Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:04 am
Subject: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Hello dear A-T members,
I have just read Peter
Staudenmaier's introductory mail and want to comment on one
thing (which is why I just joined the list today). It concerns
an ERROR OF TRANSLATION in the infamous Steiner quote of 1888.
The error is also on the PLANS website: A negation is missing
in the first sentence! Here it is in German (the "nichts"
in red was omitted in the PLANS translation):
„Es ist gewiss nicht
zu leugnen, dass heute das Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes
Ganzes auftritt und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in einer Weise,
die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als solches
hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung innerhalb
des modernen Völkerlebens, und dass es sich dennoch erhalten
hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
In English, this is correctly translated as
follows:
“It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was nothing
less than favorable to Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such
has outlived itself and has no justification within the modern
life of nations. The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved
is a mistake of world history which could not fail to have consequences.”
(You can find the correct translation on page
53 of the pdf file at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf.)
Some more general comments:
The second sentence remains open to misinterpretation and problematic.
But the juxtaposition is important! Steiner's thinking is not
linear, but dialectic. He also makes the following unequivocal
statement in the same essay: “But the Jews need Europe and
Europe needs the Jews”, which doesn't exactly put him in
the ball park of the third Reich.
These passages were written by the 27 year old Steiner in a literary
magazine in a review of Hamerling's "Homunculus". Steiner
is supporting Hamerling against other critics. It is not always
clear where Steiner is defending ideas of Hamerling and where
they are his own. But it is quite clear that Steiner favored
assimilation and did not think much of the Zionist movement,
which he saw as coming about as a reaction to anti-Semitism.
It must, of course, always be remembered that this was all before
the advent of the Holocaust. No one can say how Steiner would
have viewed the situation had he lived until 1945 or 1948.
Still: Steiner's second sentence remains problematic. But it
must be seen in light of the first, i.e. that Jewry "has
often intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was nothing less than favorable to Western
cultural ideas." And it still does! If you look at cultural
development in West and East alike: much of it is inspired and
comes to life through the Jewish element!
As much as I am personally in favour of assimilation: let's not
overdo it. Cultural diversity is an asset that will and should
not get totally leveled out through assimilation. The importance
of individual impulses will certainly increase in future. But
other impulses (including the Jewish) will remain. It has already
survived for thousands of years, it is here to stay for some
time to come. That's great, because I love it!
Detlef Hardorp
[Original Message:]
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement
and disagreement
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:16:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Hello anthroposophy tomorrow list,
I've just joined your list today (....)
In closing, for now I would like to offer
several quotes from Steiner's published works on the topic, chosen
from the three phases I outlined above:
"It certainly cannot
be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality,
and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable
to European ideas of culture. But Jewry as such has long since
outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern
life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a
mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable.
We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above
all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking."
(Steiner in 1888: Gesammelte
Aufsätze zur Literatur 1884-1902 p. 152)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Hi Detlef,
by my reading, the phrase "nichts weniger als günstig"
means "anything but favorable". You seem to be saying
that "nichts weniger" means more or less the same thing
as "nicht weniger", but in fact the two phrases have
opposite meanings, as I'm sure you'll realize once you think
about it for a moment. If I say to you "Ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren", I am saying that the
last thing I want to do (not the first thing I want to do) is
to provoke you. Hence it seems to me that your translation, "nothing
less than favorable", gets Steiner's meaning exactly backwards.
What he actually says is that the last thing the Jewish influence
has been is favorable. I would be grateful if you could clarify
how you reached the contrary conclusion. Thanks,
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:56 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Thanks, Detlef, that changes the entire meaning
of the paragraph. The first translation makes the statement not
only dumb and unjust, but also incorrect. Although it may be
nit-picking, I would also have used "Judaism" instead
of "Jewry", the latter, to my ear at least, sounds
somehow perjorative.
Frank
Hello dear A-T members,
I have just read Peter Staudenmaier's introductory mail and want
to comment on one thing (which is why I just joined the list
today). It concerns an ERROR OF TRANSLATION in the infamous Steiner
quote of 1888. The error is also on the PLANS website: A negation
is missing in the first sentence! Here it is in German (the "nichts"
in red was omitted in the PLANS translation):
„Es ist gewiss nicht
zu leugnen, dass heute das Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes
Ganzes auftritt und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in einer Weise,
die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als solches
hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung innerhalb
des modernen Völkerlebens, und dass es sich dennoch erhalten
hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
In English, this is correctly translated
as follows:
“It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was nothing
less than favorable to Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such
has outlived itself and has no justification within the modern
life of nations. The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved
is a mistake of world history which could not fail to have consequences.”
(You can find the correct translation on
page 53 of the pdf file at http://www.waldorfschule.info/aktuell/anti.pdf.)
Some more general comments:
The second sentence remains open to misinterpretation and problematic.
But the juxtaposition is important! Steiner's thinking is not
linear, but dialectic. He also makes the following unequivocal
statement in the same essay: “But the Jews need Europe and
Europe needs the Jews”, which doesn't exactly put him in
the ball park of the third Reich.
These passages were written by the 27 year old Steiner in a literary
magazine in a review of Hamerling's "Homunculus". Steiner
is supporting Hamerling against other critics. It is not always
clear where Steiner is defending ideas of Hamerling and where
they are his own. But it is quite clear that Steiner favored
assimilation and did not think much of the Zionist movement,
which he saw as coming about as a reaction to anti-Semitism.
It must, of course, always be remembered that this was all before
the advent of the Holocaust. No one can say how Steiner would
have viewed the situation had he lived until 1945 or 1948.
Still: Steiner's second sentence remains problematic. But it
must be seen in light of the first, i.e. that Jewry "has
often intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was nothing less than favorable to Western
cultural ideas." And it still does! If you look at cultural
development in West and East alike: much of it is inspired and
comes to life through the Jewish element!
As much as I am personally in favour of assimilation: let's not
overdo it. Cultural diversity is an asset that will and should
not get totally leveled out through assimilation. The importance
of individual impulses will certainly increase in future. But
other impulses (including the Jewish) will remain. It has already
survived for thousands of years, it is here to stay for some
time to come. That's great, because I love it!
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Here he goes again. Let's take the phrase
word for word. "nichts" = nothing; "weniger"
= less; "als" = as; "günstig" = favorable.
ergo: "..nothing less than favorable
to western cultural ideas." The meaning of this is obvious
in both languages, or any other language. What Don Pedro interprets,
that it means "anything but favorable", would be in
German: "alles andere als günstig". That is, just
the opposite. Don Pedro's objection that Detlef is confusing
"nichts" with "nicht" is, imo at least, nonsense.
If nicht (not) had been used instead, it would mean: "not
less than favorable", the only difference being that "nichts"
(nothing) is stronger. Having put my foot in deep waters, I must
qualify this by admitting that I am not a German native speaker
and I should have deferred to Detlef, but I couldn't hold back,
so I hope I'm not wrong. If I'm not wrong, it is disappointing
that Don Pedro has not advanced one iota since his previous incarnation
as Don Quixote - substituting giants for windmills then, now
"anything" for "nothing less", positive for
negative, falsehood for truth.
Frank
„Es ist gewiss nicht
zu leugnen, dass heute das Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes
Ganzes auftritt und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in einer Weise,
die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig war. Das Judentum als solches
hat sich aber längst ausgelebt, hat keine Berechtigung innerhalb
des modernen Völkerlebens, und dass es sich dennoch erhalten
hat, ist ein Fehler der Weltgeschichte, dessen Folgen nicht ausbleiben
konnten.“
In English, this is correctly translated
as follows:
“It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was nothing
less than favorable to Western cultural ideas. But Jewry as such
has outlived itself and has no justification within the modern
life of nations. The fact that it nevertheless has been preserved
is a mistake of world history which could not fail to have consequences.”
Hi Detlef,
by my reading, the phrase "nichts weniger als günstig"
means "anything but favorable". You seem to be saying
that "nichts weniger" means more or less the same thing
as "nicht weniger", but in fact the two phrases have
opposite meanings, as I'm sure you'll realize once you think
about it for a moment. If I say to you "Ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren", I am saying that the
last thing I want to do (not the first thing I want to do) is
to provoke you. Hence it seems to me that your translation, "nothing
less than favorable", gets Steiner's meaning exactly backwards.
What he actually says is that the last thing the Jewish influence
has been is favorable. I would be grateful if you could clarify
how you reached the contrary conclusion. Thanks,
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Hi Frank,
assuming you have a German-English dictionary on hand, please
look up the word "weniger", and it should list the
phrase "nichts weniger", which means exactly what I
said it means. Taking a phrase word for word is an unwise approach
to translation, particularly when the phrase in question has
an established meaning. As it happens, you provided a very apt
comparison: "nichts weniger" means the same thing as
"alles andere". It does not mean "nicht weniger".
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Hello everybody,
returning to my computer tonight, I find that my message has
already elicited several responses. Quite an active list you've
got here!
Now to the point of contention: What does "nichts weniger"
mean? I did a Google search on the phrase "nichts weniger"
and came up with the following examples:
1. http://morgenpost.berlin1.de/archiv2003/031130/feuilleton/story644738.html
"Berliner Studenten
gehen für nichts weniger als Deutschlands Zukunft
auf die Straße." Also: sie
gehen für Deutschlands Zukunft auf die Straße, oder?
I would translate this as "Students
in Berlin take to the streets for nothing less than the
future of Germany." meaning that
they take to the streets for the future of Germany!
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the exact opposite
meaning?
The newspaper article, of which this is the title, ends thus:
"In den Köpfen
entsteht die Zukunft unseres Landes. Deutschlands Zukunft liegt
nicht in einem noch so perfektionierten Umverteilungsstaat, sondern
in einem Gemeinwesen, dessen Leitbild jene Menschen sind, die
aus eigener Kraft die Zukunft meistern."
The opposite meaning was not intended!
2. http://paxhumana.info/article.php3?id_article=154
"Präsident Bush
hat behauptet, es sei eine Gefahr für die ganze Welt, dass
Saddam Hussein Massenvernichtungswaffen besitzt, d.h. dieser
würde die USA (und nebenbei die ganze Welt) mit seinen nuklearen,
bakteriologischen, chemischen Waffen und… seiner terroristischen
Gewalt bedrohen.
In Wirklichkeit bedeutet Bush
damit nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, jedes Land
anzugreifen, dass sie möglicherweise in den nächsten
fünf oder gar fünfzig Jahren bedrohen könnte.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, diese Gefahr zu
ermessen und darauf zu reagieren, wie es ihnen beliebt.
Nichts weniger, als das Recht der USA, diese Entscheidung
alleine und eigenmächtig zu treffen.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, Krieg zu führen,
gegen irgendwen, irgendwann und aus jedem beliebigen (trügerischen)
Grund.
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, das Recht des
Stärkeren auf der Welt durchzusetzen, d.h. IHR Recht !
Nichts weniger als das Recht der USA, alle jene als
vogelfrei zu erklären, die nicht ganz einig sind mit Bush
dem Propheten und dessen Göttlichem Gesetz ! "
Translation:
"President Bush has claimed that it is a danger for the
whole world that Saddam H. possesses weapons of mass destruction
... .
In reality Bush means with this nothing less than the
right of the USA to attack every country that might possibly
threaten them in the next five or even fifty years.
Nothing less than than the right of the USA to take these
decisions alone etc. etc."
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the exact opposite
meaning?
As it so happens, this bit can be clicked on in English as well
as French. Unfortunately, when you click the Union Jack, this
bit appears in French. So here is the French version:
"Le président
Bush a affirmé que l'Irak était un danger pour
le monde entier, que Saddam Hussein possédait des armes
de destruction massive, c'est-à-dire qu'il menaçait
les USA (et accessoirement le monde) par son armement nucléaire,
bactériologique, chimique et... sa puissance de frappe
terroriste.
En réalité, ce que Bush affirme n'est rien moins
que le droit des Etats-Unis à attaquer n'importe quel
pays susceptible de les menacer dans cinq ans, voire cinquante
ans...
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à évaluer
ce risque et à y répondre comme bon leur semble,
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à prendre
seul cette décision, en leur nom propre.
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à partir
en guerre contre quiconque à n'importe quel moment et
pour n'importe quel motif (fallacieux)
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à imposer
à la planète la loi du plus fort, c'est-à-dire,
LEUR Loi !
rien moins que le droit des Etats-Unis à déclarer
Hors La Loi, tous ceux qui ne sont pas absolument d'accord avec
Bush le prophète et Sa Divine Loi ! "
rien moins que
also means nothing less than!
3. http://www.dieterwunderlich.de/Bernhard_holzfallen.htm
From "Thomas Bernhard: Holzfällen. Eine Erregung":
"... aber ich hielt
mir doch jetzt vor, der Auersberger einen Kuss auf die Stirn
gegeben zu haben, nach zwanzig Jahren, vielleicht sogar nach
zwei- oder dreiundzwanzig Jahren, in welchen ich sie nichts
weniger als gehasst habe, mit dem gleichen Hass, mit dem
ich in diesen Jahren auch ihren Mann gehasst habe ..."
I'll skip the beginning and get right to the core: "...... in which I nothing less
than hated her, with the same hate, with which I also hated her
husband in all these years ..."
"with the same hate": thus he or she hates both! It
is clear from the context that he or she does hate her. If you
purge "nichts weniger als", it does not take
on the opposite meaning! "in welchen ich sie gehasst habe"
is made stronger by adding "in welchen ich sie nichts
weniger als gehasst habe".
Do you propose a better translation, PS? One with the exact opposite
meaning?
Now back to Steiner: "...
in einer Weise, die den abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig war".
Translation: "in
a way that was nothing less than favorable to Western
cultural ideas."
Again, if you purge "nichts weniger als", you retain
the meaning, but weaken the statement a bit: "... in einer
Weise, die den abendländischen Kulturideen günstig
war".
A further indication for this is the word "but" in
the sentence which follows: "But Jewry as such has
outlived itself ..." This is a juxtaposition! If you read
the first sentence with the opposite meaning of what is meant,
the "but" makes no sense!
In other words: Although Jewry has had a very favourable influence
on Western culture, it has outlived itself as a self-contained
entity.
That is clearly the meaning of these two sentences, as I'm sure
you'll realize once you think about it with an open mind.
Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Good evening Detlef,
I think you are avoiding a very simple question. Why don't you
tell all the English speakers on this list what the sentence
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"
means? If you truly disagree that the phrase "nichts weniger"
means the same thing as "alles andere" in this context,
I urge you to come right out and say so.
"Do you propose a better translation,
PS?"
Yes, I certainly do. I propose the following translation:
"It certainly cannot
be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality,
and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable
to European ideas of culture."
May I suggest you consult another German anthroposophist
about this matter? I recommend you contact Ralf Sonnenberg and
ask his opinion. If he concurs with you that the phrase actually
means "favorable" rather than "unfavorable"
in this instance, then I will amend my translation in the future.
I very much look forward to hearing from you on this.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:01 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Peter
In Danish we would say that you have been taken with your hands
in the cookie box, because your explanation is without hold in
reality. It's pure manipulation.
We have the same saying as 'nichts weniger' in Dänish, and
it's an underlining of the following statement. And it is the
same origin as the German form. So 'nichts weniger als günstig'
means 'günstig!'. A simple one 'nichts weniger als fünfzig
dollar' means 'fifty dollar!'.
You are running from your responsibility, when you are hiding
behind 'that others should prove your translation to be wrong'.
It's your responsibility to secure that your translation is right,
and when enough people are telling you that it is wrong, you
should change it or prove by authority that your translation
is right. But of course, it would undermine your case, if you
had to change your translation so it reflected the truth.
Kim
Good evening Detlef,
I think you are avoiding a very simple question. Why don't you
tell all the English speakers on this list what the sentence
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"
means? If you truly disagree that the phrase "nichts weniger"
means the same thing as "alles andere" in this context,
I urge you to come right out and say so.
"Do you propose a better translation,
PS?"
Yes, I certainly do. I propose the following
translation:
"It certainly cannot
be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality,
and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable
to European ideas of culture."
May I suggest you consult another German
anthroposophist about this matter? I recommend you contact Ralf
Sonnenberg and ask his opinion. If he concurs with you that the
phrase actually means "favorable" rather than "unfavorable"
in this instance, then I will amend my translation in the future.
I very much look forward to hearing from you on this.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Kim and Dag,
thanks for your posts. I think that my translation is correct,
and that you are both mistaken. I think you will recognize your
mistake if you do two simple things: 1. Check a dictionary. 2.
Consult an anthroposophist with the necessary fluency who is
familiar with the text in question. To move this discussion forward,
here are a couple observations on each of those two points:
1. The 2000 Collins German-English dictionary says on p. 928
that the phrase "nichts weniger" means "the last
thing". They offer essentially the same example that I did,
namely the sentence "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als
ihn beleidigen", which they translate as "the last
thing I'd want to do is insult him". I suspect you will
find similar examples in other dictionaries.
2. There are a number of anthroposophists out there who know
this text well and who have translated the very same passage
themselves. Tarjei just gave us one example, where the sentence
in question is rendered thus:
"It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a selfcontained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was anything but favourable to Western
cultural ideas."
I take it you both somehow missed that entirely?
Be that as it may, I still think the most sensible thing to do
would be to simply contact the most knowledgeable anthroposophist
historian on this topic, Ralf Sonnenberg, who has published extensively
on Steiner's attitudes toward Jews and who has discussed this
very passage at length in several articles. Sonnenberg's reading
agrees with mine, not with yours. (More on that in a moment,
when I reply to Detlef, who seems to have lost Sonnenberg's phone
number...)
I respectfully request that your reconsider your stance on this
question.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:30 am
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Hey . . . I don't read German – and I
am biased, obviously (and no doubt Pompous and Confused like
Peter) <G> – not to mention "unwashed" -
But FWIW I enjoyed typing these phrases into
various machine translators available on the web and found them
interestingly split almost evenly between Detlef's favored translation
of the phrase, and Peter's.
Pure, confused essence of Steiner. Centuries
can pass while his followers debate and defend this junk. This
ambivalence and confusion, negatives and then double-negatives
and then maybe triple-negatives, in this passage is what is fascinating
– the "buts," "howevers," and "stills".
. . The way I read the passage it matters little (it doesn't
matter much; it perhaps matters not at all; its importance is
less than nothing, or is not nothing, so is it . . . something?)
whether Steiner said the Jews' contributions were favorable a
little, a lot, or not at all. The machine translations are funny
(I've still got them and can post them if anyone's interested)
– some of them literally stuck the "anything"
or "nothing" onto the end of the sentence after a dash,
as if to say - What is this doing here?
(I thought the word "eingegriffen"
was more interesting – all the machine translations gave
either "interfere" or "intervene" for this
word; certainly not a positive term for – whatever it is
Steiner thinks the Jews have done in relation to Western culture
– a more positive term might be "contribution."
An interference certainly sounds like something that shouldn't
have happened, so it would surprise me for the author to then
speak positively of the events.) The notion of Judaism as a "closed
totality" and then a reference to their "interfering"
in Western cultural life would not seem likely to me to be evaluated
as a "favorable" situation. Whether for good or ill
Steiner is talking about Jews as outsiders, coming in where they
never quite belonged . . . how sad that we are struggling over
whether Steiner thought good or ill of this. How sad that Judaism
is seen as either contributing or interfering, and that
whether they had a right to do so is even a question Steiner
felt the world needed his opinion on.
Judaism is Western culture as much
as Christianity is – Jews didn't "intervene"!!
I can see how you could read the "but"
in the next sentence as meaning Steiner had just said something
positive about Judaism . . . but if it was meant positively,
it is torn down in the next sentence. Steiner did say positive
things about Jewish culture, of course – at least from a
certain point of view, which arguably was already biased, and
always has an unmistakable air of faint praise about it. Nice
of them to make a contribution . . . if it was one . . . but
please, move along now . . . (he belittles Judaism elsewhere
as a "folk culture").
It's ridiculous to debate whether Steiner
first tosses the Jews a bone by calling anything about Judaism
"favorable" or not! It's the insistence that we have
had enough of them now, they may please disappear, that was clearly
Steiner's point! From a certain POV it's almost worse
if he first tosses this bone you are all in such a disgusting
frenzy to confirm. YUCK!
Going to wash,
Diana (come to think of it, I do feel like
taking a shower)
P.S. Detlef - I am curious how you determined
that the "nichts" had been left out? Can you recreate
for us the process by which you uncovered this grievous typographical
error?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Diana
You wrote:
Hey . . . I don't read German – and
I am biased, obviously (and no doubt Pompous and Confused like
Peter) <G> – not to mention "unwashed" -
But FWIW I enjoyed typing these phrases
into various machine translators available on the web and found
them interestingly split almost evenly between Detlef's favored
translation of the phrase, and Peter's.
If you knew german or something about languages
at all you could see which translators where of high or low quality.
You should try some German translaters with syntactical descriptions
in stead.
You say
It's ridiculous to debate whether Steiner
first tosses the Jews a bone by calling anything about Judaism
"favorable" or not! It's the insistence that we have
had enough of them now, they may please disappear, that was clearly
Steiner's point! From a certain POV it's almost worse
if he first tosses this bone you are all in such a disgusting
frenzy to confirm. YUCK!
What is interesting here is not that Peter
Staudenmaier has translated it as he has, what is interesting
is that he, against better knowledge, defends his 'failed' translation.
I thought he was intelligent, and then he has done such a blatant
stupidity as this. Every other attack he is smart enough to evade
by not answering the question, but here he is caught lying about
something which is a fact.
And if he can lie about one thing, then he can lie about other
things also.
Going to wash,
Kim
(Well I think Peter needs a wash)
You wrote:
Going to wash,
Diana (come to think of it, I do feel like
taking a shower)
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
It's ridiculous to debate whether Steiner
first tosses the Jews a bone by calling anything about Judaism
"favorable" or not! It's the insistence that we have
had enough of them now, they may please disappear, that was clearly
Steiner's point! From a certain POV it's almost worse
if he first tosses this bone you are all in such a disgusting
frenzy to confirm. YUCK!
Hi Diana,
Woman to woman...
I tend toward thinking in constant references
apart from what is on the table, and all this crap going on trying
to make Seiner in an nti-Semite is, for some reason, bringing
to mind the anti-jewish comments that flew out of the mouth of
the, without question, most fascinating woman of the last century,
the Viennese Austrian aristocrat, Alma Schindler Mahler Gropius
Werfel (the "widow of the four arts").
To her dying day she went around making anti-jewish
remarks. When, on the rare occasion she was called on this habit,
she would retort that she was allowed to say anything she wanted
to about the jews, after all she had married two of them!
So perhaps the old adage might be thrown into
all this exhausting dialoging that "Actions speak louder
than words".
As a pubic inner-city school teacher I shudder
to think what would happen to students, or infact, any of us,
if held accountable for what is said with the same weight as
what is done.
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Paulina wrote:
To her dying day she went around making
anti-jewish remarks. When, on the rare occasion she was called
on this habit, she would retort that she was allowed to say anything
she wanted to about the jews, after all she had married two of
them!
Paulina, do you think that she was not anti-Semitic
because she married two Jewish men?
(If she married just one Jewish man,
could she still be anti-Semitic?) :)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
(If she married just one Jewish
man, could she still be anti-Semitic?) :)
Diana
So the bartender asks the depressed and obviously
drunk woman, "So wasn't one enough?"
"No, I wanted get even with the first
one"
Bartender: "Welcome to Miami, have another?"
"Have another what?"
"Have another husband while you here,
theres plenty more where that came from."
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:45 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
Paulina wrote:
To her dying day she went around making
anti-jewish remarks. When, on the rare occasion she was called
on this habit, she would retort that she was allowed to say anything
she wanted to about the jews, after all she had married two of
them!
Paulina, do you think that she was not
anti-Semitic because she married two Jewish men?
(If she married just one Jewish
man, could she still be anti-Semitic?) :)
Diana
Diana, I was just quoting her.:-)
Her reply seems to always have been that since she had married
two of them she could say what she wanted. But, yes, I do think
that she was not anti-Semitic, inspite of her anti-jewish remarks.
She had two children with Gustav Mahler and was very devoted
to him, inspite of being unhappy about having to give up her
own musical aspirations. And just look at what she had to endure
as a result of being married to Franz Werfelat a time when the
Nazis came to power. She had everything going for her in Vienna
and yet she willing fled with him and endured horrendous difficulties
as they made their way from one country to another until they
were trapped in Marseille and could go no further. If not for
Varian Frye and the Emergency Rescue Committee Franz Werfel would
never have made it out of Europe. So. yes, I am inclinded to
conclude that Alma S.M.G.W., in spite of all her life making
anti-Semitic remarks was not anti-Semitic, just eccentric and
a product of her historical time and place. There was then no
such thing as political correctness in the 1930-40s.
I think that the point I was trying to make
is that what one says does not always convey their inner nor
outer reality. I brought up Alma S.M.G.W. because she was most
exactly from the same time and place as Steiner and it is not
possible to sit here in 2004 and imagine that we can draw easy
conclusions about Austrian society at that time nor the position
of the jews in that society.
What bothers me most about all the WC hype
on this issue of Steiner's so called anti-Semitism is that the
talk goes on from everyone but jews themselves. Peter would like
to have you believe that only in Steiner's time were there jews
around Steiner's inner circle, but certainly today no jew would
be associated with anthroposophy. He said something similar to
this in the last couple of months (around about the time he made
false claim that Guenon was critical of Steiner, which is also
not true in any of Guenon's books translated into English.)
Yet my own personal experience is otherwise.
My closest anthopop friends are jewish. One, a second generation
jewish anthropop, got out of Holland on the last boat as the
Germans came in and all the children but one today are active
society members. Another friend was born in Paris and her family
had to go into hiding in Marseille before her family managed
to get out via the 'Hell Boat' She married a jewish man, and
he too is an active society member.
I think it rather impossible to go to any
society meeting, espically in the East without finding someone
who is jewish standing next to you. These friends find it totally
ridiculous when they here about the anti-Semitic claims against
Steiner being made and are confused how anyone who reads Steiner
cannot understand that when talking about the first root races
we aren't even talking about anything physical material.
Where is the jewish Rabbi who will speak up
for Peter's claims? Where are the jewish anti-defamation sites
that name Steiner among those held responsible for what Peter
claims? Where in the files of the Nuremberg Trials is there one
single solitary statement by any of the defendants or one individual
who testified who sited anything having to do with Steiner?
For reasons I will not go into here circumstances
led me several years ago to a personal karmic encounter with
hassidic Rabbi Yonassom Gershom. He is a well known lecturer
and author of two books on reincarnated Holocaust victims, FROM
ASHES TO HEALING, BEYOND THE ASHES. Rabbi Gershom has visted
Dornach, shared the podium at the Goetheanum with members of
the Vorstand, and has addressed anthropop audiences in Berlin
and elsewhere. He had an issue about Steiner, but it had to do
with one specific issue of translation, which was solved when
he managed to get the original German document. Rabbi Gershom
is a very devout jew, so he does not study Steiner, but, he has
no ax to grind having to do with anti- Semitism that I know about
and I know no one who takes the matter of the Holocaust more
seriously than does Rabbi Gershom.
I keep asking myself why it is if so many
jews are anthopops who, like my Dutch and French women friends
lost family to the Holocaust, and holy men such as most wonderful
Rabbi Gershom do not have a quarrel with Steiner on issues of
anti-Semitism, why would intelligent and well educated individuals
such a Peter Staudenmaier? Then I recall what a lawyer always
says..."Look to whom it profits". There is always an
agenda. I believe that Mr. Staudemaier's is political. He answered
honestly when he said to Bradford that he is an opponent of moral
relativism. This is quite true, in fact, he would be in opposition
to moral relativism, given that he subscribes to an atheist philosophy
that focuses on value-based economics. There is a distinctive
moral vision involved with the movement he promotes based on
a specific philosophical concept arising out of a historical
conception of human nature/human need. The anti-Semitism focus
is the foil. It is not the real issue, imo.
At any rate, Diana, I do not know what Alma
S.M.G.W. really felt about the jews, I only know from the several
books I read on her fascinating life that she was quite prone
to make such remarks, but, I hardly think she coud have been
married and shown such devotion to her husbands if she really
had been anti-Semitic. Do you? :-)
Kindest regards,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
What bothers me most about all the WC hype
on this issue of Steiner's so called anti-Semitism is that the
talk goes on from everyone but jews themselves. Peter would like
to have you believe that only in Steiner's time were there jews
around Steiner's inner circle, but certainly today no jew would
be associated with anthroposophy. He said something similar to
this in the last couple of months
No, that is the very opposite of my position. Lots and lots of
Jews today are drawn to anthroposophy. In my first post to this
list I wrote: "I agree that many Jews, both in Steiner's
era and today, have found Steiner's teachings appealing and valuable."
In fact it seems highly likely to me that there are more Jewish
anthroposophists today than there were in Steiner's time.
(around about the time he made false claim that Guenon was
critical of Steiner, which is also not true in any of Guenon's
books translated into English.)
I didn't say that Guenon was critical of Steiner, I said that
Guenon and Steiner took opposite trajectories vis a vis Theosophy:
Guenon went from being a supporter of Theosophy to being a harsh
critic, and Steiner went from being a harsh critic of Theosophy
to being a supporter (and then back again later on). The post
in question is here:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1712021791
Where is the jewish Rabbi who will speak up
for Peter's claims?
Why are a couple of you obsessed with rabbis? The one rabbi I
know of who has read my work on anthroposophy mostly agrees with
its assessments of Steiner's views on Jews (but she's a friend
of mine so it probably doesn't count). What would that have to
do with the substance of my argument one way or the other?
Where are the jewish anti-defamation sites that name Steiner
among those held responsible for what Peter claims?
What is it that you think I claim?
Where in
the files of the Nuremberg Trials is there one single solitary
statement by any of the defendants or one individual who testified
who sited anything having to do with Steiner?
Otto Ohlendorf, though he doesn't count as an anthroposophist
in my view.
I keep asking myself why it is if so many
jews are anthopops who, like my Dutch and French women friends
lost family to the Holocaust, and holy men such as most wonderful
Rabbi Gershom do not have a quarrel with Steiner on issues of
anti-Semitism, why would intelligent and well educated individuals
such a Peter Staudenmaier?
Why is that
puzzling to you? People disagree about historical matters all
the time. Also, what does this have to do with the holocaust?
While people like Ohlendorf and Pohl, who had some admiration
for Steiner, did play major roles in the holocaust, as far as
I know their views on Steiner had nothing to do with their crimes
against humanity. I do not know of any anthroposophists who actively
took part in the genocide of European Jewry. Steiner's own views
on Jews were very different from those of the architects of the
holocaust.
There is a distinctive moral vision involved with the movement
he promotes based on a specific philosophical concept arising
out of a historical conception of human nature/human need.
That sounds plausible enough, but what movement do you think
I promote? Do you mean social ecology?
The anti-Semitism focus is the foil. It is not the real issue,
imo.
Apparently it is not the real issue for many of you on this list.
But it is why I came to the list, and I would still be very interested
in discussing it with you.
Peter Staudenmaier
See ref in the thread "For Peter"
See 2nd ref in the thread "For Peter"
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
[snip]
(around about the time he made false claim
that Guenon was critical of Steiner, which is also not true in
any of Guenon's books translated into English.)
I didn't say that Guenon was critical of
Steiner, I said that Guenon and Steiner took opposite trajectories
vis a vis Theosophy: Guenon went from being a supporter of Theosophy
to being a harsh critic, and Steiner went from being a harsh
critic of Theosophy to being a supporter (and then back again
later on). The post in question is here:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1712021791
Good day to you, Peter,
Thank you for the WC ref., however it is the
wrong one.
What I was referring to is what you said in
a Dec 03 post:
Quoting you exactly:
"Because they had only
a partial view of it. Did your friends involved in spiritual
practice try to meditate some contents of A.? Anyway it does
not come as a surprise to me, since RS was criticized by other
esoteric currents, see Guenon, Evola, etc."
PKL:
Where is the jewish Rabbi who will speak
up for Peter's claims?
PS:
Why are a couple of you obsessed with rabbis?
The one rabbi I know of who has read my work on anthroposophy
mostly agrees with its assessments of Steiner's views on Jews
(but she's a friend of mine so it probably doesn't count). What
would that have to do with the substance of my argument one way
or the other?
Humm, I would not say I am obsessed with rabbis,
Peter. I just happen admire and respect most rabbis, and also
believe that the Kaballah is the greatest esoteric mystery wisdom
that has ever existed. (If this sound in conflict to my total
committment to the Christologies, I can't help you other than
to say that I have a personal believe that Steiner was deeply
aware of Kaballahm, had an appointed mission to correct the long
term error of christendom of a second physical coming of the
Christ and used a new vocabulary to reveal much of what has long
been known through Kaballah, especially Luranic Kaballah.
I'm personally studying the work of Leonora
Leet, but, she is so over my head it is very slow going; she
is brilliant, I am not. As for Rabbi Gershom, as can be inferred
from my post, I consider him to be a very special soul.
I also, as do most jewish rabbis hold to the belief that if jews
vanished from the world, the world would cease to exist.
PKL:
Where are the jewish anti-defamation sites
that name Steiner among those held responsible for what Peter
claims?
PS:
What is it that you think I claim?
Peter, I will let your record speak for itself.
:-)
PKL:
Where in the files of the Nuremberg Trials
is there one single solitary statement by any of the defendants
or one individual who testified who sited anything having to
do with Steiner?
PS:
Otto Ohlendorf, though he doesn't count
as an anthroposophist in my view.
Peter, former SD Chief Ohlendorf took the
stand on Jan 3, 1946, giving detailed descriptions about how
orders for mass murder were given and executed, and how he was
given command of an action group to exterminate 90,000 Jews.
His testimony was directed toward Himmler on behalf of the Furhrer.
Said testimony was halted for lunch, at which time some of the
defendants in Spandau discussed the morning testimony at their
mid-day meal (off the record, but, recorded by their doctor,
G.M. Gilbert).
-Goering dismissed Ohlendorf as having been one more who has
sold his soul to the enemy.
-Funk defened Ohlendorf.
-Frank expressed admiration for him as an honest man who spoke
the truth,
-Fritzsche was too depressed toeither speak or eat,
-Frick remarked how nice it would be to go sking.
After lunch Ohlendorf was crossed-examined
and Speer asked via his attorney if Ohlendorf knew that he, Speer,
has attempted to assassinate Hitler, and wanted to deliver Himmler
to the enemy which was very similar to dropping a bomb in the
court room. After Ohlendorf, the testimony of a Gestapo agent,
Wisliceny was heard. So, Peter, help me out about what Ohlendorf
said that stands in the record from the Nuremberg Trials about
Steiner.
I would greatly appreciate it.
PKL:
I keep asking myself why it is if so many
jews are anthopops who, like my Dutch and French women friends
lost family to the Holocaust, and holy men such as most wonderful
Rabbi Gershom do not have a quarrel with Steiner on issues of
anti-Semitism, why would intelligent and well educated individuals
such a Peter Staudenmaier?
PS:
Why is that puzzling to you? People disagree
about historical matters all the time.
It is important to come to understand what
is being said and why and what stands behind matters, because
Truth matters, and carries the world forward.
PS:
Also, what does this have to do with the
holocaust?
Excuse me?
Did I hear you correctly?
PS:
While people like Ohlendorf and Pohl, who
had some admiration for Steiner, did play major roles in the
holocaust, as far as I know their views on Steiner had nothing
to do with their crimes against humanity. I do not know of any
anthroposophists who actively took part in the genocide of European
Jewry. Steiner's own views on Jews were very different from those
of the architects of the holocaust.
Peter, I asked what stands in the record at
the Nuremberg Trials.
I have no problem believing there were Germans
who were both anthroposophists and also supported Hitler or that
this would also have been the case in all the countries the Germans
occupied, as well as in England and America. Studying Anthroposphy
does not make one immune to ideologies. There is no magic ritual
that transforms one to a perfected state of being. People are
people. I have a much harder time understanding what happened
in France and how it can to be in that country of safe haven
through history to have been willing to turn over, not only the
refugee, but, its own people. :-(
PKL:
There is a distinctive moral vision involved
with the movement he promotes based on a specific philosophical
concept arising out of a historical conception of human nature/human
need.
PS:
That sounds plausible enough, but what
movement do you think I promote? Do you mean social ecology?
You know well what I mean, Peter. :-)
I am speaking about deep-ecology and the Lenin-marxists ideology
that stands behind the benevolent face of all the activities
being promoted to the dumbed-down masses in the name of human
rights, co-ops, fair housing, etc. The agenda is the same as
it always was, overthrow of governments to make way for a system
where there is no private ownership. (Never mind that it never
works)
I said:
The anti-Semitism focus is the foil. It
is not the real issue, imo. And, I
mean the issue of racism and anti-Semitic is the foil.
PS:
Apparently it is not the real issue for
many of you on this list. But it is why I came to the list, and
I would still be very interested in discussing it with you.
I told Tarjei some time back that Peter S.
will never come onto AT unless there is an agenda for coming
on. The deep-ecologists infiltrate everything, everywhere. Who
knows, maybe there is a change to hook a few discontented mindless
twits here who don't get what is going on. But, not me. I'm a
capitolist even though poor, anti the feminist movement even
though a woman, conservative even though once a flaming liberal,
a serial monogamist, and work hard to see all side of an issue,
which is why I am willing to upsett some of my fellow anthropops
by saying that there are big time problems in some Waldorf schools
with some teachers, and that the worst of it is non-disclosure.
I somehow think that Steiner must weep about what has happened
to the Waldorf movement.
Please send me the references to back up your
claim on Ohlendorf. I would very much appreciate it, and thank
you.
Kind regards,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
Thank you for the WC ref., however it is
the wrong one.
What I was referring to is what you said
in a Dec 03 post:
Quoting you exactly:
"Because they had
only a partial view of it. Did your friends involved in spiritual
practice try to meditate some contents of A.? Anyway it does
not come as a surprise to me, since RS was criticized by other
esoteric currents, see Guenon, Evola, etc."
That isn't quoting me exactly, inexactly,
or any other way. That quote is not from me. It is from someone
named "Percedol", whose native language is Italian
(you'll note the somewhat halting English in the above passage).
"Percedol" and I disagree on virtually every topic
that two people could ever disagree about. He and I have debated
back and forth about Scaligero, Evola, Guenon, and so on for
quite a while on the waldorf critics list.
Did I hear you correctly?
Yes, you did. What does this have to do with the holocaust? Do
you believe that every person who held antisemitic views was
in some way implicated in the holocaust?
I am speaking about deep-ecology and the
Lenin-marxists ideology
You think I'm a deep ecologist?!?! That's better than getting
me mixed up with Percedol! Next to Murray Bookchin, I am perhaps
the harshest critic of deep ecology anywhere. How on earth did
you manage to conclude that I am a deep ecologist, of all things?
Have you seen any of my writings on deep ecology? (By the way,
I loathe marxism-leninism. I'm an anarchist.)
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:29 pm
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
That isn't quoting me exactly, inexactly,
or any other way. That quote is not from me. It is from someone
named "Percedol", whose native language is Italian
(you'll note the somewhat halting English in the above passage).
"Percedol" and I disagree on virtually every topic
that two people could ever disagree about. He and I have debated
back and forth about Scaligero, Evola, Guenon, and so on for
quite a while on the waldorf critics list.
Thanks, Peter. I'll look that up again. If
I have misquoted you I stand corrected and apologize. At any
rate, it important, I think to clarify that Guenon's criticism
was directed toward Theosophy, not Steiner, at least in the books
that have been published in English.
Did I hear you correctly?
Yes, you did. What does this have to do
with the holocaust? Do you believe that every person who held
antisemitic views was in some way implicated in the holocaust?
I do believe strongly that anti-Semtism is
what made the Holocaust possible, Btw, why do you not capitolize
that word, Peter? Do you not think it a small gesture toward
the 6,000,000 who died, or do you subscribe to the idea that
the Holocaust is a fabrication?
I am speaking about deep-ecology and the
Lenin-marxists ideology
You think I'm a deep ecologist?!?!
I think that you are a slippery word-eel,
Peter. :-)
So, you don't go deep, eh? You are only a
social ecologist?
OK.
Here comes more word games, folks, but, whatever...
Did you, Peter, not write the following excerpt:
"Instead of remuneration
for effort, social ecologists propose libertarian communism as
the eventual goal of a free society." Albert rejects this
approach to distributing social wealth as unfeasible, but I think
this dismissal is too hasty. Like all economic systems, communism
recognizes that total consumption is limited by total production,
but it does not assume the predominance of private material interest
or of generalized scarcity; it sees these phenomena as a legacy
of capitalism and hierarchical society. Social ecology foresees
the potential for all community members to articulate their own
needs and desires in a responsible fashion, shaped by their experience
of participatory self-management, as part of a social process
guided by reason and an ethos of mutual aid and interdependence."
And I espically love this snip...
"In a communist society,
the incentive to work would be exactly what it is today, in those
few situations where coercion is not omnipresent -- the desire
to create useful things and live comfortably with one's neighbors.
As long as we are envisioning a fully developed free society
which realizes the finest aspirations of our history of struggles
for human fulfillment and against privation and oppression, it
would be imprudent to abandon the ideal of libertarian communism
as part of a possible future."
Communism is communism, no matter how you
try and dress it up, and if you "hate" the lenin or
marxist verison then it's only because you think you have a better
version to offer the world, right?
Kind regards,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
I do believe strongly that anti-Semtism is what made the Holocaust
possible
Yes, of course, but assimilationist antisemites obviously did
not endorse the physical annihilation of Jews. Nazi antisemitism
was in this respect an important departure from many earlier
strands of antisemitism.
Btw, why do you not capitolize that word, Peter?
Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I think that the insistence
that it must be capitalized tends to move the event into the
realm of the quasi-theological, which is not where I think it
belongs. There is a fine meditation on the obligations that an
event like the holocaust places upon historians in Yehuda Bauer's
book Rethinking the Holocaust.
So, you don't go deep, eh? You are only a social ecologist?
Yes. The often extremely bitter feud between social ecologists
and deep ecologists has been going on for nearly twenty years.
There are entire shelves of books about this dispute. Getting
deep ecologists mixed up with social ecologists is very much
like getting leninists mixed up with anarchists (well, except
that leninists kill anarchists, and as far as I know no deep
ecologist has designs on my life, at least not yet).
Did you, Peter, not write the following
excerpt:
Yup, I sure did. It's from a debate with Michael Albert, the
chief theoretician of Participatory Economics. I am indeed a
proponent of the tradition of libertarian communism (note the
small "c"), which is radically opposed to leninism.
I recommend consulting Lenin's pamphlet "Left-Wing Communism:
An Infantile Disorder". It's about people like me.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:01 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Peter
You continue? I thought you where more intelligent than this.
It's not a sociological thesis where everything is possible,
it's a simple sentence, where simple rules apply.
By defending your erroneous translation, against better knowledge,
you are destroying your credibility.
I have, of course, checked some german libraries, and they confirmed
my view. Furthermore I have checked Steiners texts, and he is
using the frase consistently.
I see no reason to see what other non german amateur translaters,
or translaters with a ideological twist, has translated it to,
because it is a simple and clear sentence.
Kim
NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger als = mindestens = not less than
and there is no comma between 'weniger' and 'als'.
I think you will recognize your mistake
if you do two simple things: 1. Check a dictionary. 2. Consult
an anthroposophist with the necessary fluency who is familiar
with the text in question. To move this discussion forward, here
are a couple observations on each of those two points:
1. The 2000 Collins German-English dictionary says on p. 928
that the phrase "nichts weniger" means "the last
thing". They offer essentially the same example that I did,
namely the sentence "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als
ihn beleidigen", which they translate as "the last
thing I'd want to do is insult him". I suspect you will
find similar examples in other dictionaries.
2. There are a number of anthroposophists out there who know
this text well and who have translated the very same passage
themselves. Tarjei just gave us one example, where the sentence
in question is rendered thus:
"It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a selfcontained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was anything but favourable to Western
cultural ideas."
I take it you both somehow missed that
entirely? Be that as it may, I still think the most sensible
thing to do would be to simply contact the most knowledgeable
anthroposophist historian on this topic, Ralf Sonnenberg, who
has published extensively on Steiner's attitudes toward Jews
and who has discussed this very passage at length in several
articles. Sonnenberg's reading agrees with mine, not with yours.
(More on that in a moment, when I reply to Detlef, who seems
to have lost Sonnenberg's phone number...)
I respectfully request that your reconsider your stance on this
question.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:17 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Kim wrote:
Hello Peter
You continue? I thought you where more intelligent than this.
Hi Kim,
It boggles the mind doesn't it? The only thing
I can think of is the idea that it is the ideologues of the political
left and right that continue to debate in this manner. I can
find no other reason as it is apparent he is an intelligent man
and probably a pretty nice man as well.
Just as he is stuck in the rut of his own
personal makeup it is that which will not allow him to see outside
the box of a thing. Most of us have the same problem but we recognize
it, those of us who do the work, and look to free ourselves from
our habitual social thinking that has raised us, or have had
it drilled inside by others. His mind is set and no matter what
comes down there will be no changing or growing it or at least
that his how it looks like from the way he debates a thing. It's
like being a slave to ones own mind that already has all the
answers.
I think if Peter read the POF book and contemplated
what it means to be free within ones own thoughts he might understand
what is happening here on this list and what others see in his
explanations of a thing. But maybe the idea of contemplating
a Steiner book on a level of seriousness does not appeal to him
in which case maybe someone can reccommend a book that has not
direct correlation to Dr. Steiner.
Hey Kim!,
Dottie
p.s. Did you see the moon and her star, I
believe it was Venus. God she was so beautiful. Oh my God it
was so absolutely breathtaking. I made a spectacle out of my
self by showing everyone who passed by as I was gazing up in
mesmeration.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:14 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Kim, you wrote:
it's a simple sentence, where simple rules
apply.
I disagree completely. I do not think that making sense of texts
written over a hundred years ago is a simple matter.
By defending your erroneous translation, against better knowledge,
you are destroying your credibility.
I'd say that's the wrong way to think about credibility, on several
levels. Since I do not, in fact, believe that my translation
is erroneous, it is hard to see how it might shore up my credibility
for me to pretend that I agree with Detlef's translation in order
to placate you and several others. It would be dishonest for
me to do so, for starters. There's also the matter of: credibility
for whom? Credibility among a handful of random anthroposophists
on an email list is one thing, credibility among other historians
(say, Sonnenberg, for instance) is another.
I have, of course, checked some german libraries, and they
confirmed my view.
They confirmed which view?
Furthermore I have checked Steiners texts, and he is using
the frase consistently.
Could you give an example?
I see no reason to see what other non german amateur translaters,
or translaters with a ideological twist, has translated it to,
because it is a simple and clear sentence.
But you've just seen with your own eyes that even anthroposophist
translators have gone back and forth on the meaning of this sentence.
Do you think they did so because of ideological twisting? (That's
a real question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. I am most
intrigued by the fact that Detlef's version and Tarjei's version
of the same translation directly contradict one another on this
point.)
NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger = not less than
That is not the phrase under dispute. The phrase in question
is "nichts weniger". I think maybe you should re-read
the exchange from the beginning. Thanks,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:28 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Peter
it's a simple sentence, where simple rules
apply.
Peter:
I disagree completely. I do not think that
making sense of texts written over a hundred years ago is a simple
matter.
If you are more than 40 years old it should
be no problem at all with these texts, and especially this construct,
which has been known in the full german speaking area for generations.
By defending your erroneous translation,
against better knowledge, you are destroying your credibility.
Peter:
I'd say that's the wrong way to think about
credibility, on several levels. Since I do not, in fact, believe
that my translation is erroneous, it is hard to see how it might
shore up my credibility for me to pretend that I agree with Detlef's
translation in order to placate you and several others. It would
be dishonest for me to do so, for starters. There's also the
matter of: credibility for whom? Credibility among a handful
of random anthroposophists on an email list is one thing, credibility
among other historians (say, Sonnenberg, for instance) is another.
Credibility by whom it may concern. Maybe
Germans?
By the way, you say other historians? As I
have seen until now, you don't act as a scientist, so it must
be an error. If you are trying to act as a historian you should
change your scientific methology from Clausewitz and Marx to
Karl R. Popper, or, if you prefer a german author, Hans Albert:
Plädoyer für kritishen Rationalismus.
I have, of course, checked some german
libraries, and they confirmed my view.
They confirmed which view?
Se later: 'You manipulated the text'.
Furthermore I have checked Steiners texts,
and he is using the frase consistently.
Peter:
Could you give an example?
I don't see any need, as it confirmed that
he followed normal practice, so there is no need to show it here.
If he had not followed normal practice, it had been interesting.
I see no reason to see what other non german
amateur translaters, or translaters with a ideological twist,
has translated it to, because it is a simple and clear sentence.
Peter:
But you've just seen with your own eyes
that even anthroposophist translators have gone back and
forth on the meaning of this sentence. Do you think they did
so because of ideological twisting? (That's a real question,
by the way, not a rhetorical one. I am most intrigued by the
fact that Detlef's version and Tarjei's version of the same translation
directly contradict one another on this point.)
I really don't see why it makes an erroneous
translation better, if others have made the same error. Just
because some person says that 2+2=5 don't make it more right.
NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger = not less than
Peter:
That is not the phrase under dispute. The
phrase in question is "nichts weniger". I think maybe
you should re-read the exchange from the beginning. Thanks,
You manipulated the text
"NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger = not less than"
by removing 'als' as in
"NB! Just to remember what it concerns:
nicht weniger als = not less than"
and there is really no big difference in nicht
and nichts:
nicht weniger als = not less than
and
nichts weniger als = nothing less than
it is just at little more stress under the
statement, but without consequence for the meaning.
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: Dag Horntvedt
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:12 pm
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Hello Mr. Staudenmaier
I think we are right and you are mistaken.
Perhaps this will help you:
It has been said before, but it seems that you only want to relate
to your own examples: Make a google sears for: "nichts weniger
als" and tell me what you find.
Perhaps you should put on your glasses and look at the little","
- comma. All your examples have a comma before the "als"
The original text does not. This mean anything to you?
And - please - what about the "aber" in the next sentence?
I hope this have moved the discussion a bit forward.
Greetings
Dag
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Peter Staudenmaier
Sendt: 24. februar 2004 19:17
Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Emne: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Hello Kim and Dag,
thanks for your posts. I think that my translation is correct,
and that you are both mistaken. I think you will recognize your
mistake if you do two simple things: 1. Check a dictionary. 2.
Consult an anthroposophist with the necessary fluency who is
familiar with the text in question. To move this discussion forward,
here are a couple observations on each of those two points:
1. The 2000 Collins German-English dictionary says on p. 928
that the phrase "nichts weniger" means "the last
thing". They offer essentially the same example that I did,
namely the sentence "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als
ihn beleidigen", which they translate as "the last
thing I'd want to do is insult him". I suspect you will
find similar examples in other dictionaries.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake
in Steiner translation!
Hi Dag, you wrote:
I think we are right and you are mistaken.
Yes, that's why we disagree.
It has been said before, but it seems that you only want to
relate to your own examples: Make a google sears for: "nichts
weniger als" and tell me what you find.
Why? What would this have to do with our disagreement?
Perhaps you should put on your glasses and look at the little","
- comma. All your examples have a comma before the "als".
The original text does not. This mean anything to you?
No, it sure doesn't. I think you have genuinely misunderstood
what is at issue and why we disagree. Alternatively, you and
I have been talking past each other all along.
And - please - what about the "aber" in the next
sentence?
I think that is obvious, and I am greatly amused by the various
highly creative interpretations that have been offered so far.
Steiner says "aber" because he has just finished reciting
several specific criticisms of "Jewry today", and he
is now ready to move on to the assertion that the very existence
of the object of criticism is an anomaly and a mistake. The explanation
advanced by Detlef makes no sense at all, because even if the
second clause of the first sentence meant what you all seem to
think it means, the first clause is absolutely not a compliment
to the Jews, to say the least. Hence the notion that the "but"
signals a transition from praise to criticism is entirely goofy.
In light of the recent revelation that the
translators of the Leist/Ravagli/Bader text have altered their
rendering of the disputed phrase, I am willing to grant that
people who pay close attention to this passage and are familiar
with the context disagree on how to read it. But since the individuals
who know Steiner's work on Jews and Judaism best do not share
your reading, I still recommend that you do the wise thing and
consult their readings of the passage, starting with Sonnenberg's.
Respectfully,
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Dag Horntvedt
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:56 am
Subject: SV: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake
in Steiner translation!
Hallo again
[Dag Horntvedt]
I think we are right and you are mistaken.
PS:
Yes, that's why we disagree.
[Dag Horntvedt]
So I got that right.
It has been said before, but it seems that
you only want to relate to your own examples: Make a google sears
for: "nichts weniger als" and tell me what you find.
PS:
Why? What would this have to do with our
disagreement?
[Dag Horntvedt]
You can´t be serious. Do you really
not see what this has to do with our disagreement?
But I believe you. The idea with the google search was for you
to see that in daily use in Germany the "nichts weniger
als" is almost exclusively used in the meaning we have given
it all the time, and which you have denied.
[Google Search: "nichts weniger als"]
DH:
And - please - what about the "aber"
in the next sentence?
PS:
I think that is obvious, and I am greatly
amused by the various highly creative interpretations that have
been offered so far. Steiner says "aber" because he
has just finished reciting several specific criticisms of "Jewry
today", and he is now ready to move on to the assertion
that the very existence of the object of criticism is an anomaly
and a mistake.
[Dag Horntvedt]
Is that a common use of the word "aber"?
I would think that most people will use the world to distinguishbetween
to different opinions in one (or two) sentences.
- cut-
In light of the recent revelation that the translators of
the Leist/Ravagli/Bader text have altered their rendering of
the disputed phrase, I am willing to grant that people who pay
close attention to this passage and are familiar with the context
disagree on how to read it.
[Dag Horntvedt]
Not bad.
PS
But since the individuals who know Steiner's
work on Jews and Judaism best do not share your reading, I still
recommend that you do the wise thing and consult their readings
of the passage, starting with Sonnenberg's.
[Dag Horntvedt]
It is interesting that you will use an anthroposophist
as your witness only when he seems to agree with you. Why not
in this case also pay attention to all those who do not agree
with you.
[Dag Horntvedt]
That said, I am a bit amused by this discussion
because your tactic is to try to prolong and divert the discussion
by bringing in things like:
-Why? What would this have to do with our
disagreement?
-I think you have genuinely misunderstood what is at issue and
why we disagree.
-Alternatively, you and I have been talking past each other all
along.
-I still recommend that you do the wise thing
[Dag Horntvedt]
this tactic belonged in a Marxist discussion
in the 1970s
Respectfully
Dag Horntvedt
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: a whole lot of nichts
Hi Dag, you wrote:
You can´t be serious. Do you really
not see what this has to do with our disagreement?
Yes, I am serious. No, I really do not see what this has to do
with our disagreement.
The idea with the google search was for you to see that in
daily use in Germany the "nichts weniger als" is almost
exclusively used in the meaning we have given it all the time,
and which you have denied.
That is not what I deny. The "almost exclusively" part
is wrong, but I do not deny that "nichts weniger" can
mean "nothing less than" when it functions not as a
phrase but simply as a word sequence. But when it functions as
a phrase, it means essentially the same thing as "alles
andere", or, in English, "anything but". Even
Detlef finally managed to acknowledge that. What I deny is that
in the specific text under consideration here, written by Rudolf
Steiner in 1888, the phrase "nichts weniger als guenstig"
means "nothing less than favorable"; I think that it
means "anything but favorable", because in this context
I think it functions as a phrase in the sense explained above.
That is where the disagreement lies.
Is that a common use of the word "aber"?
Yes, in both German and English, it is a common way to mark semantic
transitions from specific to general, from concrete to abstract,
and so forth. But enough about the grammatical details, let's
talk about the big picture...
It is interesting that you will use an anthroposophist as
your witness only when he seems to agree with you.
But that is precisely why he is a relevant witness in this case:
he disagrees with virtually everything else I have to say on
the topic of Steiner and the Jews. (Well, that's a bit too strong,
but he and I certainly do have powerfully contrasting views on
the subject.) Thus his reading of the disputed phrase cannot
possibly be the result of any of the motives other listmates
have attributed to me.
Why not in this case also pay attention to all those who do
not agree with you.
Because several of those people have so far been unable to keep
track of what the disputed phrase is, much less why we're arguing
about it, for one thing, and because none of them appears to
be particularly familiar with either the text or its context.
And it is admittedly difficult for me to take just about anything
Detlef says seriously; the last time he thought he had found
an "error in translation" (in an authorized translation
of a book by Steiner published by the Rudolf Steiner Press),
he made an utter fool of himself and left the discussion in embarrassment
midway through.
That said, I am a bit amused by this discussion because your
tactic is to try to prolong and divert the discussion
Those aren't diversions. They really are irrelevant to the disagreement.
You don't need to convince me that the words "nichts weniger"
can mean "nothing less than" in some other context.
What we are arguing about is what they mean in one specific context.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Dag Horntvedt
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:54 am
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] a whole lot of nichts
Hi Peter , you wrote:
I think that it means "anything but
favorable", because in this context I think it functions
as a phrase in the sense explained above. That is where the disagreement
lies.
-cut-
You don't need to convince me that the
words "nichts weniger" can mean "nothing less
than" in some other context. What we are arguing about is
what they mean in one specific context.
[Dag Horntvedt]
I think this is as far as it goes for now.
But why do I have a slight feeling you are trying to cover your
tracks?
What I tried to say is that it could be that one can learn something
about one sentence by watching other similar sentences. But then
again, perhaps that´s only me.
Greetings
Dag
...................................................................................................................................
From: Dag Horntvedt
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:48 am
Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Good morning Mr. Staudenmaier
My German friend says that the sentence means "nothing less
than", so RS says that Jewry has been favourable to western
cultural ideas. This is emphasized in the next sentence where
he uses the word "aber" which means "but"
as opposed to the sentence before.
So one cant help thinking that in repeating this error over and
over again you are trying to make it become true. But it will
not.
I am looking forward to see you correct your
translations.
Greetings
Dag
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Peter Staudenmaier
Sendt: 24. februar 2004 04:13
Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner
translation!
Good evening Detlef,
I think you are avoiding a very simple question. Why don't you
tell all the English speakers on this list what the sentence
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"
means? If you truly disagree that the phrase "nichts weniger"
means the same thing as "alles andere" in this context,
I urge you to come right out and say so.
"Do you propose a better translation,
PS?"
Yes, I certainly do. I propose the following
translation:
"It certainly cannot
be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed totality,
and that it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable
to European ideas of culture."
May I suggest you consult another German
anthroposophist about this matter? I recommend you contact Ralf
Sonnenberg and ask his opinion. If he concurs with you that the
phrase actually means "favorable" rather than "unfavorable"
in this instance, then I will amend my translation in the future.
I very much look forward to hearing from you on this.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:20 am
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Hello everybody,
the meaning of "nichts weniger als" is not something
restricted to anthroposophy. Therefore I posted some common usages,
taken form a Google search, in the wee hours of the morning and
proposed translations, challenging PS for better translations.
This challenge was ignored by PS, who instead proposed a "better
translation" of the Steiner quote in question, which was,
in fact, nothing but reiterating the existing (incorrect) translation
form the PLANS website, which - he now reveals - stems from him.
It contains other, more minor inaccuracies as well: "abendländisch"
means "occidental" or "western", to use a
more common word, and not simply "European", as PS
has it.
Morgenland - Abendland
Orient - Okzident
Ost -West
are essentially synonymous pairs.
But back to the main point of contention. After avoiding my simple
questions concerning the common usages I posted, he claims that
I am avoiding a simple question, which is to say what another
sentence he proposes means:
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren."
I will gladly translate this sentence for this list. In return,
I would like PS to translate the three things I posted and translated
in my previous mail. OK, PS?
The sentence means: "There is nothing
I want less than to provoke you." PS is quite right in saying
that this sentence means that I do not want to provoke you.
But consider the following sentence:
"Er war nichts weniger als provokativ.". This means:
Er war nichts geringeres als provokativ. Er war provokativ
In English: He was nothing less than provocative.
Which means: He was provocative!
Please note that the words "nothing", "less"
and "than" occur in both English sentences, as do the
German words "nicht", "weniger" and "als"
in the corresponding German sentences. But they are grouped differently,
making for two different meanings:
1. "(Ich möchte nichts weniger), (als Sie provozieren)."
"(There is nothing I want less) (than to provoke you)."
2. "(Er war) (nichts weniger als provokativ)." "(He
was) (nothing less than provocative)." In the second sentence,
he clearly was provocative!
Back to the Steiner text.
"Es ist gewiss nicht
zu leugnen, dass heute das Judentum noch immer als geschlossenes
Ganzes auftritt und als solches in die Entwickelung unserer gegenwärtigen
Zustände vielfach eingegriffen hat, und das in einer Weise,
die den abendländischen Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig
war."
This translates as:
“It cannot be denied
that Jewry still today presents itself as a self-contained entity
and as such has often intervened in the development of our present
conditions in a way that was nothing less than favourable to
Western cultural ideas.”
We are concerned about this part:
"die den abendländischen
Kulturideen nichts weniger als günstig war." In English:
"that was nothing less than favourable to Western cultural
ideas."
The underlying idea in this part of the sentence
is unquestionably:
"Sie war den abendländischen Kulturideen
nichts weniger als günstig." In English: "It was
nothing less than favourable to Western cultural ideas."
This is how this sentence breaks down:
"(Sie war) (den abendländischen Kulturideen) (nichts
weniger als günstig)." In English: "(It was) (nothing
less than favourable) (to Western cultural ideas)."
Please compare this to the two types above! This is clearly not
type one, but type two:
2. "(Er war) (nichts weniger als provokativ)." "(He
was) (nothing less than provocative)."
Du bist nichts weniger als zum Verstehen eingeladen, PS!
You are nothing less than invited to understand this, PS! I.e.
you are invited!
Aber nicht: Ich möchte nichts weniger, als dass Du verstehst,
PS!
But not: There is nothing I want less than for you to understand
this, PS!
So I have told all the readers on this list what the sentence
"Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"
means.
Now it's your turn to tell the readers on this list what the
sentences "Berliner Studenten gehen für nichts weniger
als Deutschlands Zukunft auf die Straße", "In
Wirklichkeit bedeutet Bush damit nichts weniger als das Recht
der USA, jedes Land anzugreifen" and "... in welchen
ich sie nichts weniger als gehasst habe, mit dem gleichen Hass,
mit dem ich in diesen Jahren auch ihren Mann gehasst habe ..."
mean.
If you do, you cannot fail to notice that there is a usage of
"nichts weniger als" which means nothing less than
"nothing less than"!
Of course you could undoubtedly also find other expressions on
the web in line with the other meaning ("Ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie provozieren"). Don't bother: I have
already agreed that these three words can also be found in sentences
with this kind of meaning.
Once we've agreed that there are two types of meaning, we could
still dispute which meaning applies to Steiner's sentence. I
have tried to make it clear which one applies. I have nothing
against contacting other experts on this, be they experts on
German grammar or experts on anthroposophy and Judaism. But this
may not be necessary. It is interesting to note that you would
prefer to take this on authority. I think this can be resolved,
however, by the simple use of straight thinking for those who
have a good command of German, which I believe you have.
Best regards,
Detlef Hardorp
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Good morning Detlef, you now write:
The sentence means: "There is nothing
I want less than to provoke you." PS is quite right in saying
that this sentence means that I do not want to provoke you.
So you recognize that the phrase "nichts weniger" does
indeed have the meaning that I said it has. But you still seem
to be confused about what is at stake here:
If you do, you cannot fail to notice that there is a usage
of "nichts weniger als" which means nothing less than
"nothing less than"!
That wasn't in dispute. The two words "nichts" and
"weniger" when placed next to one another can indeed
mean "nothing less than". As a phrase, however, they
can also mean "anything but", as you have finally acknowledged.
I don't quite understand why this wasn't clear to you earlier.
Once we've agreed that there are two types of meaning, we
could still dispute which meaning applies to Steiner's sentence.
Yes, that is what is under dispute. May I draw your attention
to the document that Tarjei posted recently? It is the official
translation of the Leist/Ravagli/Bader text, published by the
Bund der freien Waldorfschulen. Since this seems to have escaped
your notice, here, once again, is how the passage is rendered
in this translation:
It cannot be denied that Jewry
still today presents itself as a selfcontained entity and as
such has often intervened in the development of our present conditions
in a way that was anything but favourable to Western cultural
ideas.
"Anything but favorable" is, as
it happens, exactly how I translated the phrase in question.
Amazing, huh?
I also note that you seem reluctant to consult other anthroposophists
about this matter. I recommend you take a look at the most recent
issue of the Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung (no. 12,
2003), which contains an article by Ralf Sonnenberg which I think
you will find very interesting. Sonnenberg and I don't agree
on very much, as you can imagine, but we happen to agree on this
particular Steiner passage. On p. 190 of his article, Sonnenberg
reproduces the full quotation from Steiner in 1888, and immediately
summarizes the passage by stating that in Steiner's view, Jewish
influence has "nachteilig auf die abendländische Kultur
und Gesellschaft ausgewirkt" ("had a detrimental effect
on European culture and society").
Hence if you are still convinced that my translation is incorrect,
I suggest you address your concern to the anthroposophist translators
and anthroposophist historians who somehow agree with my reading
of the phrase and disagree with yours, and then maybe you can
get back to the rest of us to report your findings.
Greetings,
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Crucial mistake in
Steiner translation!
Detlef,
Perhaps you could comment on aonther possible error of translation.
What do you feel the best translation of the following sentence
is:
"Nun nahm ich damals
an den nationalen Kämpfen lebhaften Anteil, welche die Deutschen
in Österreich um ihre nationale Existenz führten."
Here are my own thoughts on the matter, and
I am curious how they stand up to wider scrutiny.
An "Anteil" is "a share of", or figuratively
"an interest in," or if sympathy is indicated, "sympathy."
However, to translate "lebhaften Anteil" is to overlook
the phrase structure. The phrase "Anteil... nehmen... an"
- the phrase used in the sentence - is translated as "take
an interest in;" or, if indicating sympathy, "sympathize
with" (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch,
Berlin 1996, p. 807). Further, "lebhaft" as an adjective
is translated "lively" when indicating interest or
imagination (same dictionary, p. 1136). So the proper translation
would be:
"At that time I took
a lively interest in the battles that the Germans in Austria
were fighting concerning their national existence."
The verb in the sentence ("führten")
refers strictly to the Germans, and not to the author.
Does this appear correct?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: Crucial mistake in Steiner translation!
Hello, Diana,
long time no hear! So we meet again, in a different place in
cyberspace, discussing similar themes as years ago...
You asked:
Detlef - I am curious how you determined
that the "nichts" had been left out? Can you recreate
for us the process by which you uncovered this grievous typographical
error?
You misun