Settling the "nichts weniger
als" question
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:21 am
Subject: Settling the "nichts weniger als" question
I promised a couple of days ago to consult an "expert"
in order to resolve the "nichts weniger als" controversy
(or confusion). The expert is my daughter, a translator (German-Spanish-English-Portuguese)
and language teacher. She has a masters in Iberian culture and
teaches at university level in Munich. She grew up in the U.S.,
Argentina, Switzerland and Germany. Her mother tongue is German
(German mother). Obviously I have a lot of confidence in her.
When asking her to translate the passage in question, I did not
tell her who its author was nor anything else about it in order
to avoid possible unconscious prejudice. (She is an ex-Waldi,
what they call Waldorf students in Germany). She isn't an anthroposphist
though, and has no reason to have guessed who the author was.
I only told her that there might be a problem with "nichts
weniger als". I asked her to translate into English or Spanish,
but anticipated that she would do so in Spanish, because the
passage isn't exactly simple and I know that she is more comfortable
in Spanish than English. She replies as follows:
In einer eMail vom 25.02.2004
20:30:05 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt franksmith:
„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.“
No se puede negar que hoy
en día el judaísmo sigue presentándose
como una entidad cerrada, y como tal ha intervenido numerosas
veces en el desarrollo que ha llevado a nuestro estado actual,
de una forma que para las ideas culturales del occidente no
eran sino favorables. Sin embargo, el judaísmo
como tal ya ha perdido su legitimidad y su razón
de ser dentro de la comunidad de pueblos moderna, y el hecho
que a pesar de ello se ha mantenido es un error de la historia
universal, cuyas consecuencias no podían dejar de
presentarse.
This translation into Spanish is essentially
what we have in English. She translates the phrase in question
as: "...and in a way that for western cultural ideas has
been no less than favorable.
She then goes on to say:
(Qué frasesitas!
Yo tuve más problemas con "hat sich längst
ausgelebt" y modernes Völkerleben", pero
enfín. El "nichts weniger als ..." es una
"doppelte Verneinung", subrayando positivamente la
palabra "günstig", o sea quiere decir
algo como "sehr günstig".)
"(What simple little phrases! I had more
problems with "hat sich längt ausgelebt"
and "modernes Völkerleben", but anyway.
"nichts weniger als..." is a "double negation",
positively underlining the word "favorable", that is,
it means something like "most favorable".)"
This, for me at least, settles the question. Therefore auf wiedersehen
"nichts weniger als".
Beatrice Smith
MA, Staatlich geprüfte
Ãœbersetzerin
für Deutsch und Spanisch
Sprachtrainerin
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi Frank,
thanks for your refreshingly level-headed posts on the translation
question. You conclude:
This, for me at least, settles the question.
Not for me. The first several times I read the Steiner passage,
I thought it said what your daughter thinks it says; in fact
in my first draft translation I rendered it the same way. But
I eventually realized my mistake, as Detlef has yet to do. I
think your daugher might do the same, with just a little reflection.
She says that "nichts weniger" is a double negation.
This is half true, but when it functions as a phrase, "nichts
weniger" is not a double negation, as you can easily see
from the several variants of "Ich möchte nichts weniger"
that we discussed earlier. In those situations, the phrase means
exactly what I said it means, and the opposite of what your daughter
apparently thinks it always means.
One possibly important methodological point: I agree that it
was a good idea for you to withhold from your daughter the context
of this quote, for purposes of your experiment. But as a general
rule, ignorance of context is a hindrance, not a boon, to correct
translation. And in this case I think the context is indeed significant.
I'd like to make the same recommendation to you that I made to
other listmates a few days ago: read Ralf Sonnenberg's article.
Not just for an illuminating perspective on this translation
issue, but for a broader discussion of the themes I came here
to discuss. It is by far the best treatment of Steiner's views
on Jews that I have seen from an anthroposophist (which is, admittedly,
not saying much), and it makes mincemeat out of that silly piece
by Ravagli, Leist, and Bader that you put so much stock in. Here's
the info again: Ralf Sonnenberg, " 'Keine Berechtigung innerhalb
des modernen Völkerlebens': Judentum, Zionismus und Antisemitismus
aus der Sicht Rudolf Steiners", Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung
12 (2003), pp. 185-209.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:25 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
For best reading on your return Monday morning.
You wrote:
Hi Frank,
thanks for your refreshingly level-headed posts on the translation
question. You conclude:
This, for me at least, settles the question.
Not for me.
*I didn't expect that you'd be convinced.
However, see below. I sent my daughter your objection.
The first several times I read the Steiner passage, I thought
it said what your daughter thinks it says; in fact in my first
draft translation I rendered it the same way. But I eventually
realized my mistake, as Detlef has yet to do. I think your daugher
might do the same, with just a little reflection. She says that
"nichts weniger" is a double negation. This is half
true, but when it functions as a phrase, "nichts weniger"
is not a double negation, as you can easily see from the several
variants of "Ich möchte nichts weniger" that we
discussed earlier. In those situations, the phrase means exactly
what I said it means, and the opposite of what your daughter
apparently thinks it always means.
Querido Daddy, en ese caso
el "aber" no haría sentido:
Das Judentum als solches
hat sich aber längst ausgelebt
"Dear Daddy, in that
case the "aber" (but) would make no sense."
This has been pointed out to you several times,
Peter, but I guess you don't want to listen. Everyone wants to
win an argument, but when it becomes senseless to insist, even
on small points, one's whole attitude becomes questionable.
Frank
Beatrice Smith
MA, Staatlich geprüfte
Übersetzerin
für Deutsch und Spanisch
Sprachtrainerin
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 3:52 pm
Subject: "nichts weniger als"
My daughter, 15 minutes later:
Hi Daddy,
dein Freund hat natürlich recht, dass es das auch heissen
kann, was man vielleicht aus dem größeren Kontext
erkennen könnte. Aber so, wie du es mir präsentiert
hast, mit dem "aber..."-Satz danach, würde ich
doch auf die doppelte Verneinung tippen. Hat schon mal jemand
versucht, eine Séance zu machen und den Doktor selbst
zu fragen?
Besitos de tu hijita Bibi
Your friend (!) is of course
right in that it could also mean that, which one could perhaps
recognize from the larger context. But from the way you presented
it to me, with the "but..." sentence following, I would
still bet on the double negation. Has anybody tried to make a
séance and ask der Doktor himself?
Little kisses from your little
daughter Bibi
And, 5 minutes after that:
In einer eMail vom 27.02.2004
15:44:23 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt franksmith:
She isn't an anthroposphist though, and has
no reason to have guessed who the author was
Lieber Daddy, das ist natürlich
Bullshit, ich habe den Stil selbstverständlich gleich erkannt.
Wenn nicht Rudi, dann Thomas Mann, und vom Thema her wars doch
eher Rudi. Die restlich Beschreibung deiner "Expertin"
hat mir gut gefallen! Besitos de Bibilein
Dear Daddy, that is of course
bullshit. Obviously I recognized the style immediately. If not
Rudi, then Thomas Mann, and according to the subject, it was
rather Rudi. The rest of the description of your "expert"
pleased me!
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "nichts weniger als"
Hey Frank!
What did you do to deserve such a cool, intelligent
and funny daughter?
: ) Christine
Baby angel looks down at Frank and turns to
her Guardian Angel and says, "Aw, I've just got to go down
there and cheer that guy up!"
: D
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:21 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "nichts weniger als"
Hey Frank!
What did you do to deserve such a cool,
intelligent and funny daughter?
: ) Christine
Baby angel looks down at Frank and turns
to her Guardian Angel and says, "Aw, I've just got to go
down there and cheer that guy up!"
I've done nothing to deserve her - as far
as I know. But I am cheered. Now all we have to do is
cheer Peter up. Do you think it will work?
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Peter Staudenmaier:
I'd like to make the same recommendation
to you that I made to other listmates a few days ago: read Ralf
Sonnenberg's article. Not just for an illuminating perspective
on this translation issue, but for a broader discussion of the
themes I came here to discuss. It is by far the best treatment
of Steiner's views on Jews that I have seen from an anthroposophist
(which is, admittedly, not saying much), and it makes mincemeat
out of that silly piece by Ravagli, Leist, and Bader that you
put so much stock in. Here's the info again: Ralf Sonnenberg,
" 'Keine Berechtigung innerhalb des modernen Völkerlebens':
Judentum, Zionismus und Antisemitismus aus der Sicht Rudolf Steiners",
Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung 12 (2003), pp. 185-209.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've read both the article and
the book. Personally I don't think that the academic level of
the two are very far apart, so I have to wonder at your characterization
of Sonnenbert's piece as "making mincemeat" of Ravagli,
Leist, and Bader's book. It seems to fit a consistent pattern
of praising highly any piece of work you agree with, while deprecating
the academic credentials and intellectual abilities of those
whose conclusions contradict your own. (For example, praising
the scholarship of a writer like Peter Bierl while suggesting
that Goodrick-Clarke has a bias towards Steiner.) Perhaps you
could comment on how you feel Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's description
of the context of Steiner's lectures to the workers of the Goetheanum
does or does not alter your approach to an interpretation of
select passages from the printed book.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "nichts weniger als"
Hi Frank,
thanks for forwarding the correspondence with your daughter.
Her reasoning about the "but" clause makes no sense
to me. Steiner begins the previous sentence with a criticism
of the Jews (namely, that they constitute a closed totality),
not with a compliment. Thus according to your daughter's reading,
the first sentence is internally contradictory, which hardly
supports the notion that "but" signalled a transition
from compliments to criticisms. By my reading, "but"
signals a transition from particular to general, from specific
criticisms of the Jews to denial of their very right to existence,
as I explained last week. This is the only explanation offered
so far that is consistent with the passage as a whole. I remain
very interested in alternative explanations.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:25 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "nichts weniger als"
Hi, Peter, you wrote:
Hi Frank,
thanks for forwarding the correspondence with your daughter.
Her reasoning about the "but" clause makes no sense
to me. Steiner begins the previous sentence with a criticism
of the Jews (namely, that they constitute a closed totality),
not with a compliment. Thus according to your daughter's reading,
the first sentence is internally contradictory, which hardly
supports the notion that "but" signalled a transition
from compliments to criticisms. By my reading, "but"
signals a transition from particular to general, from specific
criticisms of the Jews to denial of their very right to existence,
as I explained last week. This is the only explanation offered
so far that is consistent with the passage as a whole. I remain
very interested in alternative explanations.
You're a hard nut to crack, even when common sense is the nutcracker.
Let's analyze the paragraph again:
„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.“
If we assume for a moment that the AT translation
is correct, it reads:
“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.”
If we assume that your version is correct,
it would read:
“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 anything but 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.”
The first sentence is not, as you maintain,
self-contradictory. It is stating that this Jewish self-contained
entity has often most favorable intervened in the development
(or evolution) of our present conditions. BUT (however, notwithstanding
this) Jewry, as such, has oultlived itself......
Your interpretation would mean that this Jewish self-containing
entity's intervention was anything but favorable...BUT (however,
notwithstanding this) Jewry, as such, has oultlived itself...
"but" here makes no sense at all. He would have to
have said. "Moreover..."
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
I've read both the article and the book. Personally I don't
think that the academic level of the two are very far apart
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Ravagli et al routinely make
the kind of blunders that nobody familar with the history of
German antisemitism could possibly make.
It seems to fit a consistent pattern of praising highly any
piece of work you agree with
But I obviously don't agree with Sonnenberg's work. I vigorously
disagree with it. It is, however, historically informed, which
Ravagli et al's is not.
while deprecating the academic credentials and intellectual
abilities of those whose conclusions contradict your own.
I'm not big on either academic credentials or intellectual abilities.
People with limited intellectual abilities and no academic credentials
frequently make entirely reasonable and perfectly persuasive
arguments, while people with impressive intellectual abilities
and extensive academic credentials frequently make utterly spurious
and threadbare arguments.
For example, praising the scholarship of a writer like Peter
Bierl while suggesting that Goodrick-Clarke has a bias towards
Steiner.
That was not at all a criticism of Goodrick-Clarke, who is an
exemplary historian. There is nothing wrong with having a bias
toward Steiner.
Perhaps you could comment on how you feel Ravagli, Leist,
and Bader's description of the context of Steiner's lectures
to the workers of the Goetheanum does or does not alter your
approach to an interpretation of select passages from the printed
book.
I think you're talking about the book published by Verlag Freies
Geistesleben; I was talking about the other text by the same
authors and with the same title (the subtitles differ) published
by the Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen. The former focuses on
racism, the latter on antisemitism. Anyway, I think that most
of their general remarks about the lectures to the Goetheanum
workers are either banal or beside the point. Sometimes their
claims in this respect are silly; witness the hypothetical comparison
to "a militant racist" on pp. 113-114 of the Freies
Geistesleben book. Remarks like those suggest that these authors
are innocent of any meaningful historical perspective on the
development of racist thinking.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:12 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi, Peter, hope you had a restful weekend.
Hi Frank,
thanks for your refreshingly level-headed posts on the translation
question. You conclude:
This, for me at least, settles the question.
Not for me.
*I didn't expect it to.
The first several times I read the Steiner passage, I thought
it said what your daughter thinks it says; in fact in my first
draft translation I rendered it the same way. But I eventually
realized my mistake, as Detlef has yet to do. I think your daugher
might do the same, with just a little reflection. She says that
"nichts weniger" is a double negation. This is half
true, but when it functions as a phrase, "nichts weniger"
is not a double negation, as you can easily see from the several
variants of "Ich möchte nichts weniger" that we
discussed earlier.
* The example you used several times was: Ich möchte nichts
weniger, als Sie provozieren.
In those situations, the phrase means exactly what I said it
means, and the opposite of what your daughter apparently thinks
it always means.
*I asked another friend, A German woman who lives here in Argentina.
She is a language teacher. She replied:
"Hola, Frank, a mi me
parece que es así como dice Bibi, que la doble negación
en este caso seguido por un adjetivo significa una afirmación,
sehr günstig, y el ejemplo que pone este señor no
es valido, porque sigue una frase subordinada con una intención
"ich möchte nichts weniger, als sie zu provozieren"
para mi es otra intención."
Hi, Frank, it seems to me
that it is as Bibi says, that the double negation in this case
followed by an adjective signifies an affirmation, very favorable,
and the example given by this señor (PS) is not valid,
because a subordinate phrase follows with an intention "ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren" which
is a different intention."
* You will note, btw, that it should be "zu"
provozieren, unless your example is from gutter German. In any
case, I didn't quite follow what she wrote, so I asked here to
elaborate. She replied, in German this time:
Hola, Frank, ich versuche,
es so klar wie möglich auszudrücken. Es ist ein Unterschied,
ob ich sage "Ich möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu
provozieren", weil ich damit einen Wunsch, eine Haltung
ausdrücke, anders gesagt, "Ich möchte Sie überhaupt
nicht provozieren", wenn ich aber vor ein Adjektiv direkt
setze "nichts weniger als", so wird aus dieser doppelten
Verneinung das Gegenteil, also "sehr", also wird aus
"nichts weniger als günstig" "sehr günstig".
Ein anderes Beispiel "Er war nichts weniger als genial."
"Er war sehr genial".
Ich hoffe, dass es so verständlich ist.
Grüsse, Claudia
Hi, Frank, I'll try to express
it as clearly as possible. It is different if I say "Ich
möchte nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren", because
I am therewith expressing a desire, an attitude, in other words,
"Ich möchte Sie überhaupt nicht provozieren"
(I don't want to provoke you at all); but when I place "nichts
weniger als" directly before an adjective (favorable), this
double negation indicates the opposite, that is, "nichts
weniger als günstig" "sehr günstig"
(very favorable). Another example "Er war nichts weniger
als genial." "Er war sehr genial." (He was very
brilliant.)
Greetings, Claudia
*I hope that you are no less than (very) satisfied
now, but I doubt it.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:47 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Peter:
I think you're talking about the book published
by Verlag Freies Geistesleben; I was talking about the other
text by the same authors and with the same title (the subtitles
differ) published by the Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen. The
former focuses on racism, the latter on antisemitism. Anyway,
I think that most of their general remarks about the lectures
to the Goetheanum workers are either banal or beside the point.
Sometimes their claims in this respect are silly; witness the
hypothetical comparison to "a militant racist" on pp.
113-114 of the Freies Geistesleben book. Remarks like those suggest
that these authors are innocent of any meaningful historical
perspective on the development of racist thinking.
I disagree that their general remarks about the lectures to the
Goetheanum workers are either banal or beside the point. I consider
it necessary for anyone (ncluding yourself) interested in reading
these lectures to know the circumstance and the audience in order
to have an accurate picture. However, I agree that the part beginning
at the bottom of pp. 113 contributes nothing to this understanding.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi Frank, you forwarded further commentary
on the disputed phrase:
"it seems to me that
it is as Bibi says, that the double negation in this case followed
by an adjective signifies an affirmation, very favorable, and
the example given by this señor (PS) is not valid, because
a subordinate phrase follows with an intention "ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren" which is a different
intention."
This is precisely what we disagree about.
I think your friend has quite simply misconstrued the "intention"
of the passage in question.
It is different if I say
Well, sure, if you've already decided what
you think the phrase means in this instance, then any other reading
will indeed be different.
but when I place "nichts
weniger als" directly before an adjective (favorable), this
double negation indicates the opposite
That is only sometimes true. What we are arguing
over is whether it is true in this case.
You continue:
You're a hard nut to crack, even when common
sense is the nutcracker.
If you think you are employing common sense
here, then I am compelled to question your grasp of basic grammatical
categories. This is not a dispute over common sense, it is a
dispute over interpretation.
The first sentence is not, as you maintain,
self-contradictory.
It is according to your preferred reading. There is no such thing
as a "Jewish self-contained entity", as you termed
it, and Steiner's positing of such an entity is a criticism of
Jewry, not praise. If you think I otherwise, I once again recommend
familiarizing yourself with the history of antisemitic thinking,
within which this foolish notion of Jews as a "closed totality"
played a major role.
Your interpretation would mean that this
Jewish self-containing entity's intervention was anything but
favorable...BUT (however, notwithstanding this)
No, that is not my reading. My reading is that Steiner is saying
here 'but not only that, its very existence is blah blah blah'.
Hence the wording "Jewry as such". I think your reading
is incompatible with the text; it does not provide an adequate
account of either the first or the second sentences, much less
the relationship between them.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:04 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Peter:
Hi Frank, you forwarded further commentary
on the disputed phrase:
"it seems to me that
it is as Bibi says, that the double negation in this case followed
by an adjective signifies an affirmation, very favorable, and
the example given by this señor (PS) is not valid, because
a subordinate phrase follows with an intention "ich möchte
nichts weniger, als Sie zu provozieren" which is a different
intention."
This is precisely what we disagree about.
I think your friend has quite simply misconstrued the "intention"
of the passage in question.
It is different if I say
Well, sure, if you've already decided what
you think the phrase means in this instance, then any other reading
will indeed be different.
but when I place "nichts
weniger als" directly before an adjective (favorable), this
double negation indicates the opposite
That is only sometimes true. What we are
arguing over is whether it is true in this case.
You continue:
You're a hard nut to crack, even when common
sense is the nutcracker.
If you think you are employing common sense
here, then I am compelled to question your grasp of basic grammatical
categories. This is not a dispute over common sense, it is a
dispute over interpretation.
The first sentence is not, as you maintain,
self-contradictory.
It is according to your preferred reading.
There is no such thing as a "Jewish self-contained entity",
as you termed it, and Steiner's positing of such an entity is
a criticism of Jewry, not praise. If you think I otherwise, I
once again recommend familiarizing yourself with the history
of antisemitic thinking, within which this foolish notion of
Jews as a "closed totality" played a major role.
Your interpretation would mean that this
Jewish self-containing entity's intervention was anything but
favorable...BUT (however, notwithstanding this)
No, that is not my reading. My reading
is that Steiner is saying here 'but not only that, its very existence
is blah blah blah'. Hence the wording "Jewry as such".
I think your reading is incompatible with the text; it does not
provide an adequate account of either the first or the second
sentences, much less the relationship between them.
Peter
And I think you've cut my post into so many bits to suit your
purpose that it no longer makes sense. If you want to be serious,
then show it.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:52 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi Frank, you wrote:
And I think you've cut my post into so many bits to suit your
purpose that it no longer makes sense. If you want to be serious,
then show it.
I am indeed serious. How would you like me to show this to you?
As far as I can tell, we agree that the disputed phrase has several
possible meanings, and we disagree about which of those meanings
applies in this specific context. I think that the reading you
offer is untenable, and parts of it are flatly contradicted by
the text itself. You haven't taken the whole of the first sentence
into consideration, and you haven't given a sensible explanation
of the relationship between the first and second sentences. According
to your interpretation, Steiner begins by castigating the Jews
for their supposed closedness, switches mid-sentence to praising
them for their contributions to western culture, and then --
and only then -- marks yet another transition, from praise back
to criticism, by using the word "but" halfway through
the second sentence. This makes no sense. If that were how he
meant "but", why didn't he write "but" between
the two main clauses of the first sentence? And so forth. In
contrast, I think that I have offered a reading that accounts
for the passage as a whole and meaningfully relates the first
sentence to the second. According to my reading, Steiner's argument
flows logically, rather than flip-flopping back and forth, and
culminates in characterizing the very existence of Jewry as a
mistake. This is a considerably more plausible understanding
of the passage as it appears within the full article. My reading
does indeed depend on parsing "nichts weniger" as a
phrase meaning "alles andere", which is one of the
two possible meanings. That, it seems to me, is the heart of
our disagreement.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Peter Staudenmaier:
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Ravagli
et al routinely make the kind of blunders that nobody familar
with the history of German antisemitism could possibly make.
Daniel:
Could you elaborate on this statement, and
perhaps give a few examples?
Daniel:
For example, praising the scholarship of
a writer like Peter Bierl while suggesting that Goodrick-Clarke
has a bias towards Steiner.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That was not at all a criticism of Goodrick-Clarke,
who is an exemplary historian. There is nothing wrong with having
a bias toward Steiner.
Daniel:
How about Peter Bierl? I understand you find
his work "excellent". Care to elaborate?
Daniel:
Perhaps you could comment on how you feel
Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's description of the context of Steiner's
lectures to the workers of the Goetheanum does or does not alter
your approach to an interpretation of select passages from the
printed book.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you're talking about the book published
by Verlag Freies Geistesleben; I was talking about the other
text by the same authors and with the same title (the subtitles
differ) published by the Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen. The
former focuses on racism, the latter on antisemitism. Anyway,
I think that most of their general remarks about the lectures
to the Goetheanum workers are either banal or beside the point.
Sometimes their claims in this respect are silly; witness the
hypothetical comparison to "a militant racist" on pp.
113-114 of the Freies Geistesleben book. Remarks like those suggest
that these authors are innocent of any meaningful historical
perspective on the development of racist thinking.
Daniel:
Well, what do you make of their claim that
the text is in places inaccurate or incomplete?
Do you have a position on the whole "blacks are people too"
context that Ravagli, Leist, and Bader offer?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 8:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Could you elaborate on this statement, and perhaps give a
few examples?
Sure. The copy I have in front of me is the 2., erweiterte Auflage,
Juni 2001 (the antisemitism study, not the racism book); I will
cite page numbers from that edition. Throughout pages 16 to 21
they argue that Steiner represented "political liberalism"
(p. 21) and therefore could not have been an antisemite. On p.
24 they discuss Steiner's "external life" and devote
two paragraphs to his Jewish friends, the idea being that people
who have Jewish friends cannot be antisemites. In the midst of
this they say that Jacobowski could not possibly have been friends
with Steiner if the latter had had the slightest tendencies toward
antisemitism. On p. 30 we find the prize-winning sentence: "If
he [Steiner] had had even the slightest critical reservations
toward the Jewish element, he would have had to speak out against
the integration and assimilation of Jewry." Every one of
those claims is preposterous. All sorts of Liberals were antisemites.
Lots of antisemites had Jewish friends. And the most prominent
antisemites of the late 19th century explicitly endorsed assimilation.
By this logic, Treitschke, Stoecker, Lagarde, Langbehn, Wagner,
Vacher de Lapouge, etc etc were not antisemites.
How about Peter Bierl? I understand you find his work "excellent".
Care to elaborate?
I do indeed find his work on anthroposophy excellent. He is a
very talented journalist and put an enormous amount of research
into his book, which does an unusually good job of exploring
the neglected political contexts of early anthroposophy.
Well, what do you make of their claim that the text is in
places inaccurate or incomplete?
They do not make this claim about the 1923 lecture on "Color
and the Races of Humankind" (see p. 111 of the racism book).
There are no missing parts of that text, according to the Gesamtausgabe
edition.
Do you have a position on the whole "blacks are people
too" context that Ravagli, Leist, and Bader offer?
I think that Steiner's bit about blacks-are-people-too expresses
at worst a relatively mild form of racism. It is a trifle compared
to the numerous other racist claims he makes in that lecture.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:54 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi Frank, you wrote:
And I think you've cut my post into so
many bits to suit your purpose that it no longer makes sense.
If you want to be serious, then show it.
I am indeed serious. How would you like
me to show this to you? As far as I can tell, we agree that the
disputed phrase has several possible meanings, and we disagree
about which of those meanings applies in this specific context.
Wrong. I thought that 100 posts ago. Then, in my posts written
after the expert testimony on the meaning of the Steiner quote
as well as your example trying to prove the contrary, I was quite
definite in afirming that it has one meaning.
I think that the reading you offer is untenable, and parts of
it are flatly contradicted by the text itself.
(sigh) I give up. Think what you like.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. If I
might follow up,
Daniel:
Well, what do you make of their claim that
the text is in places inaccurate or incomplete?
Peter Staudenmaier:
They do not make this claim about the 1923
lecture on "Color and the Races of Humankind" (see
p. 111 of the racism book). There are no missing parts of that
text, according to the Gesamtausgabe edition.
Daniel:
That is a bit of an evasive answer. Do you
feel that the claim that the text is in places inaccurate or
incomplete has any validity? Anywhere?
They actually do make that claim in one place, where they speculate
that the stenographer (who was sitting behind a screen) took
down “verarbeitet” instead of “erarbeitet”.
It is towards the end of part 5.1.3 in the discussion of the
1923 lecture on "Color and the Races of Humankind".
It is true that the GA doesn't indicate any missing parts in
the text.
Daniel:
Do you have a position on the whole "blacks
are people too" context that Ravagli, Leist, and Bader offer?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that Steiner's bit about blacks-are-people-too
expresses at worst a relatively mild form of racism. It is a
trifle compared to the numerous other racist claims he makes
in that lecture.
Daniel:
"At worst.." And at best? I am curious
on your thoughts about Ravagli, Leist, and Bader's argument on
this point. Do you or don't you buy the argument that Steiner
was talking to a racist audience and trying to change their views
towards greater tolerance of other races with this statement?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Settling the "nichts
weniger als" question
Hi again Daniel,
Do you feel that the claim that the text
is in places inaccurate or incomplete has any validity? Anywhere?
The text of what? There are all sorts of incomplete spots in
the Gesamtausgabe, marked as such by the editors, not to mention
a number of lectures that were not recorded by professional stenographers.
The lecture we're talking about is not among them.
"I am curious on your thoughts about Ravagli, Leist, and
Bader's argument on this point. Do you or don't you buy the argument
that Steiner was talking to a racist audience and trying to change
their views towards greater tolerance of other races with this
statement?"
I think that crucial elements in that argument are purely speculative.
We know very little about the racial views of the audience in
question, and I reject Ravagli et al's general suggestion that
these workers were somehow not up to the task of grasping Steiner's
point unless he dumbed it down for them. As for the bit about
tolerance, I think that is obvious from the text; Steiner was
indeed trying to say, more or less, that black people are people
too and should be perceived as such. This is not at all unambiguous
evidence of anti-racist pedagogical intent, in my view; it could
just as well indicate paternalistic racism.
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
