On botany, Paralipomena) 1 volume.

2. Everything related to zoology and anatomy.

(Intermediate bones, typology, physiology, paralipomena) 1 volume.

II. Mineralogy, geology, meteorology.

(Geological essays] and ... Geological schemata) 1 volume.

II. On natural science in general Natural science details.

(Everything by Goethe on general natural phenomena, methodology, the position of the sciences, etc.) 2 volumes.

Rudolf Steiner

[Handwritten Suphan:] Weimar, August 2, 1889 Suphan

Comment: This draft outline comprises only 5 volumes, which ultimately grew to 7 volumes. As mentioned in the document, the outline closely follows Goethe's concept developed with Eckermann on June 10, 1831 (WA II 1, pp. 379-380) . Bernhard Suphan (1845-1911) had been director of the Goethe and Schiller Archive since 1887 and was thus Steiner's direct superior during his work at the archive.

4. Agreement between Rudolf Steiner and archive director Bernhard Suphan dated January 24, 1891

4.1 Rudolf Steiner to Bernhard Suphan Original: GSA 150 / A 543, 4; handwritten by Steiner.

Partial publication: Wolfhard Raub: Rudolf Steiner and Goethe. Literature and Theory of Science in Steiner's Work. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Kiel 1963, pp. 87-89.

First published: Kurt Franz David: Rudolf Steiner's adaptation of Goethe's scientific writings and the current editions. Das Goetheanum, Volume 61 (1982), p. 67.

[Handwritten Suphan: To His Excellency v. Loeper with the most respectful request for communication
to the esteemed Prof. Erich Schmidt
Privy Councilor Herman Grimm
Prof. Seuffert (Graz, Harrachgasse 1)]

The peculiarity of Goethe's estate in terms of morphology and related fields [insertion by Suphan: *) places special demands on the editor. If one were to include only those writings can be considered complete works in formal terms, it would be impossible to provide a complete picture of Goethe's ideas and views. The most valuable and, for understanding the poet's historical position within science, most important explanations are found in fragmentary representations. In science, however, it is impossible to focus on the artistic structure of the writings; instead, wherever possible, the whole concept must be conveyed. This point of view guided us in selecting the individual pieces from the handwritten estate, just as it guided Goethe himself in selecting the essays for his morphological notebooks. In publishing the work, care had to be taken to ensure that the Weimar edition provided every expert reader with everything they needed to gain a complete picture of Goethe's relationship to science. The question always had to be asked: does a piece to be included contribute to our understanding of Goethe's approach to a scientific problem? Those who wanted to include only the complete pieces provided a very incomplete picture of Goethe's scientific views. When it comes to a person's scientific activity, historical justice demands that the entire content of their thoughts be passed on. A work of art is unfinished if it lacks final completion; for a scientific idea, however, the form in which it is expressed is only a secondary consideration. We may therefore include in the five or six volumes of morphological, geological, meteorological, and general scientific content that are in prospect everything that seems to us to be undoubtedly part of the total content of Goethe's science.

Weimar, January 24, 1891. Rudolf Steiner.

[Handwritten Suphan: * Steiner explained the great significance of this unpublished legacy in a treatise intended for the GJb. 1891 and more recently in a contribution to the chronicle of the Vienna Goethe Society.] Comment: Gustav von Loeper (1822-1891), Erich Schmidt (1853-1913), Herman Grimm (1828-1901), and Bernhard Seuffert (1853-1938), together with Bernhard Suphan, were the main editors of the Weimar edition during Steiner's time and had overall supervision of all important decisions. - Both essays mentioned by Suphan were published in 1891: (1) On the benefits of our views of Goethe's scientific works through the publications of the Goethe Archive. Goethe Yearbook 1891, Volume 12, pp. 190-210 (GA 30, pp. 265-288). (2) Thoughts on Goethe's Handwritten Legacy I. [Part II not published]. Chronicle of the Vienna Goethe Society 1891, Volume 5, 6th year, No. 2, February 13, 1891, pp. 10-12 (GA 30, 5. 302-307).

4.2 Bernhard Suphan to the editorial board Original: GSA 150 / A 543, 4-5; handwritten by Suphan

Partial publication: Wolfhard Raub: Rudolf Steiner and Goethe. Literature and scientific theory in Steiner's work. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Kiel 1963, pp. 87-89.

Complete first publication: Kurt Franz David: Rudolf Steiner's adaptation of Goethe's scientific writings and the current editions. Das Goetheanum, Volume 61 (1982), p. 67.

The above is the conclusion of the individual discussions that took place during the compilation of the text of Vol. | of the writings “on morphology” between the editor of the same, Dr. Steiner, and myself as the editor of the volumes in question, and a final consultation held in view of the volume now ready for printing. In confirming this result throughout, I would first like to express my full agreement with my co-editor on Section II. These statements in no way contradict the “Principles,” which do not deal with Section II and its special nature at all, these statements do not contradict them in any way; rather, they serve to supplement them in a special place. However, if the “plan of the edition” for the second section has established the special title “Writings” on natural science, then the distinction on which Dr. Steiner's procedure is based is already implicitly indicated. Without doubt, these materials must be treated according to their inherent laws. In the second section, the editor is the actual expert; he must not feel bound by any external schematism in his selection and structure. He must justify his approach in the critical appendix, partly in an introductory remark and partly in relation to the individual pieces. Incidentally, the fact that this appendix (the “readings” ) cannot include everything that exists, as anyone who is familiar with the mass of preparatory material will admit, the publication of which would be of no use to any reader in the world. Here, too, the expert editor must be given a free hand; and this is already the case, in agreement with the editor, in the volumes on color theory.

January 24, 91. Suphan.

[Handwritten: I completely agree, 1/25/91. v. Loeper.
1/27/91 Read E Schmidt
1/29/91. I agree. Grimm

Since this depends on knowledge of the hsl [handwritten] estate, I cannot judge, but I give the parties involved my “vote of confidence” in good faith. Regarding the question (p. 1): how did G[oethe] approach a scientific problem? However, the “preparatory materials” (p. 3) may also provide the answer; from them one can see—as from the estate in vol. 6/7 of the first section - among other things, where and what Goethe learned; this is such an important prerequisite for understanding what Goethe “thought” (p. 1) that I would like to advocate proceeding quite narrow-mindedly when making the selection—if my assumption is correct. Graz, January 31, 1991. B Seuffert]

5. Contracts with the archive

5.1 Bernhard Suphan on October 30, 1890: Basic contract with the Goethe and Schiller Archive

Original: GSA 150 / A 95, 15-17; handwritten by Suphan

Dr. Steiner.

Her Royal Highness Grand Duchess Sophie of Saxony has authorized the undersigned Director of her Goethe and Schiller Archive to employ Dr. Rudolf Steiner on a daily basis for the purpose of producing books 6-10 of the “Natural Science Writings” (Goethe's works, published on behalf of Her Royal Highness Grand Duchess Sophie of Saxony; Section IT) until March 31, 1891.

On the basis of this authorization, subject to highest approval, the following has been agreed with Dr. Steiner.

§1. During his affiliation with the Goethe and Schiller Archive, Dr. Steiner is bound by the working hours of the same. The number of working hours is five, or six if the director deems it necessary.

§2. Dr. Steiner receives 180 marks (one hundred and eighty marks) per month; he is also reimbursed for the costs of travel “Vienna - Weimar” and “Weimar - Vienna” will be reimbursed in accordance with the provisions applicable to employees of the publication. After each book he has edited has been printed, Dr. Steiner will receive a fee calculated at a rate of 10 marks per sheet (text and readings).

§3. Dr. Steiner is not entitled to make copies, excerpts, or similar items from the archival materials entrusted to him for processing. However, any notes he makes for the purposes of the work assigned to him must be returned to the management immediately upon request, and Dr. Steiner expressly acknowledges that such documents are the property of the Goethe and Schiller Archive.

The management is prepared to propose to Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess that Dr. Steiner be permitted to make literary use of the results of his research based on the material entrusted to him; the archival documents themselves may then only be printed with the express permission of the management.

§4. Dr. Steiner may not, without the prior knowledge of the director, disclose any information from or about the archive materials to other persons.

The above provisions shall apply retroactively for the period from October 1 to the present day, or until confirmation by Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess.

Weimar, October 30, 1890.

The Management of the Goethe and Schiller Archives Professor Dr. Suphan.

Handwritten by Steiner: Agreed Rudolf Steiner

Comment: Grand Duchess Sophie of Weimar (1824-1897) was the owner of Goethe's written estate and had to be involved in all important decisions regarding the Weimar edition. — The five planned volumes 6-10 correspond to the draft outline of August 2, 1889, printed above. The planned completion within six months was rather optimistic and reflects the pressure with which the rapid implementation of the “Weimar Edition” project was to be advanced. Steiner ultimately worked on the archive until March 1896 and edited seven volumes, six of which he published himself (WA II 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and one by the anatomist Karl von Bardeleben, 1849-1918 (WA II 8, osteological writings).

Steiner very quickly received permission to publish. He wrote to Ladislaus Specht on January 3, 1891 (GA 39, p. 67): "I am the only one among the archive staff to have received permission from the Grand Duchess to use the results of my research outside of the Goethe edition, which is being published on her behalf, 'because of the importance of the sections that have fallen to me. The Grand Duchess Sophie soon extended this exclusive permission to other employees, in particular to Steiner's colleague Karl von Bardeleben.

5.2 Bernhard Suphan on September 19, 1891: Addendum to the basic agreement of October 30, 1890

Original: GSA 150 / A 95, 5-7; handwritten Suphan Goethe's works, Section II, Concerning morphology.

The experiences gained during the printing of the sixth volume of the natural science section, and, despite the warnings issued at the time, also during the printing of the seventh volume, prompt me to formally bring the following to your attention.

1. A clearly legible manuscript must be delivered to the printer, with spelling and punctuation in accordance with the rules specified for the Weimar edition, text in German script, lined paper, written on one side, with wide margins.

2. The proofreading must essentially be completed at the “II. Revision” stage . Experience has shown that this cannot be done unless approximately two hours are spent on it. If the preliminary proof delivered by the printer is not satisfactory, it should be noted (in red chalk) where the existing errors are attributable to technical proofreading, i.e., are not explained by the nature of the printing templates. The errors must be marked precisely according to their position and form. In all difficult cases (rearrangements, corrections of entire words, proper names in particular), the corrections must be repeated at the top of the page with the line number indicated for checking purposes.

3. “Fourth corrections” are excluded from this procedure. If they prove to be necessary, the management will determine who is responsible and, if necessary, arrange for the additional costs to be deducted from the fee.

Weimar, September 19, 1891. Suphan

For the attention of Dr. Steiner.

[Handwritten by Steiner:] Noted by Steiner.

5.3 Bernhard Suphan on November 11, 1892: Addendum to the basic contract of October 30, 1890.

Original: GSA 150 / A 95, 11; handwritten Suphan Dr. Steiner Addendum to the contract of October 30, 1890.

ad S2. If the production of a volume takes considerably more than four months, a reduction in the accessit fee may occur, such that it may be paid at a rate of five marks per sheet.

This provision applies to volume 9. Weimar, November 11, 1892.

[Handwritten Steiner:) Agreed R Steiner

5.4 Bernhard Suphan on June 4, 1894: Regarding the completion of the work

Original: GSA 150 / A 95, 12; handwritten Suphan

The following has been agreed regarding the completion of Dr. Steiner's work.

1. Of the tasks undertaken, the following remain to be completed: A. the production of the 12th volume of the second section* B. the definitive arrangement of the manuscripts on which volumes 6-12 are based.

2. Dr. Steiner undertakes to complete the specified work before the end of this year (1894).

3. Dr. Steiner shall receive a total of 800 eight hundred marks from the coffers of Your Royal Highness for this work. This sum shall be paid to him in addition to the previous monthly installments of 180 marks, with any remainder to be paid upon complete completion of the work.

Weimar, June 4, 1894 [Handwritten by Steiner:) Agreed Rudolf Steiner

[*] Section II Volume 12 “Meteorology Scientific Details Subsequent”

5.5 Bernhard Suphan on June 4, 1894: Addendum to the basic contract of October 30, 1890

Original: GSA 150 / A 95, 11; handwritten by Suphan

Due to the unusually long time taken to produce Volume 10 (the first sheet of which went to press on November 20, 1893, and which has currently only progressed to sheet 15, and will comprise a total of 18-19 sheets), the additional provision of §2 has been waived for this volume, and no fee will be paid other than the monthly allowances approved to date.

June 4, 94

[Handwritten by Steiner:] Agreed RSteiner

6. Archive report by Julius Wahle and Rudolf Steiner to Bernhard Suphan dated October 28, 1891

Original: GSA 150 / A 636, 87-88; handwritten by Wahle and Steiner [Handwritten by Suphan: praes. 29/X. resp.]

Weimar, October 28, 1891.

Dear Professor!

In anticipation that you would be pleased to hear something from afar about the archival work that you have particularly recommended to me, I would like to quickly share a few things with you. First and foremost, Volume XI [I 11] is progressing. The apparatus is finished except for the last two pages, which had to be sent back to Schröer because they were so confusing that I couldn't make any sense of them. In view of the impending work stoppage in the printing shops, I have concentrated exclusively on Volume XI [I 11] and Steiner's volume [II 7]. On There is still a lot to do on volume 11, as, for example, the late Zarncke scribbled his apparatus in the margins of the text manuscripts, and these would of course have to be copied out first.

Loeper and Schmidt's vote on the Maturin etc. matter arrived on the first day after your departure: it was to print the translation alone, without prose; whereupon I immediately sent the manuscript to the printer, but have not yet received any corrections. Incidentally, as with these pieces, the half-title page of The Liberated Prometheus and Fragments of a Tragedy must also bear the words “From the estate.” Incidentally, if you do not have or did not have sheets 23 and 24 of Loeper's volume [I 4], or if they have been misplaced in any other way, they have been lost along with the printing manuscript in 2. Correction.

The theater volume [presumably I 13.1] is also progressing, although rewriting, rearranging, and boxing up are a lot of work.

In addition, I would like to inform you of a private matter. The bookseller Thelemann plans to arrange a small series of six lectures on German literature this winter and has invited me and Steiner [insertion by Steiner: *] to participate. We have both agreed. Dr. Arthur Seidl, Pastor Bürkner in Berka, and the playwright Hans Olden are also participating. The program for these lectures will be finalized in the next few days, and if you are not back by then, I will take the liberty of informing you.

I saw Martinum looking fresh, cheerful, pious, and wet (it was raining and, as he said, he had no umbrella out of passion) on the street. Today it has stopped raining & hopefully you will have good weather again. If you see any acquaintances in Berlin, please give them my regards.

Wishing you much pleasure & all the best, I remain with warm regards.

Yours sincerely,

Wahle

[Handwritten by Steiner: *) Dear Professor! I was just about to write the same thing. But since Wahle has already described the matter so beautifully, I need not bother you with a separate letter. With warm regards, Steiner.)

Comment: The literary scholar Julius Wahle (1861-1940) was a colleague of Steiner's at the Goethe and Schiller Archive. - Karl Julius Schröer (1825-1900) was co-editor of the volume WA I 11. The editor Friedrich Zarncke (1825-1891) died on October 15. — Volume WA I 11 (pp. 353-358) includes Goethe's translation of a fragment of the tragedy “Bertram” by Charles Robert Maturin (1782-1824) was included in volume WA I 11 (pp. 353-358). The “Liberation of Prometheus” and the “Fragments of a Tragedy” were also published in this volume. - Arthur Seidl (1863-1928), writer and dramaturge; Richard Bürkner (1859-1913), theologian, art historian, and pastor; Hans Olden (1859-1932), writer (see “Mein Lebensgang” [My Life], GA 28, pp. 227-231). See also the letters of November 19, 1891, and February 25, 1892, to Pauline Specht in GA 39 regarding this series of lectures. There are no records of Steiner's lecture on “Die Phantasie als Naturprodukt und Kulturschöpferin” (Imagination as a Product of Nature and Creator of Culture). — Martin is one of Bernhard Suphan's sons.

7. Letters from Carel Eduard Daniels to Carl Ruland, Bernhard Suphan, and Rudolf Steiner

7.1 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Carl Ruland dated July 14, 1894

Original: GSA 150 A 640, 148-149 (No. 88a); handwritten Daniels [Handwritten Suphan: Received 21/7 Sitzendorf

According to report from the archive, replied 26/7.]

[Handwritten by Carl Ruland in red ink: Letter [...?] to Prof. Suphan 20/7 94 CR.]

Amsterdam, July 14, 1894 Dear Sir!

A few days ago, I found a notice in an old newspaper that a previously unknown treatise by Goethe, “Darstellung der vergl. Anatomie des Säugethierschädels” (Description of the Comparative Anatomy of the Mammalian Skull), had been found in the archives, and that Prof. K. von Bardeleben had been commissioned to organize Goethe's anatomical writings for the large Goethe edition.

I hereby take the liberty of informing you that the local medical library, owned by the Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot Bevordering der Geneeskunst, of which I have the honor of being the librarian, contains a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the natural history period of Goethe's life. The manuscript sent by Goethe to Petrus Camper in 1786 [manuscript], in which he informs Camper of the discovery of the os intermaxillare in humans (cf. K. Rosenkranz, Goethe und seine Werke, Königsberg 1856, 2nd ed., p. 46), was donated to the aforementioned library several years ago by a descendant of Camper.

Since I believe that the duplicate of this manuscript, which Goethe later sent to Blumenbach, is not in the Goethe Collection, I would like to draw the attention of the management, especially Prof. von Bardeleben, to our manuscript, in case a copy of the text or the illustrative drawings by Waitz might be used for the edition.

I am always ready to be of service in this area.

Yours sincerely,
C. E. Daniels. Doct. Medic.
Nieuwe Heerengracht 9.

[Handwritten by Carl Ruland in red ink: The address is Dr. C. E. Daniels Nieuwe Heerengracht 9; I request, in agreement with Prof. Bardeleben, to make further use of this very welcome communication. In the meantime, I have thanked Dr. Daniels and said that I would hand over his letter to the archive. July 20 CR.]

[Handwritten Suphan: received Sitzendorf b Schwarzburg July 21, 1894.

To Dr. Rudolf Steiner at the Goethe and Schiller Archive with the request to determine whether the manuscript and drawings identified by Dr. C. E. Daniels are previously unknown and unused for the text form of the writing on the intervertebral bone? and to provide a brief report here, on which a request for a copy or collation may be based. Please enclose the letter again. Suphan]

Comment: The art and literary historian Carl Ruland (1834-1907) was the first director of the Goethe National Museum in Weimar from 1886 and the first president of the Goethe Society. - Carel Eduard Daniels (1839-1921) was a physician and author of Het leven en de verdiensten var Petrus Camper (Utrecht: Leeflang 1880), among other works. — The Royal Dutch Society for the Advancement of Medicine, abbreviated KNMG, was founded in 1849. — Pieter Camper (1722–1789) was a Dutch physician and anatomist. - Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) was a German anatomist and anthropologist in Göttingen. - The manuscript “Versuch aus der vergleichenden Knochenlehre daß der Zwischenknochen der obern Kinnlade dem Menschen mit den übrigen Thieren gemein sey” (Attempt at comparative osteology showing that the intermaxillary bone of the upper jaw is common to humans and other animals) was written by Goethe in 1784. He had it illustrated with drawings and copied, and sent it to Camper via various intermediaries (see LA II 9A, pp. 470-492 for more on this and the following). He published it in 1820 in the morphological notebooks under a different title: “Dem Menschen wie den Thieren ist ein Zwischenknochen der obern Kinnlade zuzuschreiben” (Humans and animals have an interosseous bone in the upper jaw) (WA 118, pp. 91-103; LA 9, pp. 154-161; see also LA II 9A, 470-492), with some later additions and supplements (WA II 8,5. 103-139; LA 9, pp. 161-186; see also LA II 10A, pp. 803-814). - For Steiner's report to Suphan, see No. 8.

7.2 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Carl Ruland dated July 25, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 151-152 (No. 88c); handwritten Daniels

[Handwritten Carl Ruland: Prof. Suphan for any use CR.]

[Handwritten by Suphan: Received March 21, 1895 Suphan] Amsterdam, July 25, 94 Dear Sir!

In accordance with your request, I am sending you some further information about our manuscript [handwritten] and the drawings it contains.

You will find the text of the manuscript verbatim in Cotta's edition (1860) of Goethe's complete works, vol. VI, p. 57 ff. This also answers your question “What do the drawings depict?”

As for the illustrations, they are exceptionally beautiful, artistically conceived, treated with great care, in sepia, Chinese ink, writing ink, and watercolor.

And now the artist? Yes, his name is Waiz, as Goethe himself tells us on 5. 63, 3. and 4. paragraph on the left, in the above-mentioned edition. That is all I know about the “young artist,” as Goethe rightly calls him.

You can also hear what our HS looks like from Goethe himself, as he quotes Camper's opinion of it on page 62, bottom right, and page 62, top left, upon receiving it. My main intention in my previous letter was to inform the management of the Goethe Museum of the whereabouts of our manuscript and also to point out that the drawings referred to by Goethe I.c. as “sketches” are very carefully executed drawings of real artistic value.

I thought that both pieces of information might be of interest to the editor of the new Goethe edition.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. C. E. Daniels.

Comment: Johann Christian Wilhelm Waitz (1766-1796) produced anatomical drawings for Goethe. The original plates are reproduced in LA 19 (plates XXII-XXVII) and newly engraved versions in WA II 8 (plates I to V).

7.3 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Rudolf Steiner dated August 7, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 146-147 (No. 88); handwritten by Daniels

[Handwritten by Suphan: Dr. Steiner Praes. 15 August reply, together with attached report by Dr. Steiner [see No. 8], 22 August.]

Amsterdam, August 7, 1894. Dear Sir!

I have before me your letter addressed to Prof. Suphan on July 23, which he forwarded to me. Allow me to ask two questions in response.

You report to Prof. S[uphan] that you “have had the copy of the treatise on the intermaxillary bone currently held in the Bibliotheque de la Socier& N£erlandaise pour le progres de la Med[iJeine transcribed.”

I conclude from this communication that you have used my “Catalogue de Manuscrits des Pierre Camper” (1881), since otherwise you would not refer to our library in French. From this catalog, p. 3, you therefore know that there is a manuscript by Goethe in Amsterdam. This research probably prompted a copyist to travel to Amsterdam, who copied the manuscript in whole or in part into our library. But if you learned of the existence of the manuscript from the aforementioned catalog, how can you write to Prof. S[uphan]: “I have never seen the drawings mentioned in Dr. Daniel's letter, nor do I know anything about their existence,” when Dr. Ruland wrote to me a few days ago, “without us knowing who Goethe had them made by?”

I did say three lines in the catalog, “qui on avait fait faire les admirables dessins par Waiz,” i.e., who had the wonderful drawings made by Waiz. How it is possible that an educated copyist could have looked through, read, excerpted, and copied the manuscript without seeing or admiring the 10 folio sheets of drawings, and without writing or saying a single syllable about them, is a mystery to me.

I must confess to you, dear sir, that I am happy to make the effort to comply with Prof. Suphan's request, but I would first like to receive an answer to my two questions. For it seems to me that we are not understanding each other.

The main question is: do you have the manuscript sent by Goethe to Blumenbach? According to G[oethe] himself, this manuscript is said to be completely analogous to the manuscript formerly belonging to Camper, which is located in Amsterdam. As I have also written to Dr. [Carl] Ruland, its scientific value is not to be found in the text, which has been known for many years through its publication, but only in the artistically executed drawings. As soon as I know that you are familiar with our drawings, which are completely consistent with Blumenbach's manuscript, I believe that you will not need my assistance. If you are not familiar with them, I will gladly provide you with more detailed information.

I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Dr. C. E. Daniels

7.4 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Bernhard Suphan dated August 31, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 163-164 (No. 97); handwritten by Daniels

[Handwritten by Suphan: received 3/9 morning Bea. 4/9]

Amsterdam, August 31, 1894

Dear Professor!

Before me lies the correspondence between Prof. K. J. Schröer in Vienna and myself in April and May 1883, which, strangely enough, has been preserved. Before me lies the prospectus of Kürschner's German national literature, which Prof. Schröer has sent me. There is no mention of Dr. R. Steiner in the letters or in the prospectus. I therefore had little reason to suspect that I myself had already provided him with a copy of our manuscript in 1883; had I known this, I would have phrased my question about Dr. Steiner's and others' unfamiliarity with Waiz's drawings quite differently.

The fact that I myself did not mention the drawings in detail at the time is a consequence of the precisely worded question in Schröer's letter, from which I had to conclude that he was interested only in the literally exact content of the text, which he wished to compare with others, and not in the drawings.

However, as Dr. Steiner writes to me [in No. 8 below], “since Waiz's drawings were not considered further, I had to assume that the words ‘dix feuilles de dessins’ were merely a reproduction of the title page of the heading and that the drawings belonging to the essay were no longer available,” I do not understand.

If one looks up my French catalog, from which, as I suspected, he himself obtained "knowledge of the Amsterdam Goethe manuscripts (manuscript),“ one will soon see that the addition ”Texte allemand et latin et dix Feuilles de dessins“ can never be a ”reproduction of the title page of the manuscript," but can only be understood as a more precise description of the manuscript. But enough about Dr. Steiner, who does not seem to deem it necessary to respond to my letter himself.

From your last two letters, esteemed sir, I note that you and Prof. von Bardeleben would like to have our manuscript with the drawings it contains in your possession for a few days, a request previously made to me by Prof. Schröer and refused by me in accordance with the library regulations.

However, I cannot and will not refuse a request for the archive of Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess, our highly esteemed Princess Sophie. Exceptions must be allowed in special cases. I therefore have the honor to inform you that I will send the copy by parcel post to the address of the archive next week. This will give the management the opportunity to have reproductions of the drawings made. When comparing the drawings with the plates in the large Weimar edition, you will notice that the illustrations of human jaws appearing on plate IX of the manuscript are missing, and are therefore presumably not in the possession of the archive. In this way, I hope to contribute, in accordance with your wishes, to the great goal that the Weimar edition of Goethe's works is seeking to achieve.

Yours sincerely, Yours faithfully, Dr. C. E. Daniels

Prof. Dr. B. Suphan [...?] Weimar.

7.5 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Bernhard Suphan dated September 5, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 173 (No. 103a); handwritten by Daniels

[Handwritten Suphan: e. 12.9.94. b. ead.)

Amsterdam, September 5, 1894

Dear Professor!

Please find enclosed the manuscript. The first inserted pages were written by P. Camper, the second by Prof. von Breda, who was married to the eldest daughter of A. G. Camper, the natural historian whose father was PL Camper. I hope that my shipment will meet your expectations, and I kindly request that you notify me of its receipt as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely, Dr. C. E. Daniels

Prof. Dr. B. Suphan

7.6 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Bernhard Suphan dated September 14, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 174 (No. 103); handwritten Daniels [Handwritten Suphan: Received 9/16 Berlin]

Amsterdam, Sept. 14, '94

Dear Professor!

I apologize for my mistake in addressing the manuscript to your personal address instead of to the archive.

I thought you had already returned on Sept. 2, but now I see from your letter that you had indicated the 20th as your date of return. I hope this has not caused you too much trouble. As for the deadline for returning the manuscript, you need not worry about that.

You may keep the manuscript for as long as you need it for the desired purpose, so that you also have the opportunity to acquaint Her Highness the Grand Duchess with its contents and, if Her Highness so desires, to show her the manuscript. Hoh. the Grand Duchess with the receipt and, if I. Kn. Hoh. so desires, to show him the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your information about Dr. Sfteiner], which has made the matter quite clear to me.

Yours sincerely, Dr. €. E. Daniels.

Prof. Dr. B. Suphan Weimar

7.7 Letter from Carel Eduard Daniels to Bernhard Suphan dated November 19, 1894

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 241-242 (No. 151, re No. 151); handwritten Daniels

[Handwritten Suphan: Received Berlin Nov. 22, 1894.] Amsterdam, Nov. 19, 94. — Dear Professor!

I would like to respond to your detailed letter, which I found very pleasant, with a brief reply, which I hope will suffice.

I am very pleased that my efforts have enabled me to provide the Grand Duchess, who is always warmly revered in your fatherland, with some pleasant moments. I am even more pleased that you have communicated the wishes of the noble lady so openly to me. I will soon make a decision regarding your communication.

As Director-Librarian of the library of the Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst, I bear sole responsibility for everything related to it. However, I must report on my activities in this capacity to the annual general meeting, which takes place in July.

In accordance with the Grand Duchess's request, I am now I will deposit the manuscript with the Goethe Archive and ask for approval at the next general meeting, fully convinced that all members, upon hearing the princely wish, will make my personal action their own, thereby offering a collective tribute to the highly esteemed and beloved Princess of Orange, to whom all Dutch people owe so much gratitude.

For historical and scientific reasons, the manuscript should certainly be preserved in the Goethe Archive; I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to promote this in this way and thereby to participate in the endeavors that are so close to the Grand Duchess's heart and so highly valued by all men of science.

With the utmost respect,
Yours sincerely, Dr. C. E. Daniels.

Comment: Goethe's magnificent manuscript “Versuch aus der vergleichenden Knochenlehre daß der Zwischenknochen der obern Kinnlade dem Menschen mit den übrigen Thieren gemein sey” (completed in 1784), sent to Camper, was deposited in the Goethe and Schiller Archive in 1894 as a result of this correspondence. In a letter dated September 27, 1932, the manuscript was temporarily reclaimed by the then librarian, Dr. B. W. Nuyens, from the aforementioned institution (Library of the Maatschapij T.B. T Geneeskunst) and sent on October 3, 1932. This library apparently did not respond to repeated requests from the GSA for the return of the manuscript (see all correspondence on this matter in GSA 150 / A 740, 350-359). It was not until a letter dated January 11, 1937 (GSA 150 / A 740, 350) that the manuscript returned to Weimar, this time as a gift to the GSA in memory of the fortieth anniversary of the death of the Dutch Princess Sophie of Saxe-Weimar, and was acknowledged on January 18, 1937. Today it has the signature GSA 26/ LVI1.

8. Handwritten undated report by Rudolf Steiner to the Goethe and Schiller Archive

Original: GSA 150 / A 640, 150 (No. 88b); handwritten Steiner report.

With regard to the letter addressed to me by Dr. C. E. H. Daniels dated August 7, 1894 [No. 7.3], I have the following to say.

I learned about the Amsterdam Goethe manuscripts from the "Catalogue des manuscrits de Pierre Camper et de lettres inédites écrites par lui ou à lui adress&es qui se trouvent dans la bibliotheque de la Societé Néerlandaise pour le progres de la Médecine à Amsterdam. [C. E. Daniels en H. C. Rogge; avec pref. de A. H. Israels]. Amsterdam Frederik Muller et Co. [1881] 18 pages in 8° At my request, Prof. Dr. Karl Julius Schröer in Vienna, who wrote the preface to the 33rd volume of Goethe's works published by me (in Kürschner's German National Literature [Volume 114 = GA 1a]), sent a request to the Amsterdam Library to use the manuscripts relating to Goethe's osteological works for the aforementioned volume. The library administration then sent Merck's letters to Camper, some of which refer to Goethe's osteological works, and a copy of the text of the treatise on the intermaxillary bone. Since [Johann Christian Wilhelm] Waitz's drawings were not considered further, I had to assume that the words “dix feuilles de dessins” were merely a reproduction of the title page of the manuscript and that the drawings belonging to the essay were no longer available.

Rudolf Steiner

Comment: Johann Heinrich Merck (1741-1791) was a Darmstadt publisher, editor, and naturalist, and an early and influential friend of Goethe. - See the letter of May 11, 1883, to Joseph Kürschner (GA 38, pp. 65-66) and the introduction to the first volume of the Kürschner edition, GA 1, pp. 50-51 and 58-61.

9. Rudolf Steiner: On the status of the work

9.1 Rudolf Steiner on March 17, 1896

Original: GSA 150 / A 549, 5; handwritten by Steiner

[On letterhead from: Goethe and Schiller Archive]

Weimar, March 17, 1896

I undertake to deliver the remaining manuscript for the register of the 12th volume of the 2nd section to the printer in two parts, namely

the first half by March 20 at the latest and the second half by March 24 at the latest.

The manuscript should be in such a condition that printing can be completed with the third proof.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner

9.2 Rudolf Steiner on March 18, 1896

Original: GSA 150 / A 549, 6; handwritten by Steiner

Complete first edition: Kurt Franz David: Rudolf Steiner's appointment to Weimar and his work in the Goethe and Schiller Archive. Das Goetheanum 1971, Volume 50, p. 137.

[On letterhead from: Goethe and Schiller Archive]

Weimar, March 18, 1896

Status of work on Volume XII of the 2nd section.

The register has been completed up to the 76th galley proof (Meteorische Steine). Of these, 75 galley proofs have been corrected and delivered to the printer.

The 76th will be delivered on Thursday, March 19.

The index has been collated up to Gemüth, i.e., up to the 18th sheet, which is available in V. Correctur and will be delivered with imprimatur on Thursday, March 19.

The slow progress of this volume is due to the truly laborious work on the index, which is not merely a name index but a complete subject index, and to the fact that the undersigned editor's ability to work has been impaired by continuous ill health during the last few months.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.