German Edition Research Articles

Carnap and Wittgenstein: Tolerance, Arbitrariness, and Truth

This article discusses the relationship between Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Rudolf Carnap’s philosophies of logic during the time of Wittgenstein’s interactions with the Vienna Circle and up to 1934 when the German edition of Carnap’s The Logical Syntax of Language was published. Whilst Section 1 focuses on the relationship between Carnap and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, including Wittgenstein’s accusation of plagiarism against Carnap in 1932, Section 2 discusses the relationship between Carnap’s principle of tolerance and Wittgenstein’s similar principle of the arbitrariness of grammar. I argue that, although Carnap’s claim in Logical Syntax to ‘go beyond’ Wittgenstein has certain justification in relation to the Tractatus, so does Wittgenstein’s priority claim. The relationship between Carnap’s philosophy of logic and the Tractatus is thus more complicated than is often recognized. If the reference point is Wittgenstein in the early 1930s, however, Carnap cannot be described as going beyond him, and by 1934, Wittgenstein had advanced further than Carnap would ever venture. Despite evidence that Carnap knew about Wittgenstein’s principle of the arbitrariness of syntax well before his first articulations of his principle of tolerance, the extent of the influence of Wittgenstein’s principle on Carnap remains unclear. What can be established with certainty is that Wittgenstein’s principle predates Carnap’s and that Carnap resisted acknowledging him despite being urged to do so. Arguably, Wittgenstein’s account of syntax as both arbitrary and non-arbitrary is also superior in clarity to Carnap’s misleading claim about a ‘complete freedom’ implied by the principle of tolerance, because such a freedom only exists for idle syntactical systems that are not put to work. In Section 3, I discuss the relationship between Carnap’s notion of expediency and Wittgenstein’s account of the correctness or truth of logical accounts. As my discussion of Wittgenstein’s account brings out, Carnap’s rejection of truth in logic for expediency as the goal of logical clarifications does not follow from the principle of tolerance and is not justified by it. It remains unclear what justifies Carnap’s rejection of truth as the goal of logical clarification. Again, Wittgenstein’s account seems preferable, given the vacuity of the claim that expediency constitutes the basis of choice between different logical languages and clarifications.

Recognition and Frustration: Raul Hilberg and the German Edition of The Destruction of the European Jews

Recognition and Frustration: Raul Hilberg and the German Edition of The Destruction of the European Jews

Встречный взгляд: переписка Р. Роллана и И.С. Шмелева. К 150-летию И.С. Шмелева

The paper studies literary contacts of Ivan Shmelev (1873–1950) with the French writer, 1915 Nobel Prize winner Romain Rolland (1866–1944) in the 1920s. The author analyzes unpublished correspondence of the writers, including 3 letters from Shmelev and 2 response letters from Rolland. The content of the correspondence is connected with Shmelev’s desire to find in Rolland, who personified the “conscience of the world” for the writers of the Russian emigration, a like-minded person in understanding the tragedy that befell Russia in the wake of the October Revolution, which led to mass death, devastation and famine. Shmelev sent Rolland the German editions of his books “The Sun of the Dead” and “The Inexhaustible Chalice”. Rolland’s answers contain high praise of Shmelev’s work and sympathy for the emigrant writer who lost his homeland. However, complete understanding was not to be achieved: a representative of the left intelligentsia, Rolland reacted with no lesser sympathy to the experience taking place in the USSR in the “social and moral restructuring of humanity.” From criticism of the results of the October Revolution in 1921-22 Rolland, by the end of the 1920s proceeds to glorifying the social experiment of building a “new society” in the USSR, publishing congratulations to the Soviet people on the 10th anniversary of October in the Soviet press. This step of the writer was met with hostility by Shmelev and put an end to their correspondence. There was a final demarcation between Rolland and the writers of the Russian emigration, with whom he maintained literary contacts. Among them are not only Shmelev, but also I.A. Bunin and K.D. Balmont, who published open letters to a writer who took a pro-Bolshevik position, despite his earlier expressions of sympathy towards Russian emigrant writers.

DIMITRIE CANTEMIR ŞI CHIRURGIA

One of the most important works left by Dimitrie Cantemir, among his rich writings, was "INCREMENTORVM ET DECREMENTORVM AVLAE OTHOMANICAE SIVE ALIOTHMANICAE HISTORIAE A PRIMA GENTIS ORIGINE AD NOSTRA VSQVE TEMPORA DEDVCTATE LIBRI TRES", translated nowadays under the title "HISTORY OF THE INCREASE AND THE DECAY OF THE OTTHMAN OR ALIOTHMAN COURT (FROM THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATION TO OUR TIME), IN THREE BOOKS". Among other information, it also contains a description of the land and the city of Avlonia - i.e. Vlora (dominated then by the Sublime Porta), as well as the Albanians from that region who had several qualities: fierce fighters, builders of aqueducts (without formal education) and healers of hernia by surgical operation. The surgery part has a special significance. In 1734 ”Incrementorum...” was translated into English by pastor Tindal, historian and translator. He used a manuscript in Latin given to him by Antioch Cantemir, son of Dimitrie Cantemir. The English text was translated into French by Fr. de Joncquieres. In 1745, a German translation appeared in the city of Hamburg, also using the English edition. In 1876, the Romanian Academy, published Iosif Hodoş first Romanian translation of the German edition. Fragments adapted from this edition were then used by Romanian researchers, including historians of medicine, such as Pompei Samarian, Dr. Vasile Sârbu. The original Latin manuscript of Dimitrie Cantemir's text was to be found not earlier than 1984 by Virgil Cândea at the Houghton Library in the USA. The Latinist Dan Sluşanschi published the manuscript and made its first translation from Latin into Romanian. The surgeon Dr. A. E. Nicolau published fragments of this translation, namely the passage regarding the surgical cure. În 2015, years after Dan Sluşanschi passing, the Romanian Academy published the text of the transcribed Latin manuscript and a translation version. In parallel, another academic and surgeon, Mircea Beuran, highlighted Cantemir's text, in a different form, exposing in the Floreasca Hospital on large, colorful, how inguinal hernia was operated in the 17th-18th centuries.

The travellee-translator and cultural memory: Thomas Nugent’s Travels through Germany (1768) and its German editions

ABSTRACT Taking as its focus three different German editions of Thomas Nugent’s Travels through Germany (1768), this article investigates how translation and re-translation enable travelogues to be circulated internationally at specific historical moments and thus intervene in debates around national images, (self-)representations and stereotypes. More specifically, it examines how the act of (re)translation can also be understood as a form of travellee response undertaken with a particular socio-political agenda in mind. By focusing on the figure of the travellee-translator as a transcultural mediator, editor, and commentator, this article explores how the temporal gaps between different translations highlight various aspects of the tension between individual and collective memory. It also explores how (re)translation can be used over time as a compelling way for the travellee culture to renegotiate the relationship between cultural memory, identity and place.

Being a master of metaphors

Being a master of metaphors

Authorship and individualization in the digital public sphere

Authorship and individualization in the digital public sphere

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Jürgen Habermas and the Public Intellectual in Modern Democratic Life

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Jürgen Habermas and the Public Intellectual in Modern Democratic Life

Methodological antinomies of Pitirim Sorokin’s Sociology of Revolution: Toward the publication of selected German reviews of the book (1925–1929)

Four reviews published in Russian for the first time are by H.Mauter (Cologne, 1889–1964), E.Jenny (Berlin, 1872–1939), N.N.Bubnoff (Heidelberg, 1880–1962), A.Meuisel (Aachen, 1896–1960) on the book “The Sociology of Revolution” (1925, German edition, 1928) by the Russian-American sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889–1968) provide a theoretical context that allows us to trace some significant changes in the methodology of Sorokin’s sociology from moderate behaviorism towards the formation of an integral logico-meaningful method of analyzing the dynamics of social and cultural systems and creating the conceptual foundations of social systems theory. They differ from the American reactions to the book by discussing fundamental methodological problems of social theory: stability and dynamics of social systems, ensuring their stability and equilibrium. The reviews contrast the behaviorist content of the concepts of revolution and reaction in Sorokin’s work with the significance of these concepts in political theory and the sociology of politics. The question of the objectivity of Sorokin’s study of revolution, taking into account his moral assessments of the behavioral phenomena of revolutionary events in Russia, is discussed in the context of the methodological requirement of German sociologist Max Weber to reject political evaluations of social processes and phenomena. The paper substantiates the possibility of developing a general sociological theory of revolution and the significance of Sorokin’s study in relation to this issue, taking into account the difference between sociological and historical approaches to the subject. It is proved that German reviews published in leading professional journals of interwar Germany had some influence on the change in the methodology of Sorokin’s sociology.

Earliest European Accounts of Chinese Secret Societies in the Beginning of the 19th Century

The paper examines the earliest information by the Europeans concerning activities of the secret societies – traditional public organizations that have played a significant role in history of China and continues to be a phenomenon of public life in China and abroad. Identification of the 1811 report on secret societies in Dutch, which had been considered the earliest, was succeeded in the 1811 Belgian publication. Its attribution to French naturalist L. T. Leschenault de la Tour (1773–1826) is proven. The French original of this account is identified; its text larger version and divergences from the Dutch translation are indicated. The circum-stances of Leschenault's obtaining information of the Chinese secret societies in China on the island of Java in the Dutch East Indies are examined. A linguistic commentary is given on the dialect names of the secret societies and the Chinese personal names of its leadership reported by him. The Russian explorer I.F. Kruzenshtern is described as the first European to report on secret societies in China in Part 2 of the Russian edition of his Voyage Round the World ... of the 1810. The exact time of the original German edition publication of this book is specified. Variety of assessments of secret societies’ nature by Kruzenshtern and Leshenault are elucidated. Their difference from later assessments by Protestant missionaries W. Milne and R. Morrison, who proposed the ‘Masonic paradigm’ is demonstrated. The four original texts by Kruzenshtern and Leshenault with their accounts of secret societies in China are provided as Supplements.

At the Onset of P.A. Sorokin’s Sociology Gaining International Recognition: Commentary on the Publication of his Correspondence with the Publisher G. Salomon-Delatour (1925–1932)

The published correspondence reveals the professional ties of the RussianAmerican sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889–1968) and the German publisher and sociologist Salomon (1892–1964, Salomon-Delatour since 1947). It substantially complements the knowledge about Sorokin’s priorities in professional contacts and scientific interests. In addition to the most complete version of Sorokin’s article “Russian Sociology in the Twentieth Century” (1926), published in the Yearbook of Sociology released by Salomon, the accompanying correspondence introduces Sorokin’s plans to participate in the preparation of the German editions of the books Leaves from a Russian Diary (1924), The Sociology of Revolution (1925), Social Mobility (1925), Modern Sociological Theories (1928, the German edition came out in 1932), Principles of Rural and Urban Sociology (1929) and Readers on Rural Sociology (1930–1932). Sorokin’s plans and articles on the study of genius and leadership, the role of the intelligentsia in society, and issues of book review are discussed. The letters are a testament to Sorokin’s sociology starting to receive actual international recognition. The correspondence tells of the impact of the Great Depression (1929–1939) on sociologists’ contacts.

Gregorius in Schweden

Abstract The Linköping Legendary contains amongst other texts an Old Swedish translation of the well-known medieval German legend of Gregory on the Stone. This text was translated into Swedish around 1525 in the monastery of Vadstena. In this article the Swedish translation is compared with the Middle High and Middle Low German originals. This comparison makes it highly probable that the translation was based on the 1478 Low German edition of the ‘Der Heiligen Leben’, also known as the ‘Passional’, by Lucas Brandis. Some differences between the Swedish translation and its exemplar can be explained as mistakes in understanding the Low German original.

The Unknown Reviews by S.L. Frank in the “Neue Züricher Zeitung”

Оffers a historical-philosophical reconstruction of Frank’s collaboration with the Swiss newspaper “Neue Züricher Zeitung” in the late 1920s and 1930s. The circumstances of Frank’s contacts with the newspaper’s editor Hans Barth are analysed on the basis of archival material and the correspondence ran between the philosophers. It is established that the beginning of their intensive collaboration was laid at the 8th International Philosophical Congress, held in Prague in 1934. Following this event, Barth not only began to publish regularly Frank’s texts in the Swiss newspaper, but was also involved in organising his lecture tours to Switzerland and assisted in finding publishers for the first German edition of Frank’s work, Das Unergründliche ( The Unknowable ). Particular attention is paid to the context of Frank’s publications in the “Neue Züricher Zeitung”, and in particular to his reviews of works by French thinkers René Le Senn ( Obstacle and Value ) and Eugene Augustovich Minkowski ( Towards a Cosmology. Philosophical Fragments ). The circumstances of the Russian philosopher’s acquaintance and communication with the French authors are discussed. Their responses to Frank’s reviews, which are preserved in their personal correspondence, are described. Frank’s critical approach toward M. Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, which appear in the review, is also presented.

Parties of Order Right and Left

“Parties of Order Right and Left” takes the right-authoritarian turn (particularly in Central Europe) as an opportunity to reflect on the left-authoritarian turn elsewhere in Europe and “the West” more broadly. The talk pays special attention to the shared faith in policy imposition as the necessary and sufficient mechanism to address social volatility, notably the volatility both expressed and borne by surplus populations and climate refugees. The presupposition of policy solutions even in times of social catastrophe is traced through two parallel texts, Andreas Malm’s How to Blow Up a Pipeline and Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, and their shared theory of political violence as policy weapon. It concludes with a discussion regarding the nationalist implications of policy solutions more broadly and the historically specific demand for internationalism against border regimes in present conditions. Author(s): Joshua Clover Title (English): Parties of Order Right and Left Journal Reference: Identities: Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1-2 (2022). Publisher: Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities - Skopje Page Range: 28-38 Page Count: 10 Citation (English): Joshua Clover, "Parties of Order Right and Left,” Identities: Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, Vol. 19, No. 1-2 (2022): 28-38. Author Biography Joshua Clover, University of California Davis Joshua Clover is the author of seven books, including Roadrunner (Duke, 2021) as well as Riot.Strike.Riot: the New Era of Uprisings, a political economy of social movements, with recent editions in Italian, French, German, Turkish, and Swedish. He is a currently professor of English and Comparative Literature at University of California Davis as well as Affiliated Professor of Literature and Modern Culture at University of Copenhagen.

Domesticating vs. foreignizing positions in the translation of proper names from English into Polish and German

In this paper, the author examines corresponding equivalents in Polish and German of English proper names from the novel “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” to find out how the same fictional elements have been translated into two different target languages. Furthermore, he attempts to prove what rules can be established for the use of translation strategies when translating proper names into Polish and German. Thus, the aim of this paper is to study domesticating and foreignizing translation strategies implemented by the translators of the Polish and German editions.

The Paris Commune and Karl Marx's Le capital

Few books on political economy have become as influential as Capital, volume 1. After Karl Marx, in 1867, published the first volume of Capital on the capitalist mode of production, the book was published again in Russian in 1872, in a second German edition in 1872–3 and in French—as Le capital—in 1872–5. The publishing process of the French edition started in December 1871 in the wake of the Paris Commune. This article aims to investigate the conditions that led to the initiation of this process. We specifically argue that by looking at the Paris Commune and its aftermath, we are in a better position to understand the new possibilities it created for publishing Marx's work in French, the connections it facilitated, and the way it shaped the publishing process of Le capital.

Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts by Lou Andreas-Salomé, and: Annaliese's House: A Translation of Lou Andreas Salomé's 1921 Novel Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts by Lou Andreas-Salomé

Reviewed by: Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts by Lou Andreas-Salomé, and: Annaliese's House: A Translation of Lou Andreas Salomé's 1921 Novel Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts by Lou Andreas-Salomé Susan C. Anderson Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts. By Lou Andreas-Salomé. Edited by Brigitte Spreitzer. Taching am See: MedienEdition Welsch, 2021. Pp. 396. Cloth €32.80. ISBN 978-3-937211-44-2. Annaliese's House: A Translation of Lou Andreas Salomé's 1921 Novel Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts. By Lou Andreas-Salomé. Translated by Frank Beck and Raleigh Whitinger. Rochester: Camden House, 2021. Pp. lxiv + 227. Cloth $99.00. ISBN 978-1-64014-101-8. Lou Andreas-Salomé (1861–1937) wrote most of her final novel Das Haus: Familiengeschichte vom Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts in 1904, but she waited until 1921 to complete and publish it. It has taken one hundred years for an English translation to appear, and it coincidentally appeared in the same year as a new German edition was published. The novel traces the unfolding of two women's psyches within the socio-cultural and emotional constraints of patriarchy. At issue is to what extent the [End Page 585] women can move within and beyond those constraints and how the central image of the house represents their struggle. The house in which the main characters, the Branhardts, live is modeled on the house "Loufried," which Salomé and her spouse, Friedrich Carl Andreas, bought in Göttingen after Andreas accepted a position at the university there. Das Haus was originally entitled Die Ehe, but the final title better encompasses the novel's focus on both marriage and family relationships. Critics at the time praised Das Haus for its nuanced focus on women, family, duty (Auguste Hauschner), harmony, and psychological complexity (Gabriele Reuter, Christine Touaillon). Yet in the later twentieth century, Salomé was criticized for her outdated views of gender. The book received little scholarly notice until Salomé's literary oeuvre underwent critical reevaluation towards the end of the twentieth century. Since then, the text has figured in studies of Salomé's thoughts on psychology, religion, aesthetics, gender, and sexuality. As Muriel Cormican has pointed out, Das Haus reveals Salomé's contradictory ideas about women's emancipation, ideas that both encourage women's autonomy and accept as given a woman's desire to submit in marriage. The house imagery relates to the psychological changes in Annaliese Branhardt and her daughter, Gitta, who later moves into another house with Markus. It also highlights the women's different views of marriage and provides a space for the development of creativity, the deepening of family relationships, and serves as a microcosm of social relations. As Brigitte Spreitzer argues in her nuanced afterword to the German edition, the house in the novel serves as a three-dimensional space for imagination and the unconscious (351). By placing the narrative within the context of Salomé's aesthetic theories, Spreitzer contends that the house represents the author's storytelling as well as the characters' growth and changes of perspective. The house also at times serves as an analogy for Annaliese and Gitta's entrapment in the patriarchal order, while offering them a safe place to develop the strength to break free of its confines, to a certain extent. The novel's end, as Spreitzer notes, shows Annaliese outside facing away from the house, embodying Salomé's ideal woman who has found an outlet for her creative impulses through her unconstrained psyche (373). Spreitzer's analysis offers rich context to the house imagery by connecting it to notions of home and the unconscious in Salomé's letters, diary entries, essays, and fiction. Her interpretation illuminates Salomé's grappling with women's social and gender roles throughout her writing as well as her efforts to deconstruct gender binaries. The main narrative perspective is that of Annaliese, but readers also have insight into the thoughts of her spouse, Frank Branhardt, and their adult children, Gitta and Balduin. Salomé sets up a generational conflict between parents and children as well as conflicts over gender roles between Annaliese and Frank, Gitta and her husband...

Individuality and Beyond: Nietzsche Reads Emerson

Individuality and Beyond: Nietzsche Reads Emerson

SCHUBERT’S CHAMBER-VOCAL MUSIC IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MUSICAL SCIENCE

The article describes the main musicological publications that exist at present on the problems of Schubert’s creation. We are talking about editions in German, English, French, Romanian and Russian. Here are analyzed the books by V. Dams, F. Brown, O.E. Deutsch, G. Oprea, the works of Y. Khokhlov, V. Vasina-Grossman, P. Wulfius, I. Lavrentieva and others. It is concluded that the presented studies provide a sound basis for creating an integral panorama of the development of the Austro-German musical traditions in Schubert’s creations, as well as for showing the innovative features of his works of different genres.

Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde: Scholar of Law, Religion, and Democracy - Discussed: Religion, Law, and Democracy: Selected Writings. By Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde. Edited by Mirjam Künkler and Tine Stein. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. 480. $65.00 (cloth); Oxford Scholarship Online by subscription (digital). ISBN: 9780198818632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198818632.001.0001.

AbstractErnst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (1930–2019) was one of Germany’s foremost postwar legal scholars. He coined or popularized key terms and ideas that have left their mark on postwar German political debate to an extent matched by only few, from the chain of legitimation to the concept of the constitution as an ordering frame, the importance of the idea of subsidiarity in the European Union’s political competency, and his insistence that society must continuously work toward agreement on the things that cannot be voted on: the ultimate agreements in society that lie beyond the ballot box. Böckenförde was a lifelong commentator on Catholic affairs in Germany and involved in several important inner-Catholic reform initiatives. At the age of thirty-one, he became known to a wider German public with an article that presented a critical historical appraisal of the role of the Catholic Church under National Socialism. While still a postdoc, he co-authored a widely publicized critique of Jesuit Gustav Gundlach’s justification on theological grounds of a war of nuclear deterrence. In 1968, he was the first to publish a German edition of De Libertate Religiosa, the final declaration of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), and provided an authoritative commentary.